of the same Church and tho' the Universal Church for Man's conveniency be divided into several parts or Congregations yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches So that two Churches which are not Members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the divider forfeits his interest in it A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation those who separate from the Corporation forfeit their interest in the Charter Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church into which we are admitted by Baptism and therefore if we separate from this one Church we forfeit our interest in it God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva France or England but with the one Catholic Church and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church we have no right to the blessings promis'd to it II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it And this is call'd Communion because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members 'T is true this word Communion is commonly us'd to signify Praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament together but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion but an exercise of Communion Church-Communion is Church-Union for as a member must be united to the Body before it can perform the natural action of a member so a man must be in Communion with the Church before he has a right to Pray c. And therefore tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church shou'd perform those Offices yet the performance of them do's not make him a Member of the Church but an Intruder Such Offices are acts of Communion if perform'd by Church-Members but not otherwise So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promis'd to it and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society viz. obedience to the Churches authority joining in Prayers c. and he that acts otherwise renounces his Communion with it From what has been said I observe 1. That Church-Communion principally respects not a particular but the Universal Church which is but one all the World over For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World if the body whereof we are Members reach so far and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church because it admits us into the Covenant which God made with the Universal Church 2. That every act of Christian Communion such as praying c. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church tho' it must be perform'd in a particular Congregation because all Christians cannot meet in one place Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians for the same Common blessings for our selves and all other Christians Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper but the Common Feast of Christians and an act of Catholic Communion 3. That the only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it So that I have nothing else to do but to consider whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it and if it be I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other are separate Churches because the Catholic Church being but one all particular Churches ought to be Members of it To make this plain I shall lay down some few Rules whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies is to renounce its Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical separation Every particular Church must have its limits as every Member in the Body has its proper place but when there is one Church within the bowels of another it is a notorious Schism This is the case of our Dissenters who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they wou'd naturally unite So that all separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism 'T is true a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches to which they originally belong and that without any danger of Schism For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches while they live in Communion with each other Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her jurisdiction For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules is not to allow separate Communions but to leave them to the Goverment of that Church to which they belong So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho' they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are 2. Those are separate Churches which divide from the Communion of any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Goverment or Worship For in this case they leave the Church because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it Two Churches may be in Communion with each other and yet not actually Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but it is impossible that two Churches which renounce each others Communion or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profess'd dislike shou'd still continue in Communion with each other Because they are opposite Societies sounded upon contrary Principles and acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the ruin and subversion of each other
3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own The Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatic If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Goverment and different Governours and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship and endeavour to draw away Members from each other they cannot be thought to be one Church And indeed we may as well say that several sorts of Goverment in the same Nation with distinct Governours distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as we may say that such Congregations are but one Church III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixt and by Occasional Communion By fixt Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt Members of it By occasional Communion they mean praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be Members as occasion serves that is either to gratify their own curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the imputation of Schism Now fixt Communion is the only true notion of Communion for occasional Communion do's not deserve the name of Communion For I have prov'd that he who is not a Member cannot perform an act of Communion and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion as of an Occasional Membership Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fix't and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church 'T is true in one sence we may be Members of a particular Church that is we may live under the Goverment of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church but yet every act of Communion perform'd in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church So that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same nature Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is may be call'd fix't Communion and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present may be call'd occasional Communion and all this may be done without Schism because all these Churches are Members of each other but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the establish'd Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation because the case is vastly different For the establish'd Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other but separate Churches Now 't is impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches of which we are no Members they are not properly acts of Communion Having thus explain'd the Three foregoing particulars I proceed to the main business which was to shew that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England This I shall do by shewing First That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty Secondly That constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is lawful is a necessary duty from whence I shall make it appear Thirdly That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England I. Then it is plain that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ and he that is a Member has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member and 't is certain that Communion in Prayers c. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity and that 't is the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices But to put the matter out of all doubt I shall offer Five things to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty 1. Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member is bound to visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Society of Christians For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices therefore some duties and offices must be perform'd by the Society of Christians especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers as Pastors c. Eph. 4.11 which are of no use if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution that is by the hands of the Ministry authoriz'd for that purpose Acts 2.42 and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable yet none but public Prayers offer'd up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of Church-Communion Nay the Lord's Supper which is the principal part of God's worship is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion 4. The exercise of Church-Authority which consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the external acts of Communion supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Joh. 2.19 Heb. 10.25 then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties Accordingly to have Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries 1 Cor. 10.20 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion before we have a right to Communicate yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion And a right to Communicate without actual Communion which is an exercise of that right is worth nothing because all the blessings of the Gospel are convey'd to us by actual Communion This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church when it may be had for when it can't be had we are not obliged to it But then the greater difficulty is whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all because the Church is divided into Parties Now a man may as well be of no Religion because there are different Opinions in Religion as Communicate with no Church because the Church is divided into Parties For 't is possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament
Communion with the Church then Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.
of the whole Church and are to be consider'd under a double capacity either as Governours and Ministers Intrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administring the Sacrament or as ordinary and Lay-communicants If we consider them as Governours and Stewards of the Mysteries their duty to which they are oblig'd by the express Command of their Lord is to take the Bread into their hands to Bless and Consecrate it to that Mysterious and Divine use to which he design'd it to break and distribute it and so in the like manner to take and bless the Cup and give it to their Fellow-Christians But if we consider them as Private Men and in common with all Believers their duty was to take and receive the Bread and Wine and to eat and drink in Commemoration of Christ's Love But what syllable or shadow of a Command is there in all the History for the use of any gesture in the act of receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter it 's silence is a full and clear demonstration that kneeling is not repugnant to any express command of our Lord because no gesture was ever commanded at all But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm that when our Lord Commanded his Disciples to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he us'd at that time as well as to take eat drink c. To this I answer 1. That if our Lord did sit at the Institution which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason to think that He intended by these words do this to oblige us to observe this Gesture only and not several other circumstances which he observ'd at the same time as well as this For Example if the words may be Interpreted thus Do this that is sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is Celebrate the Sacrament in an Upper-room in a Private-house late at night or in the evening after a full Supper in the Company of Twelve at most and they only Men with their Heads cover'd according to the Custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lies as great an obligation upon us to observe all those circumstances in imitation of our Lord as there do's to sit 2. Even the two last of those circumstances are generally allow'd but all the rest are mention'd in Scripture and were most certainly observ'd by Christ whereas the gesture us'd by them is not mention'd and what it was is very disputable as I shall afterwards prove How then can any Man think himself oblig'd in Conscience to do what Christ is not expreslly said to do and not oblig'd to do what the Scripture expresly saies he did 3. 'T is clear from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. that do this respects only the Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Blood of Christ and actions that are specify'd by him which are essential to the right and due Celebration of that Holy Feast For when 't is said Do this in remembrance of me and this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me and as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 't is plain that do this must be restrain'd to the Sacramental actions there mention'd and not extended to the gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it and consequently do this is a general Command obliging us only to such particular actions and rites as he had instituted and made necessary to be us'd in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that bloody Sacrifice which he offer'd upon the Cross for us miserable Sinners Nay the Practice of our Dissenters proves that no particular gesture is commanded For there are many serious and sincere Persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty they cou'd use kneeling as well as any other gesture but they think that an indifferent thing becomes unlawful when 't is injoin'd by Authority I have already confuted this opinion but 't is certain that by granting they cou'd use the posture of kneeling were it not injoin'd and consequently that 't is in it's own nature indifferent they do thereby grant that there is no Command for any particular posture I must add that the Reform'd Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia stand the Dutch generally sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they stand The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustane Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden thro' Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuania and Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were Reform'd by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffer'd Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time and those of the Ausbourg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reform'd by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so call'd But these Churches so early reform'd and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church injoins at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetic Confession did in three (b) 1. At Cracow Anno Dom. 1573. 2. Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3. Wiadislaw 1583. general Synods unanimously condemn the sitting Gesture tho' they esteem'd it in it self lawful as being scandalous for this remarkable Reason viz. because it was us'd by the Arians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change sitting into kneeling or standing both which Ceremonies we indifferently leave free according as the custom of any Church has obtain'd and we approve of their use without scandal and blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which uses Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemn'd Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French (c) Harmon 4. Synods of Holl. do and at last conclude thus These Articles are so setled by mutual consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be chang'd augmented or diminish'd What now shou'd be the ground and reason of this Variety
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
with Heathens in their filthy Mysteries nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that 's Immoral do's it therefore follow that they must not do their Duty because sometimes it cannot be done but in their Company Must they abstain from the public Worship of God and the Lord's Table to which they are commanded because Evil Men who till they repent have nothing to do there rudely intrude themselves As for St. John's words Revel 18.4 Come out of her my People that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues they are a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of Idolaters and according to most Interpreters those in particular of the Church of Rome but the Text do's not afford the Dissenters the least Plea to separate from us who are Reform'd from Popery and retain nothing of it but what it retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church I have nothing now to add but that the eminent Dissenters do utterly (g) See Vines on the Sacrament p. 235 242. Platform c. 14. §. 8. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 37 38. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacriâ— desert p. 97. Cawdrey's Reformation promoted p. 131. Manton on Jude p. 496. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. Burroughs's Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 242. disclaim this Plea of Mixt-Communion Mr. Vines saies it is Donastical and others as Mr. Brinsly and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismatics in defence of their Separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter advises And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those who separate upon this account do it very unjustly that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of Separation that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church tho' such be not cast out that the suffering of profane and scandalous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saies Mr. Burroughs an errour on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they shou'd be suffer'd to come think that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents agree in and endeavour (h) See Vines on the Sacrament p. 31 32 44 242 246. Vindicat of Presb. Gov. p. 134. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 47. Firmin's Separ Exam. p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reâ—or p. 71. Tombes's Theod. p. 74. Hooker's Survey Pref. A 3. Platform c. 14. §. 8 9. Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53 55. Burroughs's Gospel-worsh Serm. 11. p. 236 237. Ball 's Tryal c. 10. p. 191 250 211. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's Right of Presbyt Blake's Vindic. p. 235. Cotton's Inf. Bapt. p. 102. Cartwright on Proverb Edwards's Apol. Baxter's Christian Direct p. 707. Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. Bains on the Ephes c. 1. v. 1. p. 5. to prove by several Arguments Nay they answer an Objection drawn from 1 Cor. 5.11 If any Man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator c. with such an one no not to eat and tell us First That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion it must be done by the Church and not by a private Person But you are not commanded to separate from the Church if they exclude him not So Mr. Baxter c. Secondly That it concerns not Religious but Civil Communion and that not all Civil Society or Commerce but Familiar also For which they produce several Reasons 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread which is a Token of Love and Friendship in the phrase of Scripture not to partake of or to be shut from the Table is a sign of Familiarity broken off So Mr. Ball c. 2. The eating which is here forbidden is allow'd to be with the Heathen but it 's the civil eating which is only allow'd to be with an Heathen therefore it 's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother So Mr. Jenkin c. (i) See Baxter's Defence part 2. p. 27. Ball 's Tryal p. 200. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 75 122 126. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 40 45 48. Tombes's Theodul p. 128 167 210. Grave Confut. part 1. p. 17 18. part 4. p. 57. Vines on the Sacrament p. 219 226 333 246. Cartwright's Def. of the Admon p. 98 99 106. Goodwin on the Ephes p. 487 488. Blake's Vindic. c. 31. p. 236 238. Gillisp Nihil respondet p. 33. Knutton's Queries Throughton's Apol. p. 65. Baxter's Cure Dir. 47. p. 231. Owen's Evangel Love c. 3. p. 77. Brian's Dwelling with God Sermon 6. p. 301. Firmin's Separat Exam. p. 28. Collins's Provocator Provocatus p. 144 151. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. p. 454. And as for other Objections Mr. Baxter's answer is sufficient If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases besides our Separation from the Infidel and Idolatrous World or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies and No-Churches is but one of these two sorts 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys or 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them but that the private Members shou'd separate from the Church because such Persons are not cast out of it shew me one Text to prove it if you can To conclude this objection of Mixt-Communion proves nothing but a supercilious Arrogance and a great want of Charity in those that make it What care they may take in their new way of Discipline I cannot tell but our Church has given the Minister a power of rejecting scandalous Sinners (k) See Rubr. after the Communion and this is as much as can be done for the close Hypocrite will escape the narrowest search Every Man is charg'd to examine himself and not another and 't wou'd be well if all wou'd do so For he that enquires seriously into his own sins will find great cause to be humble and penitent but he that is curious to pry into the miscarriages of others will be apt to be vain proud self-conceited and censorious which will make him as unfit for the Table of the Lord as any of those Faults which he so scornfully condemns in his Neighbours that he esteems himself and the Ordinances of God polluted by their Company CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances and Better Edification among the Dissenters Answer'd WELL but tho' our Communion be not sinful yet they can find Purer Ordinances and
Better Edification amongst the Dissenters and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England But First what Purer Ordinances wou'd Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Vertue and Efficacy The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is not any such defect or addition as alters their nature and destroys their Vertue but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which he likes best is guilty of gross Superstition and attributes the Vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution Secondly the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation For this Edification must be understood either of the whole Church or of particular Christians Now Edification is building up and is apply'd to the whole Church consider'd as God's House and Temple This is the true Scripture Notion of it as appears by many Texts 1 Cor. 3.9 10. and 8.1 and 14.5 12. Eph. 2.21 and 4.12 13 15 16. Matth. 21.42 Acts 4.11 2 Cor. 10.8 12 19. and 13.10 Now it 's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other As for the Edification of particular Persons which is also spoken of in Scripture 1 Thess 5.11 it is therefore call'd Edification because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church so that every Christian is Edify'd as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And indeed if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit than to the external administrations as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 3.6 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church there being but one Body and one Spirit Eph. 4.4 then it do's not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christ's Body St. Jude v. 19. seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most Holy Faith and Pray'd in the Holy Ghost and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God if he continue in the Church than if he separate But I shall examine this pretence at large and shew that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings than in our Churches as will appear if we consider First how fit our constitution is to Edify Mens Souls Secondly that this constitution is well manag'd for Edification First then That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls will appear if we consider Four things 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith that are necessary to Salvation but we have no nice and obscure matters in them We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful that is all that Christ and his Apostles taught and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church laies upon a good Life and Works The Articles of her Creed when firmly believ'd do plainly tend to make Men good She declares that without preparatory Vertues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God and that it is but show unless obedience follow Such a Faith she laies down as Fundamental to Salvation as produces excellent Vertues and determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God Her Festivals commemorate the Vertues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent her Prayers are for Holiness her Discipline is to force and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety which her whole constitution aims at She tells Sinners plainly that unless they repent they must perish and saies that plain Vertues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edify'd by such a Church as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion because she gives us true Notions of God and our selves by describing his attributes and our wants Her Prayers are grave and of a due length and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience The Offices of the Lord's Supper Baptism and Burial are extremely good in their kind Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion and they will make the Church a Choire of Angels 4. Her Order and Discipline are such that she makes Religion neither slovenly nor too gay Wise and good Men have judg'd all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful and they are of great Antiquity and fit to make our Services comely And truly whilst we have Bodies these outward helps are very convenient if not necessary Her Goverment is so well temper'd that her Members may not be dissolute nor her Rulers insolent And if all Vices are not chastiz'd the reason is because unnecessary divisions have stopp'd her Discipline upon offenders Her Goverment is Apostolical Primitive and Universal None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her but considering all things she is the best constituted Church in the World If therefore (a) Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 15.2 1 Cor. 14.3 Edification be going on to perfection or growing in grace if it is doing good to the Souls of Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men then it is to be found in this Church Secondly that our Constitution is well manag'd for Edification will appear if we consider 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edify Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these commands are obey'd by our Pastors For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion who have honesty and judgment enough to confess that they have found it true and to say that they are prejudiced and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is uncharitable Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Goverment condemn'd the Separation Magnify'd our Pastors and wish'd they were under such a Discipline and Translated many of our Mens Works to Edify their People Dissenters
to this Principle no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho' a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great Evil or general Mischief They are not fit to be put in the ballance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devis'd that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we cou'd invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no Man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration till it comes to be try'd yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determin'd some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere express'd like knocking a Man on the Head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion CHAP. XIV The pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd BUT there are some who tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is injoin'd by the Church of England but then there are many other godly but weaker Christians of another persuasion with whom they have long been join'd And shou'd they now totally forsake them and Conform they shou'd thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinc'd of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church Which sin say they is so very great that our Saviour tells us Matth. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a mill-stone were hang'd about his neck and that he were drown'd in the depth of the sea and in St. Paul's account 't is no less than spiritual murther a destroying him for whom Christ dy'd Rom. 14.15 These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter by shewing that No private Christian as the case now stands amongst us is obliged to absent himself from his Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his Weak Brethren And this I shall do by inquiring 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother 2. What it is to Offend such an one 3. How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother I. Then a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3.1 Conversion to Christianity is call'd our New-birth and the Converts were for a while reckon'd as in an infant State and accordingly were to be most gently us'd till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age Heb. 5.14 They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines and great Prudence and Caution was to be us'd toward them lest they shou'd suddenly fly back and repent of their change For they having been Jews and Gentiles retain'd still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old Man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable The stronger and wiser Christians wou'd not stand rigidly on any little Matters but Tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now labour'd under Hence I observe 1. That the Rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suted to the Infant-state of the Church till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World The Apostle's design in all his complyances was to win many to Christ 1 Cor. 9.19 Now to do as St. Paul did wou'd alwaies be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times wherein Christianity is the National Religion than the same Cloaths which we did wear in our Infancy wou'd serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of Childrens way lest they stumble and fall but 't is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions but every one learns Christianity as he do's his Mother-Tongue St. Paul wou'd not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself labour'd hard night and day because he wou'd not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2.9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where public maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers and those who call them Hirelings and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre In short there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provides or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concern'd 2. The Dissenters according to their weak opinion of themselves are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only sober and godly Party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or Regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers or
we must not omit our duty for it I shall only add that this very Rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent ought to have some restrictions but I think there are no unalterable Rules to be laid down in this affair For it being an exercise of Charity must be determin'd by the measure of Prudence according to Circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain Rules for Men's Charity in other Cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his Estate towards the Relief of the Poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own Liberty for the sake of his Brother This whole matter saies Dr. Hammond disc of Scand is to be referr'd to the Christian's Pious Discretion or Prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that Piety and that Prudence shall represent it to be most Charitable and Beneficial to other Mens Souls Secondly To avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of Persons And if this matter were rightly consider'd we shou'd soon fâ—â—d our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal to join with our Church than to sâ—parate from it For 1. Our separation hardens other Dissenters in their persuasion of the unlawfulness of Conformity For they will think we separate upon the same reason with themselves and this is true Scandalizing them or Confirming them in an evil cause 2. Whatever Sect we join with we Offend all the other Parties who sometimes speak as hardly of one another as of the Conformists 3. Hereby great Offence is given to the Conformists For this separation is a public condemning of the Church and is apt to breed Scruples distast and prejudices in the well-meaning but least-knowing Members of it 4. Scandal is thereby given to Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt And if it be so sinful to Offend a little one what shall we think of Offending a Prince a Parliament c No Scandal taken at an indifferent thing can be so great as both the sin and Scandal of confusion and contempt of Authority 5. Hereby Scandal is given to the Papists who are harden'd in their own way because they only have Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists The Papists alwaies hit us in the Teeth with our Divisions whereas by our hearty Uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest this Weapon out of their hands 6. Separation is a Scandal to Religion in general It prejudices Men against it as an uncertain thing and matter of endless dispute when they see what dangerous Quarrels commence from our Religious differences and all the disorders they have caus'd shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless separations open a wide door to Atheism and all kind of Profaness and Irreligion The CONCLUSION Containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England AND now having shewn the Necessity of Maintaining constant Communion with the Church of England and answer'd those pleas by which the Dissenters endeavour to excuse their Separation from her nothing remains but that I add an earnest Persuasive to the practice of that which I have prov'd to be a Christian Duty I beseech you therefore with all the Earnestness that becomes a Matter of so great Importance and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian to suffer the Word of Exhortation duly consider what I offer to you I have shewn you in the first Chap. of this Discourse that Nothing but sinful Terms of Communion can justify a Separation and therefore you must charge our Church with sinful terms of Communion or else you cannot possibly defend your practice Suppose that there were some things in our Constitution that might be contriv'd better yet every defect or suppos'd Corruption in a Church is not warrant enough to tear the Church in pieces The question is not Whether there be any thing in our Constitution which a Man cou'd wish to be alter'd but whether any thing unlawful be appointed which will make an alteration not only desirable but necessary Whether you are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made We separate from the Church of Rome because She has corrupted the Main Principles of Religion and requires her Members to join in these Corruptions but this Charge cannot be fasten'd upon the Church of England and therefore Separation from her must be unlawful Mr. Caâ—â—â—â— (a) Institut lib. 4. sect 10 11 12. saies that Wherever the Word of God is duly preach'd and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject it's Admonitions or resist it's Counsels or set at nought it's Discipline much less separate from it and violate it's Vnity For that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a separation is a denyal of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true Vse of the Word and Sacraments This is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly design'd it against your own practice Nay the Ministers of New-England tell you that To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceiv'd or indeed in the Church which might and shou'd be tolerated and heal'd with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced tho' perhaps your self be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from public Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful If you say that the Governours may as well come down to you by forbearing what you dislike as you come up to the law by doing what it requires I beseech you to consider Whether our Case will bear this Wantonness and Whether such Expressions be consistent with your Duty I do not think it hard I confess to make out the prudence of their Determinations but I think it hard that a Public Rule shou'd not be thought Reason enough to justify things of this sort and to oblige the People to Complyance without more ado Certainly there is no prospect of Union till Men learn Humility and Modesty and are contented to be Govern'd What is the Duty of Superiours in our Case I cannot determine but sure I am that a Change tho' in
those that consult the Ecclesiastical Histories of the best Authority cannot but be convinc'd and that those conceits of the Fathers concerning this sign which perhaps may be too fanciful do confirm the ancient reception of it into the Primitive Church If it be said that the antient Christians us'd this sign because they liv'd amongst Jews and Heathens to testify to both that they made the Cross the Badge of their profession and wou'd not be asham'd of it tho' 't was a stumbling-block to the one and foolishness to the other whereas we have no such occasion for it who do universally profess Christianity I Answer 1. That this Objection supposes the sign to be lawful and that it may be us'd upon weighty Reasons and surely then the command of Authority may justify the practice of it 2. That we have as just reason to use it as the Primitive Christians because of the blasphemous Contempt that is generally cast upon the whole Scheme of Christianity particularly the Merits of our Saviour's Cross and Passion by the pretended Wits of our Age. So that St. Cyprian's (e) Epist 56. ad Thiber words are now pertinent Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept safe as if he shou'd have said Remember the Badge you took upon you in Baptism and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads never be asham'd or laugh'd out of countenance as to the Memory of our Saviour's love and the foundation of your hopes laid in his Death and Passion I grant indeed that the use of the Cross is an indifferent Ceremony and that Baptism is as our Church declares compleat without it but what I contend for is fully prov'd viz. that the Cross was us'd in the first Ages of Christianity from whence it follows that tho' 't is not necessary yet 't is warrantable 2. Our use of this sign is not in the least like the Popish use of it For 1. we admit of no visible Crucifixes nor has any of our Writers ventur'd to say (f) Christian Direct Eccles Cas p. 113. p. 875 876. with Mr. Baxter that a Crucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a Believer and that it is not unlawful to make an image of a Crucifix to be an Obiect or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to worship God The sence of our Church is truly exprest by Mr. Hooker who (g) Eccles Pol. l. 5. p. 348. says That between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of remembrance there is as plain and great a difference as between those Brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore Ours is a mere transient sign which abides not so long as to be capable of becoming an Object or Medium of worship any more than any words we use in worship may do 2. Our use even of this transient sign is nothing like the Popish use of it For the Papists use it upon all occasions and at Baptism they use it much oftner and so differently from our way that 't is not us'd at the same time and with the same words that we use it with This is evident from the Roman Ritual 3. Tho' the Church of Rome has notoriously abus'd this sign yet 't is not unlawful for us to continue the use of it as I shall fully prove in the Eighth Chapter As to the Second pretence that the sign of the Cross is a new Sacrament I answer that we all agree that a Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us Ordain'd by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a Pledge to assure us thereof And therefore since we never suppos'd that the use of the Cross in Baptism cou'd confer Grace nor have ever made the least pretence to any Divine appointment for it we ought not to be charg'd as introducing a New Sacrament If it be said that we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith and Christian Courage because we apply it in token that hereafter he shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith oâ— Christ Crucify'd c. and that therefore we make it an outward sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace I answer that we own it to be a significant Ceremony as all other Ceremonies are for we do not account a Ceremony innocent because 't is insignificant and impertinent but yet we deny it to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace For our Ceremonies are not seals and assurances from God of his Grace to us but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to him and this kind of significant Usages has ever been taken up without any imputation of introducing a New Sacrament For 1. the Jewish Church chang'd the posture of eating the Passover from Standing to Sitting in token of their Rest and Securiâ—y in the Land of Canaan There was also an Altar of witness rear'd on the other side of Jordan and the Synagogue-Worship Rites of Marriage Form of taking Oaths c. were significant and yet they were all receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church and comply'd with by our Saviour himself 2. The Christian Church of the first Ages us'd the same liberty as appears by the customs of the Holy Kiss and the Feasts of Charity Tertullian de Orat. speaks as if the public Service were imperfect if it concluded not with the Holy Kiss which was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another The Feasts of Charity also signify'd the mutual Love and Communion of Christians and the equal regard that God and our Saviour had towards all sorts and conditions of Men when they were all to eat freely together at one Common meal I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation which was us'd as a sign of Breathing into them the good Spirit and the Baptiz'd Person 's stripping off his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man and the trine immersion at the Mention of each Person of the Trinity to signify the Belief of that great Article Now all these things were anciently practis'd without any jealousy of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting New Sacraments 3. All the Reformed Churches nay the very Dissenters themselves do use some Symbolical actions in their most Religious Solemnities For 1. Their giving to the Baptiz'd Infant a New Name seems to betoken its being made a New Creature Nay the Dissenters generally give it some Scripture-name or one that betokens a particular grace and this is an outward and visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward and spiritual grace and yet they do not think it a New Sacrament 2. The Dissenters plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper because 't is a
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
descended to be Lookers on I suppose he means of their Courage and Behaviour at the Table of the Lord and by giving their attendance to grace that Solemnity With the Testimony of these Ancient Writers Theodoret agrees who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic brings in Orthodoxus thus Discoursing of the Supper of the Lord. The mysterious Symbols or Signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper Nature for they continue in their former Essence and keep their former Shape and Form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be as they were before (q) Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris Edit but they are consider'd for such as they are made that is in respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believ'd and ador'd aâ— those very things which they are believ'd to be Which words plainly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were receiv'd with a Gesture of Adoration and at the same time assure us that such a Behaviour at the Lords supper was not founded upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a more manifest instance in all the Ancients against that absurd Doctrine which the Roman Church so obstinately believes at this very day than what Theodoret gives us in the words abovemention'd Lastly to alledge no more out of the Greek Fathers that Story which Gregory Nazianzen (r) Oâ—at in laud. Gorgon p. 187. Paris Edit relates concerning Gorgonia will much confirm what has been said viz. That being sick and having used several Medicins in vain at last she resolv'd upon this course She went in the stilness of the Night to the public Church and having with her some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserv'd at home she fell down on her knees before the Altar and with a loud voice pray'd to him whom she Ador'd and in conclusion was healed I am not much concern'd whether the Reader will believe or censure this Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Father has Recorded it and commends his Sister for the way she took for her Recovery This is home to my purpose and clearly discovers that Gorgonia did Kneel or at least us'd a Posture of Adoration when she ate the Sacramental Bread And without doubt in Communicating she observ'd the same Posture that others generally did in public She did that in her sickness which all others us'd to do in their health when they came to the Sacrament that is She Kneeled down For it can't be suppos'd that at this time when she came to beg so great a Blessing of Almighty God in the public Church and at the Altar call'd by the Ancients The Place of Prayer she wou'd be guilty of any misbehaviour and make use of a singular Posture different from what was generally us'd by Christians when they came to the same place to communicate and pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they lookt upon as the most prevailing and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God favourable to them and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offer'd at any other time or in any other place So much for the Authorities of the Greek Fathers who were Men eminent for Learning and Piety in their Daies and great Lights and Ornaments in the Primitive Church With these the Latin Fathers fully agree in their Judgments concerning our present Case And of these I will only mention two tho' more might be produc'd and those very eminent and illustrious Persons had in great veneration by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by succeeding Generations The first is (Å¿) Ambros de Sp. Sanct. l. 3. c. 12. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan in a Book he wrote concerning the Holy Ghost where enquiring after the meaning of the Pslamist when he exhorts Men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Footstool he gives us the sense in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation and then goes on to shew for what Reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery and at last concludes thus By the Footstool therefore is the Earth to be understood and by the Earth the body of Christ which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament and which the Apostles worshipp'd in the Lord Jesus c. St. Austin Bishop of Hippo Comments on the very same words and to the same purpose For thus he resolves that Question How or in what sense the Earth his Footstool may be worshipp'd without impiety Because he took earth of the earth for flesh is of the earth and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary and because he convers'd here in the flesh and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation Now there is none who eateth that flesh but first worshippeth We have found then how this Footstool may be ador'd so that we are so far from sinning by adoring that we really sin if we do not adore In the Judgment therefore of these Primitive Bishops we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries tho' not the Mysteries themselves at the Sacraments tho' not the Sacraments themselves the Creator in the Creature which is sanctify'd not the Creature it self as a late (t) Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa l. 4. c. 7. p. 732. Protestant Writer of great Learning and Quality among the French distinguishes upon the forecited words of Saint Ambrose I think it appears evident from these few Instances that the Primitive Christians us'd a posture of adoration at the Communion in the act of receiving It were easy to bring a cloud of other Witnesses if it were necessary so to do either to prove or clear the Cause in hand but since there is no need to clog the Discourse with numerous References and Appeals to Antiquity it wou'd but obscure the Argument and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and distaste than convince and gratify the Reader By what has been already alledg'd the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justify'd as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure and Primitive Christianity For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a Posture of Worship and Adoration which is very plain they did then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages no tho' we shou'd suppose that Kneeling was never practis'd among them which will be plain if we cast our Eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have exhibited against it They object against Kneeling as being an adoring Gesture for they affirm (u) Gillesp p. 166 172. Altar Damas p. 801. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1.3 That to kneel in the act of Receiving before the consecrated Bread and Wine is formal Idolatry So
in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chriâ—â— suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and saâ—vation But it may â—e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinousâ—y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconveâ—ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' tâ—s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their
their separation upon these accounts that they think themselves safe and that they are able to justify themselves to God and all the world Now in answer to this I grant that if the things they except against be really forbidden by God then they are not to be blam'd for then separation from us is not a sin but a duty Nay supposing that they think that to be forbidden which is not really forbidden yet so long as they think so they cannot act against their mistaken Conscience without sin But then the point we stand upon is this that our Governours do require nothing that is forbidden by God and therefore their thinking our Communion unlawful will not acquit them from being guilty of sin before God I am not now to answer the particular objections against our establishments This has been sufficiently done already in the several foregoing Chapters The Point I am concern'd in is this whether a Man 's thinking our Communion to be unlawful when indeed it is not unlawful will justify his separation from it and I answer that a Man's false persuasion will not justify his breaking of God's Law So that if God's Law do's command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it my false persuasion will not acquit me from sin before God if I separate from it without just cause Tho' the truth of this appears from what I have said before yet I shall further confirm it by asking this question When St. Paul thought himself bound in duty to persecute Christians was his persecution sinful or no Yes surely for he call's himself the greatest of sinners for that very reason And therefore a Man's thinking a thing to be a duty or lawful will not acquit him before God for doing that thing if it be against God's Law So that it infinitely concerns all Dissenters to consider well before they separate For Schism is a crying sin and as vehemently spoken against by Christ and his Apostles and the Fathers as any sin whatever Let Dissenters look to it that they be not guilty of it for their false persuasion that our Communion is unlawful will not make their separation to be no Schism This matter will appear a little more evident if we put the case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concern'd Suppose a Papist that heartily believes Popery to be the only true Religion do's in obedience to it worship Images and the Host This person wou'd certainly abhor these practices did he think them to be Idolatrous but he believes them to be necessary duties And yet we do all charge such Papists with Idolatry tho' they disclaim it and profess they do no more than their duty when they give divine worship to such objects And we charge them rightly in this for if it be really Idolatry by God's word to do so then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do so let his opinion be what it will For a Man 's false opinion doth not alter the nature of things Now the case is the same in the matter before us for causeless separation is as properly Schism as worshipping a Creature is Idolatry and he is as much a Schismatic who thinks it his duty to separate as he is an Idolater who thinks it his duty to worship a Creature A Man's mistake according to the greater or less culpability of it will more or less excuse him before God in both instances but it cannot change the nature either of Schism or Idolatry But it will be said What shall a Man do He cannot Conform with a safe Conscience and yet he sins if he do not I answer he is to take all imaginable care to rectify his mistakes and then he may do his duty without sinning against his Conscience Now the only way of doing this is by laying aside Pride Passion Interest and all other Carnal prepossessions and endeavouring seriously and impartially to understand his duty considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides advising with the wisest Men and above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and spirit of the Christian Religion practising all undoubted duties and begging God's Assistance for the Matters in question Well but supposing a Man has done all this and after all his endeavours is persuaded that he cannot join with us without sin what shall this Man do This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it First We do heartily wish that this was the Case of our Dissenters for then I am persuaded our scandalous divisions wou'd presently be at an end But alas we fear they have not done their duty in this Matter that they have not heartily endeavour'd to satisfy themselves If they had surely they shou'd before they pronounc'd Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text to prove it so For the Texts they produce are such as had they in the least examin'd them cou'd scarce have been wrested to such a sence Nay the generality of Dissenters do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair If they had they wou'd think better of our way than they do For the most eminent of their own Ministers are ready to declare that tho' some things may be inconvenient yet a Lay-Person may lawfully join with us in all things nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to join in all the instances of Lay-Communion In short most of our Dissenters have taken up their opinions hand over head and scarce think it possible for them to be in the wrong Shew us a Man that has no end to serve by Religion but only to go to heaven and in the choice of his way is only concern'd that it be the way that leads him thither that is wonderfully sollicitous about his duty and will refuse no pains to understand it that in the midst of Church-divisions is modest humble and docible and believes that he and his friends may be mistaken that thinks his Governours may be wiser than himself and that every opinion that he has inconsiderately taken up ought not to be maintain'd against Authority a Man that where his duty to God seems to thwart his duty to Man endeavours to be truly inform'd and to that end begs God's assistance and uses the best helps and guides he can hears and reads the arguments on both sides and is byassed neither way I say shew us such a Man and we readily grant he has done his best to satisfy himself But then we must add that we believe such a Man will soon think it not only lawful but his Duty also to Conform Secondly If a Man has really done his best to satisfy his Conscience and yet thinks it a sin to Conform tho' his separation be materially a Schism yet he is not formally guilty of it For all those that commit Schism are not equally guilty of it Those that separate to serve a turn
First then they say if the Superiour must determine in every doubtful case the inferiour must often commit most grievous sins As for instance if a Man doubt whether Jehovah or Baal be the true God and the Ruler command that Baal shou'd be worshipp'd the Man must renounce the true God But this is no argument against us for I have already said that neither doubtfulness nor ignorance will excuse an action that is plainly sinful tho' it be done in obedience to Authority and I only assert that the Superiour is to over-rule when we doubt equally whether an action be lawful or no and have done our best to satisfy our selves Nay this argument concludes as strongly against them as against us For if a Man doubt whether Jehovah or Baal be the true God and the Ruler command that Jehovah only should be worshipp'd what advice wou'd they give the doubting Man If they say he must obey the Ruler they give up the cause and if he must not obey the Ruler he must worship Baal and so be guilty of Idolatry Secondly They say that God has commanded us to obey our Superiours not in all things but in those things only which are not contrary to his Law So that when we are uncertain whether the command be lawful we are also uncertain whether we are bound to obey and therefore it is no more our duty to obey than to disobey But I answer that I have already given many weighty reasons why we should rather obey than disobey when we equally doubt whether the command be lawful or no. But Thirdly the principal argument is drawn from St. Paul's words He that doubteth is damn'd if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14.23 From whence they argue that if it was a sin to eat any food tho' in it self lawful to be eaten so long as they doubted whether it was lawful or no then by parity of reason it must be a sin to do any other action so long as we doubt of the lawfulness of it and if so the Ruler's command will not make it lawful to do it This is the great argument and I shall give it a full answer only I think it needful to premise a general account of the Text it self before I take of the objection that is drawn from it Now St. Paul discourses in this Chapter of the case of those Jewish Christians who were persuaded or at least thought it most probable that they were bound to keep Moses's Laws concerning the observation of daies and difference of meats whereas other Christians who were better instructed made no scruple of eating any kind of food tho' forbidden by the Law of Moses If it be said that the second verse intimates their total abstinence from flesh and eating only herbs which Moses's Law did not oblige them to I answer with some Fathers that they thinking the Law still in force chose to eat only herbs that their way of living might pass rather for a Religious abstinence than a legal observance and so the other Christians might not reproach them for keeping the Law As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate he that doubteth it do's as properly signify he that maketh a difference and it is so us'd both in Scripture and other Writers And therefore the Text is thus to be rendred he that maketh a difference between meats is damn'd or condemn'd if he eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean because he eateth not of faith This rendring is put in the Margin of our Bibles and is approv'd by most Latin Expositors The word faith also in this and the foregoing verse do's not signify in the large sence a belief of the Christian Religion but only a Man's assent to the lawfulness of any particular action that he takes in hand So that to have faith about an action is to be persuaded that it is lawful and to do an action not of faith is to do that which we have reason to think is unlawful And whereas St. Paul saith he is damn'd if he eat we must observe that he do's not mean damnation in hell but the condemnation of his own Conscience so that the sense is this He that maketh a difference between meats and yet eateth is condemn'd for it in his own Conscience because he do's that which he apprehends to be sinful That Man will soon be satisfy'd of the truth of this interpretation who considers that St. Paul had been persuading the stronger Christians who thought it lawful to eat any sort of food not to give scandal to the weak Christians who thought otherwise And he thus concludes his advice Hast thou faith art thou satisfy'd that it is lawful to eat any sort of food have it to thy self before God enjoy thy persuasion but do not upon every occasion make use of it least thy weak Brother be embolden'd by thy example to do that which he thinks to be unlawful 'T is true happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth happy is he that do's not do what he thinks to be unlawful but he that doubteth that maketh a difference between meats is damn'd or condemn'd in his Conscience if he eat what he thinks it is not lawful to eat because he eateth not of faith and is not satisfy'd that it is lawful to eat it and whatsoever is not of faith whatsoever a Man thinks unlawful is sin to him that thinks it so Having thus given an account of the Text it self I am now to consider the objection which is drawn from it and which as I have already said is this If it was a sin to eat any food tho' in it self lawful so long as a Man doubted whether it was lawful or no then by parity of reason it must be a sin to do any other action so long as we doubt of the lawfulness of it But I answer that this Text is nothing to the purpose for St. Paul here speaks not of a Doubting Conscience but of a Resolv'd Conscience only For the Persons he speaks of were not wavering in their minds but were persuaded that those meats were unclean because they thought the Law of Moses still in force This is clear from the 2 5 and 14 verses of this Chapter I know saith St. Paul and am persuaded ' that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean to him it is unclean If it be said that the word doubteth is us'd and that to doubt of the unlawfulness of an action is quite another thing than to be persuaded of it I answer that the word may as properly be rendred he that maketh a difference between meats as he that doubteth But tho' the word doubteth be retain'd yet it is undeniably plain that St. Paul speaks of a doubt strengthen'd with so many probabilities that it wanted but very little of a persuasion or