of the same Church and tho' the Universal Church for Man's conveniency be divided into several parts or Congregations yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches So that two Churches which are not Members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the divider forfeits his interest in it A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation those who separate from the Corporation forfeit their interest in the Charter Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church into which we are admitted by Baptism and therefore if we separate from this one Church we forfeit our interest in it God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva France or England but with the one Catholic Church and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church we have no right to the blessings promis'd to it II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it And this is call'd Communion because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members 'T is true this word Communion is commonly us'd to signify Praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament together but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion but an exercise of Communion Church-Communion is Church-Union for as a member must be united to the Body before it can perform the natural action of a member so a man must be in Communion with the Church before he has a right to Pray c. And therefore tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church shou'd perform those Offices yet the performance of them do's not make him a Member of the Church but an Intruder Such Offices are acts of Communion if perform'd by Church-Members but not otherwise So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promis'd to it and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society viz. obedience to the Churches authority joining in Prayers c. and he that acts otherwise renounces his Communion with it From what has been said I observe 1. That Church-Communion principally respects not a particular but the Universal Church which is but one all the World over For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World if the body whereof we are Members reach so far and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church because it admits us into the Covenant which God made with the Universal Church 2. That every act of Christian Communion such as praying c. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church tho' it must be perform'd in a particular Congregation because all Christians cannot meet in one place Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians for the same Common blessings for our selves and all other Christians Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper but the Common Feast of Christians and an act of Catholic Communion 3. That the only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it So that I have nothing else to do but to consider whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it and if it be I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other are separate Churches because the Catholic Church being but one all particular Churches ought to be Members of it To make this plain I shall lay down some few Rules whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies is to renounce its Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical separation Every particular Church must have its limits as every Member in the Body has its proper place but when there is one Church within the bowels of another it is a notorious Schism This is the case of our Dissenters who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they wou'd naturally unite So that all separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism 'T is true a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches to which they originally belong and that without any danger of Schism For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches while they live in Communion with each other Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her jurisdiction For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules is not to allow separate Communions but to leave them to the Goverment of that Church to which they belong So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho' they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are 2. Those are separate Churches which divide from the Communion of any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Goverment or Worship For in this case they leave the Church because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it Two Churches may be in Communion with each other and yet not actually Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but it is impossible that two Churches which renounce each others Communion or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profess'd dislike shou'd still continue in Communion with each other Because they are opposite Societies sounded upon contrary Principles and acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the ruin and subversion of each other
3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own The Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatic If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Goverment and different Governours and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship and endeavour to draw away Members from each other they cannot be thought to be one Church And indeed we may as well say that several sorts of Goverment in the same Nation with distinct Governours distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as we may say that such Congregations are but one Church III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixt and by Occasional Communion By fixt Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt Members of it By occasional Communion they mean praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be Members as occasion serves that is either to gratify their own curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the imputation of Schism Now fixt Communion is the only true notion of Communion for occasional Communion do's not deserve the name of Communion For I have prov'd that he who is not a Member cannot perform an act of Communion and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion as of an Occasional Membership Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fix't and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church 'T is true in one sence we may be Members of a particular Church that is we may live under the Goverment of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church but yet every act of Communion perform'd in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church So that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same nature Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is may be call'd fix't Communion and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present may be call'd occasional Communion and all this may be done without Schism because all these Churches are Members of each other but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the establish'd Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation because the case is vastly different For the establish'd Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other but separate Churches Now 't is impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches of which we are no Members they are not properly acts of Communion Having thus explain'd the Three foregoing particulars I proceed to the main business which was to shew that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England This I shall do by shewing First That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty Secondly That constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is lawful is a necessary duty from whence I shall make it appear Thirdly That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England I. Then it is plain that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ and he that is a Member has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member and 't is certain that Communion in Prayers c. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity and that 't is the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices But to put the matter out of all doubt I shall offer Five things to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty 1. Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member is bound to visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Society of Christians For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices therefore some duties and offices must be perform'd by the Society of Christians especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers as Pastors c. Eph. 4.11 which are of no use if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution that is by the hands of the Ministry authoriz'd for that purpose Acts 2.42 and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable yet none but public Prayers offer'd up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of Church-Communion Nay the Lord's Supper which is the principal part of God's worship is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion 4. The exercise of Church-Authority which consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the external acts of Communion supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Joh. 2.19 Heb. 10.25 then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties Accordingly to have Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries 1 Cor. 10.20 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion before we have a right to Communicate yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion And a right to Communicate without actual Communion which is an exercise of that right is worth nothing because all the blessings of the Gospel are convey'd to us by actual Communion This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church when it may be had for when it can't be had we are not obliged to it But then the greater difficulty is whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all because the Church is divided into Parties Now a man may as well be of no Religion because there are different Opinions in Religion as Communicate with no Church because the Church is divided into Parties For 't is possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual
Son of God will strike a Man almost naturally into the humblest posture of Adoration But if any reverence be due at such a time I am sure Sitting is a very unfit posture to express it In a word whatsoever Gesture best answers the Principal ends of this Holy Feast do's best sute it 's nature and ought to be best esteem'd of if we will be guided by the nature of the thing and that Kneeling do's best answer the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper I think I have fully prov'd I shall crave Leave to observe in the last place that the Primitive Church had no such Notion of the necessity of a Table-gesture as the Dissenters maintain There is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings for the space of 200 years after Christ For they call the Place on which the Consecrated Elements stood the Altar and the Eucharist they call an Oblation and a Sacrifice and what connexion I Pray is there between an Altar or a Sacrifice and a Table-gesture The Dissenters indeed (f) Dispute against Kneeling arg 1. p. 6. â—6 c. say that Kneeling or an Adoring-gesture is against the dignity of Guests and debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table such as social admittance and social entertainment that it is against the purpose of Christ whose intention was to dignify us by setting us at his Table and much more of this nature but 't is plain that the Fathers thought otherwise as the Phrases they use and the Titles they give the Sacrament plainly demonstrate They call it as St. Paul doth the Lord's Supper the Kingly Royal and most Divine Supper which import Deference Distance and Respect on our parts the Dreadful Sacrifice the Venerable and Vnbloody Sacrifice the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language call'd the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they styl'd the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. They advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and down-cast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-gesture contend for as the Privilege of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table Fourthly I am to shew that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper is not contrary to the general Practice of the Church in the first Ages This I shall do by proving 1. That it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament as our custom at present is 2. That it 's most certain they us'd an Adoring Posture First then it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament I have already shewn that the Scripture do's not inform us what Gesture was us'd at the Institution of the Lord's Supper and I desire those who contend for a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting to observe that the Primitive Church thought sitting to be a very irreverent Posture in the Service of God The Laodicean Synod finding great inconveniences to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lord's Supper forbad the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was at those Feasts The same Practice was forbidden by the Council of Carthage c. 28. and the Decree was Ratify'd by the sixth Trullian Council c. 74. and that under the pain of Excommunication Now the Reasons upon which 't was forbidden were in all probability taken from the disorder and irreverence the animosities and excess that accompany'd those Feasts Justin Martyr who liv'd in the Second Century saies We rise up together and send up our Prayers Apol. 2. from whence 't is clear that they did not Sit but in most other places they were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears plainly from what Philostorgius (g) Hist Eccles l. 3. p. 29. observes of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly Reform'd this That the People were wont to Sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them and Sozomen (h) Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 19. notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read Optatus Bishop of Milevis (i) De Schism Donat. l. 4. See also Albaspin not in Optat. cites a passage out of the 50. Psalm and applies it home to Parmenianus the Donatist after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him that sits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you saies he are more particularly pointed at in the Text For the People are not Licens'd to sit in the Church Now if it had not been the general Custom to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might easily have retorted this Argument upon Optatus as concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charg'd in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he (k) De Orat. c. 12. Tertullian reproves it as an ill custom that some were wont to sit at Prayer and a little further in the same Chapter he has these words Add thereunto the Sin of irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did wou'd take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for how much more irreligious is this gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by Vnless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer has tir'd us Eusebius also (l) De Vit. Constant l. 4. commends Constantine because when he was present at a long Panegyric concerning Christ's Sepulchre and was sollicited to sit down he refus'd to do so saying it was unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things shou'd be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be us'd in Divine Service except at
and as to the truth of the Matters of fact she places it not in the testimony of any particular Church but in the Vniversal Tradition of Jews and Pagans as well as of all Christians II. I am to shew that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing The Dissenters tell us that those things which are indifferent in their own nature do cease to be indifferent and become sinful if they have been us'd by the Church of Rome For say they we read Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances Now not to insist on the vast difference of our circumstances from those of the Israelites I answer that it is an absurd thing to imagin that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be obliged to be unlike those People in all their actions The things forbidden from verse 5 th to 24 th are not Indifferent but Incestuous Copulations and acts of uncleaness and God do's expresly enough restrain that general Prohibition to those particulars in saying v. 24 th Defile not your selves in any part of these things for in all these the Nations are defil'd which I cast out before you And they were therefore forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites because they were the doings of those People whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even in their greatest immoralities If it be said that in other places God forbids the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in things of an indifferent nature I answer 1. That supposing this were so it do's not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But 2. That God has any where prohibited the Israelites to symbolize with Heathens in things of a mere indifferent and innocent nature I mean that he has made it unlawful for them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens merely upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.2 You shall not cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who sees not that 't is unnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by cutting off their Eye-brows this was not merely indifferent neither it being a Custom at Funerals misbecoming the People of God and which wou'd make them look as if they sorrow'd for the Dead as Men without Hope Another place is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse Kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled Seed nor shall a garment of linnen and woollen come upon thee But I answer that tho' these things are indeed indifferent in their own nature yet they are forbidden not because the Heathens us'd them but because they were mystical instructions in moral duties If it be objected also that God forbad the Jews Hos 2.16 17. to call him by the Name of Baali which was a very good Name and signify'd only My Lord because that word was abus'd in being the name of the Idol Baal I answer that God did not forbid the Name Baali because an Idol was call'd by that Name for he is call'd Baal in other places of the Hebrew Bible and also Jah which the Heathens us'd for an Idol but because the word Baali signifies an unkind husband or Lord such as Baal was to his worshippers whereas God Promises he wou'd be call'd Ishi that is a tenderly-loving husband for he design'd to be kind to his People Israel I shall add that Baalim in the next verse signifies Idols which God there Promises to destroy But suppose that God forbad the Jews to call him Baal for the future yet it might be because of their vehement inclination to the worship of Baal lest by using it they shou'd be tempted to worship him again whereas our Ceremonies were us'd by the ancient Fathers without any Superstition or Idolatry and we are not in danger of returning to Popery by retaining them Well but they say it appears from Scripture-precepts and examples that it is unlawful to symbolize with the Church of Rome in things that have been notoriously abus'd in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services To this I answer First that it is not sinful to use those things which have been abus'd to Idolatry as I shall prove by these following Arguments 1. No abuse of any Gesture tho' it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be us'd in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in it's own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abus'd by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be us'd at all then the Jews sinn'd in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observ'd in the worship of their false gods If the Dissenters say they except all such Rites as were commanded or approv'd of by God I reply that such an exception avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be us'd at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what has been once abus'd must ever remain so that is an infinite Power can't undo what has been done and clear it from ever having been abus'd And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practise in the worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry For if it be God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position wou'd plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This principle intrenches upon Christian liberty if St. Paul himself may judge who tells us 1 Cor. 10.25 c. that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and to eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture
Better Edification amongst the Dissenters and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England But First what Purer Ordinances wou'd Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Vertue and Efficacy The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is not any such defect or addition as alters their nature and destroys their Vertue but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which he likes best is guilty of gross Superstition and attributes the Vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution Secondly the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation For this Edification must be understood either of the whole Church or of particular Christians Now Edification is building up and is apply'd to the whole Church consider'd as God's House and Temple This is the true Scripture Notion of it as appears by many Texts 1 Cor. 3.9 10. and 8.1 and 14.5 12. Eph. 2.21 and 4.12 13 15 16. Matth. 21.42 Acts 4.11 2 Cor. 10.8 12 19. and 13.10 Now it 's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other As for the Edification of particular Persons which is also spoken of in Scripture 1 Thess 5.11 it is therefore call'd Edification because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church so that every Christian is Edify'd as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And indeed if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit than to the external administrations as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 3.6 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church there being but one Body and one Spirit Eph. 4.4 then it do's not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christ's Body St. Jude v. 19. seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most Holy Faith and Pray'd in the Holy Ghost and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God if he continue in the Church than if he separate But I shall examine this pretence at large and shew that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings than in our Churches as will appear if we consider First how fit our constitution is to Edify Mens Souls Secondly that this constitution is well manag'd for Edification First then That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls will appear if we consider Four things 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith that are necessary to Salvation but we have no nice and obscure matters in them We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful that is all that Christ and his Apostles taught and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church laies upon a good Life and Works The Articles of her Creed when firmly believ'd do plainly tend to make Men good She declares that without preparatory Vertues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God and that it is but show unless obedience follow Such a Faith she laies down as Fundamental to Salvation as produces excellent Vertues and determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God Her Festivals commemorate the Vertues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent her Prayers are for Holiness her Discipline is to force and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety which her whole constitution aims at She tells Sinners plainly that unless they repent they must perish and saies that plain Vertues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edify'd by such a Church as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion because she gives us true Notions of God and our selves by describing his attributes and our wants Her Prayers are grave and of a due length and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience The Offices of the Lord's Supper Baptism and Burial are extremely good in their kind Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion and they will make the Church a Choire of Angels 4. Her Order and Discipline are such that she makes Religion neither slovenly nor too gay Wise and good Men have judg'd all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful and they are of great Antiquity and fit to make our Services comely And truly whilst we have Bodies these outward helps are very convenient if not necessary Her Goverment is so well temper'd that her Members may not be dissolute nor her Rulers insolent And if all Vices are not chastiz'd the reason is because unnecessary divisions have stopp'd her Discipline upon offenders Her Goverment is Apostolical Primitive and Universal None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her but considering all things she is the best constituted Church in the World If therefore (a) Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 15.2 1 Cor. 14.3 Edification be going on to perfection or growing in grace if it is doing good to the Souls of Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men then it is to be found in this Church Secondly that our Constitution is well manag'd for Edification will appear if we consider 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edify Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these commands are obey'd by our Pastors For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion who have honesty and judgment enough to confess that they have found it true and to say that they are prejudiced and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is uncharitable Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Goverment condemn'd the Separation Magnify'd our Pastors and wish'd they were under such a Discipline and Translated many of our Mens Works to Edify their People Dissenters
themselves own our Sermons to be really good And tho' some few may not be able to answer the true design of Preaching yet in general Men may Edify very well among us Nor has there been for these many hundred years a Clergy so Learned Pious Prudent and Industrious to Edify Mens Souls as now is in the English Church II. Because those who make this pretence do commonly mistake better Edification And surely to desert the plain and great duty of Church-Communion for disputable or mistaken Edification is to be guilty of the sin of Schism Now the mistakes of these Men are principally three 1. In taking nice notions for Edifying truths He that discourses about Angels separated Souls the situation of Paradise and Hell c. shall be thought a sounder Divine than he that teaches the way of Salvation plainly by Faith and a good Conversation Such things pass with too many for saving truths and many ignorant and corrupt Men that espouse Parties and Interests readily embrace them The Apostle speakes of some that have itching ears 2 Tim. 4.3 If the food tho' wholsom and good be not to their fancy they complain of starving Bring but an honest sincere and teachable mind and you may Edify in a worse Church than ours but otherwise the best Doctrine will be insipid to you Place Edification in the substantial things of Religion in a right Faith and a holy Conversation which our Church presses upon us under the penalty of eternal damnation for these things alone do truly Edify the souls of Men and to these all Religion tends The Kingdom of Christ consists in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy-Ghost Rom. 14.17 Now such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoin'd and zealously taught in our Church we need not complain for want of Edification and the desire of other nourishment is spiritual pride and wantonness Wherefore desire the sincere milk of the Word the food of your understanding and not of your fancy that you may grow thereby For if you had but such an increase of grace as to hear meekly God's Word and to receive it with pure affection you cou'd not easily fail to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit Therefore 't is dangerous and sinful to give Men a Liberty to run from any establish'd Church for better Edificaton which is so often and easily mistaken And may we not add that when a quarrel arises from an unjust denial of the Minister's Dues then he is call'd dull and a better must be sought elsewhere Thus one fault helps out another and defamation must excuse the Schism 2. In taking the Opinions of parties for essential truths This those Men do that are wedded to a Party and if we do not explain all things in their way they cry we destroy the Gospel truths and that instead of being Edify'd they are weaken'd in their faith The early and best Christians thought it sufficient to know Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent and it were well if Men were satisfy'd with this old way otherwise they break the Peace of the Church and Obedience to Governours which are the great things of Religion upon the score of better Edification 3. In taking sudden heats and warmth arising from melting tones and other arts for Edification whereas a bright or a lowring day or a Dose of Physic can do the same things and they have often happen'd in the worst of Men. According as these Heats and Bodily Passions are Stirr'd so in some Mens Opinion the Ministry is Edifying or Unprofitable But sound and solid Reasoning is the true way to Edification whereas the Silly and Weak who are most subject to these Heats and Colds are Inconstant and turn round in all Religions Such Persons being all sail are the more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine III. Because the pretence of better Edification will cause endless divisions in the Church For since every Man must judge and the Governour must not restrain him therefore People may run from Teacher to Teacher to find out Better Edification Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth 2 Tim. 3.7 And when once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces then envy detraction strife murmurings fierceness and numberless other mischiefs will come in and that which divided them from the Church will crumble them into Endless Parties to the joy of our Enemies But all this wou'd be avoided if Men were sensible of the heinous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in the blackest colours IV. Because this is a discouragement to an honest and truly Christian Ministry For if the Flock run from a Pastor that instructs them rightly upon pretence of better Edification will it not cool his zeal check his labours and affront his Person and Office And this may be done to the best Pastors as well as to others and the most judicious Dissenters have complain'd of it tho' upon this principle it cannot be remedy'd because the people must judge for themselves And ought the Ministers to be scorn'd and discountenanc'd and have their Ministry rendred useless for the fancies peevishness and humour of the People If it be said that the Pastor is idle or unsound in Doctrine I answer that our Governours upon a just and modest complaint will quicken the lazy and negligent and correct the Heretical Pastor and restore the Flock to true Edification I may add that the eminent Dissenters do declare that the pretence of Better Edification is not a sufficient excuse for Separation as those who have leisure may find in these Books of theirs which I have quoted (b) See Hildersh Lect. 28 29.54 58 66. Methermeneut p. 71 72 74. Baxter's Cure p. 359. his Defence part 1. p. 85. his Farewell-Sermon Continuat of Morn Exer. Serm. 4. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. Burroughs's Irenic c. 12 23. Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 48. Cawdry's Independ a Schism p. 50. Vines on the Sacrament p. 246. Tuckney's Serm. on Acts 9.31 Jus Div. Min. Evangel p. 11 12. Letter of the Minist in Old-Eng to the Brethren in New-Eng p. 13. Nye's Case of great use p. 3 25. Tombes's Theodul c. 9. §. 8. at the bottom But after all that has been said I know some Persons will object that our Ministers are unedifying Preachers for they cannot profit by their Sermons Therefore I shall endeavour to give these Men full satisfaction and I doubt not to demonstrate that they may profit by our Sermons if it be not their own fault We are all agreed that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation and therefore when they are rightly open'd and duly apply'd in a Sermon so that the hearers improve in Christian Knowledge or in Faith or in well-doing then they profit by that Sermon Now if any Man do not improve
and advancement of the Protestant Religion Fourthly the establishing of contrary parties by a Toleration is not the way to perfect Religion any more than the suffering of divers Errours wou'd be the means of reforming them One principle only can be true and a mixture of Sacred and Profane is the greatest impurity Fifthly Many Dissenters are not like to improve Christianity because they lay aside the Rules of discretion and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means but depend wholly upon immediate illumination without the aids of prudence Sixthly Our Church has already better means to promote Pure Religion than any the Dissenters have propos'd Any Church may be improv'd in small matters but 't were very imprudent to change the present model for any that has yet been offer'd We have all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness Primitive discipline decency and order are preserved We have as many truly pious Members as any Nation under Heaven and such excellent Writers and Preachers as God ought to be prais'd for whereas amongst the Parties the folly and weakness of Preachers is delivered solemnly as the dictate of God's Holy Spirit I may add also that the Dissenters Doctrine of God's secret Decrees their Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop their long unstudy'd effusions their leaving the Creed out of the Directory for public Worship their sitting at the Lord's Supper and that sometimes with the Hat on their alteration of the Form of giving the holy Elements and their forbidding the observation of Festivals were not so conducive to the edifying of the Body of Christ as those things which were in the late Times illegally remov'd by them It is easy enough to alter a Constitution but 't is extreme difficult to make a true and lasting improvement To conclude since it appears that Dissenters are not like to obtain their ends of establishing themselves of rooting out Popery and promoting Pure Religion by overthrowing the Church of England therefore they ought both in Prudence and Charity to endeavour after Union with it CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Establish'd Church of England THAT I may discourse with all possible clearness it will be necessary before I proceed to explain a few things 1. What is meant by a Christian Church 2. What Church-Communion is 3. What is meant by Fixt Communion and by Occasinal Communion I. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is a Body or Society in opposition to particular Men and to a confus'd multitude For tho' it do's consist of particular men yet those men are consider'd not in a private capacity but as united into a regular Society For God is not the Authour of confusion And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without order much less the Church of God which is a Society instituted for the most spiritual and supernatural ends The Jewish Church had exact order and the Christian Church with respect to the Union and Order of it's parts is not only call'd a Body but a spiritual building Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is One body in opposition to many bodies The Jewish Church was but One and therefore the Christian which is grafted into the Jewish is but One. The Church is call'd the Temple of God and the Temple was but One by the command of God Christ also tells us that there should be but one fold under one shepherd Joh. 10.16 And indeed it is extremely absurd to say that the Christian Church which has the same Foundation the same Faith the same Promises the same Priviledges should be divided into separate Bodies of the same kind For certainly where everything is common there is One Community 'T is true distinct men tho' of the same common nature have distinct Essences and this makes them distinct persons but where the very 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 and if no Christian has any peculiar privileges then there is but one Church I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World upon which account Christians are call'd the Chosen or Elect People of God having a peculiar Faith Laws Rites c. which are not common to the whole World It is also a Society of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is united to God because it is a Religious Society and the Men are united to themselves because they are one Society But the chief thing to be observ'd is that the Union is made by a Divine Covenant Thus God made a Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal and the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as are in Covenant with God thro' Christ I suppose all Men will grant that God only can make a Church and that the only visible way he has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and by authorizing some persons to receive others into this Covenant by such a form of admission as he shall institute which form under the Gospel is Baptism So that to be taken into Covenant with God and to be receiv'd into the Church is the same thing and he is no Member of the Church who is not visibly admitted into God's Covenant From what has been said it plainly follows 1. That a Covenant-State and a Church-State are the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is receiv'd 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 gives us right to all the privileges of the Covenant 4. That no Church-State can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants and therefore the Independent Church-Covenant between Pastor and People is no part of the Christian Church-Covenant because it is no part of the Baptismal vow which is one and the same for all Mankind and the only Covenant which Christ has made And why then do the Independents exact such a Covenant of Baptiz'd persons before they admit them to their Communion 5. That it is absurd to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptiz'd persons For there is but one Church which is founded upon a Divine Covenant and this we are made Members of by Baptism if therefore an Independent Church-Covenant be necessary then the Baptismal Covenant is of no value till it be confirm'd by entring into a particular Church-Covenant 6. That if the Church be founded on one Covenant then the Church is but one For those that have an interest in the same Covenant are Members
Communion with the Church then Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.
with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
of Grace and receive a right to eternal Life I cannot deny but they may be sav'd without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed Means to which they are annex'd Nay Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly to the promises of the Spirit 's assistance which they shall certainly receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes Now since these are the benefits of Baptism and since Infants are capable of them let any impartial Man judge whether it is more for their benefit that they shou'd receive them by being Baptiz'd in their infancy or stay for them till they come to years of discretion Is it better for a Child that has the Evil to be touch'd for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit Or is it best for a Traytor 's Child to be presently restor'd to his Blood and Estate and his Prince's Favour or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restor'd till he is a man I must add that Baptism laies such an early pre-engagement upon Children as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract For there is no person of common Ingenuity Honour or Conscience but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges before he cou'd understand his own good or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood wou'd be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses and make them regret to be Baptiz'd 2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient because it conduces much to the Well-being and Edification of the Church in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons wou'd be apt to make in these as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church but most Expedient in it self and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and to the Will of Christ it must needs be concluded that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children as there do's upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion laies at least an implicit obligation upon Parents to see that it be perform'd For if in the time of a general contagion the Supreme Power shou'd Command that all Men Women and Children shou'd every Morning take such an Antidote that Command wou'd oblige Parents to give it to their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it What I have here said about the obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism concerns all Guardians c. to whose care Children are committed And if any ask at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism I answer at any time for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude but forbids the wilful neglect and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof V. As to Communion with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy 't is certainly Lawful and has ever been thought so nay 't is an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them because that wou'd be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such Nothing now remains but that I take off two objections First 'T is said that Infant-Communion may be practis'd as well as Infant-Baptism But I answer 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Cyril of Jerusalem mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and St. Austin in the Fifth whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers over which he Presided of Origen Tertullian Irenaeus St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of it as a thing generally practis'd and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practis'd in the Church I may add that none of the Four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen do's of Infant-Baptism 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for Infant-Communion it being grounded only upon John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Now 't is doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no because it was not as yet instituted but if it be so to be understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution Do this in remembrance of me Nay the Western Church discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded have long since laid it aside tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism But in truth the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or cou'd be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly Baptiz'd And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves that all the Churches wherein it ever was or still (e) As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies is practis'd were of opinion that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful as that of grown Persons Secondly 't is objected that Children who have not the use of Reason cannot know what a Covenant means and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate tho' St. Peter says the Baptism which saveth us must have the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God To this I Answer 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as against Infant-Baptism 2. That God was pleas'd to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcis'd Infants upon an implicite and imputative
those that consult the Ecclesiastical Histories of the best Authority cannot but be convinc'd and that those conceits of the Fathers concerning this sign which perhaps may be too fanciful do confirm the ancient reception of it into the Primitive Church If it be said that the antient Christians us'd this sign because they liv'd amongst Jews and Heathens to testify to both that they made the Cross the Badge of their profession and wou'd not be asham'd of it tho' 't was a stumbling-block to the one and foolishness to the other whereas we have no such occasion for it who do universally profess Christianity I Answer 1. That this Objection supposes the sign to be lawful and that it may be us'd upon weighty Reasons and surely then the command of Authority may justify the practice of it 2. That we have as just reason to use it as the Primitive Christians because of the blasphemous Contempt that is generally cast upon the whole Scheme of Christianity particularly the Merits of our Saviour's Cross and Passion by the pretended Wits of our Age. So that St. Cyprian's (e) Epist 56. ad Thiber words are now pertinent Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept safe as if he shou'd have said Remember the Badge you took upon you in Baptism and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads never be asham'd or laugh'd out of countenance as to the Memory of our Saviour's love and the foundation of your hopes laid in his Death and Passion I grant indeed that the use of the Cross is an indifferent Ceremony and that Baptism is as our Church declares compleat without it but what I contend for is fully prov'd viz. that the Cross was us'd in the first Ages of Christianity from whence it follows that tho' 't is not necessary yet 't is warrantable 2. Our use of this sign is not in the least like the Popish use of it For 1. we admit of no visible Crucifixes nor has any of our Writers ventur'd to say (f) Christian Direct Eccles Cas p. 113. p. 875 876. with Mr. Baxter that a Crucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a Believer and that it is not unlawful to make an image of a Crucifix to be an Obiect or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to worship God The sence of our Church is truly exprest by Mr. Hooker who (g) Eccles Pol. l. 5. p. 348. says That between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of remembrance there is as plain and great a difference as between those Brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore Ours is a mere transient sign which abides not so long as to be capable of becoming an Object or Medium of worship any more than any words we use in worship may do 2. Our use even of this transient sign is nothing like the Popish use of it For the Papists use it upon all occasions and at Baptism they use it much oftner and so differently from our way that 't is not us'd at the same time and with the same words that we use it with This is evident from the Roman Ritual 3. Tho' the Church of Rome has notoriously abus'd this sign yet 't is not unlawful for us to continue the use of it as I shall fully prove in the Eighth Chapter As to the Second pretence that the sign of the Cross is a new Sacrament I answer that we all agree that a Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us Ordain'd by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a Pledge to assure us thereof And therefore since we never suppos'd that the use of the Cross in Baptism cou'd confer Grace nor have ever made the least pretence to any Divine appointment for it we ought not to be charg'd as introducing a New Sacrament If it be said that we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith and Christian Courage because we apply it in token that hereafter he shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith oâ— Christ Crucify'd c. and that therefore we make it an outward sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace I answer that we own it to be a significant Ceremony as all other Ceremonies are for we do not account a Ceremony innocent because 't is insignificant and impertinent but yet we deny it to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace For our Ceremonies are not seals and assurances from God of his Grace to us but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to him and this kind of significant Usages has ever been taken up without any imputation of introducing a New Sacrament For 1. the Jewish Church chang'd the posture of eating the Passover from Standing to Sitting in token of their Rest and Securiâ—y in the Land of Canaan There was also an Altar of witness rear'd on the other side of Jordan and the Synagogue-Worship Rites of Marriage Form of taking Oaths c. were significant and yet they were all receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church and comply'd with by our Saviour himself 2. The Christian Church of the first Ages us'd the same liberty as appears by the customs of the Holy Kiss and the Feasts of Charity Tertullian de Orat. speaks as if the public Service were imperfect if it concluded not with the Holy Kiss which was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another The Feasts of Charity also signify'd the mutual Love and Communion of Christians and the equal regard that God and our Saviour had towards all sorts and conditions of Men when they were all to eat freely together at one Common meal I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation which was us'd as a sign of Breathing into them the good Spirit and the Baptiz'd Person 's stripping off his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man and the trine immersion at the Mention of each Person of the Trinity to signify the Belief of that great Article Now all these things were anciently practis'd without any jealousy of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting New Sacraments 3. All the Reformed Churches nay the very Dissenters themselves do use some Symbolical actions in their most Religious Solemnities For 1. Their giving to the Baptiz'd Infant a New Name seems to betoken its being made a New Creature Nay the Dissenters generally give it some Scripture-name or one that betokens a particular grace and this is an outward and visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward and spiritual grace and yet they do not think it a New Sacrament 2. The Dissenters plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper because 't is a
both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule 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 't is 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 Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
descended to be Lookers on I suppose he means of their Courage and Behaviour at the Table of the Lord and by giving their attendance to grace that Solemnity With the Testimony of these Ancient Writers Theodoret agrees who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic brings in Orthodoxus thus Discoursing of the Supper of the Lord. The mysterious Symbols or Signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper Nature for they continue in their former Essence and keep their former Shape and Form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be as they were before (q) Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris Edit but they are consider'd for such as they are made that is in respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believ'd and ador'd aâ— those very things which they are believ'd to be Which words plainly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were receiv'd with a Gesture of Adoration and at the same time assure us that such a Behaviour at the Lords supper was not founded upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a more manifest instance in all the Ancients against that absurd Doctrine which the Roman Church so obstinately believes at this very day than what Theodoret gives us in the words abovemention'd Lastly to alledge no more out of the Greek Fathers that Story which Gregory Nazianzen (r) Oâ—at in laud. Gorgon p. 187. Paris Edit relates concerning Gorgonia will much confirm what has been said viz. That being sick and having used several Medicins in vain at last she resolv'd upon this course She went in the stilness of the Night to the public Church and having with her some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserv'd at home she fell down on her knees before the Altar and with a loud voice pray'd to him whom she Ador'd and in conclusion was healed I am not much concern'd whether the Reader will believe or censure this Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Father has Recorded it and commends his Sister for the way she took for her Recovery This is home to my purpose and clearly discovers that Gorgonia did Kneel or at least us'd a Posture of Adoration when she ate the Sacramental Bread And without doubt in Communicating she observ'd the same Posture that others generally did in public She did that in her sickness which all others us'd to do in their health when they came to the Sacrament that is She Kneeled down For it can't be suppos'd that at this time when she came to beg so great a Blessing of Almighty God in the public Church and at the Altar call'd by the Ancients The Place of Prayer she wou'd be guilty of any misbehaviour and make use of a singular Posture different from what was generally us'd by Christians when they came to the same place to communicate and pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they lookt upon as the most prevailing and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God favourable to them and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offer'd at any other time or in any other place So much for the Authorities of the Greek Fathers who were Men eminent for Learning and Piety in their Daies and great Lights and Ornaments in the Primitive Church With these the Latin Fathers fully agree in their Judgments concerning our present Case And of these I will only mention two tho' more might be produc'd and those very eminent and illustrious Persons had in great veneration by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by succeeding Generations The first is (Å¿) Ambros de Sp. Sanct. l. 3. c. 12. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan in a Book he wrote concerning the Holy Ghost where enquiring after the meaning of the Pslamist when he exhorts Men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Footstool he gives us the sense in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation and then goes on to shew for what Reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery and at last concludes thus By the Footstool therefore is the Earth to be understood and by the Earth the body of Christ which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament and which the Apostles worshipp'd in the Lord Jesus c. St. Austin Bishop of Hippo Comments on the very same words and to the same purpose For thus he resolves that Question How or in what sense the Earth his Footstool may be worshipp'd without impiety Because he took earth of the earth for flesh is of the earth and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary and because he convers'd here in the flesh and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation Now there is none who eateth that flesh but first worshippeth We have found then how this Footstool may be ador'd so that we are so far from sinning by adoring that we really sin if we do not adore In the Judgment therefore of these Primitive Bishops we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries tho' not the Mysteries themselves at the Sacraments tho' not the Sacraments themselves the Creator in the Creature which is sanctify'd not the Creature it self as a late (t) Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa l. 4. c. 7. p. 732. Protestant Writer of great Learning and Quality among the French distinguishes upon the forecited words of Saint Ambrose I think it appears evident from these few Instances that the Primitive Christians us'd a posture of adoration at the Communion in the act of receiving It were easy to bring a cloud of other Witnesses if it were necessary so to do either to prove or clear the Cause in hand but since there is no need to clog the Discourse with numerous References and Appeals to Antiquity it wou'd but obscure the Argument and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and distaste than convince and gratify the Reader By what has been already alledg'd the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justify'd as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure and Primitive Christianity For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a Posture of Worship and Adoration which is very plain they did then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages no tho' we shou'd suppose that Kneeling was never practis'd among them which will be plain if we cast our Eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have exhibited against it They object against Kneeling as being an adoring Gesture for they affirm (u) Gillesp p. 166 172. Altar Damas p. 801. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1.3 That to kneel in the act of Receiving before the consecrated Bread and Wine is formal Idolatry So
also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God tho' there be no intention of giving Divine Adoration to that Creature is Idolatry Now if the Primitive Christians may be suppos'd to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach to it in order to Receive or immediately after they had Receiv'd the Bread and the Cup from the Hand of the Minister or if they bow'd their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner in the act of Receiving or if they receiv'd it standing upright and ate and drank at the Holy Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven then they incurr'd the Guilt of Idolatry as well as we who Kneel at the Lords supper in the Judgment of those Scotch Casuists and by Consequence Kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament according to the Custom of our Church is not contrary to the practice of the Christian Church in the first and purest Ages For all those Postures before mention'd were Postures of Worship and Adoration and us'd as such by the Primitive Christians especially standing which is allow'd by the (w) Gillesp Disp against E. Po. Câ—r p. 101. Disp of Kneel p. 93. Patrons of sitting to be anciently and generally us'd in time of Divine Worship and particularly in the act of Receiving To conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-Gesture let us suppose the Primitive Christians in some places did receive the Holy Sacrament sitting or lying along upon Beds according to the ancient Custom in those Eastern Countries at their common and ordinary Tables let us put the case that in other places they sate cross-legg'd on Carpets at the Sacrament as the Persians and Turks eat at this day or that they receiv'd standing in other places after the common mode of Feasting which we will suppose only at present Cou'd any Man now object with reason against the lawfulness of sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair according to the Custom of England as being contrary to the Practice of all the Ancients who never sate at all No certainly For tho' they differ from the Ancients as to the site of their Bodies and the particular manner of Receiving yet they all consent in this that they receive in a common Table-Gesture They all observe the same Gesture at the Sacrament that they constantly observ'd at their Civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode And so say I in the present Case What tho' the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament and others bow'd their Heads and Bodies in the act of Receiving and none of them ever us'd Kneeling Yet they and we do very well agree for all that because we all receive in an adoring or worshipping Posture It is one and the same thing variously exprest according to the modes of the different Countries Fifthly and lastly I am to Prove that Kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes This will appear if we consider 1. That it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters as is pretended 2. That 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry I. Then it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters I have already made it very probable that the Primitive Christians receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling and I hope our Dissenters will not charge them with Idolatry I know that they pretend the Kneeling-posture was brought in by Honorius the Third but that which he brought in was a reverent Bow to the Sacrament when the Priest elevates the Patten or Chalice or when the Host is carry'd to any Sick Person and not any Kneeling in the act of receiving For these are the very words of the Decree (x) Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. That the Priests shou'd frequently instruct their People to Bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was celebrated and in like manner when the Priest carry'd it abroad to the Sick Nay as Bishop Stilling fleet (y) Unreasonab of Separat p. 15. saies tho' Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly requir'd by the Roman Church yet in the act oâ— receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion oâ— Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day If any shou'd ask when the Gesture of Kneeling came in I confess I cannot certainly tell but this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of it Novel-customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally we cannot tell from whence the most ancient usages of any Country are deriv'd However I am so far from thinking as our Dissenters do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe that the Kneeling or Adoring posture us'd 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 fanciful 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 improv'd and explain'd after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby chang'd into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood 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 believ'd no more than the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else cou'd they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they receiv'd the dreadful Mysteries as they call'd the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty Signs only and not chang'd into the very Body and Blood of Christ Which is in effect the very Argument us'd by (z) Alger de Sacramentis l. 2. c. 3. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And (a) Costor Enchirid. p. 353. Edit 1590. Costor another Popish Writer is so far from saying even after Transubstantiation took place that the Pope introduced it that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continu'd from the Apostles times But II. Suppose it were otherwise yet 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry as I shall shew in the next Chapter I shall only observe at present that if it be sinful to kneel at the Sacrament because that Gesture has been and is notoriously abus'd by Papists to Idolatrous ends then Sitting is also sinful which is contended for with so much Zeal For the Pope himself fits in
the act of receiving as was before noted and that for the same Reason saies a (b) Alex. Hales de Missâ— p. 2. quest 10. p. 4. Popish Author which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution of the Sacrament And every Priest by the order of the Mass-Book is to partake standing at the Altar and not Kneeling there Nay if Kneeling be unlawful because it has been abus'd to Idolatry then we must never receive the Holy Sacrament For we must receive in some convenient posture such as Kneeling Sitting Discumbing Standing and yet every one of these either has been or is notoriously abus'd by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I hope I need not add that it wou'd be very unjust to say that our Kneeling is an act of Worship to the outward Elements when the Church has declar'd this to be Idolatry to be Abhorr'd of all Faithful Christians I shall conclude this Chapter with the opinions of the Dissenting Writers Mr. Tombes has undertaken to shew that whatever the Gesture of our Saviour was yet we are not obliged to it Theod. p. 168. 'T is granted by Mr. Bains Christian Lett. 24. and Mr. Bayly Disswas c. 2 6. that the nature of the Ordinance do's not make Sitting necessary or forbid Kneeling and Mr. Bains ibid. grants that Kneeling is not Idolatrous and Mr. Cartwright who thought it inconvenient yet did not think it unlawful Harmon on Luke 22.14 Lastly Mr. Baxter Christian Dir. part 2. p. 111. quest 3. sect 40. saies For Kneeling I never heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful If there be any thing it must be either some Word of God or the nature of the Ordinance which is suppos'd to be contradicted But 1. there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ 's Example can never be prov'd to oblige us more in this than in many circumstances that are confess'd not obligatory as that he deliver'd but to Ministers and but to a Family to Twelve and after Supper and on a Thursday night and in an upper-room c. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours And 2. for the nature of the Ordinance it is mixt and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Seal'd Pardon from Christ by his Embassador upon our Knees CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd BUT say the Dissenters there is so great an agreement between your Church and the Church of Rome that we cannot think communion with your Church to be Lawful They tell us that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the times they liv'd in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which wou'd not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or enstrange them from it but we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect amendment is now necessary Now I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment as well as love the Temper of our first Reformers who in their first Separations from Rome were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things Doubtless they were in earnest enough as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church when they Seal'd the well-grounded offence they took at them with their warmest Blood and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that the Primitive Christians signaliz'd their Profession with rather than they wou'd intermix with Rome in any usage of Worship or Article of Faith that had the least favour of Idolatry Superstition or false Religion at all in it And yet these Holy and Wise Men when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming wholly in their hands being equally jealous of Enthusiasm as they were of Superstition wou'd not give themselves up to those fantastic Antipathies as to abolish this or that Ceremony merely because it had been in use among the Papists if some other very substantial Reason did not plead against it And verily had they not alwaies us'd these temperate and unbyass'd methods of Reformation they wou'd not so easily have justify'd themselves to their Adversaries or the World or have made it so evident as by their Wise management they did that what was done by them was from the mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation So that where any mean honestly as I doubt not but many of those do that Dissent from us they ought to have their Reason very well awake that the mere charge of Popery upon any disputed point may not so prejudice them in their enquiries into things as to leave no room for mature Consideration However that I may fully answer this objection drawn from our agreement with the Church of Rome I shall endeavour to shew 1. That there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome 2. That a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing 3. That the agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful I. Then I shall shew that there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome as appears by our Church's having renounced all Communion with Rome and utterly cast off the Pope's Power But I shall descend to particulars and shew the vast distance between them First In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby the Church of Rome deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably enslaves them For 1. She denies them all judgment of discretion in matters of Religion and binds them all under pain of damnation to Believe her infallible but our Church permits us to prove all things that we may hold fast that which is good she disclaims all pretence to infallibility and owns her self to be obnoxious to error in matters of Faith 2. The Church of Rome imposes a most slavish drudgery in the vast multitudes of vain and childish odd and uncouth Rites and Ceremonies which a Man wou'd wonder how they cou'd invent The like may be said of their cruel Penances in imposing of which the Priests are arbitrary But our Rites are exceeding few plain easy grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appear'd in the World Our Sacraments are but two and consequently we are not burden'd with the superstitious Fopperies of the other five Popish ones In short our Rites are agreeable to the Rules of doing things decently and in order and doing all things to
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 1 Kings 11.7 Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can But what reason is there for this For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill and not in things wherein they do well No Man can shew a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the Reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Lastly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in the use of Ceremonies will not justify a separation For ours are scarce the hundredth part of hers nor are ours impos'd as necessary If it be said that Christ severely condemn'd the Jewish Traditions I answer that he condemn'd only those by which they made the commandments of God of none effect and in which they placed special holiness But to descend to particulars 1. The Surplice in the Church of Rome is solemnly hallow'd c. but we use it only for Distinction and Uniformity and place no more holiness in it than in the hoods which denote Degrees Besides in the Primitive Church Ministers did officiate in White Garments and Beza and Calvin were (f) Cont. Westph Vol. 1. p. 55. Epist ad Bull. against contending about the Surplice and I pray why is a Minister 's Linnen Garment more Popish than a Lawyer 's Gown or a Judge's Robes Our famous Hooker (g) Eccles Pol. Book 5.228 saies To solemn actions of Royalty and Justice there sutable Ornaments are a beauty are they only in Religion a stain 2. The Cross in Baptism is not us'd by us as 't is by the Church of Rome She enjoins numberless Crossings in the Administration of that Sacrament but we retain it in Conformity to the ancient practice and have abolish'd all Superstitious abuses of it 3. Kneeling at the Sacrament is requir'd by us only as a reverent Gesture and the abuses of this kneeling in the Church of Rome are perfectly remov'd The Papists indeed kneel to their Host as to their God but we do nothing like them for we kneel not to the Bread and Wine but at our Receiving of them Now what they do on no reason why may not we do on the best especially when our Church declares that Adoration of the of the Elements is Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians As we are not to disuse the Holy Sacrament because the Papists have made it an Idol so we may continue our Reverence tho' they have paid it Adoration 4. The Ring in Marriage is most notoriously abus'd in the Church of Rome as may be seen in their Office but we practise no Superstition about it and use it not as a Sacramental sign but as a token of the Marriage Vow Lastly The Feasts and Fasts of our Church cannot be justly accounted Popish For the time of Assembling is a Circumstance of our Worship that cannot be left to particular choice but must be determin'd in Common and what is to be done at that time must be determin'd too in an Ordinary orderly Assembly so that it must be left to the discretion of the Governours when we are to keep a Festival and when a Fast As to the Keeping of the Lord's-Day our Church was not at Liberty unless she wou'd have rashly departed from Apostolical observation and the continu'd practice of all Ages and Places since the beginning of Christianity As for the Keeping of Easter she was under the like Obligation the Annual Feast of the Resurrection the Great Lord's-Day being known to have been the Chief and the Cause of all the Weekly And as to the Fast of Good Friday it was nigh as early as the Feast of the Resurrection They lamented their Sins our Saviour died for on the Friday before as constantly as they Commemorated His Rising again for our Salvation the Sunday after And in Order to the keeping of those two Great Daies with more Devotion there was likewise in the Church some time before-hand set apart for better Recollection and greater Preparation the number of Daies was in some places more in some less That of Forty had obtain'd in the Western Country and therefore was still kept and wou'd to God it were as Religiously observ'd as it was Piously appointed Whitsunday too the Day on which the Holy Ghost descended was observ'd alwaies and Universally by the Ancient Church Only the Nativity of our Saviour was of latter remembrance but yet before Popery came in 'T was first observ'd in the Western Church and afterwards taken up by the Eastern in St. Chrysostom's time as it stands recommended by him to the People of Antioch Other times besides these have been appointed for our Religious Assemblies in which besides the general Worship of God the Examples of his Saints and Martyrs are gratefully remembred and piously propos'd Those Daies are call'd commonly by the Name of the Person then particularly Commemorated Not that the Worship is to the Saint or that the Day is imploy'd in his Honour but because on the occasion of his Memory or Martyrdom we come together as to pay our other Duties to our God so to thank him for the Graces of his Servant and to be Edify'd and Instructed by the Example It is true the Church heretofore when God had been bountiful to them in the Number of his Saints increas'd in some proportion the Daies of his Worship and it is to be Confess'd that Popery had both acknowledg'd Saints to God which he might not own and gave the true Saints an Honour which they must disclaim but with us the number of those Daies is not greater than what the Affairs of the World may well comply with and as the number of the Apostles is not large so their Sanctity sure is unquestionable and then on those Daies we neither Beseech by their Merits nor recommend our selves to their Intercession You see then how unreasonable the Objection of Popery is here too But see to what absurdity it go's on First it is suppos'd Popery to keep a Day in the Memory of an Apostle and then it is thought as Popish to call him a Saint A Great Person at Geneva it seems presum'd it somewhat Popish to observe Sunday it self and consider'd about changing the Day Nay some are so perversely Superstitious on the other hand as that That day on which all the Christian World Remembers our Saviour's Bitter Passion has seem'd to them the fitter for a Feast and the time Universally now set apart for the Joyful Memory of his Blessed Nativity the more proper for a Fast This indeed is not like the Papists No it is like a Jew or a Heathen To conclude by Popery nothing can be meant but the corruptions and usurpations of the Church of Rome For the Faith of that Church was once as fair spoken of as it's Errors are now and had she continu'd in that purity we ought to have been of her Communion and now we are to depart from her no otherwise than she shall be found to have departed from her self and to have corrupted that Doctrine which was once deliver'd unto the Saints As we must not receive the Evil for the sake of the Good so we must not reject the
Good for the sake of the Evil. We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony that is purely Popish but we must part with the best things in our Religion if all those things are sinful which the Papists abuse And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them in those things wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them in those things wherein they are right CHAP. IX The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answer'd SOme think that the Church is to consist of none but real Saints and therefore finding many corrupt Members in the Church of England they separate from her Communion and set up Churches of their own Consisting in their judgment of none but truly sanctify'd Persons The Ground of this dangerous mistake is their false Notion of that holiness which the Scripture applies to God's Church Holiness in Scripture is twofold 1. Inherent Holiness and that can be in none properly but God Angels and Men. In God Originally as he is that Being in whom all Excellencies do possess infinite Perfection and hence he is call'd the Holy One of Israel In Angels and Men by way of Participation 2. Relative Holiness founded in a Separation of any thing from common uses and an Appropriating it to the Service of God Thus the Sabbath is holy and Judea and Jerusalem are holy and thus the Church is holy that is a Society separated from the World to serve God after a peculiar manner Thus the Israelites even when very much corrupted were call'd God's holy People Deut. 7.6 and the Apostles call the Churches by the name of Saints tho' there were strange immoralities amongst them because they were separated to God and in Covenant with him Well but did not Christ die that the Church shou'd be holy and without blemish Eph. 5.27 that is really holy Yes But then by Church we must understand not the whole Universal Church but either that part of it which is really holy in this World or that Church which shall be hereafter when the corrupt Members shall be utterly cut off Neither is this to make two Churches but only to assign two different states of the same Church This being premis'd I shall prove these three Propositions 1. That an external profession of the Christan Faith is enough to qualify a person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church 2. That every such Member has a right to all the external privileges of the Church till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges 3. That some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of separation from her First then an external Profession of the Christian Faith made either by himself or by his Sureties is enough to qualify a Person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church For 1. This is the qualification prescrib'd by our Lord Go teach all Nations that is make Disciples of all Nations Baptizing them c. Matth. 28.19 Now the Pastors of the Church cannot know the sincerity of Mens hearts but their Profession of Christianity entitles them to baptism By this Rule the Apostles acted whilst Christ was upon Earth and Baptiz'd more than were sincere for of so many Persons that were Baptiz'd not above 120 continu'd with Christ to the last 2. By the same Rule they acted afterwards for St. Peter Baptiz'd about 3000 in one day upon their professing the Word Acts 2.41 tho' all wou'd not probably prove sincere and two of them Ananias and Sapphira were gross Hypocrites St. Philip Acts 8.12 Baptiz'd both Men and Women at Samaria and and amongst them was Simon Magus whom the holy Deacon might justly suspect for his former practices and whose Hypocrisie appear'd afterwards Such other Members of the Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander whose bare Profession Entitled them to that privilege 3. Christ foretels (a) Matth. 3.12 and 13.24 c. Joh. 15.1 that his Church shou'd consist of Good and Bad by comparing it to a Field of Wheat and Tares a Net of all sorts of Fishes a Flour of Corn and Chaff c. St. Paul saies (b) Rom. 9.6 they are not all Israel that are of Israel and Christ saies that many are call'd but few chosen 4. The many corrupt members (c) 1 Cor. 11.20 21. 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 1 Cor. 6. Gal. 3. Rev. 3. of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia prove the same For if the Apostles themselves admitted mere formal Professors we may conclude that they thought it God's Will that it shou'd be so 5. No other Rule in admitting Persons into the Church is practicable since the Officers of Christ cannot make a certain judgment of men because they themselves have short and fallible understandings Secondly therefore every such member has a right to all the External privileges of the Church till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges By External privileges I mean only a Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances for the pardon of sin and comforts of the Holy Ghost c. are Internal privileges which belong to none but the truly Good who are born not of water only but of the Spirit Now when a Man by gross and notorious wickedness has forfeited the Internal privileges of the Church he ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded from the External privileges also but till the sentence of the Church is past upon him we must not forsake the Church ourselves to avoid Communion with him because till then his right to them remains inviolable and that for several reasons 1. Because the Baptismal Covenant gives Men a right to God's Promises as far as they perform the conditions If a bare federal holiness gives Men a relation to God then it gives them a title to the blessings that belong to that relation Not that unworthy Men shall receive the special reward of the truly Good but they are to be allow'd the liberty to partake of those External blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole family 2. Church-Membership necessarily implies Church-Communion or else it signifies nothing For to what purpose is a Man a Member of a Society if he cannot enjoy the privileges of it 3. All the Jews were commanded to join in the public Worship tho' I doubt many of them were wicked Livers and therefore mere Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in it's most Solemn and Sacred Ordinances 4. It appears that St. Paul makes the Number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as great as that of those that were Baptiz'd For they were all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 that is in the Cup of the blessed Sacrament and all are partakers of one Bread 10.17 and we read that they all the 3000 Ananias and Sapphira being of the number continu'd in the Apostles Doctrine and in breaking of Bread and
in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chriâ—â— suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and saâ—vation But it may â—e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinousâ—y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconveâ—ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' tâ—s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
to this Principle no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho' a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great Evil or general Mischief They are not fit to be put in the ballance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devis'd that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we cou'd invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no Man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration till it comes to be try'd yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determin'd some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere express'd like knocking a Man on the Head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion CHAP. XIV The pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd BUT there are some who tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is injoin'd by the Church of England but then there are many other godly but weaker Christians of another persuasion with whom they have long been join'd And shou'd they now totally forsake them and Conform they shou'd thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinc'd of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church Which sin say they is so very great that our Saviour tells us Matth. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a mill-stone were hang'd about his neck and that he were drown'd in the depth of the sea and in St. Paul's account 't is no less than spiritual murther a destroying him for whom Christ dy'd Rom. 14.15 These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter by shewing that No private Christian as the case now stands amongst us is obliged to absent himself from his Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his Weak Brethren And this I shall do by inquiring 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother 2. What it is to Offend such an one 3. How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother I. Then a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3.1 Conversion to Christianity is call'd our New-birth and the Converts were for a while reckon'd as in an infant State and accordingly were to be most gently us'd till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age Heb. 5.14 They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines and great Prudence and Caution was to be us'd toward them lest they shou'd suddenly fly back and repent of their change For they having been Jews and Gentiles retain'd still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old Man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable The stronger and wiser Christians wou'd not stand rigidly on any little Matters but Tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now labour'd under Hence I observe 1. That the Rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suted to the Infant-state of the Church till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World The Apostle's design in all his complyances was to win many to Christ 1 Cor. 9.19 Now to do as St. Paul did wou'd alwaies be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times wherein Christianity is the National Religion than the same Cloaths which we did wear in our Infancy wou'd serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of Childrens way lest they stumble and fall but 't is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions but every one learns Christianity as he do's his Mother-Tongue St. Paul wou'd not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself labour'd hard night and day because he wou'd not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2.9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where public maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers and those who call them Hirelings and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre In short there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provides or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concern'd 2. The Dissenters according to their weak opinion of themselves are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only sober and godly Party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or Regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers or
Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and wou'd be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and prefer their own private Opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest Men or the Determinations of their lawful Superiours And if in all Instances we shou'd deal with them as weak Persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they wou'd think themselves highly wrong'd and injur'd But the truth is they ordinarily look upon their Opposition to the Orders of our Church as the Effect of an higher Illumination a greater Knowledge than others have attain'd unto They rather count us the weak Christians if some of them will allow us so much for otherwise if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians Why do they separate from us Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations as being purer more select Christians than others Now tho' such Persons as these may be in truth very weak of little Judgment or Goodness notwithstanding this Conceit of themselves and their Party yet these are not by any means to plead for Indulgence under that Character nor to expect we shou'd forego our Liberty to please and humour them 3. Those who are really weak that is ignorant and injudicious are to be born withal only for a time till they have receiv'd better instruction but we cannot be alwaies Babes in Christ without our own gross fault and neglect Such as will not yield to the clearest reason if it be against their Interest or their Party can upon no account claim the privileges of Weak Persons Of these our Saviour had no regard who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition Matth. 15.14 Not that I wou'd be so uncharitable as to condemn all or the generality of Dissenters for being Malicious and wilful in their dissent from us but however 1. I beg them to examine whether they have sincerely endeavour'd to satisfy themselves and have devoutly pray'd to God to free their minds from prejudices and corrupt affections for otherwise their Weakness is no more to be pity'd than that Man's sickness who will not tho' he may be cur'd 2. I must say that old and inveterate Mistakes that have been a 1000 times answer'd and protested against are not much to be heeded by us If People will by no means be prevail'd upon to lay aside their fancies they do not deserve that compassion which St. Paul prescribes towards Weak Brethren In matters of a doubtful or suspicious nature that are capable of being misunderstood and abus'd yet if there be no Moral evil in them and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence to me I am bound to forbear them no longer than till I have endeavour'd to inform them rightly concerning the innocency of my action and intention and given them notice of the evil that might possibly happen to them If I dig a pit or lay a block in the way whereby others not knowing any thing of it are hurt and wounded I am guilty of causing them to fall but if they are plainly and often told of it and yet will run into the danger they are then only to thank themselves Now if it be thus in Cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation it holds much more in the Orders of our Church where the Offence arises not so much from the Nature of the Injunctions as from Mens gross ignorance mis-conceit or perverseness This shall suffice to shew what is the true Notion of a Weak Brother II. I am now to shew what it is to offend such an one People are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another and making him angry with them and so they think themselves bound in Conscience to forbear all those things which Godly Persons do not like or approve of or are contrary to their Fancy or Judgment 'T is true there is one place that seems to favour this conceit Rom. 14.15 If thy brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably But it must be observ'd that by grieving our Brother is not meant displeasing but wounding and hurting him and so it is us'd to denote that which causeth grief or sorrow and is the same with destroying and putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall v. 15 21. To be offended or griev'd is not to be troubl'd at what another has done out of pity and concern for his Soul but to receive hurt our selves from it being drawn or deceiv'd into some sin by it But because many well-dispos'd People do think that they must not do any thing which good Men are displeas'd or griev'd at I desire them to consider a few things 1. That to censure and condemn and be displeas'd with the actions of those that differ from them or refuse to join any longer with them in their separate Congregations is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his Weak Believers against viz. that they shou'd not rashly judge those who understood their Christian Liberty better than themselves At this rate any company of Men that shall resolve to quarrel with all that do not do as they do must oblige all to remain forever with them for fear of giving them offence If what I do is not evil in it self it cannot become such because another Man is causlesly angry with me for doing of it 2. They that pretend that this fear of offending that is displeasing their Weak Brethren hinders their complyance with the Church ought seriously to examine themselves whether it is not really only the care of their credit and reputation with that Party or else the securing of some worldly interest that keeps them from Conformity 3. If to displease our Weak Brethren were the sinful offending him condemn'd by St. Paul it wou'd prove an intolerable yoke upon Mens Consciences and beget such endless perplexities that we shou'd not be able to do any thing tho' never so indifferent with a well-assur'd mind since one or other will in this sense be scandaliz'd at it We shall anger some by doing others by forbearing and since those who call themselves weak are divided into several factions each condemning all the other 't is impossible for us to comply with any one of them but we shall thereby displease all the rest 4. If we do nothing which may displease our Weak Brethren we do submit our Judgments and Consciences to the conduct of the most ignorant and injudicious Christians and yield them that authority over us which we deny to our lawful Superiours And 't is strange that those who think their Christian Liberty so much violated by the determinations of their Superiours about indifferent matters shou'd yet suffer themselves to be thus ty'd up
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament
of his Body and Blood as Christians and not as Politicians Let these great truths sink into your hearts and consider I beseech you what you are doing Be well advis'd before you venture upon that which makes you guilty of a sin of the blackest Nature Be not blinded by Prejudice or Passion nor take Opinions upon trust but search and examine into the truth Consciences truly tender are willing and desirous to embrace all Opportunities of Resolution and are ready to kiss the hand that wou'd bring them better Information They will not neglect much less thrust from them the means that might ease them of their Doubts and Scruples But it looks very odly that so many of you are no more concern'd to understand the true State of the Church of England and the Nature and Reasons of her Constitutions that so few of you care to confer with those that are able to instruct you but cry out You are satisfy'd already nay some of you to my knowledge when desir'd to propose your Scruples in order to the Giving you Satisfaction have plainly and absolutely refus'd to do it There is little reason to believe that such Persons have ever read and examin'd what the Church of England has to say for her self Are there not many that not only Scruple but rail at the Book of Common-Prayer that yet never heard it nor perhaps ever read it in all their Lives And if this be not to speak evil of what they know not I cannot tell what is You generally forbear our Public Worship upon no other ground but because you prefer your own arbitrary way before it whereas I may take the Confidence to affirm that our Liturgy was made and revis'd with that Prudence and Moderation that Care and Circumspection that there is nothing now extant in that kind that has been compos'd with greater Wisdom and Piety If I shou'd compare it with the Performances in the other way not to mention the many indecent incoherent irreverent Expressions to say no worse that might be collected let any Extempore Prayer made by the ablest of those that magnify that way and despise ours be taken in writing and publish'd to the World and I am confident that one Man without any great pains may find more things really exceptionable in that single Prayer in a short time than the several Parties of Dissenters with all the Diligence they have hitherto us'd have been able to discover in the whole Service of our Church in more than an hundred Years And yet some of you that seek industriously for Scruples in the Common-Prayer will readily join in Extempore Prayers without any Scruple This is such Partiality and unequal Dealing as cannot easily be excus'd 'T is true the early Prepossession of a contrary Opinion the powerful Prejudices of Education an implicit and unexamin'd belief of what their Guides and Leaders teach them have a strange force upon the minds of Men so that in effect they no more doubt of the truth and goodness of the Cause they are engaged in than they question the Articles of their Creed These and the like are very dangerous and usual Mistakes that do frequently proceed from the Prevalency of our Passions Now the first step towards Concord in Opinion and Affections is to dispose your Minds to a calm and teachable Temper to be alwaies ready to acknowledge the force of an Argument tho' it contradict your persuasions never so much Wherefore I do once and again intreat you that laying aside all Pride Partiality and Self-conceit you wou'd not think more highly of your selves and of your own way than you ought to think Truth makes the easiest entrance into Modest and Humble Minds The Meek will he guide in judgment the Meek will he teach his Way The Spirit of God never rests upon the proud Man But especially you must be very careful that Secular Interest did not either engage you in the Separation at the beginning or provoke you to continue in it And there is the more reason to put you upon this Inquiry 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 upheld their Separation and kept their Party fast together by trading only within themselves and imploying none but those that wou'd be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our modern Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Whoever looks into the Nation must needs take notice how Interests are form'd and by what methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many thousands of the poorer sort of you depend upon this or that Man for your Work and Livelyhood how many of you depend upon others for your Trade whom accordingly those Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all public Occasions and what little encouragement any Man finds from you that deserts you and comes over to the Church of England Let me beseech you therefore impartially to examine your selves and to search whether a worldly spirit be not at the bottom of your Zeal and Stifness These I confess are Designs too base and sordid to be own'd above-board but Be not deceiv'd God is not mock'd Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart If you hope to gain and grow rich by your Separation if you are asham'd or scorn to retract your Opinions if you imagine you have more Light than the first Reformers when indeed you are very ignorant if you cannot endure to be oppos'd in any thing if you murmur and repine at your Governours when they require your Obedience where you are unwilling to pay it these are Signs that your affections are turbulent and unruly and while you are thus dispos'd you can never be assur'd but that Coveteousness Pride and Impatience might be the greatest Motives that induced you to make a Separation and the strongest Arguments that you have to maintain it But above all things I beseech you for the sake of your precious Souls to consider the Heinous Nature and Guilt of Schism which is nothing else but the separating your selves from a true Church without any just occasion given I doubt you are not sufficiently sensible how much you oppose that Spirit of Peace and Brotherly Love which shou'd diffuse it self thro' the whole Body of Christian People when you suppose every slender Pretence enough to justify your departing from us and setting up a Church against a Church The Old Non-Conformists charg'd the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crimes whereas you seem to think it a matter almost indifferent and that you are left to your own choice to join with what
Society of Christians you please Which giddy principle if it shou'd prevail wou'd certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errours and Mischiefs that can be imagin'd But our Blessed Lord founded but one Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucify'd for us and pray'd not for the Apostles alone but for them also that shou'd believe in him thro' their Word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst diverse 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 'T is plain this was to be a Visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an Inducement to move Men to embrace the Christian Faith Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions do's mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the Intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling-block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hindrance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errors that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and embolden'd them to a profess'd Atheism Therefore as you wou'd avoid the hardening of Men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in you lies wholly ineffectual you ought to be exceeding cautious that you do not wilfully Divide his Holy Catholic Church You are often warn'd of this and how many Arguments do's St. Paul heap together to persuade you to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are call'd in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And how pathetically do's the same Apostle exhort you again to the same thing by all the mutual Endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ if any Comfort in 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 Phil. 2.1 2. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige you to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing but what is lawful of you They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven thro' the Merits of the same Lord shou'd not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which you have to this Duty our Saviour dy'd that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scatter'd abroad John 11.52 And do you not then contradict this end of his Death in setting those at Variance whom he intended to Vnite Nay may you not be said to Crucify the Son of God afresh by mangling and dividing a sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require you to profess any false Doctrine or to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command you were bound in such instances to withdraw from her but since her Doctrine Discipline and Worship are good and lawful you are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her For as I said before and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Vnlawfulness of joining with us can make a Separation Lawful Let it pity you at least to see the ghastly wounds that are still renew'd by the continuance of our Divisions Be persuaded to have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to faint and in imminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that shou'd Support and Defend her Why shou'd you leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require your most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow you might forsake her that had forsaken him but since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no forbidden thing of you you ought to strengthen her Hands by an unanimous Agreement Since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably defeat the subtil Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the Losses she has suffer'd by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all wicked Purposes unsuccesful and the Blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen THE END