Churches and Societies of Christians 2. I observe further that tho the exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular Duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation for we cannot Actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments c. but with some particular Church yet every Act of Christian Communion though performed in some particular Church is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church Praying and Hearing and receiving the Lords Supper together does not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church tho in the Remotest parts of the World The exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the necessity of affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly Unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church When we pray together to God we Pray to him as the Common Father of all Christians and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him as members of such a particular Church but as members of the whole Body of Christ when we Pray in the Name of Christ we consider him as the great High Priest and Saviour of the Body who powerfully interceeds for the whole Church and for us as members of the Universal Church And we Offer up our Prayers and Thanksgiving not only for our selves and those who are present but for all Christians all the World over as our Fellow-members and Praying for one another is the truest notion of Communion of Prayers for Praying with one another is only in order to Praying for one another And thus our Prayers are an exercise of Christian Communion when we Pray to the same common Father through the Merits and Mediation of the same common Saviour and Redeemer for the same common Blessings for our selves and the whole Christian Church Thus when we meet together to Celebrate the Supper of our Lord we do not meet as at a private Supper but as at the common Feast of Christians and therefore it is not an Act of particular Church Fellowship but of Catholick Communion The Supper of our Lord does not signifie any other kind of Union and confederation between those Neighbour Christians who receive together in the same Church than with the whole Body of Christ The Sacramental Bread signifies and represents all those for whom Christ died that one Mystical Body for which he Offered his Natural Body which is the Universal Church and our eating of this Bread signifies our Union to this Body of Christ and therefore is considered as an Act of true Catholick not of a particular Church-Communion And the Sacramental Cup is the Blood of the New Testament and therefore represents our Communion in all the Blessings of the Covenant and with all those who are thus in Covenant with God So that there is nothing particular in this Feast to make it a private Feast or an Act of Communion with a particular Church considered as particular but it is the common Feast of Christians and an Act of Catholick Communion Which by the way plainly shews how groundless that scruple is against mixt Communions that Men think themselves defiled by receiving the Lords Supper with Men who are vicious For tho it is a great defect in Discipline and a great reproach to the Christian Profession when wicked Men are not censured and removed from Christian Communion yet they may as well pretend that their Communion is defiled by bad Men who Communicate in any other part of the Church or any other Congregation as in that in which they live and Communicate For this holy Feast signifies no other Communion between them who receive at the same time and in the same Company than it does with all sincere parts of the Christian Church It is not a Communion with any Persons considered as present but it is a Communion with the Body of Christ and all true members of it whether present or absent Those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt professors though they could form a Society as pure and holy as they seem to desire yet are Schismaticks in it because they confine their Communion to their own select Company and Exclude the whole Body of Christians all the World over out of it their Communion is no larger than their gathered Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt members as all visible Churches on Earth have unless we will except Independents because they have the confidence to except themselves and then their Separation does not Answer its end which is to avoid such corrupt Communions and yet if they do confine their Communion to their own gathered Churches they are Schismaticks in dividing themselves from the Body of Christians and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion but a Schismatical Combination This does not prove indeed that particular Churches are not bound to reform themselves and to preserve their own Communion pure from corrupt members unless all the Churches in the World will do so too because every particular Church whether Diocesan or National has power to reform its own members and is accountable to God for such neglects of Discipline but it does prove that no Church without the guilt of Schism can renounce Communion with other Christian Churches or set up a distinct and separate Communion of its own for the sake of such corrupt members which was the pretence of the Novatian and Donatist Schism of Old and is so of the Independent Schism at this day 3. I observe further that our obligation to maintain Communion with a particular Church wholly results from our obligation to Catholick Communion The only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a member of the whole Christian Church which is the Body of Christ and therefore must live in Communion with the Christian Church and yet it is Impossible to live in Communion with the whole Christian Church without Actual Communion with some part of it when I am in such a place where there is a visible Christian Church as no member can be United to the Natural Body without its being United to some part of the Body for the Union and Communion of the whole Body consists in the Union of all its parts to each other Every Act of Christian Communion though performed in a particular Church or Congregation is not properly an Act of particular Church-Communion but is the exercise of Communion with the whole Church and Body of Christ as I have already proved but it can be no Act of Communion at all if it be not performed
Question proposed for the Resolution whereof I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature of the Holy Sacrament that so we may truly understand what Gesture is agreeable or repugnant to it 2. Shew that the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Common Table-Gesture in order to our worthy Receiving 3. That Kneeling is very Comely and agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture 4. That the Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers had no such notion of the necessity of a Table-Gesture as is maintained and urged by Dissenters 1. As to the Nature of the Sacrament I shall endeavour to discover it under these following Heads First the Sacrament in the Holy Scripture is called the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper and and Banquet by the Ancient Greek Fathers because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord hath made for all worthy Receivers It is styled a Supper and a Feast either because it was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time at night or because it represents a Supper and a Feast And so it is not of the same Nature with a Civil and Ordinary Supper and Feast though it bear the same name There is some resemblance between this Holy Feast and Civil Feasts and the shewing wherein it lies will in part explain its Nature There are three things Essential and Necessary to a Feast and included in the notion of it Plenty good Company and Mirth And upon the account of these the Sacrament is considered in its own Nature properly a Banquet a Feast but then it is a Heavenly and Spiritual one consisting of Spiritual Graces and benefits Communion with Christ and with all true believers signified by and tendered under the outward Elements of Bread and Wine and even in these three particulars which are Essential to it considered as a Feast and are necessary ingredients into all Feasts whatsoever it very much differs from Civil and Ordinary Feasts For though there be Plenty yet it doth not consist of Variety of Dishes to gratifie our Palats or satisfie our Hunger as other Feasts do and particularly the Passover did where the Body was filled and Feasted as well as the mind The provision wherewith our Lord hath Furnished out his Table is not of an Earthly and perishing but of an Heavenly and Immortal Nature even the Body and Blood of Christ which we Spiritually Feast upon Alas if we only fix our Eyes and Thoughts upon what is placed on the Table and those small portions of Bread and Wine allotted us to Eat and Drink without lifting up our Hearts as * * * So St. Cypr. St. Chrysost and St. Aug. expound this Exhort of the Minister at the Communion Cyp. de orat Dom. Chrys Hom. de Encaeniis Aug. de ver Relig. c. 3. our Church exhorts us to do by the Minister in her Communion-Office to those Heavenly and Invisible good things couched under and signified by the outward Elements of Bread and Wine what is there in all that we see that deserves the name of a Feast or can by the help of any figure but an Irony be called by that name Did ever any Man esteem that a Feast where there was not Meat enough to fill his Mouth nor Drink enough to quench his thirst It is upon the account therefore of those Invisible and Spiritual good things wherewith the Souls not the Bodies of worthy Communicants are Strengthened and Refreshed of which the Bread and Wine are but the Types and Shadows that the Sacrament is and may truly be called a Feast or Banquet And for this reason †††St. Chrys in Ps 90. Greg. Naz. orat 40. Athanasius St. Cyril Hierosol Catech. and others the Greek Fathers called it a Spiritual Feast and the Table a Mystical Table and the Cup the Cup of Mysteries and the Sacrament take it all together was by them Styled the Mystical Supper the Mystery and Mysteries as Presenting one thing to the Eye and another to the Mind 2. As Plenty is one necessary ingredient into the Nature of a Feast so also is Choice and Select Company Feasts are made in expectation of Friends and Acquaintance A Man may Dine alone but in Proper and Ordinary Speech no Man is said to Feast alone Now though the Sacrament doth resemble our Common Feasts in this Particular and therefore hath obtained the name of Communion and the Guests Communicants which Phrases do naturally import Number or Society yet if we consider what the persons are that constitute this Society and with whom Communion is held the Nature of this Spiritual Feast will further appear And truly our Communion is with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity though principally our Lord Jesus the Master of this Feast in and through whom we all have Eph. 2. 18. access by one Spirit to the Father as St. Paul speaks This high and inestimable priviledge and Honour of being admitted into the Presence of God and holding a friendly Correspondence and Converse with him at his Table is founded on the Blood of Christ which we thankfully Commemorate at this Solemnity by which we who were afar off are made nigh as the same Eph. 2. 13. Divine Writer hath it Moreoever by Eating and Drinking at the Lord's Table we are United to and hold Communion with all Faithful Christians and worthy Communicants the Members of his Mystical Body the Church whom he hath redeemed and cleansed by his most precious Blood And that which qualifies a Man for such Communion doth not Consist in External Garbs or Ornaments of the Body but in Holy and Virtuous Dispositions of Soul in a Penitent Humble Charitable Thankful and Obedient Heart 3. Another thing necessary to a Feast is Mirth and Joy which implies also good discourse and in this too the Sacrament resembles our Common Feasts But then the Joy is of a Spiritual Nature and flows from different Causes Not from what we Tast and See not from our Appetites and Phansies pleased and tickled with the richness and Variety of Dishes which adorn the Table nor from our Blood and Spirits raised and fermented by generous Wines but from Divine and Heavenly Considerations From the Boundless and Unaccountable Love of God in sending his onely Begotten and Beloved Son into the World to lay down his Life and shed his Blood as a propitiation for our Sins from the wonderful Condescention of our Dear Lord and Master in undertaking this hard Task in appearing Clothed with our Flesh in the form of a Servant and at last Humbling himself to the Death of the Cross for our Sakes from the Victory he hath gained for us over Death and Hell and all the Spirits of Darkness from the miraculous Redemption he hath wrought and the Right and Title to Eternal Life which he hath purchased for us Sinful Dust and Ashes by his own most Precious Blood This is
in all things that may Lawfully be done I cannot therefore see how they can avoid being self-condemned if they should forsake our Communion for if they judge it Unlawful they sinned Wilfully when they entred into it if they think it Lawful they would then Sin in withdrawing from it since it is injoyned by that Power which they confess they are bound to obey in Lawful things If they should say that they once thought it Unlawful after that they judged it to be Lawful and now conceive it Unlawful again This strange unsteadiness in Opinion would look a great deal more like Humor than Judgment And it might occasion vehement Suspicions in some not otherwise very Censorious that this Uncertainty proceeds not from Conscience but Design and that all their Compliance was only to serve a present turn to decline an Ecclesiastical Censure to keep a beneficial Place or to be qualified for an Office in some great Corporation Thus men might be apt enough to suspect but I am willing to believe any thing rather than that they that have always made shew of so great a Tenderness should be guilty of so much Hypocrisie and Prophaness together as to dare even to approach to the Lord's Table under great dissatisfaction of mind it may be meerly to advance some Secular end But I hope their Behaviour for the future will sufficiently clear them from such an imputation I shall therefore apply my self only to those that do still forbear our Communion and offer something very briefly which I conceive may be useful for the satisfying their most known and ordinary Doubts that as we do all profess the same Faith we may all agree in the same way of Discipline and Worship and all become peaceable and orderly Members of the same Church And for the obtaining this most Excellent end First I shall desire them impartially to consider of some things that may incline them to be Peaceably minded and tend to the removing of the general Prejudices they have unhappily conceived against the Church of England Then I shall endeavor to give what satisfaction I can to the chief Objections against us which they are wont to urge in Defence of the present Separation And lastly I shall exhort them to a brotherly Vnion upon such Motives and Arguments as the Gospel suggests and make for the Credit and Safety of the Protestant Religion The things that I would commend to their serious Consideration which may serve to dispose them to Peace and to remove the Prejudices they have taken up are such as these In the first place they should be very careful that it be not any sinister end or corrupt Passion that did either engage them in the Separation at the beginning or provokes them now to continue in it I do not mention this because I know any one of our Dissenting Brethren to be guilty of it but because it must be confessed that mens minds are too often influenced by their carnal Interests and Affections These will be always mixing themselves in all their Consultations these do commonly blind and pervert their Judgments and lead them into ten thousand Errours These are the occasion that Fancy sometimes passes for Conscience that Melancholy Fumes are admired for Divine Inspirations and that the overflowing of our Gall is looked upon as pure Zeal These and the like are very dangerous and usual Mistakes that do frequently proceed from the prevalency of our Passions If therefore we do divide from a Church it will most highly concern us to be very Cautious that we be not acted by any such Principle For if we hope to Gain and grow Rich by our Departure if we are Ashamed or Scorn to retract the Opinions we have once Professed if we imagine we have more Light than the first Reformers when indeed we are very Ignorant if we cannot endure to be Opposed in any thing if we Murmur and Repine at our Governors when they require our Obedience where we are unwilling to pay it these are signs that our Affections are turbulent and unruly and while we are thus disposed we can never be assured but that Covetousness Pride and Impatience might be the greatest Motives that induced us to make a Separation and the strongest Arguments that we have to maintain it But I cannot charge our Dissenting Brethren with these things I believe that many of them may be Upright and Sincere in their Intentions But because they are all in the same estate of Degeneracy and Corruption which others are I would intreat them to be very careful that they be never led away by these or the like temptations but that they would always labor to preserve those holy Dispositions of Integrity Meekness Humility and Condescension which are the best Preparatives to the receiving of the Truth in the Love of it After they have thus freed their minds from all irregular Passions and Designs it would conduce exceedingly to the PEACE of the Church if they would be sure to express their greatest Care and Concern in the more Weighty and Substantial things of Religion This would prevent many of the Quarrels that do often arise in matters but of small Importance If real Holiness and Piety be the thing that we aim at then when we may be secured of this we should not be so very forward to enter upon fierce and endless Disputes about the external Modes and Circumstances of Worship If I may serve God there in Spirit and in Truth why should a Gown or a Cloak or a Surplice fright me from the Church when either of these is injoyned by my Superiors If I may be instructed in the way of Salvation and eternal Happiness why should I forsake the Publick Assemblies because I am not allowed to joyn my self to what Congregation I please and had not an immediate hand in the choice of my Pastor When our hearts are bent upon the great things of Religion we shall see but little Reason to be Contentious about matters of lesser Consequence a few indifferent Rites will scarce be able to tempt us to break off Communion with that Church with which we are at perfect Agreement in all Fundamental and Necessary points The next thing that may tend to the promoting our Vnion is the Consideration of the heinous Nature and Guilt of Schism which is nothing else but the Separating our selves from a True Church without any just Occasion given The want of due apprehensions of the Sinfulness of this seems to be the main Cause of our present Divisions Men are not generally sufficiently sensible how much they do Oppose that Spirit of Peace and brotherly Love which should diffuse it self through the whole Body of Christian People when they suppose every slender Pretence enough to justifie their departing from us and setting up a Church against a Church They think it a matter almost Indifferent and that they are left to their own Choice to joyn with what Society of Christians they please
religious Common-wealth And our Blessed Saviour ordained the Apostles and committed the Government of his Church to them and their Successors with a promise to be with them to the end of the World And the Christian Church with respect to the firm and close Union and orderly Disposition of all its Eph. 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Parts is not only called a Body but a Spiritual Building and Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is a Body or one Body in opposition to many bodies for Christ has but one Body and one Church and he is the Saviour of this Body The Jewish Church was but one and therefore the Christian Church is but one which is not a new distinct Church but is grafted into the Jewish stock or Root Believing Jews and Christians being United into one Church built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Rom. 11. 17 18. corner stone Who unites Jews and Gentiles into one Church as the corner stone unites both sides of the House and holds them together Upon the same account the Church is called the Building the House the Temple of God and we know the Temple was but one and was to be but one by the express command and Institution of God And for the same reason Christ tells us that there should be but one Fold under one Shepherd And indeed it is extreamly absurd and unreasonable John 10. 16. to say that the Christian Church which is built upon the same foundation which worships the same God and Saviour which professes the same Faith are Heirs to the same promises and enjoy all priviledges in common should be divided into as distinct and separate bodies tho of the same kind and nature as Peter James and John are distinct Persons tho they partake of the same common nature That is it is very absurd to say that where every thing is common there is not one Community Peter and James and John tho they partake of the same common nature yet each of them have a distinct essence and subsistence of their own as it must be in natural Beings otherwise there could be but one Man in the World and this makes them distinct Persons But where the very nature and essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common there can be but one Body and therefore if one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all be common to the whole Christian Church if there be no peculiar Priviledges which belong to some Christians and not to all to one part of the Church and not to another then by the Institution of Christ there is but one Church one Body one Communion one Household and Family For where there is nothing to Distinguish and Separate no Enclosures or Partitions of Divine Appointment there can be by Divine Institution but one Body 2. I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World or called out of the World as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence Ecclesia is derived may signifie and is so expounded by many Divines upon which account the Christians are so of ten called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Called and Chosen or Elect People of God which signifies that the Church is distinguished from the rest of the World by a peculiar and appropriate Faith by peculiar Laws by peculiar rites of Worship and peculiar Promises and Priviledges which are not common to the whole World but only to those who are received into the Communion of the Church But there is no controversie about this matter and therefore I need add no more about it 3. The Church is a Body of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant The Church is united to God for it is a Religious Society instituted for the Worship of God and they are united among themselves and to each other because it is but one Body which requires a union of all its parts as I have already shewed and shall discourse more presently But the chief thing to be observed here is this that this union with God and to each other which constitutes a Church is made by a Divine Covenant Thus it was in the Jewish Church God entered into Covenant with Abraham and chose him and his Posterity for his Church and Peculiar People and gave him Circumcision for a Sign and Seal of this Covenant And under the Gospel God hath made a new Covenant with mankind in and by his Son Jesus Christ who is the Mediator of a Better Covenant founded upon better Promises and this Gospel Covenant is the foundation of the Christian Church For the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as is in Covenant with God through Christ I suppose all men will grant that God only can make or constitute a Church For such persons if there were any so absurd are not worth disputing with who dare affirm the Church to be a human Creature or the invention of Men. And I think it is as plain that the only visible way God has of forming a Church for I do not now speak of the invisible operations of the Divine Spirit is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and investing some persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant Rites and Forms of Admission as he is pleased to institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision To be taken into Covenant with God and to be received into the Church is the very same thing For the Church is a Society of Men who are in Covenant with God That can be no Church which is not in Covenant with God he is no member of the Church who is not at least visibly admitted into Gods Covenant and whoever is in Covenant with God is made a member of the Church by being admitted into Covenant Now before I proceed I shall briefly observe some few things which are so plain and evident if these Principles be true that I need only name them and yet are of great use for the resolution of some following cases As 1. That a Covenant-state and Church-state is the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is received into Covenant as such is a Church member 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us members of the Christian Church but only Baptism which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Covenant For if Baptism which gives us right to all the Priviledges of the Covenant does not make us Church members then a Church-state is no part of the Covenant then a man may be in Covenant with God through Christ and yet be no member of Christ or he may be a member
of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the christian-Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by Church-Communion Now Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
in the Communion of the Church which it cannot be unless it be performed in the Communion of some particular Church And this is the only obligation I know of to Communion with any particular Church that as I am a Christian I am a member of the Body and Church of Christ and in a State of Communion and therefore am bound to maintain Actual Communion with the Christian Church where-ever I find it and by Communicating with the Church wherein I live if it be a Sound and Orthodox Member of the Christian Church I maintain Communion with the whole Catholick Church which is but one Body So that here is no choice what Church we will Communicate with for there is but one Church all the World over with which we must Communicate and therefore we have nothing else to do but to judge whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so Sound and Orthodox that we may Communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion and if it be we are bound to Communicate with it under Peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not 4. From hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a Separate Communion and Separate Church For some Men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of Schism and Separation but then they use great art so to confound the notion of Separation as that neither they themselves nor any one else shall ever be able to understand what it is whereas if they will allow that there is or ever can be any such thing as Separation from the Church it is as easie to understand what Separation is as what it is for a member to be divided from the Body For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches are or ought to be members then those Churches which are not members of each other are Separate Churches It is not enough indeed to prove a Separation that two Congregations meet in several places for Worship for this is done by all the Parish-Churches of England who are in the same Communion but yet hold distinct and Separate Assemblies as to Local Separation Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is no Separation because these differing Churches agree in all the Articles of Faith and essentials of worship For thus the Novatians and Donatists did who yet were Schismaticks from the Catholick Church But where there are two Churches which are not members of each other there is a Schism tho they agree in every thing else but in one Communion and where Churches own each others Communion as members of the same Body there is no Schism though they are as distant from each other in place as East and West And it is as easie to understand what it is for two Churches to be members of each other but to make this as plain as I can and as far as it is possible to prevent all Evasions and Subterfuges I shall lay down some few rules according to the Principles of Catholick Communion whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Separate and Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place according to that Ancient Rule of the Catholick Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City and this was observed in the Apostolical times that in the greatest and most Populous Cities and where there were the greatest number of Converts yet there was but one Church such as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus c. this is acknowledged by the Independents themselves who endeavour hence to prove that there were no more Christians in any of those Cities than could meet together in one place for Acts of Worship which is a mighty groundless Surmise and not much for the credit of the Christian Church as has been often shewn by learned Men both Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines And there is an evident reason why this should be so because there is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for private Christians but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live for to renounce the ordinary Communion of any Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into distinct and Separate Societies for Worship is to renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation So that distinct and particular Churches which are in Communion with each other must have their distinct bounds and limits as every member has its Natural and proper place and situation in the Body But when there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and Separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism These Churches cannot be members of each other because they ought to be but one Church and therefore to form and gather a new Church is to divide and Separate the members of the same Church from each other This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us they are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to Worship God in the same Assemblies and have bitter Envyings and Contentions for the Honour and Purity of their several Churches If all Christians are members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the great Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline and all holy Offices and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering of a Church out of a Christian Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Churches at a distance may be distinct Churches under their distinct Bishops but yet in the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they would Naturally Unite and Cement into one There must either be Antibishops or Schismatical Presbyters set up in opposition to their Bishops under different and opposite Rules of Worship and Discipline which makes them Rival and opposite Churches not members of each other From hence I think it plainly appears that all Separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism and we cannot justifie such distinct Churches within one another from the examples of other distinct Churches whose bounds and limits and jurisdiction also are distinct and separate 2. It is plain those are Separate Churches which divide from the Communion of
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
one Church in one Place Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Vnity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into p. 21. distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to Renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation And a little after I added If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but onely such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline And therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a Church out of a Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Now then let us consider what follows 1. You say either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not Communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that it is not the Duty of of every one though a licensed Stranger to Communicate with this Church Ans If any Foreign Church among us which by Royal Favour is allowed the Observation of their own Discipline and Rules of Worship Renounce Communion with the Church of England or Communicate with our Separatists she is Schismatical her self as the Protestant Churches in France Geneva or Holland would be should they do the like But if there be any reason to allow those Foreigners which are among us to Form and Model their Congregations according to the Rules of their own Churches to which they originally belong this is no more a Schism than there is between the Protestant Churches of France and England which own each others Communion A bare Variety of Rites and Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches our Church pretends not to give Laws to other Churches in such matters but leaves them to their Liberty as she takes her own and why an Ecclesiastical Colony may not for great reasons be Transplanted into another Church as well as a Civil Colony into another Kingdom while they live in Communion with each other I cannot tell It is a different thing to gather a Church out of a Church and to Transplant some Members of one Church into another maintaining the same Communion though with some peculiar and different usages with the consent of the Church to which they come The case of Strangers and Natives has always been accounted very different both upon a Religious and Civil account Every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to direct and Govern her own Communion and prescribe the Rules of Worship but as she does not Impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her Jurisdiction without breach of Communion for tho the Communion of the whole Christian Church is but one and all true Catholick Churches are Members of each other yet the Authority and Jurisdiction is different every Church challenging a peculiar Authority which it exerciseth in its own Communion and therefore for the Church of England to suffer Foreign Churches to observe their own Customs and Usages is not to allow of distinct and separate Communions in her own Bowels which were Schismatical but onely to exempt such Congregations of Strangers from her particular Jurisdiction and to leave them to the Government and Authority of the Church to which they belong There was no such thing indeed allowed in the Primitive Church as distinct Congregations of Foreigners under a different Rule and Government and it were very desirable that all Christians who have occasion to live in other Countries would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the Church where they sojourn which seems most agreeable to Catholick Communion but yet distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the Separate Conventicles of Dissenters are 2. But does it not follow from the obligation to communicate or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church Ans This is a great Mastery of Wit to turn my own Artillery upon me I prove the Dissenters to be Schismaticks because they set up a Church within a Church whereas there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place every Christian being bound to Communicate with the sound part of the Catholick Church in the place wherein he lives for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual Communion Hence you conclude that we must Communicate with Schismaticks if there be any among us or so near to us that distance does not hinder our Communion But you should consider that our obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks whether at home or abroad and tho we should allow them to be true Churches yet if Schismatical they are not Catholick Churches and therefore not the objects of Catholick-Communion But however we may lawfully Communicate with the French Church that is among us as occasion serves Yes no doubt we may because they are in Communion with us But then follows the Murdering consequence that a Member of the Church of England is not bound to a constant Communion with her I pray why so every Member as a Member is in constant Communion for to be in Communion with Resol of Cases p. 10. a Church is to be a Member of it as I proved at large but then Church-Communion does not primarily respect a Particular but the Universal p. 13. Church and therefore it is no interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to Communicate actually with any Church which is in Communion with her for as all Christians who are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church so they are in Communion with the Catholick Church and every sound part of it The State of Communion is constant with the whole Catholick Church the acts of Communion are performed sometimes in one part of it sometimes in another as our presence abode or occasions require and thus it is possible actually to Communicate with the French Church either in England or
no Man will say that in this sence we live in the French or Dutch Church because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us 5. Your next Query is Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the Means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1. Peter 2. 21. Ans What this concerns me I cannot tell I speak onely of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members you put a question whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism when it can't be had may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God I hope in some cases it may though I do not hope this from what St. Peter saies who onely speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience which is made at Baptism not of that which is made without it But what God will accept of in this case is not my business to determie unbaptized Persons are no Visible Members of the Church and therefore not capable of Visible Communion and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute 6. Query Why a profest Atheist who has been Baptized and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church is more a Member of the Catholick Church than such as are above described Ans Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit Resol of Cases p. 8. c. their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every man in his respective station and capacity as well as the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their duty according to the Divine Covenant Ans It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion
and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans The promise is that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any Church on Earth which is all I cited it for and so much it certainly proves The Second Proposition you raise Queries on is this 'T is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians This I do indeed assert that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant and to be in Covenant with God and to be Members of his Church is the same thing therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church also and this makes it very absurd to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptized Christians which supposes that they were not a Church before instead of considering the reason whereon this is founded as every honest Writer should do you onely put a perverse Comment on it By which say you I suppose you mean That Men ought not to Separate from such and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptized Christians which I conceive needs explaining But if this were true it were plain enough but the fault is that it is not true for we may Separate from any Church of Baptized Christians if their Communion be Sinful which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome and answers your two first Queries But indeed the Proposition as asserted by me does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church let the cause be what it will just or unjust For the Independents who are the Men for gathering Churches do not own that they Separate from any Church but that they form themselves into a Church-State which they had not before and which no Christians according to their Principle have who are not Members of Independent Churches Baptism they acknowledge makes Men Christians at large but not Church-Members which I shewed must needs be very absurd if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant for then Baptism which admits us into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church and they may as well rebaptize Christians as form them into new Church-Societies This I suppose may satisfie you how impertinent all your Queries are under this head Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome which was not made upon Independent Principles because they were no Church but because they were a corrupt Church 3. Whether every Bishoprick in England be not so many Churches within the National Ans Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church and the Union of them in one National Communion makes them not so many Churches within a National but one National Church which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separation 4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National Churches within a Church which is Schismatical but not one National Church as Bishopricks are 5. And therefore tho we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church which is a very liberal grant yet they are not in Catholick Communion because they are Schismaticks 6. And this is all I am to account for that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine I can hope as Charitably as any Man but I dare not be so Charitable as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing which is the great Bond of Christian Charity 3dly You take occasion for your next Queries from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant you say I suppose that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new contract no part of the Baptismal vow I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicite Covenant between Pastor and People that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians for no other Christians which are not in Covenant with them are Members of their Church nor can they be Members of any other Church And I proved that those are Separate Churches Resol of Cases p. 10. 32. which are not Members of each other and do not own each others Members for their own For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member and if no Man can be a Member of a Church but by such an explicite Independent Covenant then he is a Member of no Church but that with which he is in Covenant and consequently is in Communion with no Church but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant And if those be Schismaticks and Schismatical Churches which are not in Communion with each other then all Independents must be Schismaticks for they are in Communion with none but their own Independent Congregations Let us now hear your Queries Q. 1. Whether any Obstacle to Catholick Communion brought in by Men may not be a means of depriving Men of it as well as Covenant or Contract Ans Yes it may but with this Material difference Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up Encloses and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions as there are Independent Congregations Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion but there can be no
to obey him in it and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act the Church is not Schismatical because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church in what he did but gratified his own Humour and Passion If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles as the Novatians and Donatists did whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution as the Church of England now has yet a Constitution they had which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition and confirmed by long custom and usage or the Canons of particular Councils which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholick Communion So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days was never so intirely in the Bishops Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any farther than as he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be Governed and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church As to shew you this particularly in the case before us The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection which is the first day of the week or the Lords day the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month and therefore the Bishop of Rome according to the Laws of that Church might require all the Members of his Church to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory and this would be accounted the Act of the Church because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it But there was no Canon nor Custom in the Church of Rome to deny Communion to Foreign Churches who observed their own Customs in this matter and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome Nay there was the Practise and Example of Former Times against it for Anicetus Bishop of Rome received Polycarp an Asian Bishop to Communion though they could not agree about this matter And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter it was his Personal Act not the Act of the Church of Rome which had no such Law and owned no such Custom and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatick it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical the guilt went no farther than Victors Person unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty by abetting and espousing the Quarrel So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches none had been guilty of Schism but himself and such as approved and consented to it but the Body of the Clergy and People who had not consented unto it had been Innocent and therefore any Catholick peaceable Christian who lived in Rome in those Days might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms and denouncing Excommunication against each other which cannot make their Churches Schismatical any further than they take part with their respective Bishops For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation than a Church Schism neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church under the Notion of such a Church though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those days which were Catholick Bishops and maintained Communion with the Catholick Church but yet Separated from each other which is a very great fault as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism But you will say can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism I Answer Yes we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism When Schism is his personal fault our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it than of any other Personal fault our Bishop is guilty of While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches And now the only difficulty that remains is whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatick Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them for if they could not then they must inevitably partake in Victors Schism if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches And in answer to this we may consider 2. That those who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches did in so doing own their Communion which is one way and the Principal way of maintaining Communion between Churches at a Distance who cannot actually Communicate with each other 3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome who had the supreme Authority of receiving in or shutting out of the Communion of that Church if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishops Authority and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the publick Offices of Religion though they owned their Communion but this is no more their fault than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was they Communicate with their own Church and would be very glad that the Asians that are among them might be received into Communion but they have no Authority to do it and therefore the fault is not theirs for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians but is only a forc't Suspension of Communion 4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia I doubt not but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia and therefore the Sentence is void of it self and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and therefore must not forbear
nor suspend Communion with the Asian Churches unless they will justifie this Schismatical Excommunication The Jurisdiction of a particular Bishop is confined within the Bounds of his own Church and every Christian is Subject to the Authority of the Church where he is and therefore though the Roman Christians at Rome cannot receive the Excommunicated Asians to their Communion without the Authority of their Bishop yet when they are in Asia where the Bishop of Rome has no Authority over them they may and ought to joyn themselves to the Communion of the Asian Churches during their abode among them if the Asians would receive them without Commendatory Letters from their Bishop which they could not have in such a case as this Thus Sir I have considered the Case you put about Pope Victors Excommunicating the Asian Churches which is not a real but a feigned Case for there was no actual Schism upon it as I perceive some body had told you there was And yet supposing it had been so I have shewn you how the Roman and Asian Churches might have maintained Communion with each other and that the case of private Christians was not so desperate as you represent it Your following exceptions concerning National Communion and National Churches and the possibility Letters 3. p. 22. that there should be several Sound and Orthodox parts of the Church at the same place have been sufficiently considered already and you twit me so often with my repetitions that though I find you want very frequent repetitions to make you understand the plainest sence yet I will for my Readers sake and my own correct that fault Your attempt to prove Congregational Churches p. 24. from 1 Cor. 14. 23. has been so often answered by the Presbyterian as well as Episcopal Divines that to save my self the labour of transcribing I shall refer you to them and particularly to the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separ p. 392. c. where you may find this matter largely debated in answer to Dr. Owen's Original of Churches You say it is evident that one of these Separate Churches must needs be cut off from Christs Body I readily grant it for Christ has but one Body which p. 26. is one Communion and therefore two Churches which are not in Communion with each other cannot both belong to the same Body or the one Catholick Church but the Church which is the Schismatick according to the Language of the Primitive times is out of the Catholick Church extra Ecclesiam foris as is discourst at large in the Vindication of the Defence In the next place you endeavour to make me contradict my self in talking of occasional Communion and occasional Membership and different Relations when else where I assert That the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church But pray Sir where do I assert this I am sure I assert the quite contrary that Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership I say indeed That Church-Communion Primarily and Principally refers to the Vniversal Church not Resol of Cases p. 13 14. to any particular Church or Society of Christians That a Member is a Member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it That Baptism which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church as such but of the Vniversal Church And I do as plainly assert that every true Catholick Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and as such is a Member of every particular Church which is a sound part of the Vniversal Church That no Man can properly be said to Communicate with any Church whatever Acts of Communion he may perform in it who does not Communicate with it as a Member and that therefore to talk of Occasional Communion in the sense of our Dissenters is as absurd as to talk of an Occasional Membership these are the very Principles on which I dispute against those absurd Distinctions of p. 30. constant and occasional Communion which I confess to be absurd and a Contradiction to all the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore you are concerned to answer this absurdity not I. I have charged this absurdity upon our Occasional Communicants and let any man take it off that can But are you not Sir admirably qualified to Answer Books without so much as understanding the general scope and design of the Book you Answer without knowing what makes for you or against you As for your next Question How does it appear that it is necessary to Communion with the Catholick Church that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church where we constantly live You ought instead of asking this Question to have shown that what proofs I have alleadged for this are not conclusive or do not sufficiently prove the thing but your Question insinuates that I have said nothing at all about it or at least that you do not know that I have though it be the Principal Design of that discourse and then I am a very careless writer or you a very careless Reader But the Answer to it in short is this That every Christian is bound to live in Communion with the Catholick Church no Man lives in Communion with the Church who does not perform the External visible Acts of Communion when he may do it without sin The whole Catholick Church being but one Communion whoever Communicates with any sound part of it Communicates with the whole no Man can ordinarily Communicate in a Church in which he does not ordinarily live and therefore if he be bound at all to the External and visible Acts of Communion he must perform them in the Church wherein he lives and in so doing if it be a true Catholick Church he lives in Communion with the whole Catholick Church But you attempt to prove That you are not bound to Communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of Ibidâ— the Catholick Church because you live where there is such an one And this you prove from Mr. Chillingworth's Authority who says that if you speaking to the Papists require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to Communion with you ceaseth Now is not this an admirable proof that we are not bound to Communicate with a sound part of the Church where we live because we are not bound to Communicate with an erroneous Church which imposes the belief of her Errours as Terms of Communion Is not this a wonderful sound Church And are not you a very subtil Arguer You produce another passage of Mr. Chillingworth by which I cannot tell what you intend to prove unless it be that there is no need there should be any External or Visible Church-Society so Men do but Profess the Faith of Christ which seems to be the sence of your foregoing Paragraph But
can or will do in some extraordinary cases when Communion with a true visible Church cannot be had as in a general Apostacy of the Church or Persecution for Religion or unjust Excommunication but what is God's ordinary method and means of bringing Men to salvation and that he himself tells us is by adding them to the Church and the Lord added to the Church daily Acts 2. 47. such as should be saved To this purpose we may observe not only in general that whatever Christ did and suffered for Mankind 't was for them as incorporated into a Church Christ loved his Church and gave himself Eph. 5. 25. for it Christ redeem'd his Church with his own Acts 26. 28. blood Christ is the saviour of the body that is the Eph. 5. 23. Church But also in particular that the Apostle confines the influences and operations of the spirit to the unity of the Church there is one body and one spirit Upon this account viz. the efficacy of the means afforded Eph. 4. 4. in Christ's Church and the necessity of keeping in Communion with it in order to salvation was it that the Primitive Christians lookt upon it as so dreadful a thing to be shut or cast out of it as laughing a matter as some now adays make it as much as they slight the priviledg and benefit to be of Christ's Church and count it their glory and saintship voluntarily to cut off themselves from it I am sure the Primitive Christians had a far different opinion of it with them to be cast Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos c. Tert. Apol. out of the Church and to be deliver'd up to Satan signified the same thing and the one accounted full as dreadful a doom as the other hence was it that this sentance was rarely past against an offender but with 1 Cor. 5 2. grief and sorrow in him that was forc'd to do it and that those against whom it was past us'd the most ardent importunities and were willing to undergo the severest penances in order to be restored into the bosom of it you might have beheld them kissing the chains of imprison'd Martyrs washing the feet of Lazars Nazion 12. Or. wallowing at the Temple-doors on their knees begging the Prayers of Saints you might have seen them stript and naked their hair neglected their bodies whither'd their eyes dejected and sometimes crying out in the words of David as the great Theodosius Theod. H. Eccl. 5. c. 15. in the state of penance My soul cleaveth to the dust quicken thou me O Lord according to thy Word Thus much seems to be enough to be said on the Second Proposition but that our passage to the Third may be the clearer I shall add a little by way of Answer to an Objection or two that lies in our way And the first is Obj. Do not all the Members of Christ's Church that come to the blessed Sacrament having not the power of Godliness as well as the Form come unworthily and to their own great sin and danger no less than being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eating and 1 Cor. 11. 27 29. drinking their own damnation And can they have a right to that they are so unworthy of In doing which they sin so hainously and for doing which they shall be punished so severely Answ I Answer these two things 1. All even the best men in a strict legal sense are unworthy and that even of common mercies from God much more of this prime Duty and Priviledg of Christianity Every man in his best estate is altogether vanity We are all an unclean thing and our righteousness Psal 39. 5. is as filthy rags The meaning is all men are Isa 39. 5. sinners and their best services imperfect and impure But then the right they have to this Priviledg does not depend on their own merit and worth but as was said before on the promise of God when they enter'd at first into covenant with him whereby he was pleas'd to oblige himself to be their God so far and so long as they continued to be his people 2. Those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the external Priviledges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness St. Paul speaks of the sin and danger whereof is so great and this will appear by the description he gives of those unworthy Communicants 1. They discern'd not the Lord's body he that eats this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost 1 Cor. 11. 27. Dr. Lightf in loc bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ how not discerning the Lord's body It may be they did eat it still as a part of the Jewish Passover they understood not the nature of it what it did represent or for what end it was instituted being ignorant of the infinite value and merit of Christ's blood not at all affected with the greatness of his love nor wrought upon by the infiniteness of his mercy and altogether as void of any sincere affection and gratitude to Christ for that mighty redemption he wrought for mankind as the Jew and Pagan that neither know nor believe in him 2. They were open and scandalous sinners The Apostles charges them with Schisms and Divisions 18 21 22 ver pride and contempt of their brethren sensuality and drunkenness In those early days of Christianity the Lord's Supper was usually usher'd in with a Love-feast that was eaten just before it but so unchristian were these Corinthians that every one took before other his own Supper they run into parties and tho' they had not yet left the place they refus'd to communicate at the same time with their brethren The rich despis'd and excluded the poor that came not so well provided as they from their feast and that which was yet an higher aggravation of their sin the poor were hungry whilst the rich fed and pamper'd ther bodies to excess and luxury When ye come together says he this is not to eat the Lord's Supper this is no fit preparation for it for in eating every one takes before other his own supper and one is hungry and another is drunken such Swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord and such as these as I said in the beginning of my Discourse on this Proposition have forfeited their right to it and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded This indeed is to be unworthy with a witness to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ or as St. Paul sometimes words it in the case of Apostacy and other hainous sins to crucifie Heb. 6. 6. Heb. 10. 16. afresh the Lord of Life to tread under foot the Son of God and to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing that is in an high degree to despise
no Communion with it is to us a New Assertion And so it is to me who only did maintain these two things That there Case of Indifferent things Pag. 15. was no Church or Society but would be found guilty if things uncommanded were unlawful and if the having such uncommanded things would make Communion with a Church unlawful then no Church could be Communicated with So that all that I affirmed was there could be no Communion Lawful to such as held it unlawful to communicate with a Church for the Sake of things uncommanded And who are concerned in this our Author very well knows such I mean as plead this as an argument for their present Separation But though the Assertion as he words it is neither mine nor true yet I dare affirm there are some things uncommanded which every particular Christian must practise or else he can be said to have no Communion with the Churches where such things are practised Such are Forms of Prayer and receiving the Sacrament in the Forenoon and without sitting where there is no provision made for them that would use that posture as well as where it is not allowed And this was the case in the ancient Churches To which he replies Their practices are great uncertainties and their writings depraved or it cannot be made appear that none could have any Communion with those Churches unless he did eat the Lord's Supper fasting or prayed toward the East That their writings are depraved is very true But that they are so depraved as that there is nothing certainly theirs is what no one will assert And that they are not depraved in the passages or things I quoted from thence is very evident from the concurrence of the Fathers therein and the general consent of learned men of all sides As to what he saith that it doth not appear that none could have Communion with them unless c. It were easy to refute it and to shew it in the Instances I gave and to make it out in one for all viz. That of receiving the Lord's Supper Fasting of which St. Austin saith thus Liquidò apparet c. It plainly appears that our Saviour and Epist 118. ad Januar. his Disciples did not receive it Fasting but shall the Vniversal Church be therefore reproached because it receiveth Fasting And this pleased the Holy-Ghost that in Honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of Christ should First enter into the mouth of a Christian For therefore is this custom observed through the universal Church And more to the same purpose may our Author read in that Epistle Now when this was the practice as they say of the Universal Church and that they so practised upon the score of an Apostolical Precept as St. Austin there saith how truly is not my business to enquire can we think that it was not required Or that there could be any Communion with those Churches if any did otherwise I added to the ancient Church the State of the Reformed Churches abroad and shewed how they do use things uncommanded in the Worship of God and how impossible it is upon the principles of those that dissent from our Church to hold Communion with theirs To this he replies we have not heard of any thing used among them in Worship c. but what is prescribed excepting only some Forms of Prayer relating to the Sacrament 2. None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling 3. They compel not any to receive Standing or Sitting I would be loth to charge our Author with want of diligence or integrity but how reconcilable this is to it that he saith I must leave to the impartial Reader Supposing however the first to be true yet if they have some Forms they have somewhat not prescribed But have they only some Forms relating to the Sacrament What then shall we say to Capellus that saith diverse Thes Salmur part 3. p. 307. of them have set Forms of Liturgies What to their Formularies as those of Holland and Switzerland What to the Bohemian Churches that have also Forms in Singing Comen de bono unit Annot. cap. 3. of Humane Composure Have they nothing but Forms of Prayer what then thinks he of Anniversary Festivals observed in the Helvetick and Bohemick Churches And Confes Helvet Comen ibid. c. 7. c. 3. §. 2. of God-Fathers in Baptism As much mistaken is he when he saith None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling as appears from the Petricovâ—an Synod that I quoted Case of Indiff Things p. 9. Case examined Pag. 13. in the foresaid Tract But to this he answers it is not at all to be wondred that the Lutherans in that Synod should determine as they did c. Doth he hereby mean that there were none but Lutherans in that Synod or that the Lutherans in that Synod only determined it Which way soever he would be understood it 's a wretched mistake For the Synod was composed of those of the Helvetick Augustan and Bohemick Confession and subscribed by all of them and was indeed but one of several Synods they held in Common together If he had but looked into this Synod all this discourse might have been saved and he might have answered his own Question We desire to know what more receive Sitting except the Lutheran Churches What he produceth the 3d. for I cannot well understand for it 's all one if those Churches forbid any one particular posture as if they required another And yet some do forbid Sitting as the Synod above V. Case of Kneeling p. 14. 15. quoted and one Church Kneeling I proceeded further to shew that they themselves could not then be Communicated with since they do things without prescription as in administring the Sacraments conceived Prayer Swearing and Church-Governments and order He saith we do not make Sitting necessary but that is not the point in dispute for he by his principles should shew where it is commanded For conceived Prayer he argues How this is prescribed he and others have been told elsewhere and those that have told it have had a sufficient answer Laying the hands on the Book he saith is a civil no sacred usage as if the invoking God and a solemn testimony of our so invoking him by some external Rite were meerly civil Such then was lifting up the hand which was anciently used in swearing and so appropriated to it that it was put for swearing it self Gen. 14. 22. Ex. 6. 8. They that can affirm such things as these may affirm any thing As for the things relating to Church-order he saith Ten times more is allowed to matters of Government than Worship But he undertakes not my argument taken from the parity of reason betwixt the Kingly and Priestly offices of our Saviour And which the Presbyterian Vindicat. of Presbyt Gov. p. 4. Brethren so approve of as to use the same Arguments for Government as Worship The Third general was to enquire how we might
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
lawful to Baptize them and if I have not erred as I hope I have not in those two Determinations then the Baptism of Infants is lawful and valid and if the Baptism of them be lawful and valid then it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them when they come to be Men and Women Accordingly it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers who had been Baptized in their Infancy whether they were Baptized in perfect health as Children most commonly were or only in dnager of Death as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity or Corruption of Baptism that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger and durst not let them die un baptized Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion and others perhaps according to the private Opinion of a a a De Baptismo c. 18. Ait quidem dominus nolite illos prohibere ad me venire veniant ergò dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Tertullian and b b b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. Nazianzen thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized between Three and Four years old but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health but in case of danger they thought it c c c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary to Baptize them and if they survived the danger looked upon them as lawfully and validly Baptized These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients who never urged this for one that Infant-Baptism was unlawful or invalid No They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children which Christ and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes nor from the want of Precept and Example for it in the New Testament but so understood the Scriptures as to think it as lawful and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers and necessary in case of danger and just so did those who deferred their Baptism for fear of sinning after it think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity in apparent danger of Death But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful and valid but also necessary as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ who did not countermand the practice of it and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy but an exceeding great Sin and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account In a word If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful but necessary what a grievous and provoking Sin must it needs be to disown those for Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such But if it be neither as Anabaptists vainly pretend then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth for Eleven hundred Years nor a Church for above Fifteen hundred with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin This is a very absurd and dreadful consequence and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages while the Church was so full of Saints Martyrs and Miracles and represented as * * * See Dr. More 's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God and the Altar Revel 11. 1 2. THE CONCLUSION ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism as to obviate or answer all the Considerable Pleas and Material Objections which they are wont to make against it yet there are two of their Objections of which I have yet taken no notice thinking it better that I might avoid tediousness and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions to Propose and Answer them a part by themselves The First of these two is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants which they endeavour with all their Art and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of Infant-Baptism although there is not the like Evidence nor the like Reason for the practice of that as there is for the practice of this First There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it St. a a a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi vel attracti amiserunt parvuli quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit dicent Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it to the Communion when he administred it and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turned away her Face from it but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth she fell into Convulsions and Vomitings which the Holy Father looking upon as a Miracle did thereupon discover that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts Vid. August ad Bonifacium Episcop Ep. 23. vol. 2. Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it and after him the b b b Cap. 7. Contemplat 3. p. 360 362. Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and c c c Catechesis 3. isluminat Hierosolym Cyril of Jerusalem are the next who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and then St. d d d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan Epist 23. 106 107. Lib. 1. de peccatorum merit remiss cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14. Augustine in the Fifth who indeed speaks frequently of it as of the practice of the Church in that Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * * * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p.
probably even amongst those of the Apostolical Age it self There are those indeed that would make that Father the first that brought in the use of this Ceremony into the Church having receiv'd it from the Montanists of whom he seems to have been particularly fond But the frequent and familiar mention he makes of the Sign of the Cross in many of his Books renders this Conjecture very improbable Tertullian tells us it was grown so much in use in his time that upon every motion of theirs at their going out and coming in when they put on their Garments or Shooes at the Bath or at Meals when they lighted up their Candles or went to Bed whatever almost they did in any part of their Conversation still they Frontem crucis signaculo terere Tertul. de Coron mil. would even wear out their Forheads with the Sign of the Cross which though he confesseth there was no express Law of Christ that had enjoyn'd it yet Tradition had Introduc'd Custom had Confirm'd and the Believers Faith had observ'd and maintain'd it This doth not look as if it had been a thing newly invented by Montanus and brought into the Church by Tertullian as being himself too great a Favourer of that Sect. Although were it thus indeed yet this sheweth that the Practice of it was receiv'd among the Faithful some Ages before the Depravation and Apostacy of the Romish Church But he is not our single Author in this matter for Origen who Flourisht not much above CC Homil. 2. in Psalm 38. Years after Christ and not XL Years after Tertullian makes mention of those who upon their Admission into the Church by Baptism were Sign'd with this Sign And St. Basil not much above one Hundred Years after him gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical Constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles Days that those who believed Basil de Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be Signed with the Sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks most Familiarly of the use of this Sign but hath some Expressions in this matter that would seem very harsh and unwarrantable now and yet the Authority of that Father hath sav'd him hitherto from being brought under question about it He tells us in one place that in fronte cruce signantur qui Dominum promerentur i. e. they are Sign'd in the Forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord and in another place Omnia sacramenta peragit it Compleats every Sacrament and per crucem baptisma sanctificatur Baptism is Sanctified by the Cross I will not stand accountable for the Justifiableness of these passages were they to be allow'd no kind of Latitude but as to the purpose for which they are cited they seem pertinent enough that is to Argue the antiquity of this usage and that in the Sacrament of Baptism too the Phrase so frequently occurring in the writings of those ancient Fathers that fronte signati being sign'd in the Forehead seems a known and usual Periphrasis for being enter'd into the Faith of Christ and the Body of his Church by Baptism After all which what need I Instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose or St. Austin Who sprinkle their writings with the Common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame Arguments of the Obligation upon Christians to live as becomes them from this very badg they wear upon their Foreheads St. Austin wittily enough glorying in the Confidence of a Christian as to a Crucifi'd Saviour that he willingly imprints the Sign of it upon Nec nos pudet Crucifixi sed ubi pudoris signum est crucis ejus signum habemus August in Galat. 6. 14. that part of himself which is the proper seat of Blushing I shall only add this remark further that after the time wherein this Custom had been so Universally receiv'd into the Christian Church and some of the Fathers had so liberally exprest themselves in it we may observe that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his Directions probably from heaven it self to make this Sign the great Banner in his Wars with this Additional encouragement that by this he should overcome That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Dream or Vision call it which we will for Histories mention it differently was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is Evident from the success of that Princes Arms under it The Authors of the Centuries allow a considerable Signification in that Sign as given him from Heaven as the future Standard he should fight under viz that God had admonisht him by that Sign of the Cross and the Motto added to it by this thou shalt overcome concerning the Cent. 4. cap. 13. Knowledg and Worship of the true God and of our Lord Jesus Christ in Memorial of which he took care to have it Painted on his Banner that it might be as the Symbol of the Christian Religion Now we would not suppose that our Blessed Lord would by so immediate a Revelation from Heaven Countenance such a Rite as this already receiv'd and made use of in the Church giving it to Constantine both as a Symbol of his Profession and Pledg of his future Victories if he had resented it before as Superstitious or any way unwarrantable This kind of Standard the Roman Emperours successively had born before them in their Warrs nay it is recorded that Julian himself probably from what he had made some former Observations Theodoret. Hist l. 3. c. 3. of could not forbear defending himself with this Sign upon a mighty fright he was seiz'd with while in the use of Magick Arts he went to have consulted with the Devil Orat. Cont. Julian This Nazianzen calls his craving aid and refuge of him whom he had Persecuted Which by the way might give us the modestly and caution of showing our selves too petulant against what it hath pleas'd our Lord Jesus in a Revelation from Heaven to give the Figure of and the Holy Spirit also to signalize sometimes by very renown'd miracles which those that consult Ecclesiastical Histories of best Authority cannot but be convinc'd of So that we find the use of it very ancient and the Effects of it very Memorable Casaubon himself no very fond Man of Rituals calls it Primitivae Ecclesiae Exercit. in Baronium Symbolum ejus fiduciae quam in Christo cruce ipsius passione ponebant a Symbol the Primitive Church used to denote that Confidence they had in Christ his Cross and Passion I confess it would be a fond thing to endeavour with some of the Romish Church to trace up the Antiquity of the Cross to the first Creation of Man and so all along downward to the Actual Death of our Blessed Lord. They can spy out the Cross in
plain account in these words Let the Bishop give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice by which name the Holy Sacrament was called in Primitive times saying The Body of Christ and let him that receives say Amen Then let the Deacon take the Cup and at the delivery say The Bloud of Christ the Cup of Life and let him that drinketh say Amen Now although it cannot be denied but that these Constitutions are in many things adulterated yet it is allowed on the other hand that in many things they are very sincere and convey to us the pure Practice of the most ancient times That they give a true and sound account in this matter relating to the Sacrament we may rest fully satisfied from the concuring Evidence of other ancient Writers who lived in the fourth Century For both St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Jerusalem Ambr. de Sacr. lib 4. c. 5. p. 440. To. 4. St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Mystag 5. Universa Ecclesia accepto Christi Sanguine dicit Amen Resp ad Orosi quest 49. To. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. make express mention of the peoples saying Amen when the Minister said The Body of Christ So also St. Austin speaks of it as universally practised by the Church of Christ when the Cup was delivered And there is a very remarkable passage recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History which being very apposite to our purpose I will set down for the close of all Novatius a Presbyter of the Church of Rome having renounced the Communion of the Church and the Authority of his rightful Bishop Cornelius set up for himself and became the head Epist Cornel. ad Fab. apud Euseb Eccles Hist lib. 6. c. 35. de Novato of an unreasonable and unnatural Schism and the better to secure to him the Proselytes he had gained he altered the usual form of Prayer at the Sacrament and in the room thereof substituted a new-fangled Oath which he obliged every Communicant to take at the time of their receiving which among other wicked actions is particulary taken notice of and charged upon him by Cornelius as the worst of all and the most villanous Innovation When he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came says he to offer Sacrafices i. e. to celebrate the Lords Supper and to distribute to every one his part at the delivery of it he constrained those persons who unhappily sided with him to take an Oath instead of offering up Prayers and Praises according to custom and instead of saying Amen he forced every Communicant when he received the Bread to say I will never return to Cornelius as long as I live From these plain instances we may see how closely our Church follows the steps of pure antiquity in the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by the Minister at the giving of the Bread and the Cup to the people which runs thus The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life c. which last Clause was added by latter times by way of explication to that short Form which the Primitive Church used and surely it 's every Christians interest as well as his duty to joyn with the Minister in such a Prayer and return a hearty Amen to it I will now briefly sum up the Evidence that hath been produced out of Antiquity in justification of Kneeling at the Holy Communion according to the custom and practice of our Church and observe where it directs us to fix and what to resolve upon And in this order it lies Sitting was adjudged by the ancient Catholick Church a very unfit and irreverent posture to be used in time of Divine Service when they were solemnly engaged in the Worship of God the Holy Sacrament was esteemed the most solemn Act or Branch of Christian Worship The Primitive Christians generally used standing at their publick Devotions onely on the Lords days and all that space of time that falls between Easter and Whitsunday At all other times in their religious Assemblies Kneeling was their Worshipping posture and they were wont to meet and receive the Lords Supper every day and particularly on their stated Weekly Fasts which they kept every Wednesday and Friday when to stand was thought as great an irregularity as to kneel was on the Lords day And lastly the Holy Sacrament was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer and that on those days when they constantly prayed Kneeling All these things therefore being considered I think the least that can be concluded from them is what I asserted and designed viz. that in all likelihood the Primitive Christians did kneel at the Holy Communion as the Custom is in the Church of England For sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent Gesture by the Primitive Church and no man in his wits will say that prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever used in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so it must be therefore one of these two either Standing or Kneeling As for Standing all the time of publick Worship which was used onely on the Lords day and in Pentecost the reason thereof was drawn not from the Sacrament but from the day and festival season when they did more particularly Communicate the Resurrection of our blessed Saviour openly testified their belief of that great Article at such times therefore they chose standing as being a gesture sutable to the present occasion and as an Emblem and sign of the Resurrection And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary days when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to stand at the Sacrament in all likelyhood they used Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They used one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lords day and for fifty days after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then should any man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and received in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may howsoever promise my self thus much success That whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church used at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never used nor heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World 2. But secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they received the Lords Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justifie the present
of Antient Friends * * * See Spirit of the Hart. p. 12 13 c. George Fox declar'd he had Power to bind and loose whom he pleased †††p â—7 and said in a great Assembly * * * p. 41. that he never lik'd the Word Liberty of Conscience and would have no Liberty given to Presbyterians Papists Independents and Baptists From the Subordinate End of the Dissenters I pass The Principal End of the Dissenters the first part of it to the Principal and begin with the first part of it the removal of Popery A very good and commendable end And I heartily pray to God to prosper all Christians who persue it by fit and lawful ways But the Methods of Dissenters do not so well lead to it as those of the established Church Bare Reason maketh this manifest It may be also proved to us by Historical Inference This likewise is the Judgment of the Papists themselves who take their measures from this Principle that they shall enter in through the Breaches of the Church of England First Common Reason sheweth that the Interruption which may by Dissension be given to this Church will rather weaken than improve the Protestants Interest both at home and abroad Abroad the Protestant Interest will suffer much in the overthrow of this Church For by such means a principal Wheel is taken out of the Frame of the Reformation Nay Signior Diodati * * * Florentissima Anâ—lia Ocellus ille Ecclesiarum Peculium Christi singulare c. was wont to praise it in a more excellent Metaphor and to call it the Eye of the Reformed Churches and it is plain to considering Men that the Church of England which had greater regard to the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation can give a more full and unperplexed answer to all the Objections of the Romanists than some other Churches who are cramped in a few points unwarily admitted If therefore Dissentions put out this eye of the Protestant Churches the dark Doctrines and Traditions of Popery will the sooner spread themselves over Reformed Christendom At Home the Dissettlement of the Church of England will sooner introduce than root out Popery I am constrain'd thus to judge by the following Considerations First the design of keeping out Popery by the Ruine of this Church is like the preposterous way of securing the Vineyard by pulling up of the Fence or of keeping out the Enemy by the removal of our Bullwark Under that name this Church is commonly spoken of and they do not flatter it who give it that Title â—ts Constitution is Christian and it is strong in its Nature and if such a Church hath not ability with God's assistance to resist the assaults of Romish Power much less have they who dissent from it And it is Fanaticism properly so called or Religious Frenzie to lay aside a more probable means and to trust that God will give to means which are much less probable supernatural aid and success God supporteth a good Cause by weak means if they are the only means he hath put into our power against a bad Cause though externally potent But he who in cases of emergence assisteth honest Impotence and Infirmity will never work Miracles in favour of Mens Presumptions and Indiscretions The Romanists are a mighty body of Men and though there are Intestine Fewds betwixt the Secular and Regular Clergy as likewise betwixt the several Orders yet they are all united into one common Politie and grafted into that one stock of the Papal Headship They are favoured in many places by great Men they have variety of Learning they pretend to great Antiquity to Miracles to Martyrs without number to extraordinary Charity and Mortification they have the Nerves of worldly Power that is banks of Money and a large Revenue They have a Scheme of Policy always in readiness there are great numbers of Emissaries posted in all places for the conveying of Intelligence and the gaining of Proselytes they take upon them all shapes and are bred to all the wordly Arts of Insinuation There is given to their way in the Jargon of Mr. Coleman * * * Coll. of Lett. p. 8. c. a very fit name of Trade Traffick Merchandize Against all this Craft and Strength what under God can Protestants oppose which is equal to the Power of the Church of England A Church Primitive learned pure and nor embased with the mixtures of Enthusiasm or Superstition A Church which is able to detect the Forgeries and Impostures of Rome which hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extream which is a National Body already formed a Body both Christian and Legal a Body which commendeth it self to the Civil Powers by the Loyalty of its Constitution a body which hath in it great numbers of People judiciously devout and who are judged only to be few * * * See L. de Moulin's Advances c. p. 26. because they are not noysie but prudent though truly exemplary in their Religion And there is in the Church of England something more considerable than number for Union is stronger than Multitude Take the Character of this Church from Monsieur Daille * * * De Confess Advers H. Hammond c. 1. p. 97. 98. a Man whose Circumstances where not likely to lead him in this matter into any partiality of judgment and who at that time was engag'd in a learned Controversy with one of our Divines The Character is this As to the Church of England purged from Forein wicked Superstitious Worships and Errors either Impious or dangerous by the Rule of the Divine Scriptures approved by so many and such illustrious Martyrs abounding with Piety towards God and Charity towards Men and with most frequent examples of good works flourishing with an increase of most learned and wise men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time I have always had it in just esteem and till I die I shall continue in the same due Veneration of it And indeed it is to me a matter of astonishment that any men who have been beyond the Seas and made Observations upon other Churches and States should be displeased at Ours which so much excel them Now is it probable that such a Church as this is should have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery than an inferior number of divided Parties of which the most Sober and most Accomplish'd is neither so Primitive nor so learned nor so united nor so numerous nor so legal And against which it will be objected by the Romans that it is of Yesterday Amongst these Parties there are some who have not fully declared themselves And who knows whether they have not a Reserve for the Romish Religion against a favourable Opportunity though sometimes they speak of Rome as of Babylon I mean those People who are called Quakers who speak in general of their Light
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
the Jews and St. Paul enlargeth their reason in this Chapter because it was a confederating with Devils and being partakers at the table of Devils which he condemns as hugely unbecoming them that eat at the Lords Table vers 20 21. Grotius is so exact in this matter as to tell us there were two ways by which men might eat of things sacrificed to Idols in the sence that the Apostles mean 1. Vel aliquid a Tabulâ c i. e. when at their publick Feasts they sent some part off the Table to be offered solemnly to the Idol and to entitle him to the whole Feast 2. Vel ab Aris ad Mensam defertis or when they took some considerable portion from the Altar and fed upon it at the Table as part of the Idols portion as was hinted before Now for the Christians to be present at and to partake of these things was that which the Apostles forbid in that Canon and which St. Paul also is so sharp upon from 14 to 24 of this Chapter But that which he speaks of afterwards is vastly different from it and plainly means either that part of the Offering which they afterwards spent in their ordinary meals or which was publickly sold afterwards in the Shambles The first of these is easily understood and was common among them to offer some part of the Sacrifice to their Idols and to reserve the rest for their own common use not looking upon it as sacred and the Idols portion as in some great and solemn Sacrifices they did but that which was truly their own and at their own disposal especially having given a part of it to their Gods The other i. e. what was sold in the Shamble◠Criticks give two accounts of 1. It was either that which the Butcher sold part of which he himself had offered to the Idol before he brought the rest to the Shambles Vel à Mà cellario qui ante quam ad marcellum carnes ferret aliquid de Aram in dedisset 2. Or that part which belonged to the Priests and which they often sold having it's probable either more than they could spend themselves or perhaps having a mind to exchange it for other meat which they might purchase with the money they sold it for Vel à Sacerdotibus qui partes quae ipsis cederent venderent saith the same Author Now these were the meats about which the Apostles had made no order at all So that men were at their liberty to buy and eat them if they pleased without asking any questions or troubling themselves with any scruples of Conscience about them And which the Apostle commands them to abstain then onely from when knowing what they were their eating them might wound the Conscience of another and they might give offence thereby either to the Jews or to the Gentiles or to the Church of God To the Jews by seeing them make so little a matter of Idolatry to the Gentiles by encouraging and confirming them in that Idolatry which they ought by all means to seek to wean them from and to the Church of God by seeing them so careless and regardless of the good and benefit of others and without all charity to them By all which I hope it is sufficiently clear that these things to which this Speech relates were not onely indifferent in their nature but undetermined also as to their use no Law having passed one way or other upon them Now this makes them vastly different from the things scrupled among us and by conformity to which Offence is pretended to be given For the use of these is already determined and several Laws both of the Church and State both of the Spiritual and Temporal power have passed upon them So that how indifferent soever they may be in themselves yet it is not indifferent to us whether we observe them or not but it is now matter of Obedience and plain Duty and these things are tied upon the Conscience as strongly as any matter of humane command is or can be And therefore in these we cannot shew favour and indulgence to others if we would for we our selves are under Authority and bound up by the Laws of those above us We have not the power of doing or forbearing nor can we now abstain for fear of offending another man's Conscience without grievously wounding and worse offending of our own and whatever may be the consequence of our Conformity as to another man yet we certainly Know the neglect of it will be a downright sin and a grievous guilt unto our selves So that in this matter the fear of giving offence to others is impertinent a Snare and a direct Temptation and as improperly urged against Conformity as it would be against any other Duty how necessary soever to tell us that there are a great many men that will be offended with our doing of it In this and all such cases we stand immediately responsible unto God and may justly retort that so much abused and mistaken Apology of the Apostles Whether it be not right to obey God rather than regard men judge ye 2. But there is a second thing yet incumbent upon me and that is to shew that supposing the Text were pertinently urged against Conformity and there were a real possibility of giving offence by it yet it would not serve that purpose that it is produced for by our Dissenting Brethren but on the contrary make very much against them And this I shall endeavour to make good by considering who the persons are that the Apostle here cautions us against giving offence unto not onely the Jews nor onely the Gentiles nor both these onely but the Church of God From whence before I come to the main Improvement of this place against the purpose and practice of our Dissenting Brethren we may take occasion to consider what the object of Scandal is and who they are that men ought especially to regard in their cares not to give it At the time of the Apostles writing this there were three different sorts of men that might be offended with eating things offered to Idols the Jews the Gentiles and the body of Christians which he here calls the Church of God In analogy to which there are and always will be different Parties among which men converse Upon which account it will concern us to enquire what our respects to them in this matter ought to be and whether we ought to make any difference among them And this we may resolve our selves in by considering the Cases that concern us which I think are onely these two 1. When we perceive or have reason to think that what we are going to do will offend all Parties equally then no doubt but we ought to forbear it This was plainly the case here The Jews might be prejudiced against Christianity by this practice seeing its Professors make so little a matter of Idolatry which their Law so strictly prohibited and God had always declared himself so
Olive-Tree into the old Olive-Trees Stock If some of the Branches saith * * * Rom. 11. ◠he unto them be broken off through Unbelief and thou being a wild Olive Branch was grafted in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Ancient Olive-Tree boast not against the Branches so cut off but if thou boast remember that thou bearest not the Root but the Root thee and afterwards If thou wert cut off from the Olive-Tree which is wild by Nature and wert grafted contrary to thy wild Nature into a good Olive-Tree how much more shall these unbelieving Jews which be the natural Branches be re-grafted into their own Olive-Tree From this Comparison it is plain that the Jewish and Christian Church are the same in the Root and Stock And from this radical Argument that is betwixt them it proceeds that St. John in his Symbolical way of Writing in the Apocalyps calls the Christians Jews Behold I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews but are not Rev. 3. 9. 2. 9. Indeed as Judaism was nothing but mystical Christianity so Christianity is nothing but reformed Judaism which made our Saviour who was the Reformer of it say unto the Jews Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to perfect and fulfil And unto his Disciples who under him were to be Master-Builders of his House he said That a Scribe or Doctor rightly instructed unto the Kingdom of God was like a Man that is an Housholder who bringeth out of his Store-house things both new and old Thereby shewing as Irenaeus observes that he must be a L. 4. c. 21. 43. very skilful Scribe in the Old Testament that was fit to make a Workman of the new The Old Testament and legal Oeconomy was to be his Magazine and Storehouse out of which he was to fetch many serviceable pieces for the new Building and accordingly our Saviour tho' in reforming the House of Moses he was fain to pull it down that it might be enlarged yet both he that began the Reformation and his Apostles who finished it like Men that were House-holders used much of the Old Timber and Materials and conformed it too as much as they could after the manner of the old * * * Dr. Hammond of Infant-Baptism They introduced as much of Judaism into the Christian Religion as the nature of the Reformation would well bear and adhered as much as they could to the old both in the Matter and Form of the new Oeconomy and laid by few Jewish Rites and Customs but such as were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity as the Antitype and Substance of them or else such as were inconsistent with the Nature of the Church-Christian as it was to be a manly free and universal Church These were the two reasons for which Christ and his Apostles so much altered the Face of the Church from what it was under the Mosaical Oeconomy First because very many of the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were †††Ac primò ita his in rebus comparatur ut antitypus in typi locum succedat eumque adeo loco moveat ut simul atque antitypus adsit nullus deinceps typo locus nullus usus reperiatur Outramus de Sacrificiis Lib. 2. c. 16. p. 204. fulfilled in Christ and Christianity and Secondly because many of them were inconsistent with the nature of a manly free and universal Church such as Christ intended his should be First Then many of the Ecclesiastical rites and usages of the Jews were laid aside at the time of Reformation because they were fulfilled in Christ as the Antitype and Substance of them as is plain from the words of the Apostle Col. 2. 16. Let no man judge you in Meat or in Drink or in respect of an Holyday or of the New Moons or of the Sabbath days which are a Shadow of things that are to come to pass but the Body is Christ that is to say Let no Man impose upon you the Doctrine of Mosaical Abstinence or condemn you for eating and drinking things prohibited by the Jewish Religion or for not observing their Feasts New Moons and Sabbaths which are but Types of Christianity and therefore ought to be laid aside The like he doth shew in his Epistle to the Hebrews concerning the Temple Priesthood Altar Sacrifices and the whole Temple-Service as is plain from many Passages whereof I shall recite some The Priesthood being changed there is made also of necessity a change in the Law Chap. 7. 22. The Holy Ghost this signifying thereby that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing which was but a Figure for the time then present in which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did the Service perfect and cleansed as pertaining to the Conscience which stood or consisted only in a certain use of Meats and Drinks and divers Washings and other carnal Ordinances imposed on them as Types until the time of Reformation by Christ Chap. 9. 8 9 10. So vers 24. Christ with the Blood of his Sacrifice is not entred into the Holy Places made with Hands which are the Figures of the true And after all Chap. 10. 1. the Law having only a Shadow of the good things to come and not the Solidity of the things themselves can never with those umbratical Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the Comers thereunto perfect It would make a Book of it self to recite all the Types and Shadows of the Old Testament which are applied to Christ and Christianity by the Writers under the New Besides what occurs in the Apostles Writings there is much to the same purpose in the Epistle of St. Barnabas which is very ancient the Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho the Jew and the Fourth Book of Irenaeus who after insisting upon many typical things and persons in the Old Testament at last concludes in the 38th Chapter Nihil enim vacuum nihil sine signo that almost every thing in it was typical and had a mystical Reference to something under the New But Secondly as many of the Ecclesiastical Rites and Usages of the Jewish Church were taken away because they were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity so many others were annulled as being inconsistent with the nature of the Church-Christian as it was to be a manly free and universal Church First As it was to be a manly Church in opposition to the legal Pedagogy of the Jews as St. Paul called it in saying That the Law was but a School-master to bring them unto Christ Gal. 3. 24 and that the Jews were under it as Children are under Tutors and Governors until the time appointed by the Father the Fulness of Time when God sent forth his Son Chap. 4. 1 2 3 4.
not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a a a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b b b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c c c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a a a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b b b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c c c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d d d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a a a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2 Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veteru de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b b b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c c c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20.
danger of unworthy receiving and therefore they had better wholly to abstain from it By which it came to pass that in very many Places this great and solemn Institution of the Christian Religion was almost quite forgotten as if it had been no part of it and the remembrance of Christ's death even lost among Christians So that many Congregations in England might justly have taken up the complaint of the Woman at our Saviour's Sepulchre they have taken away our Lord and we know not where they have laid him But surely men did not well consider what they did nor what the consequences of it would be when they did so earnestly dissuade men from the Sacrament 'T is true indeed the danger of unworthy receiving is great but the proper inference and conclusion from hence is not that men should upon this consideration be deterred from the Sacrament but that they should be affrighted from their sins and from that wicked course of life which is an habitual indisposition and unworthiness St. Paul indeed as I observed before truly represents and very much aggravates the danger of the unworthy receiving of this Sacrament but he did not deter the Corinthians from it because they had sometimes come to it without due reverence but exhorts them to amend what had been amiss and to come better prepared and disposed for the future And therefore after that terrible declaration in the Text Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord he does not add therefore let Christians take heed of coming to the Sacrament but let them come prepared and with due reverence not as to a common meal but to a solemn participation of the body and bloud of Christ but let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For if this be a good reason to abstain from the Sacrament for fear of performing so sacred an action in an undue manner it were best for a bad man to lay aside all Religion and to give over the exercise of all the duties of Piety of prayer of reading and hearing the Word of God because there is a propoâ—â—ionable danger in the unworthy and unprofitable use of any of these The prayer of the wicked that is of one that resolves to continue so is an abomination to the Lord. And our Saviour gives us the same caution concerning hearing the Word of God take heed how ye hear And St. Paul tells us that those who are not reformed by the Doctrine of the Gospel it is the savour of death that is deadly and damnable to such persons But now will any man from hence argue that it is best for a wicked man not to pray not to hear or reade the Word of God lest by so doing he should endanger and aggravate his condemnation And yet there is as much reason from this consideration to persuade men to give over praying and attending to God's Word as to lay aside the use of the Sacrament And it is every whit as true that he that prays unworthily and hears the Word of God unworthily that is without fruit and benefit is guilty of a great contempt of God and of our blessed Saviour and by his indevout prayers and unfruitfull hearing of God's Word does further and aggravate his own damnation I say this is every whit as true as that he that eats and drinks the Sacrament unworthily is guilty of a high contempt of Christ and eats and drinks his own Judgment so that the danger of the unworthy performing this so sacred an action is no otherwise a reason to any man to abstain from the Sacrament than it is an Argument to him to cast off all Religion He that unworthily useth or performs any part of Religion is in an evil and dangerous condition but he that casts off all Religion plungeth himself into a most desperate state and does certainly damn himself to avoid the danger of damnation Because he that casts off all Religion throws off all the means whereby he should be reclaimed and brought into a better state I cannot more fitly illustrate this matter than by this plain Similitude He that eats and drinks intemperately endangers his health and his life but he that to avoid this danger will not eat at all I need not tell you what will certainly become of him in a very short space There are some conscientious persons who abstain from the Sacrament upon an apprehension that the sins which they shall commit afterwards are unpardonable But this is a great mistake our Saviour having so plainly declared that all manner of sin shall be forgiven men except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such as was that of the Pharisees who as our Saviour tells us blasphemed the Holy Ghost in ascribing those great miracles which they saw him work and which he really wrought by the Spirit of God to the power of the Devil Indeed to sin deliberately after so solemn an engagement to the contrary is a great aggravation of sin but not such as to make it unpardonable But the neglect of the Sacrament is not the way to prevent these sins but on the contrary the constant receiving of it with the best preparation we can is one of the most effectual means to prevent sin for the future and to obtain the assistence of God's grace to that end And if we fall into sin afterwards we may be renewed by repentance for we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is the propitiation for our sins and as such is in a very lively and affecting manner exhibited to us in this blessed Sacrament of his body broken and his bloud shed for the remission of our sins Can we think that the primitive Christians who so frequently received this holy Sacrament did never after the receiving of it fall into any deliberate sin undoubtedly many of them did but far be it from us to think that such sins were unpardonable and that so many good men should because of their carefull and conscientious observance of our Lord's Institution unavoidably fall into condemnation To draw to a conclusion such groundless fears and jealousies as these may be a sign of a good meaning but they are certainly a sign of an injudicious mind For if we stand upon these Scruples no man perhaps was ever so worthily prepared to draw near to God in any duty of Religion but there was still some defect or other in the disposition of his mind and the degree of his preparation But if we prepare our selves as well as we can this is all God expects And for our fears of falling into sin afterwards there is this plain answer to be given to it that the danger of falling into sin is not prevented by neglecting the Sacrament but encreased because a powerfull and probable means of preserving men from sin is neglected And why should
towards them which he might as well have done after Supper if it had not been usual to have Washed in Supper-time Seeing then it appears partly from Scripture and partly from Ancient Monuments of Jewish customs that the Jews were wont both before and at their Civil and Religious Feasts to Wash and particularly at the Passover then it 's very probable our Lord did so too and altered his posture as they did nay it is very probable that our Lord to make his Discipels understand what he was about to do did at the Institution of this new Feast the Holy Sacrament of his Body and Bloud Wash before it and having changed the posture that he was in before at the Eating of the Paschal Supper did not resume it but used a new posture at this new Festival-Solemnity but what that was is not certain 2. At the beginning of the Paschal Feast the Jews did put themselves into this Discumbing or Leaning posture and used it while they Eat and Drank the two first Cups of Wine for every Guest was obliged to As the Talmudist and forementioned Writers testify Vid. Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. 291. Drink four Cups at this Feast but at the third Cup called the Cup of blessing in their Language and the fourth styled the Song or Psalm-Cup when they Sung the Hymn there was no necessity of lying along and it 's likely our Lord took an opportunity when he took the third Cup to change the use and signification of it and to Institute the Eucharistical Cup called by St. Paul the Cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10. 16. 3. Before they Drank of the third Cup the Master of the Feast took a piece of Unleavened Bread and brake it and after he had Eat some himself he offers the remainder See Mr. Ainsworth a Learned Non-Conformist in Ex. 12. 8. 11. to the rest of the Company to do the like After this he proceeds to take some of the bitter Herbs and to dip them in a thick Sawce called by them Charoseth which was formed in the shape of a Brick to represent the hard slavery undergone by their Fore-fathers in the Brick-Kilns of Egypt and commanded all the Societie to follow his example Now this was not done in an inclining posture as the Jewish Doctors Buxt Syn. c. 13. p. 300. teach us and they give this reason for it because this was to put them in mind of the Egyptian Bondage and therefore here they stood in all probability because to eat Standing was the manner of Slaves whereas Lying along Pesachin fol. 37. 2. Hor. Heb. 291 292. after a Lordly manner was in token of that ease and rest they enjoyed in the Land of Canaan and of their redemption from the House of Bondage So often therefore as they Eat the bitter Herbs so often they changed their Gesture 4. Though the Jews in their Solemn Feasts used Discumbing yet in blessing and giving thanks before those Feasts they were as Philo relateth in a Standing Gesture In vita contemplat p. 663 Col. Allobro edit 1613. p. 695. with their Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven And therefore it 's no way probable that Christ and his Apostles would continue in their Table-Gesture at the blessing of the Holy Supper which is an higher Ordinance than the Passover Because this would be very unsutable to so great a Solemnity Especially too if Dr. Lightfoot's Opinion be true and it may be so for any thing that appears to the contrary viz. that Christ changed the third Cup at the Passover called the Cup of blessing into the Sacramental Cup because it was the custom of the Jews then to alter their Table-Gesture that was peculiar to the Passover and it 's highly Improbable that our Lord would continue in the Table-Gesture contrary to the General and Currant Custom of the Jews They that don't think so as I do in this particular will receive little advantage by being cross For if it may be supposed that our Lord Sate sometimes when the Jews were wont to Stand it may equally be supposed that he Stood sometimes when the Jews were wont to Sit and what becomes of their Argument for Sitting at the Sacrament after the example of Christ because that stands built upon supposition that our Lord Sate at the Passover as the Jews did and continued in the same Gesture when he Instituted the Sacrament which was before the Paschal-Solemnity was over I will onely observe this briefly by the way and then proceed to shut up all upon this Head That those Nonconformists who cry out so vehemently against the Church for Imposing and her Members for using a Kneeling Gesture were very unfortunate in their choice when they pitcht upon Sitting and urged it as the onely necessary Gesture to receive in in Conformity to our Saviours Practice and Example Because the Standing Gesture may be much better maintained and defended than Sitting and hath more and greater probabilities attending it If therefore variety of Gestures were used by the Jews at the Passover and it no where appears from Scripture that our Lord did not comply in this matter then we cannot know for certain what the particular Gesture was which Christ used at the Institution of the Sacrament it might be Lying along and it might be Sitting upright it might be Standing in an adoring posture with his hands and eyes lifted up to Heaven which is much more probable than either of the former for the reasons forementioned we cannot certainly say which and yet we must be certain of one before we can build upon it as an Infallible Rule of Conscience Let it be therefore granted to our Brethren who differ from us in this point that our Saviour Sate at the Passover that the Sacrament was Instituted by him before the Paschal Feast was fully ended that the Disciples Eat the Sacramental Bread and Drank the Sacramental Cup in the same posture as they Eat and Drank at the Passover What of all this how will the necessity of a Sitting Gesture appear from these premises Why thus Therefore our Lord Instituted and Administred the Holy Sacrament Sitting say they How doth this follow of course I ask Since they Eat and Drank in several postures at the Paschal Feast I confess the Argument had been strong if they could make it appear that throughout the whole Solemnity of the Passover no other Gesture but Sitting was used by our Lord. But this I am sure can never be done and consequently their conclusion can never be good From the whole I conclude thus much Since the example of our Lord cannot be certainly known in this matter our Church cannot be charged for deviating from it And consequently to scruple Conformity to the practice of our Church because she doth not Conform to the practice of Christ which no body can certify us of is very Unjust and Unreasonable 2. Supposing our Lord did Sit as they will have it yet his bare example doth
Council or Mr. Prynne Apol. for lib. to tender Con. p. 75. printed 1662. Synod from Christs institution of the Lords Supper till above 1460 years after his Ascension Nor any one Rubrick in all the Liturgies Writings of the Fathers or Missals Breviaries Offices Pontificals Ceremonials of the Church of Rome it self that I could either find upon my best search or any other yet produced enjoyning Communicants to Kneel in the Act of Receiving Thus that inquisitive Gentleman assure us and in the same place backs his Report with the authority of the Reverend Dr. Burgesse whom he stiles the best and eminentest Champion for this Gesture of Bneeling of all others The sum of what Dr. Burgesse delivers concerning this matter is Dr. Burg. Ans rejoy to the Reply to Dr. Mort. gen Defence p. 478 478. this That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor is at this day For this he cites Bellarmine and Durantus who make no mention of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving though they treat particularly of the Mass and the Ceremonies of the Roman Church Instead of this Durantus affirms That the Sacrament ought to be taken Standing and proves it also And so doth the Pope himself receive it Missal Rom. in the Rubr. set out by Pius V. when he celebrates and every Priest by order of the Mass-book is to partake standing reverently at the Altar and not Kneeling there The people which receive not as well as they that do receive are reverently to bow themselves to the Sacrament not when they receive it but when the Priest doth elevate the Patin or Chalice for Adoration or when the Host is carried to any sick person or in Procession And this is that Adoration which was first brought in by Pope Honorius the Third and not any Kneeling or Adoration in the Act of Receiving For these are the very words of the Decree That the Priests should frequently instruct their People to bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was Celebrated and Ut Sacerdotes frequenter doceant Plebem suam ut cum Elevatur Hostia Salutaris quisque se reverenter inclinet Idem faciens quum eam deferat Praesbyter ad infirmum Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. in like manner when the Priest carried it abroad to the sick At the last the Doctor thus resolves upon the Question That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor ever used when it was used by them for Adoration to the Sacrament as is falsly believed and talked of by many And with him a learned Papist agrees who in a Book purposely written for the Adoration of the Sacrament declareth Espencaeus de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. c. 16. That it is not much material in what Gesture it is performed whether Sitting Standing Lying or Kneeling And in the same place further informs us That the Kneeling Gesture had not obtained in the Church of Lyons in the year 1555 and when some endeavoured to obtrude it upon that Metropolis a stop was put to their proceeding by the Royal Authority Nothing needs more be said to give satisfaction in this matter and fix us when we have added what a very great man of our own Church now living hath delivered in writing viz. Although Dean of St. Paul's Unreasonableness of Separation p. 15. Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Recâ—iving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion of sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as he doth ot this day And now the matter is brought to a fine pass How outragious have the Adversaries of Kneeling been in their Clamours against the Church of England for appointing a Gesture that was first introduced and used by Antichrist and Idolaters and when the matter comes to be sifted not the least proof is produced to make good the Accusation but on the other side it appears that those two Postures which are so earnestly contended for by our Dissenting Brethren are the very Postures which the man of sin uses at this day himself in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament When he celebrates Mass himself and upon some other Vid. Dr. Falk lib. Ecles p. 484 485. particular and solemn occasions he stands but generally and ordinarily he receives sitting or in a posture very like it And this Dr. Burg. lawful of Kneel p. 67. I desire may be remembred against we come to discourse on the second Head viz. that Kneeling is not therefore sinful because it is used by Idolaters If any should after all put the Question thus to me When is it say you that Kneeling first commenced in the World by whose means and upon what reasons my plain Answer is I cannot cerntainly tell nor can I find any account thereof among the ancient Records But this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of this Gesture Novel Customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally the most ancient Usages of every Country are without Father and Mother and we cannot tell from what source they are derived 2. I am so far from thinking as our Dissenting Brethren do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe the contrary viz. Kneeling or an adoring posture used by the ancient Christians in the Act of Receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of Superstitious and Phanciful men a Conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improved and explained after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby changed into the substance of Christs natural Body and Bloud This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believed no more than what the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else could they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they received the dreadful Mysteries as they called the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty signs onely and not changed into the very Body and Bloud of Christ which is in effect the very Argument used by Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium vel adorantium veneranda sedulitas nisi ipsius Sacramenti longe major crederetur quam videretur veritas utilitas cum ergo exterius quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia aut insensati sumus aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis mysteria Alger
themselves Which giddy Principle if it should prevail would certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errors and Mischiefs that can be imagined But our blessed Lord founded but One Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucified for us and Prayed not for the Apostles alone but for them also that John 17. 20 21. should believe in him through their word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst divers others to the same purpose was That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me This it is plain was to be a visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an inducement to move men to the embracing of the Christian Faith Therefore as we would avoid the hardening of men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in us lies wholly ineffectual we should be exceeding Cautious that we do not wilfully Divide his holy Catholick Church We are often warned of this and how many Arguments does St. Paul heap together to perswade us to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are called in one hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all And how pathetically does the same Apostle exhort us again to the same thing by all the mutual endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ Phil. 2. 1 2. if any Comfort of Love if any Fellowship of the Spirit if any Bowels and Mercies fulfil ye my joy that ye be like minded having the same love being of one accord of one mind These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige us to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing that is Unlawful of us The Church of Rome will not admit us unless we profess a belief of Transubstantiation and Purgatory and a certain kind of Infallibility no body knows where unless we will worship the Host and Saints and Images and do many other things directly repugnant to the Word of God We cannot therefore Communicate with her unless we should partake of her gross and superstitious Errours But the Church of England does not exact any thing from us that God has forbidden therefore we may Communicate with her without Sin and if we may it must be a Sin in us if we do not do it Certain it is that every causless Separation is a very great one so great that some of the Antients have thought it is not to be expiated by the Blood of Martyrdom and I know no Cause sufficient to defend our leaving a Communion but a necessity of being involved in Sin if we should remain in it Now since it must be confessed that Schism is a very grievous Sin we had need be well assured that we have just occasion for it before we withdraw from the Communion of a Church and if we have rashly withdrawn we are bound to return without delay Then we may consider farther that all Christians are obliged to endeavour as much as they can to avoid all differences of Opinion that may occasion Quarrels and Contests among them This will appear from that passionate Intreaty and Admonition which the holy Apostle gave the Corinthians when they were in danger of being rent into several Factions upon misunderstandings and emulations not much unlike unto ours Now 1 Cor. 1. 10. I beseech you Brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no Divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgment Such an Universal agreement and harmony in the Church is very desirable and every one is bound to promote it And the first step that can be made towards this happy Concord in Opinion and Affections is to dispose our minds to a calm and teachable Temper to be always ready to acknowledg the force of an Argument though it contradict our former Perswasions never so much to be grieved at the Animosities and uncharitable Contentions which a diversity of Judgment is wont to produce to follow after the things which make for Peace Rom. 14. 19. to be desirous to see an end of these Unchristian Divisions and glad of every Opportunity that may bring us nearer to one another and think we have gained a glorious Victory when we have overcome any mistake that kept us at a distance from our Brethren This is a generous and truly Christian disposition and that which has an immediate tendency towards the reconciling all manner of Differences On the other side there can be little hopes that men should ever agree when they seem resolved to maintain the point in Controversie whatever it is when they do not study to be Satisfied but to cherish their Scruples and hunt about for New ones when their old Objections are fully answered This is a most perverse and untractable Humour which takes away all possibility of a good Accord For while either of the Dissenting Parties is thus unwilling to be Convinced and searches after Exceptions there will never be wanting some Cavil or other that must be sure to serve them to perpetuate the Dispute But 't is a shrewd Sign we esteem our Cause little better than Desperate when after the Weapons we began the Fight with are wrested from us we snatch up any thing that comes next to hand to throw at our Adversary This Obstinacy does not well become us In all our Debates our aim should be to find out the truth and not to triumph over our Antagonist All sober Christians especially where the Peace of the Church is concerned should always strive to bring the Controversie to a happy issue and composure and not seek for Pretences to widen the breach And then we might all join in Praising and Glorifying of God and be restored again to that blessed estate they were in at the first Preaching of the Gospel when the Multitude of Acts 4. 32. Ch. 2. 42. them that believed were of one Heart and of one Soul and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers These few Considerations I have now mentioned might be something useful to the procurement of such a Holy and Heavenly Peace in all Christian Societies throughout the World And if we were but careful never to be byassed by Passion or Interest if our greatest Zeal and Concern were placed upon the more Weighty and Substantial matters of Religion if we should seriously consider how grievous a Sin it is to Separate from a Church without any just cause and if we were disposed to Peace and willing to have our Doubts and
not oblige all Christians to a like Practice 1. Because naked examples without some Rule or Note added to them to signify that it is the mind and will of God to have them constantly followed and perpetually Imitated by us have not the force of a Law perpetually obliging the Conscience Thus in our present Case though our Lord did Sit at the Sacrament yet his example alone doth not become an everlasting Rule for all Ages to observe because he hath no where discovered his binding will and pleasure in this particular And consequently since he hath left us in the Dark we may act contrary to his will and intention when we so zealously press and follow his example especially in this matter relating to Gesture For even under the Law where all other Circumstances of Time Place Habits and the Ceremonies relating to Divine Worship were with great particularity described this of Gesture was left free and undetermined God never obliged them to use any particular Gesture in any particular part of his Worship but left it to their choice whether to Kneel or Stand or Bow down their Heads and Bodies or fall prostrate on the Earth to use all or any one of these as Custom and their own Pious Prudence should prompt and direct them Seeing then that the Gesture in the Worship of God was never determined under the Law Since it was and is in its own nature a Mutable Ceremony in the Service of God it remains so unto this day Our Lord left it as he found it unless it can be proved that he hath by some Command or Note of Immutability fixt and determined it to all succeeding Ages But because no such Command or Note is to be found therefore we are not tyed in Conscience to a strict Imitation of his Example A few instances will clear this point Our Lord was not Baptized till Luke 3. 23. he was about thirty years of Age but this example is not esteemed by the generality of Dissenters a Law or Warrant for us to defer our Baptism so long So he Instituted the Sacrament a little before his Death But is there no obligation upon us to receive it but when we are near our Graves and under a Prospect of Death He also Instituted and Administred the Sacrament after a full Meal in an upper Room to Men onely Doth his bare example oblige us to observe punctually all these Circumstances or no If it doth why do our Brethren of the Separation take the liberty to depart from his example in these things if his example layeth no necessity upon us to follow it in these particulars how doth Sitting become necessary barely upon the account of his example I desire them therefore Seriously and impartially to examine this matter and see if they can assign any reasons for this liberty they take of following the example of our Saviour in some things and not in others where there is no other Rule to guide them I believe they will be constrained to do one of these two things either to withdraw their Suit against Kneeling and quit their own Principle or condemn their own practices as shamefully repugnant to it 2. The bare example of Christ is no Warrant for us to act by because the great end and usefulness of that Glorious example he left us consists in this viz. that it shews the possibility and clears up the sense of his Laws and excites and encourages us to the Practice of them it puts the Rule into activity and sets it forth to the life It is to our lives as Exhortation is to Doctrine it thrusts us forward to do that which we were obliged in Conscience to do before Whatsoever our Lord hath Commanded us to do in that onely we are necessarily bound to Imitate him But where there is no Precept there is no Necessity We may do it if we will and if we can innocently as in the case of a single Life but we are not under Constraint and an indispensable Obligation He hath Commanded us to be Meek and Lowly to be Just and Merciful to be Patient under all our Troubles and Afflictions to follow Peace with all Men to be ever contented and resigned to the Will of our Heavenly Father in all States and Conditions of Life and the life And in all these things he became an Example to us that we might follow his Steps He Commands us to do what he performed himself and that which we are concerned in if we would walk surely is first to look for our Rule and then for our encouragement to look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith It 's true indeed we are Commanded in Scripture to follow the Examples of the Apostles so far forth as they follow Christ and the Example of our Lord is made the Touchstone to try all others by but then if we would know what is out Duty we must bring his Example to the Rule For as to Preach Christ and to Preach the Gospel to Obey Christ and Obey the 1 Cor. 11. 1. Acts 5. 42. Acts 11. 20. Marc. 16. 15. Heb. 5. 9. 2 Thess 1. 8. Col. 2. 6. Gospel are Phrases of alike Import it Scripture so in like manner to follow Christ is all one with following the Gospel-Rule or doing as Christ did in obedience to his Commands The Sum of all is this An Example may help to Interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a Rule no Example is a Competent Warrant and if the Example be according to the Rule it 's not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our Actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no Warrant for us to go by because he was an extraordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Days and 40 Nights and spent whole Nights in Prayer he wrought many Miracles to prove the Truth of his Doctrine and his Divine Authority by that he was the Messias the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind he was a Prophetical Priest by which Office he was obliged to teach us the whole mind of God in all things necessary to Faith and Salvation and to offer up himself as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World Nothing we should quickly experiment would be more Vain and Foolish than attempts of an Imitation in some things And nothing more Wicked than to think and believe we may and ought to follow his example in others To dye to Sin and Crucify the Flesh with its Affections and Lusts is a good way as the Scripture Teaches and Warrants of Imitating our Lords Death in a Spiritual Sense So to Die rather than deny the Faith and Dishonour our Saviour is great and Praiseworthy but to Die for Sin either our own or other Men's to propose a Meritorious Death to our Selves and by way of expiation is a Sin of so deep a Stain that the Blood of Christ
Secession from us and professing you cannot joyn with us as Members and setting up Congregations of another Communion be more properly called Schism You gather Churches out of your Churches and set up Churches in an opposite way to our Churches and all this you do voluntarily and unwarrantably not having any sufficient cause for it And in the same Book they tell us of a Two-fold Schism Negative and Positive Negative when Men do peaceably and quietly withdraw from Communion with a Church not making a Head against that Church from which they are departed the other is when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body setting up a Church against a Church which say they Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency and further tells us There are Four Causes that make a Separation from a Church lawful 1. When they that Separate are grievously and intollerably Persecuted 2. When the Church they Separate from is Heretical 3. When it is Idolatrous 4. When it is the Seat of Antichrist And where none of these four are found there the Separation is insufficient and Schism Now we are fully assured that none of these Four Causes can be justly charg'd upon our Congregations therefore you must not be displeased with us but with your selves if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism All which is as true now as it was then and as applicable to us and them as it was to them and their Dissenters Admit then there were some things in our Constitution that might be contrived to better purposes and that needed Amendment and Alteration yet I hope every Defect or supposed Corruption in a Church is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant enough to rend and tear the Church in pieces Let Mr. Calvin judge between us in this matter Institut lib. 4. Sect. 10 11 12. fol. 349. who says That wherever the Word of God is duely Preached and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain Appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject its Admonitions or resist its Counsels or set at nought its Discipline much less Separate from it and Violate its Unity for that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately Separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a Separation is a denial of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of Separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments though otherwise it be over-run with many Blemishes and Corrupons Which is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly designed it against the Doctrine and Practice of the Modern Dissenters from our Church IV. Fourthly We entreat them to Consider Whether it be pure Conscience and mere Zeal for the Honour of Religion and not very often Discontent or Trade and Interest that has the main stroke in keeping them from Communion with our Church Far be it from me to judge the Secrets of Mens Hearts or to fasten such a Charge on the whole Body of Dissenters yea I accuse not any particular Person but only desire they would lay their Hand upon their Hearts and deal impartially with themselves and say whether they stand clear before God in this matter And there is the more Reason to put Men upon this Enquiry not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion but because this has been an old Artifice made use of to promote Separation Thus the Donatists in the Primitive Times upheld their Separation from the Catholick Church and kept their Party fast together by Trading only within themselves by imploying none to Till their Grounds or be their Stewards but those that would be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons by large Sums of Money to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our Modern Vid. Aug. Epist 173. ad Crisp Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Time was when it was made an Argument to prove Independency to be a Faction and not Edward's further Discovery p. 185. matter of Conscience because Needy broken decayed Men who knew not how to live and hoped to get something turned Independents and became Sticklers for it that some who had businesses Causes and Matters depending struck in with them and pleaded for them that so they might find Friends be sooner dispatched and fare better in their Causes that Ambitious Proud Covetous Men who had a mind to Offices places of profit about the Army Excise c. turned about to the Independents and were great Zealots for them Thus it was then and whether the same Leaven do not still spread and ferment and perhaps as much as ever there is just cause to suspect Whoever looks into the Trading part of this City and indeed of the whole Nation must needs be a very heedless and indiligent Observer if he do not take notice how Interests are formed and by what Methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many Thousands of the Poorer sort of Dissenters depend on this or that Man for their Work and consequently for their Livelihood and Subsistence how many depend upon others for their Trade and Custom whom accordingly these Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all Publick Occasions and what little Encouragement any Man finds from them that once deserts them and comes over to the Church of England There is another thing that contributes not a little to this Jealousie and Suspicion that many of the Chiefest and most Stiff and Zealous of the Dissenting Party are they at least the immediate Descendants of those who in the late Evil-Times by Rapine and Violence shared among themselves the Revenues of the Church and the Patrimony of the Crown and are said still privately to keep on foot their Titles to them And if so what wonder if such Men look on themselves as obliged in point of Interest to widen Breaches foment Differences increase Factions and all this to Subvert and over-turn the Church of England being well assured they can never hope but over the Ruines of this Church to make way to their once sweet Possessions Let Men therefore impartially examine themselves and search whether a Worldly Spirit be not at the bottom of their Zeal and Stiffness These I confess are Designs too Base and Sordid to be owned above Board but be not Deceived God is not Mocked Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart V. Fifthly