find it in some of his late Writings together with those Reasons that he doth furnish us with as Arrows which we may gather up to shoot back upon him against communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required The giving a just Account of Baxter's Judgment against Parish-Communion is I acknowledge but Argumentum ad hominem adapted chiefly for the silencing Mr. Baxter but the Reasons that are couched in what is given out of Mr. Baxter are more than so and such as must receive another Answer than meerly the saying That Mr. Baxter is grown wiser and hath changed his Judgment for until Mr. Baxter or some other do validly answer what Mr. Baxter has said in his Five Disputations against Episcopacy and Ceremonies and in his late Treatise against Episcopacy what I have here urged will abide in its strength and carry also with it the Authority and Weight of the Vnanswerable Mr. Richard-Baxter Mr. Baxter's Judgment and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required impartially stated and proposed THere has been of late no little stir about going to the Parish Assemblies and communicating with them in their Liturgy-Worship and in special Mr. Baxter hath been warmely engaged in the Defence as he himself will have it of his own and the Practice of those that are for Parish-Communion and cannot suffer a little Manuscript said to be Dr. Owens to escape his Annimadversions and Opposition It is at this time no part of my Province to examine Baxter's Answer to Owen's Arguments I call the Manuscript Dr. Owens not only because common Fame directs me to do so but because in the Arguments there is the Doctor 's wonted Accuracy and Strength There are very many Scripture-Reasons couch'd in a few Lines and such as are too strong to receive any harm from Baxter's Answer as I could by divine Assistance clearly evince but at this time it shall be no part of my Work In this my aim is to shew What it is Mr. Baxter is really for that he is as much against holding Communion with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required as those are against whom he writes and that we are furnished with unanswerable Arguments against such Parish-Communion by Mr. Baxter Thus much will be made very manifest to a common Capacity by shewing what are Baxter's avowed Principles about the Institution Ministry and Discipline of Christ's Churches and what are the natural consequences of those Principles he holds and wherein lies the point in which he differs from his Brethren In doing which I will give you Baxter's sence for the most part in his own words directing you to the very pages of those Books of his I make use of § 1. All Christians saith Mr. Baxter are agreed that Christ is the Author of the Universal Church consider'd both as Baptized or Externally Covenanting call'd Visible and as Regenerate and sincerely Covenanting call'd Mystical as it is headed by Christ himself and called his Body and special Kingdom § 2. We doubt not but Christ has instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry to be under him as a Teacher Ruler and High-Priest of the Church in Teaching Guiding and Worshipping and that he has instituted holy Assemblies and Societies for these things to be exercised in And that a Society of Neighbour Christians associated with such a Pastor or Pastors for Personal Communion even in such Doctrine Discipline and Worship is a Church-form of divine Institution § 3. We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank must of duty make one fixt greater Compound Church by Association whether Classical Diocesane Provincial Patriarchal or National and that God has instituted any such form vide Mr. Baxter's Nonconformists plea for peace p. 8. 12. § 4. Christ has stated on the Pastors of his Instituted Churches the Power of Teaching Assemblies and particular persons of leading them in publick Worship and Sacraments and of Judging by the power of the Keyes whom to receive into their Communion by Baptism and profession of Faith and whom to admonish and for Obstinate Impenitance reject and this Institution none may Alter § 5. He has Instituted Ordinary Assemblies and stated particular Churches as is aforesaid for these Holy Exercises and forbad all Christians to forsake them and he and his Apostles have appointed and separated the Lords day hereunto None therefore may abrogate or suspend those Laws all this is proved Mat. 28. 19 20. and 16. 19. and 18. 18 19. Joh. 20. 23. Luke 12. 37 38. Mat. 21. 36. and 22. 4 5. c. And 24. 45 46. Heb. 11. 25 26. Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 14. Ephes 4. 4. to 17. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7. 24. Tit. 1. 5 6. c. 1 Tim. 3. Acts 14. 23. Acts. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 1. c. Mr. Baxter Vbi supra p. 24. § 6. The Diocesane kind of particular Churches which has only One Bishop over many score or hundred fixed parochial Assemblies I take saith Mr. Baxter to be it self a Crime Which in its very Constitution overthroweth the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles Instituted For 1. Parishes are made by them no Churches as having no ruling Pastors that have the power of judging whom to Baptize or admit to Communion or Refuse but only are Chappels having preaching Curates 2. All the first Order of Bishops in single Churches are deposed 3. The Office of Presbiters is changed into Semi-presbiters 4. Discipline is made impossible Mr. Baxter ' s Church History of Bishops and Council abridged ch 1. § 54. The like he affirms in his five Disputa of Church-Government pag. 19. As to the eight sort of Bishops viz. The Diocesane who assumeth the sole Government of many Parish Churches both Presbiters and People as ten or twelve or twenty or more as they used to do even a whole Diocess I take them saith Mr. Baxter to be Intollerable and Destructive to the peace and happiness of the Church and therefore not to be admitted under Pretence of Order or Peace if we can hinder them § 7. This Diocesane Church Government being de facto established in this Kingdom the parish Assemblies are not compleat particular Churches of the first Rank and Order they are but parts of a Diocesane which is de facto established as a single Church Infime speciei That parish Assemblies are not particular Churches is manifested from Mr. Baxters principles For 1. That Cement which is necessary to the being of a Church is wanting And it is impossible saith Mr. Baxter in his Cathol Concord p. 231. to be a Church without the Cement of Consent If many be forced into a Temple not Consenting it is a Prison they are not a Church if they Consent only to Meet on other Occasions as for some Occasional Act of Religion it is not thereby made a Church If they be commanded to consent and do not and if
Order which is Diocesane To undeceive the World then I must tell them and Mr. Baxter cannot deny it that Mr. Baxter is no more for the joyning with the Parish Assemblies as they are parts of the settled National Church than the congregational Dissenters are That when he goes to Church he holds no other Communion with the Church of England than they do who go not to Church for his Communion is still confind to a dissenting Parish Church erected as much contrary to the Law of the Land as their Congregations are It s true he joyns with them in some part of the Liturgy and so goes farther then they but he holds not Communion with the Church of England as it is a Church of Legal Establishment any farther than they do For he Esteems the Church of England as by Law established to be destructive of that kind or Species of those Churches Ministry and Discipline which is of Christs Institution and Parochial or Congregational Mr. Baxter and they I say are agreed in their dissent and separation from the Parish Assemblies as they are parts of the settled National Order and differ about the Frame of Parochial Assemblies for Mr. Baxter supposes them to be what consideratis considerandis other Dissenters judge Impossible To make this as plain as possible I can it must be observed that Mr. Baxter affirms the Parish Assemblies to fall under a Twofold Consideration They must be looked on either as they are compleat particular Congregational Churches independant on the Diocesane or as they are incompleat parts of and dependant on the Diocesane Now as the Parish Assemblies are parts of the Diocesane they are not by any means to be owned or approved but as they are particular Congregational Churches so they are to be communicated with and owned This is Baxter's Judgment but on the other hand his Dissenting Brethren hold that though Parochial Assemblies may be actually formed and framed according to the Congregational Constitution that is an Assembly of good Christians living in a Parish may give up themselves to God and associate themselves for personal Communion in the Doctrine Discipline and Worship of Christ chusing a Pastor and other Officers for this end the parish Assembly may consent to be of such a Constitution and may chuse a Pastor and in this Assembly all the Ordinances of Christ may be regularly Administred and Discipline duely exercised This may be but though it may be so yet they affirm that the Parish Assemblies are not thus constituted their Constitution is not Congregational but Diocesane They are not a compleat Church but incompleat parts of the Diocesane there is no such consent as is necessary to Constitute such a Church but a consent to be what the Law directs 'em to be they have no Pastor amongst them as a Congregational Church has nor are they independant on the Diocesane as the Congregational is They are not a particular Church of Christs Institution Though they may be a sound part of the Catholick Church or of the Christian Kingdom yet they are not an Instituted Church they are not a true particular Church and therefore it is impossible any should communicate with them as with such a Church Whatever we may fancy them to be they alwayes remain the same our Imaginations cannot make any change on their Constitution our Mental Conceptions are but Iminanent Acts Et Nihil penunt in esse Think any man what he will of the Church of England de facto it remains the same viz. A National Church made up of many single Diocesane Churches Infimae speciei of the lowest Rank and Order for which reason its Impossible for any to joyn with the Church of England as made up of many single compleat Parochial Churches we cannot Communicate with it as such because it is not so made there is not any one Parish thus Constituted Let Mr. Baxter direct them to that Parish that is thus framed that is a particular compleat Church of Christs Institution and he would do somewhat but till then although there be some such Parish Churches it is to them as if there were none such for de non Apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio Besides they say That if there be any such Parochial Congregational Church actually existent in this Kingdom and the Minister and People privately declare so much they think that if without an open profession of their Church constitution as different from the National established Order their Commuunicating with them must be interpreted a Communicating with them as they are a part of the settled National Order which is Diocesane which cannot be done without an owning the present Diocesane Constitution But if such a profession be made they communicate not with the Church of England but with a Congregation of Dissenters from the National Constitution Farthermore some are afraid that the erecting such Parish Assemblies cannot be without the Ministers and Vestry Mens contracting the guilt of Perjury In fine I must again beseech the Reader to fix it in his thoughts That the Church of England as made up of many single Diocesane Churches is not in Mr. Baxter's Judgment a true Church Though it be a sound part of the Church Universal yet the Diocesane Churches which make up the National and which in pursuance of the Law are de facto settled and established are not true Churches Mr. Baxter doth hold that the Parish Assemblies as parts of Diocesane Churches are not true Churches for they have not Pastures as has been largely proved and it s no Schism to deny 'em the Communion proper to a true particular Church What Mr. Baxter saith of a Parish that wants a Pastor on the account of the Peoples not consenting to one imposed on 'em the same may be said of that Parish whose Minister wants what is essential to the Pastoral Office and This all Parish Ministers according to the settled National Order do want and therefore it may be said That that Parish Church is no Parish Church in the proper political Organized sence as we now speak of a Church as constituted by the Governing and Governed part For that which wanteth an essential part wanteth the Essence And therefore it is no Schism to pronounce it no such Church i e. no true Church of Christs Institution and to deny it the Communion proper to such a Church Mr. Baxters Nonconformist plea for peace p. 82. This then is Mr. Baxters Judgment touching the Diocesane Churches as by Law established He cannot consent unto them nor hold Communion with them as such For the very kind and frame of their Churches is false so is their Ministry and Discipline even destructive of Christs Churches Ministry and Discipline § 10. A Congregation or Nation of Men saith Mr. Baxter of eminent Sanctity and Order sound Doctrine and Worship may by humane frailty take some one Falshood or Uncertain thing to be necessary to Ministry or Communion as they say some
Churches unhapily of late reject all that own not the Antiquity of the Hebrew points I cannot have local Communion with that Church saith he for they will not receive me unless I subscribe either a falsehood or that which I judge false but yet I highly honour and Love 'em and have mental Catholick Communion with them when perhaps necessity makes me joyn with a Church of far worse Men and Order that will impose no sin on me Mr. Baxter's Schism Detected pag. 56. In pursuance of this principle Mr. Baxter layes down his Brethren separate from the Church of England for there are several things which they Judge unsound that are made necessary to their Communion with them By Cannon 27. No Minister when he celebrateth the Communion shall wittingly Administer the same to any but such as Kneel under pain of Suspension nor under the like pain to any that refuse to be present at publick Prayers according to the Orders of the Church of England that 't is according to the 18 th Canon The Communion must not be administered to him that will cover his Head in the Church or Chappel in time of Divine Service or that doth not Reverently Kneel when the general Confession Lettany and other Prayers are read and shall not stand up at the saying of the Belief or refuse to make due and lowly Reverence when the Name of the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned in time of Divine Service or refuse to say in due place and audibly with the Minister the Confession the Lords Prayer and the Creed or not make such other Answers to the publick Prayers as are appointed in the Book of Common-prayer Whoever refuseth these things he is one who though present at the publick Prayers yet not according to the Orders of the Church is not to be admitted to the Communion that is all those things are made necessary to the Communion And here it must be observed that though the admitting notorious Offenders to the Comunion be forbiden by the 26 th Canon yet not under the penalty of Suspension as it is in this case of admitting those who refuse to Kneel or to be present at the publick Prayers according to the Orders of the Church of England But these things several Dissenters for great Reasons refuse to do I 'll at this time only insist on the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Sacrament and give the Reasons of some Learned Men against it 1st Let us hear Mr. Baxter in his five Disput p. 410 411. As for Kneeling at the Sacrament I doubt not at all but the Imposing it and that on such Rigorous Terms tying all to it and easting all out of the Communion of the Church or from the participation of the Sacrament that durst not use it was a very grevious Sin and tended to Persecution and Injustice and Church dividing It is certainly in a doubtful case the safest way to do as Christ and his Apostles and the Vniversal Church did for many hundred Years either the Gesture is Indifferent in it self or not If it be how dare they thus divide the Church by it and cast out Christians that scruple it when they have these and many other Reasons of their Scruples which for brevities sake I omit If they say That Kneeling is of it self Necessary and not Indifferent because it is Reverent Now if the Reader considers the Rubrick added in the New Common-Prayer-Book he will find that Kneeling is enjoyn'd for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein received and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue Thus we see the Gesture of Kneeling is made a Reverent Gesture necessary to avoid Disorder and Prophanation But sayes Mr. Baxter if Kneeling is of it self necessary and not indifferent because it is Reverent Then 1 st They make Christ an imperfect Law-giver 2 dly They make himself or his Apostles or both to have been Sinners 3 dly They condemn the Catholick Church of Sin 4 thly They condemn the Canons of the chief General Councils All which are Consequents that I suppose they will disown What a perverse preposterous Reverence is this when they have leave to lie in the Dust before and after the very Act of Receiving through all their Confessions and Prayers yet they will at other times stand and many of them sit at Prayer and sit at singing Psalms of Prayer and Praise to God and yet when Christ doth invite them to a Feast they dare not imitate his Apostles and Universal Church in their Gesture lest they should be sinfully Irreverent So sar Mr. Baxter Now though Mr. Baxter is accurate in distinguishing and as to the part of the Receiver may yet see how to answer all these Arguments and satisfie himself in kneeling yet he cannot but believe that Godly and Judicious men may be so far under the powerful Convictions of such Arguments against the Imposition as to be unable to satisfie their Consciences in complying with the Gesture of Kneeling Surely Mr. Baxter tells the World so much in his first Nonconformists plea for Peace p. 150 151 152. Some Nonconformists saith he Lay and Clergy judge Kneeling as things now stand Vnlawful Their Reasons are 1. In Doubtful cases Duty lieth on the surest side but this to them is a doubtful case on one side and to imitate Christ's Institution by such sitting as men use to do at Meat is certainly lawful 2. Because they think Kneeling violateth the Reasons of the second Commandment being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us and many among us it signifieth Bread-Worship or Idolatry by the same Action at the same Season used For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images as being external corporal Idolatry and symbolizing scandalously with Idolaters though the Mind intend the Worship of God alone And such they think this Kneeling is and that encourageth the Papists So far Mr. Baxter 2. I 'll only add one Argument more which I find in a Proposition concerning Kneeling joyned to Bradshaw's Twelve Arguments which is taken from the Abuse of Kneeling in this Ordinance by the Papists 'T is there said That the Apostle to Reform an Abuse which crept even in their Times into Love-Feasts which were immediately before or after the Lords Supper did banish them thence and reduced the manner of Admistring the Lords Supper to the first Institution saying Shall I praise you in this I praise you not for I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you c. 1 Cor. 11. vers 22 23. Whereby it is apparent That that form of Administration which differeth from the first Institution is worthy no Praise and therefore no acceptable Service to God For if the Apostle would not tolerate an Indifferent thing as was a Love-Feast till then to continue so near the Lords Supper when it was abused how would they allow the change of Sitting into Kneeling