in the Communion of the Church which it cannot be unless it be performed in the Communion of some particular Church And this is the only obligation I know of to Communion with any particular Church that as I am a Christian I am a member of the Body and Church of Christ and in a State of Communion and therefore am bound to maintain Actual Communion with the Christian Church where-ever I find it and by Communicating with the Church wherein I live if it be a Sound and Orthodox Member of the Christian Church I maintain Communion with the whole Catholick Church which is but one Body So that here is no choice what Church we will Communicate with for there is but one Church all the World over with which we must Communicate and therefore we have nothing else to do but to judge whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so Sound and Orthodox that we may Communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion and if it be we are bound to Communicate with it under Peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not 4. From hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a Separate Communion and Separate Church For some Men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of Schism and Separation but then they use great art so to confound the notion of Separation as that neither they themselves nor any one else shall ever be able to understand what it is whereas if they will allow that there is or ever can be any such thing as Separation from the Church it is as easie to understand what Separation is as what it is for a member to be divided from the Body For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches are or ought to be members then those Churches which are not members of each other are Separate Churches It is not enough indeed to prove a Separation that two Congregations meet in several places for Worship for this is done by all the Parish-Churches of England who are in the same Communion but yet hold distinct and Separate Assemblies as to Local Separation Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is no Separation because these differing Churches agree in all the Articles of Faith and essentials of worship For thus the Novatians and Donatists did who yet were Schismaticks from the Catholick Church But where there are two Churches which are not members of each other there is a Schism tho they agree in every thing else but in one Communion and where Churches own each others Communion as members of the same Body there is no Schism though they are as distant from each other in place as East and West And it is as easie to understand what it is for two Churches to be members of each other but to make this as plain as I can and as far as it is possible to prevent all Evasions and Subterfuges I shall lay down some few rules according to the Principles of Catholick Communion whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Separate and Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place according to that Ancient Rule of the Catholick Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City and this was observed in the Apostolical times that in the greatest and most Populous Cities and where there were the greatest number of Converts yet there was but one Church such as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus c. this is acknowledged by the Independents themselves who endeavour hence to prove that there were no more Christians in any of those Cities than could meet together in one place for Acts of Worship which is a mighty groundless Surmise and not much for the credit of the Christian Church as has been often shewn by learned Men both Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines And there is an evident reason why this should be so because there is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for private Christians but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live for to renounce the ordinary Communion of any Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into distinct and Separate Societies for Worship is to renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation So that distinct and particular Churches which are in Communion with each other must have their distinct bounds and limits as every member has its Natural and proper place and situation in the Body But when there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and Separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism These Churches cannot be members of each other because they ought to be but one Church and therefore to form and gather a new Church is to divide and Separate the members of the same Church from each other This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us they are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to Worship God in the same Assemblies and have bitter Envyings and Contentions for the Honour and Purity of their several Churches If all Christians are members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the great Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline and all holy Offices and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering of a Church out of a Christian Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Churches at a distance may be distinct Churches under their distinct Bishops but yet in the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they would Naturally Unite and Cement into one There must either be Antibishops or Schismatical Presbyters set up in opposition to their Bishops under different and opposite Rules of Worship and Discipline which makes them Rival and opposite Churches not members of each other From hence I think it plainly appears that all Separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism and we cannot justifie such distinct Churches within one another from the examples of other distinct Churches whose bounds and limits and jurisdiction also are distinct and separate 2. It is plain those are Separate Churches which divide from the Communion of
not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * * * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * * * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †††Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of | | | Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a a a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b b b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c c c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d d d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the
and of every sound part of it then our Communion with the Church is as fixt as our relation and membership is and I think no Man who understands himself will talk of an occasional member If no Man can perform any Act of Communion with a Church of which he is no member since all Acts of Communion have a necessary relation to a state of Communion and that which is an Act of Communion in a member is no Act of Communion when performed by him who is no member as I have already proved then it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional Act of Communion as of occasional membership and there can be no place for occasional Communion with a Church of which we are no members unless we will say that a Man who is not in Communion may exercise Acts of Communion with the Church If all the Acts of Christian Communion which respect Christian Worship such as Prayer receiving the Lords Supper c. tho performed in a particular Church be not Acts meerly of a particular Church-Communion but of Catholick Communion with the whole Christian Church and every sound part of it then every true Catholick Christian is not only in a fixt state of Communion with the Catholick Church but lives in as constant an exercise of Christian Communion with all Sound and Orthodox Churches as he does with that Church in which he lives for every Act of Worship which is an Act of Communion with that particular Church in which it is performed if that Church be in Catholick Communion is an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church and therefore the very exercise of Christian Communion is equally fixt and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholick Church There is a sense indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church considered as distinct from all other particular Churches but that principally consists in Government and Discipline every Christian is a member of the whole Christian Church and in Communion with it but he is under the immediate Instruction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters and is bound to Personal Communion with them and this constitutes a particular Church in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the direction and conduct of a particular Bishop And when Neighbour Bishops unite into one Body and agree upon some common Rules of Government and the Administration of Religious Offices this makes them a Patriarchal or National Church and thus by submitting to the Government and Discipline of such particular or united Bishops we become members of a Diocesan or National Church considered as distinct from other Diocesan or National Churches But this does not confine our Church-membership and Communion to such a particular Church tho it strictly oblige us to conform to the Worship and Discipline and Government of that Church wherein we live while it imposes nothing on us inconsistent with the Principles of Catholick Communion But tho particular Christians are more peculiarly obliged to observe the Rites and Usages and to submit to the Government and Discipline of the Church wherein they live and to maintain Personal Communion with it and upon this account may in a peculiar manner be called the members of that Church yet every Act of Communion performed in this particular Church is an Act of Catholick Communion and an exercise of Christian Communion with the whole Church and every sound part of it Baptism makes us members of the whole Church and gives us a right to Communion with every sound part of it every Act of Christian Communion in a particular Church is a vertual Communion with the whole Church with all particular Churches which live in Communion with each other and notwithstanding my relation to a particular Church by my constant Abode and Habitation in it when ever I travel into any other Church I Communicate with them as a member 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 that is I Communicate as a member of the Church and it is Impossible I should Communicate otherwise for I have no right to Communion but as a member and nothing I can do can be an Act of Communion if I be not and do not own my self to be a member And yet this is the occasion of this mistake about Fixt and Occasional Communion that according to the Laws of our Church which are founded on great and wise reasons and indeed according to the Laws of Catholick Communion every Christian is bound to Communicate with that part of the Church wherein he lives now Men may have Houses in different Parishes or distinct Diocesses or may Travel into other parts of the Country and Communicate with the Churches which they find in those places where they are or they may sometimes go to Prayers or hear a Sermon or receive the Lords Supper at another Parish-Church now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant Abode is may be called constant Communion and our Communion with those Churches which we accidentally visit and Communicate with may be called occasional Communion and all this without Schism because we still Communicate either with the same National Church or which is often the case of Travellers with some other sound part of the Catholick Church of which we are also members and so still keep in the same Communion and Communicate with no Churches but those of which we own our selves members as being all in the same Communion as being either sincere members of the National or Catholick Church From hence our Dissenters Conclude that their Communion with an Independent or Presbyterian Church of which they profess themselves fixt members is as constant with their occasional Communion with the Church of England when to serve some present turn they hear the Prayers and receive the Sacraments with us as our fixt Communion with our Parish-Churches is with our occasional Communion with other Parish-Churches which no Body accounts Schism tho when it is too frequent and causeless it is a great disorder But the difference between these two is vastly great for in the First case we only Communicate with such Churches which are all in Communion with each other and therefore he who is a member of one is a member of them all and Communicates with them wherever he is as a member But he who is a fixt member of a Presbyterian or Independent Church cannot Communicate so much as occasionally with the Church of England as a member because he is a member not only of another particular but of a separate Church and it is impossible for any Man who is one with himself to be a member of two separate Churches and whatever Acts of Worship we joyn in with other Churches of which we are no members they are not
one Church in one Place Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Vnity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into p. 21. distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to Renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation And a little after I added If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but onely such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline And therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a Church out of a Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Now then let us consider what follows 1. You say either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not Communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that it is not the Duty of of every one though a licensed Stranger to Communicate with this Church Ans If any Foreign Church among us which by Royal Favour is allowed the Observation of their own Discipline and Rules of Worship Renounce Communion with the Church of England or Communicate with our Separatists she is Schismatical her self as the Protestant Churches in France Geneva or Holland would be should they do the like But if there be any reason to allow those Foreigners which are among us to Form and Model their Congregations according to the Rules of their own Churches to which they originally belong this is no more a Schism than there is between the Protestant Churches of France and England which own each others Communion A bare Variety of Rites and Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches our Church pretends not to give Laws to other Churches in such matters but leaves them to their Liberty as she takes her own and why an Ecclesiastical Colony may not for great reasons be Transplanted into another Church as well as a Civil Colony into another Kingdom while they live in Communion with each other I cannot tell It is a different thing to gather a Church out of a Church and to Transplant some Members of one Church into another maintaining the same Communion though with some peculiar and different usages with the consent of the Church to which they come The case of Strangers and Natives has always been accounted very different both upon a Religious and Civil account Every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to direct and Govern her own Communion and prescribe the Rules of Worship but as she does not Impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her Jurisdiction without breach of Communion for tho the Communion of the whole Christian Church is but one and all true Catholick Churches are Members of each other yet the Authority and Jurisdiction is different every Church challenging a peculiar Authority which it exerciseth in its own Communion and therefore for the Church of England to suffer Foreign Churches to observe their own Customs and Usages is not to allow of distinct and separate Communions in her own Bowels which were Schismatical but onely to exempt such Congregations of Strangers from her particular Jurisdiction and to leave them to the Government and Authority of the Church to which they belong There was no such thing indeed allowed in the Primitive Church as distinct Congregations of Foreigners under a different Rule and Government and it were very desirable that all Christians who have occasion to live in other Countries would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the Church where they sojourn which seems most agreeable to Catholick Communion but yet distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the Separate Conventicles of Dissenters are 2. But does it not follow from the obligation to communicate or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church Ans This is a great Mastery of Wit to turn my own Artillery upon me I prove the Dissenters to be Schismaticks because they set up a Church within a Church whereas there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place every Christian being bound to Communicate with the sound part of the Catholick Church in the place wherein he lives for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual Communion Hence you conclude that we must Communicate with Schismaticks if there be any among us or so near to us that distance does not hinder our Communion But you should consider that our obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks whether at home or abroad and tho we should allow them to be true Churches yet if Schismatical they are not Catholick Churches and therefore not the objects of Catholick-Communion But however we may lawfully Communicate with the French Church that is among us as occasion serves Yes no doubt we may because they are in Communion with us But then follows the Murdering consequence that a Member of the Church of England is not bound to a constant Communion with her I pray why so every Member as a Member is in constant Communion for to be in Communion with Resol of Cases p. 10. a Church is to be a Member of it as I proved at large but then Church-Communion does not primarily respect a Particular but the Universal p. 13. Church and therefore it is no interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to Communicate actually with any Church which is in Communion with her for as all Christians who are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church so they are in Communion with the Catholick Church and every sound part of it The State of Communion is constant with the whole Catholick Church the acts of Communion are performed sometimes in one part of it sometimes in another as our presence abode or occasions require and thus it is possible actually to Communicate with the French Church either in England or
of Schism or to discover on which side the Schism lies or to avoid it without renouncing all Communion with the Church which course soever they take I leave all such Cases to God who knows when it is fit to dispence with his own Laws and will take care of my own Duty according to Scripture-Rules and not hope to justifie the ordinary breach of known Laws by some extraordinary Cases And yet the Case which you propose is not so unanswerable a difficulty as you imagine Several Councils in Palestine in Rome in Pontus and other places Euseb b. 5. cap. 23. Determine the Celebration of Easter on the day of the Resurrection not on the Fourteenth Day of the Month which was the Jewish Passover which dispute you call a Mistake in Arithmetick but for what reason I know not the Bishops of Asia at the same time decree the observation of Easter on the Fourteenth Day whatever Day of the week it fell on according to the Ancient Observation of the Asian Churches Pope Victor upon this writes to several Bishops very bitterly against them and was very desirous to have them Excommunicated and did as much as in him lay denounce the Sentence against them cap. 24. But this was ill resented by other Bishops in Communion with him and particularly Ireneus wrote a Letter to him about it and earnestly disswades him from it and did prevent it from taking effect if we will believe Eusebius So far is it from being true as you assert that Pope Victor in a Council Excommunicated the poor Asians what he did was only his own Act which was displeasing to other Bishops and which he was forc't to undo So that here was a great deal of Heat and Warmth and tendency towards a Schism but no Schism followed upon it among the Catholick Churches But suppose Pope Victor had Excommunicated the Asian Churches and this Excommunication had taken effect this could not make the Asian Churches Schismaticks for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the Communion of a Church and forsaking the Communion of a Church The first is matter of censure the second is our own choice the First is an Ecclesiastical Punishment the Second when it is causeless is Schism So that had the Church of Rome Excommunicated the Asian Churches unless the Asian Churches upon this had made a Separation from the Church of Rome this Excommunication could not make them Schismaticks and therefore any one might safely Communicate with them without partaking in a Schism Nor was it a just reason for the Asian Churches to have renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome though they had been Excommunicated by Victor for this had been to do as ill a thing as Victor had done for no other reason but because Pope Victor had set them an example And therefore we find Saint Cyprian of another temper when he and the African Bishops were threatned in the same manner by Pope Stephen upon occasion of that warm Dispute about rebaptizing Hereticks At that very time in his Epistle to Jubaianus he declares his resolution not to break Communion with any Church or Bishops upon that account and therefore not with Pope Stephen himself notwithstanding his rash and furious Censures And concludes that Patience and Forbearance was the best Remedy in such Cases and therefore upon this occasion he says he wrote his Book de bono Patientiae Well but if the Asiatick Churches were not Schismaticks yet Pope Victor had been a Schismatick had he Excommunicated the Churches of Asia or withdrawn Communion from them And this had made the case of the Roman Christians very hard for they must either have suspended Communion with both these divided Churches and lived without the comfort and advantages of Christian Communion or they must have rejected the Communion of their own Bishop and Churches or have rejected the Communion of the Churches of Asia or have maintained Communion with them both that is with two Separate Churches which according to my Principles is to Communicate in a Schism If they Communicate with their own Schismatical Bishop this is to Communicate in a Schism by Communicating with a Schismatick if they Renounce his Communion when he imposes no new unlawful Terms of Communion upon them this is to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church for the sake of a Schismatical Bishop If they Communicate with the Churches of Asia this is to break Communion with their own Bishop who has Excommunicated them if they separate from the Churches of Asia for no other reason but because they are unjustly Excommunicated this is to Separate for an unjust cause which is a Schism if they communicate with both they Communicate with two Separate Churches and therefore must be Schismaticks on one side or other If you can find any more difficulties in this matter you may And yet after all this I do believe the Christians of Rome might have Communicated both with the Roman and Asian Churches without Schism and this I believe upon these Principles which I shall briefly explain and confirm 1. That the Personal miscarriage of the Bishop in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures cannot involve his whole Church in the guilt of Schism though it may make him a Schismatick and certainly since Bishops are but Men and Subject to the like passions and infirmities that other men are it would be a very hard case if his personal Schism should be imputed to the whole Church Though the Bishop have the chief Authority in the Church yet it is hard to say that every abuse of his Authority is the Act of the whole Church and therefore the Church may not be Schismatical when the Bishop is and it is possible to Communicate with a Church whose Bishop is a Schismatick without Communicating in the Schism And therefore though Victor had Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches the Christians of Rome at that time might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without partaking in Victors Schism For tho a particular Church-Society consists in that Relation which is between the Bishop and his Clergy and People yet it is possible that the Bishop in the exercise of his Authority may violate the Fundamental Laws of Communion on which the Christians of such a Church unite into one Body and Society and when he does so it being an abuse of his Episcopal Authority it is his personal fault which cannot affect the whole Church The case is very plain where there is an Established constitution in a Church as it is in the Church of England which obliges the Bishops as well as People For should any English Bishop require any thing of his Clergy or People which is contrary to the Establish't Laws and Canons of the Church or should exercise any Authority in Censures and Excommunications which is not allowed him by those Canons this can in no sense be called the Act of the Church nor is any one bound
to obey him in it and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act the Church is not Schismatical because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church in what he did but gratified his own Humour and Passion If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles as the Novatians and Donatists did whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution as the Church of England now has yet a Constitution they had which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition and confirmed by long custom and usage or the Canons of particular Councils which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholick Communion So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days was never so intirely in the Bishops Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any farther than as he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be Governed and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church As to shew you this particularly in the case before us The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection which is the first day of the week or the Lords day the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month and therefore the Bishop of Rome according to the Laws of that Church might require all the Members of his Church to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory and this would be accounted the Act of the Church because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it But there was no Canon nor Custom in the Church of Rome to deny Communion to Foreign Churches who observed their own Customs in this matter and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome Nay there was the Practise and Example of Former Times against it for Anicetus Bishop of Rome received Polycarp an Asian Bishop to Communion though they could not agree about this matter And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter it was his Personal Act not the Act of the Church of Rome which had no such Law and owned no such Custom and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatick it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical the guilt went no farther than Victors Person unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty by abetting and espousing the Quarrel So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches none had been guilty of Schism but himself and such as approved and consented to it but the Body of the Clergy and People who had not consented unto it had been Innocent and therefore any Catholick peaceable Christian who lived in Rome in those Days might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms and denouncing Excommunication against each other which cannot make their Churches Schismatical any further than they take part with their respective Bishops For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation than a Church Schism neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church under the Notion of such a Church though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those days which were Catholick Bishops and maintained Communion with the Catholick Church but yet Separated from each other which is a very great fault as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism But you will say can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism I Answer Yes we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism When Schism is his personal fault our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it than of any other Personal fault our Bishop is guilty of While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches And now the only difficulty that remains is whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatick Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them for if they could not then they must inevitably partake in Victors Schism if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches And in answer to this we may consider 2. That those who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches did in so doing own their Communion which is one way and the Principal way of maintaining Communion between Churches at a Distance who cannot actually Communicate with each other 3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome who had the supreme Authority of receiving in or shutting out of the Communion of that Church if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishops Authority and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the publick Offices of Religion though they owned their Communion but this is no more their fault than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was they Communicate with their own Church and would be very glad that the Asians that are among them might be received into Communion but they have no Authority to do it and therefore the fault is not theirs for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians but is only a forc't Suspension of Communion 4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia I doubt not but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia and therefore the Sentence is void of it self and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and therefore must not forbear
onely oversaw their being dictated rightly in order to their being repeated rightly When therefore Tertullian saith We pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether it were out of a Book or extempore but that we pray without a Custos or Overseer either to admonish our People of their repeating the Prayers falsly or to admonish our Priests of their dictating them falsly in order to the Peoples repeating them rightly Because saith he we pray from our hearts which words may admit of a twofold interpretation first because we do not vocally repeat our Prayers after our Priest but onely joyn our affections with them and send up our hearts and desires after them or 2ly because we can say our Prayers by heart and so are in no great danger of repeating them falsly and consequently have no such need of a Monitor to observe and correct us for it is well known how much Tertullian in all his Writings affects to imitate and express the Greek which renders him oftentimes so very obscure and therefore it 's probable enough as hath been observ'd (p) (p) (p) Thornd Relig. Assem p. 237. that his de pectore here or from the heart may be onely a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart according to which account these words of Tertullian are so far from testifying against the use of Forms that they rather argue the use of them for since he onely denies their having a Monitor he doth in effect grant their having a Priest to read the publick Prayers to them as well as the Heathen and if from the heart be in Tertullian's Language the same with by heart it 's a plain case that they used Forms for otherwise how could they have them by heart That this is the true account of this difficult phrase I will not confidently affirm because it is onely my own single guess but whether it be or no it 's certain it can no more signifie without a Form of Prayer than without a Minister to pray extempore the one being as much a Monitor to the People as the other The last Testimony which our Brethren urge against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Sucrates Scholasticus (q) (q) (q) Soc. Hist l. 5. c. 21. whose words they thus translate Everywhere and in all Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words and therefore say they it 's very unlikely they should pray by receiv'd Forms But how far this is from the sence of the Author will evidently appear by considering what he had been before discoursing of In short therefore he had been just before relating the different Customs that were used in several Churches and among the rest he tells us that in Hellas Jerusalem and Thessalia the Prayers were made whilst the Candles were lighting according to the manner of the Novatians at Constantinople and that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and Cyprus the Presbyters and Bishops always interpreted the Scripture on the Saturday and Lord's-day in the evening the Candles being lighted that the Novatians in the Hellespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople but that for the most part they followed the Customs of the chief Churches among them and then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. upon the whole every where and among all the Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in the same thing where by Worships of Prayer it 's plain he means the Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer that were used in several Churches for 't was of these he had been immediately before discoursing and therefore his meaning can be no more than this that among all the constituted Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer that were used in the several Churches there were not two to be found that agreed in the same and how doth it follow that because they did not use the same Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer for even now we see there are different Rites of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer And now I proceed to the second thing proposed which was to prove the use of Forms of Prayer in the primitive Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact That in the first Age there was a Gift of praying extempore by immediate inspiration seems highly probable both from what the Apostle discourses of praying in unknown Languages 1 Cor. 14. and from what St. Chrysostom asserts concerning it (r) (r) (r) Chrys in Rom. 8. 26. viz. That together with those miraculous Gifts which were then poured out there was a Gift of Praying which was called by the Apostle a Spirit by which he who was endued with it poured out Prayers for all the People and while this Gift continued perhaps which how long it was is very uncertain there might no other Form be used in publick Worship in those places especially where it abounded but onely that of the Lord's Prayer and it may be in imitation of this Gift upon which even in the Apostles time the Christians were apt to over-value themselves some might affect to pray extempore after it was wholly expired but it is highly probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it it was in most places immediately supplied by Forms of Prayer which were composed either of the words or according to the method and manner of those inspired Prayers by Apostolical persons that heard and remembred them for so as the same St. Chrysostom goes on (s) (s) (s) Chrys ibid. For we being ignorant of many things which are profitable for us do ask many things which are unprofitable and therefore this Gift of Prayer was given to some one person that was there i. e. in the Congregation who ask'd for all that which was profitable for the universal Church and taught others to do so that is to form Prayers according to those inspired Models for though I do not pretend that there were no other Prayers used in publick but onely Forms either in or presently after the Age of the Apostles yet it seems most probable that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the publick Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer and if so we have all the reason in the world to conclude that these Forms were composed according to the Pattern of those primitive inspired Prayers Now that there were Forms from the Apostolical Age seems highly probable because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of praying by a Form Had this way of praying been introduc'd after the Primitive Ages it would have been a most observable innovation upon the Primitive Christianity and that in such a publick matter of fact that every Christian could not but take notice
appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione c. 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 Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly the Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2. each City one to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Praesul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reverenced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-bishops The Ancient Church did
most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And accordlng to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water and * Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeâ—s l. 2. c. 39. the Spirit equally necessary for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless one be born again c. From the * * * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a a a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b b b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22. 28. the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c c c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro â—exu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d d d Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. Joh. 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * * * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken from the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but
against the Law of the Land and the common practice of the Church Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or kneels afterwards but somewhat previous to both for we generally rise before we do either But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes Hist Eccles l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425 of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly reformed this that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them And partly from Sozomens History wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us Eccles Hist l. 7. c. 19. p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440 by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people he cites a passage out of the Psalms and applies it home to him after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him Psal 49. in our Transl 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp not in 4 lib. Oâ—tat who fits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you says he are more particularly pointed at in this Text For the people are not licensed to sit in the Church This Text chiefly respects the Bishops and Presbyters who had onely a right and priviledge to sit in the Publick and Religious Assemblies but doth not concern the people who stood all the time Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times as well Heretical as Orthodox to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus as being weak and concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he Again that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit Collon Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam c. of God will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father this was one That they were wont some of them to fit at Prayer A little further in the same Chapter Tertullian hath these words Adde hereunto the sin of Eo apponitur irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi Angelo adhuc orationis adstante factum illud irreligiosissimum est nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit Tertull. de Oratione c. 12. Irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did would take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for How much more irreligious is this Gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us Adde to all this that saying of Constantine the great Euseb de vit Const mag lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612. recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperour with which I will conclude this point It was upon occasion of a Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour delivered by Eusebius not in the Church but in the Palace of the Emperour and the Historian observes to the praise of this excellent Prince that though it was a long and tedious Oration and though the Emperour was earnestly sollicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by yet he refused and stood attentively all the time as the rest of the Auditory did affirming it to be unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be used in time of Divine Service except at the reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was onely practised in some places for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observed in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people Now upon what hath been said I shall onely make this brief Reflection and so proceed If the Apostles of our Lord had in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations in their Travels throughout the World every where taught and established sitting or discumbing which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries not onely as convenient but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be 1 Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles and then 2 Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles the first founders of their Faith and for all that passed under their names it seems to me not onely highly improbable but morally impossible that so many Churches together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries not biass'd by Faction nor swayed by a superiour Authority being perfectly free and independent one upon another should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order and not onely so but 3 to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the
joy and triumph viz. over Death and the Grave and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees nor incline and bow down our Bodies but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven We pray standing all that time which is a sign of the Resurrection St. August Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. By which posture that is we signifie our belief of that Article From whence we may conclude that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their publick and religious Assemblies 6 Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design is this That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day as oft as they came together for publick Worship which Custom as it was introduced Acts 2. 42 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16. and practised by the Apostles themselves according to the judgement of very Learned men and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture so it continued a considerable time in the Church even down to St. Austin who flourisht in the beginning Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug Epist 118. ad Januarium c. 2 3. p. 556. 7. Basil edit a Froben 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris St. Hier. adver Jovinian p 37. Paris id in Epist ad Lucinium Baeticum p. 71. edit of the fifth Century and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Millan and Rome in their times From St. Cyprian we are fully Vid. Dr. Cave Prim. Christ p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit 1682. Can. 9. Apost Antiochen Concil Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam To. 3. p. 279. assured that it was so in his days viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lords Prayer Give us this day our daily bread he expresly tells us that they did receive the Eucharist every day as the food that nourisht them to Salvation St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria who lived about 370 years after Christ affirms that in his Church they communicated four times a Week on the Lords day Wednesday Friday and Saturday two of which were station-days or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times And this I the rather note because in all probability since they did receive the Sacrament on these days they did not alter the Posture of the day but received Kneeling For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholick Church an unsutable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity who used that posture on those Festivals then we may reasonably conclude that Standing which was the Festival Posture was not used by the Catholick Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation and that they who stood at their publick Devotions on Fasting days were as irregular as they who kneel'd on a Festival And that this was really so may I think be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose Tertull. de Orat c. 3. p. 206. Edit Col. Agrip 1617. We judge it an unlawful and impious thing says he either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lords day We rejoyce in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsontide To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling not onely on the Lords day but all the days of Pentecost was esteemed a great priviledge and matter of much joy to this Holy Father and the Christians who lived in his days And from hence I infer that at other times when they met together for publick Worship especially on days of Fasting they generally used Kneeling and that at the Lords Supper which was administred every day in the African So St. Cyprian before cited Church whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper where is the priviledge and immunity they boasted so much of and rejoyced in viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times Not to Fast on the Lords day was a Priviledge because they did Fast on the Week-days and so say I of Standing To Stand on the Lords days and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year And if Kneeling was the Didoclavius his own argument retorted Si stabant inter orandum viz. Die Dominico toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha Pentecosten non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam sed potius contrarium nempe stetisse Altar Damasc p. 784. Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Week-days then in all probability when they received the Sacrament on those days they received in the ordinary posture The 7th and last particular which I would observe relating to this business is this That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise It was begun with a general Prayer wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation joyntly prayed for the Vniversal Tert. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. p. 881. St. Chrys Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist 1. Tim. Peace and Welfare of the Church for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World for the Prosperity of the Age for wholesome Weather and fruitful Seasons for Kings and Emperours and all in Authority c. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose and De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347. the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand is that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant to which every one at their receiving said Amen The Apostolical Constitutions though in some things much corrupted and adulterated yet in many things are very sound and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church For there we find this Account The Apostolical Constitutions confessed by all hands to be very Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century Const Apost lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483. Ancient though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things give us this
Revelation insomuch as when the truth which is but One shall appear to the simple multitude no less variable than contrary to it self the Faith of Men will soon after dye away by degrees and all Religion be held inscorn and contempt Fourthly If several contrary Parties be established by way of sufferance no progress is likely to be made towards the perfecting of Religion For the suffering of divers Errors is not the way to the reforming of them One Principle only can be true and the blending of such as are contrary with it createth the greatest of Impurities a mixture of that which is profane with that which is sacred Fifthly Many Dissenters are not likely to erect a Model by which Christianity may be improved amongst us because they lay aside 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 And some of the more sober amongst them have inclined too much towards this extream In Reformation said one * * * Mr. S. Sympson in A. 1643. Reform Preservat p. 126 27. in his Sermon before the Commons do not make reason your Rule nor Line you go by It is the line of all the Papists The second Covenant doth forbid not only Reason but all Divine Reason that is not contain'd by Institution in the Worship of God God's Worship hath no ground in any reason but God's Will Sixthly There are already provided in this Church more probable means for the promoting of pure Religion than those which have been proposed by all or any of the Dissenting Parties It is true each Church is capable of improvement by the change of obsolete Words Phrases and Customs by the addition of Forms upon new Occasions by adjusting discreetly some Circumstantials of External Order But to change the Present Model for any other that has yet been offered to publick consideration is to make a very injudicious bargain There are in it all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness there is preserved Primitive Discipline Decency and Order And under the means of it there are great numbers grown up into such an improvement of Judicious Knowledge and useful prudent serious Piety that it requireth a Laborious Scrutiny to find Parallels to them in any Nations under the Heavens I do not take pleasure in distastful Comparisons Yet I ought not sure to pass by with unthankful negligence that excellent Spirit which God hath raised up among the Writers and Preachers of this Church their labours being so instrumental towards the right information of the Judgment and the amendment of the Lives of unprejudic'd Hearers It must be confessed that there is some trifling on all sides And it will be so whilst Men are Men. But there is now blessed be God as little of it in the Church of England as in any Age. And the very few who do it appear plainly to be what they are Phantasticks and Actors rather than Preachers But amongst the Parties the folly and weakness puts on a more venerable pretence and they give vent to it with studied shews of mighty seriousness and deliver it solemnly as the immediate dictate of God's Holy Spirit And I cannot but call to mind one Minister in this Church who would for instance sake have deliberately used these words of Mr. Rutherford in a solemn audience * * * Ruth on Dan. 6. 26. p. 8. A. 1643. bef the Commons and after this manner God permits Sins and such solemn Sins that there may be room in the Play for pardoning Grace It seemeth also not unfit for me to take notice that the Changes formerly made in Church-matters in England by Dissenters were not so conducive in their nature to the edifying of the Body of Christ as the things illegally removed The Doctrine of God's Secret decrees taught in their Catechisms was a stronger and more improper kind of meat than that with which the Church of England had fed her Children Ordination by a Bishop accompany'd with Presbyters was more certain and satisfactory than that by Presbyters without a Bishop There was not that sobriety in many of the present and unstudied Effusions which appeared in every of those publick Forms which were considered and fixed And it sounded more decently for example sake to pray in the Churches words and say from Fornication Good Lord deliver us than to use those of an eminent Dissenter * * * Prayers at the end of Farewell Sermons Mr U's Prayer bef Serm. p. 31. Lord un-lust us Nor did the long continued Prayers help Men so much against Distraction as those shorter ones with breaks and Pauses in the Liturgy and the great and continued length of them introduced by consent sitting at Prayer Neither did it tend less to edification to repeat the Creed standing than to leave it quite out of the Directory for publick Worship Neither was it an advantage to Christian Piety to change the gesture of kneeling in the Eucharist when the Sacred Elements were given together with Prayer for that less reverend one of sitting Of sitting especially with the Haâ—t on as the most uncomely practice of some was the People being taught to cover the Head * * * Edward's Gangrena part 1 Error 112. p. 25. whilst the Minister was to remain bare amongst them Nor was the civil Pledge of the Ring in Marriage bettered by the invention of some Pastors who as is storied of them took a Ring * * * See Edw. Grangr 2 part p. 13. of some Women-converts upon their admittance into their Church Neither was the Alteration of the Form of giving the Holy Elements an amendment For the Minister was directed to the use of these words * * * Directory for publick Worship p. 27. Tak ye eat ye this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you This Cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ which is shed for the Remission of the Sins of many The words denoting Christ's present Crucifix and either actually or in the future certainty of it give countenance to the Romish Sacrifice of the Mass though I verily believe they were not so intended Nor did the forbidding the Observation of Christ's Nativity and other Holy-days add one Hairs bredth to the Piety of the Nation but on the other hand it took away at least from the common People one ready means of fixing in their Memories the most useful History of the Christian Religion It is easy enough even for Men who are Dwarfs in the Politicks in such sort to alter a constitution as to make it more pleasing for a time to themselves during their Passion and the novelty of the Model in their Fancy not yet disturbed by some unforeseen Mischief or inconveniencie but 't is extream difficult upon the whole matter to make a true and lasting Improvement there being so many parts in the frame to be mutually fitted and such
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
this Church But your way of arguing is as if a Man should say It is a Divine Law to obey Civil Magistrates but there is no Divine Law that all the World should obey the King of England France or Spain therefore French or English Subjects are not bound to obey their own Prince Oh what comfortable Doctrine is this to some Men You proceed But you will say which I think is not much to the question that he ought to Communicate if Communion may be had Yes I do say this and I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that it is much to the question But then Query whether the Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to Communicate if the Communion be not clog'd with some things which are no part of the Divine Covenant Yes they may replie so if they please or Anonymus for them but whoever does it the replie is very weak and impertinent It is weak because Obedience to Authority in all lawful things is in a large notion part of the Divine Covenant And it is very impertinent because the Supposition of Communicating where Communion may be had supersedes that Query For Communion cannot be had where there are any sinful Terms of Communion and though I assert that the Church must be founded on a Divine Covenant I never said that nothing must be enjoyned by the Church but what is express'd in that Covenant A Corporation which is founded upon a Royal Charter you know may have Authoritie to make By-Laws which shall oblige all the Members of it and so are Terms of Communion with it and yet it is the Charter not these By-Laws whereon the Corporation is founded I was not concerned to Examine the Terms of Communion that is and will be done by other hands but supposing nothing Sinful in our Communion whether all Christians that live in this Church are not bound to live in Communion with it Q. 3. Your next Query concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself without any immediate Derivation from other Church-Governours which does not at all concern my Doctrine of Church-Communion for whether it be so or so still we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound parts of the Catholick Church so Church-Authoritie be Derived from Christ any way it is well enough but then we must be sure that it is so and if Christ have appointed no ordinarie way for this but by the hands of Men who received their Authoritie immediately from himself I know not who can appoint any other way But may not a Lay-man preach the Gospel and gather a Church in a Heathen Country where there is none of the Clergy to do it I suppose he may and if you please to consult the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleets Unreasonableness of Separation p. 331 c. you will finde this case largely debated But it seems it doth not satisfie you that this be allowed onely in case of Necessity for then up start two other Queries 1. Whether this will not put the being of our Church upon a very hazardous issue and oblige your self to prove that it was a true Church before the Reformation Ans This is no hazard at all for the Church of England was certainly a true though a corrupt Church before the Reformation as the Church of Rome is at this day A true Church is that which has every thing Essential to the being of a Church though mixt with such other Corruptions as make its Communion dangerous and sinful as a Diseased Man is a true Man and remove these Corruptions and then it is not onely a true but a sound Church as the Church of England is at this day And if you will not allow this I doubt Sir all private Christians will be at as great a loss for their Baptism as the Church will be for Orders But the case of a True Vindicat. p. 64. c. and Sound and Catholick Church if you please you may see Stated in the same Book to which I referred you before And thus your second Query is answered that though this Church was Antichristian before the Reformation yet there was not the same Necessity for private Christians to usurp the Ministerial Office without a regular Authoritie as there is for a Lay-man in a Heathen Nation because an Antichristian that is the most corrupt Church retains the Power of Orders as well as of Sacraments As for that Independent Principle that Christ has instituted a Power in the Church to ordain her own Officers you may see it Examined in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Sep. p. 306 c. But what now is all this to me I don't charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders but for their causeless and sinful Separation Let us suppose that they have no need of any Orders or that such Orders as they have are good or that they had Episcopal Orders and were Governed by Bishops of their own as the Donatists were yet they would be never the less Schismaticks for that while they separate from the Church of England and from each other If Orders be necessary and they have no Orders then they are no Churches at all if they have true Orders and are true Churches but yet divide Christian Communion by Separating from any Sound part of the Christian Church they are Schismaticks 4. Q Whether from the Supposition that there ought to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one true Church within another and that the Nature of Catholick-Communion is such that one ought to be ready to Communicate with any Sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the Distance of Place it do's not follow Ans Fair and Softly let us first consider the Suppositions before we consider what follows from them for you have so mis-represented so curtailed these Propositions and so mixt and blended things of a different Nature that it is necessarie to restore them to their true Sense and proper Place again before we can tell what follows I asserted that the Christian Church is founded upon a Divine Covenant and since God hath made but one Covenant with mankind in Christ Jesus therefore there can be but one Christian Church throughout the World Resol of Cases p. 8. founded on this one Covenant Having explained the general notion of Church Communion which signifies no more than Church-Fellowship and p. 10. Society that to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of the Church I came to enquire what made a Separate Church For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches p. 19. are or ought to be Members then those Churches which are not Members of each other are Separate Churches And for a fuller explication of this I observed several p. 20. things 1. That there must be but
no Man will say that in this sence we live in the French or Dutch Church because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us 5. Your next Query is Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the Means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1. Peter 2. 21. Ans What this concerns me I cannot tell I speak onely of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members you put a question whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism when it can't be had may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God I hope in some cases it may though I do not hope this from what St. Peter saies who onely speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience which is made at Baptism not of that which is made without it But what God will accept of in this case is not my business to determie unbaptized Persons are no Visible Members of the Church and therefore not capable of Visible Communion and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute 6. Query Why a profest Atheist who has been Baptized and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church is more a Member of the Catholick Church than such as are above described Ans Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit Resol of Cases p. 8. c. their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every man in his respective station and capacity as well as the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their duty according to the Divine Covenant Ans It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion
nor suspend Communion with the Asian Churches unless they will justifie this Schismatical Excommunication The Jurisdiction of a particular Bishop is confined within the Bounds of his own Church and every Christian is Subject to the Authority of the Church where he is and therefore though the Roman Christians at Rome cannot receive the Excommunicated Asians to their Communion without the Authority of their Bishop yet when they are in Asia where the Bishop of Rome has no Authority over them they may and ought to joyn themselves to the Communion of the Asian Churches during their abode among them if the Asians would receive them without Commendatory Letters from their Bishop which they could not have in such a case as this Thus Sir I have considered the Case you put about Pope Victors Excommunicating the Asian Churches which is not a real but a feigned Case for there was no actual Schism upon it as I perceive some body had told you there was And yet supposing it had been so I have shewn you how the Roman and Asian Churches might have maintained Communion with each other and that the case of private Christians was not so desperate as you represent it Your following exceptions concerning National Communion and National Churches and the possibility Letters 3. p. 22. that there should be several Sound and Orthodox parts of the Church at the same place have been sufficiently considered already and you twit me so often with my repetitions that though I find you want very frequent repetitions to make you understand the plainest sence yet I will for my Readers sake and my own correct that fault Your attempt to prove Congregational Churches p. 24. from 1 Cor. 14. 23. has been so often answered by the Presbyterian as well as Episcopal Divines that to save my self the labour of transcribing I shall refer you to them and particularly to the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separ p. 392. c. where you may find this matter largely debated in answer to Dr. Owen's Original of Churches You say it is evident that one of these Separate Churches must needs be cut off from Christs Body I readily grant it for Christ has but one Body which p. 26. is one Communion and therefore two Churches which are not in Communion with each other cannot both belong to the same Body or the one Catholick Church but the Church which is the Schismatick according to the Language of the Primitive times is out of the Catholick Church extra Ecclesiam foris as is discourst at large in the Vindication of the Defence In the next place you endeavour to make me contradict my self in talking of occasional Communion and occasional Membership and different Relations when else where I assert That the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church But pray Sir where do I assert this I am sure I assert the quite contrary that Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership I say indeed That Church-Communion Primarily and Principally refers to the Vniversal Church not Resol of Cases p. 13 14. to any particular Church or Society of Christians That a Member is a Member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it That Baptism which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church as such but of the Vniversal Church And I do as plainly assert that every true Catholick Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and as such is a Member of every particular Church which is a sound part of the Vniversal Church That no Man can properly be said to Communicate with any Church whatever Acts of Communion he may perform in it who does not Communicate with it as a Member and that therefore to talk of Occasional Communion in the sense of our Dissenters is as absurd as to talk of an Occasional Membership these are the very Principles on which I dispute against those absurd Distinctions of p. 30. constant and occasional Communion which I confess to be absurd and a Contradiction to all the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore you are concerned to answer this absurdity not I. I have charged this absurdity upon our Occasional Communicants and let any man take it off that can But are you not Sir admirably qualified to Answer Books without so much as understanding the general scope and design of the Book you Answer without knowing what makes for you or against you As for your next Question How does it appear that it is necessary to Communion with the Catholick Church that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church where we constantly live You ought instead of asking this Question to have shown that what proofs I have alleadged for this are not conclusive or do not sufficiently prove the thing but your Question insinuates that I have said nothing at all about it or at least that you do not know that I have though it be the Principal Design of that discourse and then I am a very careless writer or you a very careless Reader But the Answer to it in short is this That every Christian is bound to live in Communion with the Catholick Church no Man lives in Communion with the Church who does not perform the External visible Acts of Communion when he may do it without sin The whole Catholick Church being but one Communion whoever Communicates with any sound part of it Communicates with the whole no Man can ordinarily Communicate in a Church in which he does not ordinarily live and therefore if he be bound at all to the External and visible Acts of Communion he must perform them in the Church wherein he lives and in so doing if it be a true Catholick Church he lives in Communion with the whole Catholick Church But you attempt to prove That you are not bound to Communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of Ibidâ— the Catholick Church because you live where there is such an one And this you prove from Mr. Chillingworth's Authority who says that if you speaking to the Papists require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to Communion with you ceaseth Now is not this an admirable proof that we are not bound to Communicate with a sound part of the Church where we live because we are not bound to Communicate with an erroneous Church which imposes the belief of her Errours as Terms of Communion Is not this a wonderful sound Church And are not you a very subtil Arguer You produce another passage of Mr. Chillingworth by which I cannot tell what you intend to prove unless it be that there is no need there should be any External or Visible Church-Society so Men do but Profess the Faith of Christ which seems to be the sence of your foregoing Paragraph But
something essential to a Church But if the Church have all things essential to it it is a true Church and not to be separated from When the V. Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17. Church of Rome is called a true Church it 's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence as a Thief is a true Man and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies is a true Spirit But withal she is a false Church as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall an Heretical Arraignment of Schism p. 26. Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue And so to separate from her is a Duty But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church or the Parochial Churches true Churches it 's in a moral Sence as they are sound Churches which may safely be communicated with Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 289 291. Opposition The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians so far as they profess Christianity and acknowledg Christ their Head but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Vsurpers so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon God's People are bound to separate c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome as the reformed Protestant Churches in France and these of Great Britain have done in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine a lawful Ministry and a People professing the true Religion submitting to and joyning together in the true Worship of God Such a Separation would as has been said unchurch it This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion contrary to a Principle that is I think universally maintained The Error of these Men saith Mr. Brightman * * * On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis second part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government p. 130. Cotton on John p. 156. i◠full of Evil who do in such a manner make a Departure from this Church by total Separation as if Christ were quite banished from hence and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there Let these Men consider that Christ is here feasting with his Members will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there where Christ is not ashamed to sit Further this would be a notorious Schism so the old Non-conformists conclude * * * Grave Consut p. 57. Cawdrey's Independency further proved p. 136. Because we have a true Church consisting of a lawful Ministry and a faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism for what is that saith another †††Brinsly's Arraigment p. 15 24 44. but a total Separation from a true Church This lastly would not diminish but much increase the Fault of the Separation As another saith | | | Baily's Disswasive c. 6. p. 104. For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church which I profess to be true and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be false and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God nor any Blessing from his Hand This therefore is their avow'd Principle That total Separation from the Church is unlawful And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists * * * Ames 's Puritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence p. 55. and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part †††Apologet. Nar. p. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with Defilements or in the greatest Danger thereof c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And amongst the present Non-conformists several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice So Mr. Baxter | | | Sacril desert p. 75. I constantly joyn i◠my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament It 's said of Mr. Joseph Allen * * * The Life of Mr. J. Allen p. 111. That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship as his Opportunities and Strength permitted †††The Doctrine of Schism p. 64. Of Mr. Brinsley that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship Dr. Collins saith as much of himself | | | Reasonable Account c. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God to hear the best they could and not to separate but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Worship of God Mr. Hickman freely declares I profess Bonasus vapulans p. 113. where-ever I come I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England so saith * * * Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists p. 26. That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick †††Discourse of the Religion c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case p. 15. Assemblies It 's evident then that it is their Principle and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it * * * Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion p. 1. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself I own Parish-Churches having a competent Minister and a number of credible Professors of Christianity for true Churches and the Worship therein performed as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word to be in the main sound and good for the Substance or Matter thereof And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant And if these two Judgment and Practice be not concordant it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest or that they do believe themselves while they declare against Separation and yet do not keep it up Those good Men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider saith Mr. Baxter Non-conformists Plea fo◠Peace § 17◠p 240. whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament and much more if it was total might not tend to deceive Men and make them believe that we were for Separation from them and took their Communion to be
that are acquainted with the History of things in the last Age will acknowledg that more good hath been done to the Souls of Men by the Preaching of Vsher Potter Abbot Jewel and some other Bishops by Preston Sibbs Taylor Whately Hildersham Ball Perkins Dod Stock and many thousands Adversaries to the separated Churches than ever was done by Ainsworth Johnson Robinson rigid Separatists or Cotton Thomas Hooker and others though Men of precious Memory Promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational And therefore if the Bishops and Conforming Preachers now apply themselves as we hope when the heat of Contention is more allayed they will to the profitable way of preaching against Popery and Prophaneness exciting their Auditors to the Life of Faith in Christ c. there may be as good Ground if not better considering how much the Spirits of Separatists are for their Party and the speaking of the Truth in Love and edifying in Love is necessary to the growth of the Body Ephes 4. 16. to expect by them a Blessing in promoting the Power of Godliness than from the Separatists So that whether we consider the Worship or Doctrine or the preaching of it the Church of England in their Apprehension doth not want a sufficiency of Means for the Conversion and Edification of Souls And consequently the Argument taken from Edification in justification of forsaking the Communion of it is inclusive and of no force But this branch of it will be further confirmed under the third General But however this will not be so easily quitted for supposing the Doctrine good and those that teach it capable as far as Learning and Parts are requisite to improve it to the Conversion and Edification of others yet if they themselves are loose and scandalous it may give just Offence and be thought a sufficient cause to separate from the Worship in which such do officiate P. 3. Therefore I shall shew that the badness of the Ministers is of it self no sufficient Reason to forsake the Communion of a Church or to separate from the Worship administred in it What holy Mr. Rogers saith is a great Truth It is not to be denied Seven Treatises Tract 3. c. 4 p. 223. but that the Example of ignorant and unreformed especially notorious Persons in the Ministry hath done and doth much harm and if either they cannot be convicted or if their Crimes be such as cannot remove them out of their places there is just cause of Grief that such should have any thing to do in God's Matters which are so weighty and to be dealt withal in high Reverence But yet before the Objection is admitted it is to be premised 1. That if there be such in the Church it doth not proceed from their Conformity to it For good and pious Men of this sort always were and still are in the Church What there were formerly Defence part 1. p. 57. may be read in Mr. Baxter who thus delivers himself When I think what learned holy incomparable Men abundance of the old Conformists were my Heart riseth against the thoughts of separating from them such as Mr. Bolton Mr. Whately Mr. Fenner c. and abundance other such yea such as Bishop Jewel Bishop Grindal Bishop Hall c. yea and the Martyrs too as Cranmer Ridley Hooper himself c. What there are now in the Church he also tells us I believe there are many hundred godly Ministers Ibid. p. 12. in the Parish-Churches of England And of his own knowledg saith I profess to know those of Ibid. p. 11. them whom I take to be much better than my self I will say a greater word that I know those of them whom I think as godly and humble Ministers as most of the Non-Conformists whom I know So saith Dr. Bryan In some Countries I am sure there are Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 313. many Sober Godly Orthodox able Preachers yet in possession of the publick Places 2. It is to be premised that this Argument if of any yet is of no farther force than against the Congregations where such are and so is of none against the Church it self where are good as well as bad nor against Parochial Communion where such are not So Mr. Baxter argues I doubt not but there are many Defence part 1. p. 11. hundred Parish Ministers who preach holily and live holily though I could wish that they were more And what reason have you to charge any other Mens Sins on them c. or to think it unlawful to join with the Good for the sake of the Bad this is to condemn the Sound for the sake of the Infected Having premised this we shall re-assume the Case and consider how it is stated and resolved by them 1. It 's granted that it is not unlawful to join with bad Ministers in some Cases where they may have better So Mr. Rogers As it is far from me to be a Tract 3. p. 223. Patron of such or to justify them so yet while we may enjoy the Ministry of better I would not refuse to be partaker of the Prayers which are offered by them 2. It 's granted that it 's lawful and a duty to hear and join with such where a better cannot be had That it is lawful so Mr. Rogers Who can blame him Ibid. who desireth to pray with better than they be And yet better to join with them sometimes than to leave the publick Assemblies altogether So Mr. Baxter No Cure dir 17. p. 114. People should chuse and prefer an ungodly Minister before a better but they should rather submit to such than have none when a better by them cannot be had That it 's a Duty so the old Non-Conformists The Scripture teacheth evidently that Letter of Ministers in Old-England to the Brethren in New-England p. 11. the People must and ought to join with them unworthy Ministers in the Worship of God and in separating from the Ordinance they shall sin against God For the Worship is of God and the Ministry is of God the Person unworthily executing his place is neither set up by some few private Christians nor can by them be removed And warrant to withdraw themselves from the Worship of God because such as ought not are suffered to intermeddle with Holy Things they have none from God So Mr. Ball To communicate with Ministers no better Tryal of the grounds c. 13. p. 311. V. Tombs Theodulia p. 17. than Pharisees in the true Worship of God is to worship God aright to reverence his Ordinances to rely upon his Grace to hearken unto his Voice and submit unto his good pleasure This they maintain by several Arguments As First Such were always in the Church and Communion Arg. 1 must never have been held with the Church if no Communion was to be where such were So the old Non-Conformists argue If the Minister make Letter of the Minist in Old-Engl c.
for not separating the clean from the unclean the precious from the vile the Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26. holy from the prophane yet did they never teach that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty the whole Communion was polluted by it but as many as touch'd the unclean person were unclean so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing 3. When it 's said that the unclean person that did not purifie himself defiled 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' joyn'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 prepared 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 Tit. 1. 15. is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd The weakness of this suggestion that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Mans company at and among them being laid open The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinc'd from these particulars 1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons What higher aggravations could there be of sin Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinn'd being the High-Priests Sons or the publick scandal aed impudence of the sin Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle yet did not the People of God not Elkanab and Hannah by name refrain to come up to Shilo and to joyn with them in the publick Worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 1 Sam. 2. 17. 24. those Men They abhorr'd the sacrifices of the Lord ye make the Lord's people to transgress 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 held 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 bowed their knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that publick Worship perform'd by the Prophet All the People fell on their faces saying the Lord he is God the Lord he is God 1 King 18. 39. All along 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 â—rophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continued in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and Exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament In the Apostolick Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members and that if they would be safe themselves they must withdraw from their Communion but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them and if neither private nor publick Admonitions and Reproofs would do then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church till by Repentance and Amendment they render'd themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation sends his Instructions to the Angels that is to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia whose Office it was to Preach Repentance to them and by their Authority to reform abuses but gives them no Command to cease the publick Administration or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest nay altho' those Candlesticks were very foul yet was our Lord pleas'd still to bear with them and to walk in the midst of them Rev. 2. 1. and certainly so song as Christ affords his presence in a Church none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs 3. From our Saviour's own example who notwithanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church and the Members of it very leud and vicious yet kept in Communion with it and commanded his Disciples so to do We read that the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time had perverted the law corrupted Mat. 15. 6 7 8. the worship of God were blind guides devoured widows houses were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion but was made under the Law freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it he was circumcis'd on the eighth day redeem'd by a certain price being a Son and a First-born Luke 2. 22. observ'd their Passover and other Feasts enjoin'd by their Law yea and that of the dedication too tho' Matth. 26. but of humane institution was baptiz'd amongst them preach'd in their Temples and Synagogues reason'd John 17. 37. with them about Religion exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine tho' not to follow their Practice John 10. 6 7. Mat. 6. 7. What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church than was here yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance it They fit in Moses 's chair hear them 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 There were Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1. and contentions amongst them strifes 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 does the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approves their meeting together and exhorts them to continue it But let 1 Cor. 5. 4.
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived 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 would 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 estrange 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 Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
favourable Interpretations upon things to take them by the best handle and not strain things on purpose that they might cavil the more plausibly and raise more considerable Objections against them We must not make personal accidental Faults nor any thing a pretence for our leaving the Communion of our Church which ariseth only from the necessary condition and temper of all humane Affairs that nothing here is absolutely perfect 6. And lastly if you cannot by these and other the like considerations not now to be mentioned get rid of and conquer your Scruples then be advised to lay them aside to throw them out of your Minds as dangerous Temptations and act positively against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you perswade us to conform to the Orders of the Church tho we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this the best Advice that can be given to such scrupulous Persons It would be an endless infinite thing and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joyning himself to it till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required or was in use in that Church for indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Government Discipline or publick Worship no more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Common People generally have neither Patience to consider nor Judgment to weigh all Circumstances nor Wisdom to choose that which is best these things of a Publick Nature belong only to our Superiours and Governours and if they appoint what is unfit indecent or inconvenient they only are accountable for it It is not the fault of those that joyn with such Worship or yield to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I know therefore no better Rule for the directing and quieting Mens Consciences than this that as to all such Matters as relate to Publick Order and decent Administration of God's Worship they should without any superstitious Fearfulness comply with the Customs of the Church they live in never troubling themselves nor curiously examining what is best and fittest as long as there is nothing enjoyned or done which after due enquiry appears to us contrary to any Law of God Thus St. Augustin directs us in that often quoted place where he tells us He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take in matters of Rites and Customs than to follow the Churches Example where he is for whatsoever is prescribed neither against Faith or Manners is a matter in its self indifferent and to be observed according to the Custom of those he lives among This was agreeable to the Counsel St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave him when he was sent by his Mother to enquire his Judgment about the Saturday Fast When I am at Rome saith the Bishop I fast on the Sabbath but at Milan I do not So thou likewise when thou comest to any Church observe its Custom if thou wouldest neither be an offence to them nor have them be so to thee Which St. Augustin ever after looked upon as an Oracle from Heaven I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and Objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easie consequence contrary to the revealed Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens Minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Should all those that have some little Arguments against the Sign of the Cross puzzle themselves with the Objections usually urged against Infant Baptism and defer baptizing their Children till they were fully satisfied about it I doubt not but the baptizing of Infants would soon be as much scrupled at as the crossing them now is But there is no apparent Evil in it it is the Practise of the Church we live in it is no where forbid in Scripture this ordinarily is sufficient Warrant for what we do Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with its Orders we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded of the Unlawfulness of what is required that it is forbid by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful causes but there is not the same necessity that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise The Judicious and Learned Bishop Sanderson thus expresseth it in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum The Law taketh every Man for a good Man and true till his Truth and Honesty be legally disproved and as our Saviour sometimes said He that is not against us is for us so in these matters he speaks of those Ceremonies that for Order's sake and to add the greater Solemnity to sacred Actions are appointed in the Church we are to believe all things to be lawful for us to do which cannot be shewn by good Evidence either of Scripture or Reason to be unlawful If any one be afraid that this Principle once imbibed would introduce Popery make People greedily swallow and without any Examination submit to every thing their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only consider which we all agree in that there are many things in the Popish Worship and Religion manifestly evil and forbidden by the revealed Will of God which renders our Separation from them necessary and so consequently justifiable whereas the things objected against in our Church are at worst only doubtful and suspicious or rather not so good and expedient as might be devised and this surely makes a wide difference in the case But doth not St. Paul say Rom. 14. 19. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean it is unclean Doth not he expresly tell us That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin that is Whatever we do without a full Persuasion of the lawfulness of it tho it be not so in it self yet is a Sin in him that doth it against his Conscience And doth not the Apostle say He that doubteth is damned if he eat before he is convinced that it may be done I desire here therefore only to be rightly understood and then these things are soon reconciled 1. When I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well perswaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he
doth not like or approve of it he hath some little Reasons and Exceptions against it it is not the best and fittest all things considered This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes to save themselves from the severity of the Laws joyn in our Worship and communicate with us which we presume they would never do did they judge it absolutely sinful and forbidden by God So that though it should be granted that a man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be lawful or not yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not unlawful though upon some other Accounts he scruples the doing of it 2. If the Question be about things wherein we are left wholly to our selves and at Liberty having no very weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things we scruple at Of such cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned Places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was required by any Law Eating was no instance of Duty nor was it any ways forbid Christians where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that of which he hath some suspicion tho he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-Plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any Detriment to our selves or others though we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfie himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interposed their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischief 1. When our Superiours either Civil or Ecclesiastical whom by the Will of God we are bound to obey in all lawful things have interposed their Commands our Scruples will not excuse or justifie our Disobedience If indeed we judge what is commanded to be absolutely unlawful tho it be a false erroneous Judgment yet whilst we are under such persuasion we are by no means to do it upon any Inducement whatever If I only doubt of the lawfulness of any particular Action and it be an instance wherein I am at liberty I am still bound not to do it For Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I am certainly innocent when I forbear I may commit a Sin If I do it Wisdom would therefore that the safer part be chosen But now if I am by the command of my Superiours obliged to it my choice is then determined it then becomes my Duty and it can never be safe or advisable to neglect a plain Duty for an uncertain Offence Thus most and best Casuists do determine about a doubtful Conscience particularly the forenamed reverend Bishop in the same Sermon Whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us either in Church Commonwealth or Family quod tamen not sit certum displicere Deo saith St. Bernard which is not evidently contrary to the Law and Will of God ought to be of us received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it because God himself hath commanded us to obey the Higher Powers and to submit our selves to their Ordinances But now this is more plain concerning Fears and Scruples only about the conveniency and expediency of things these ought all to be despised when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Would men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves they would soon see the reasonableness of such submission For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it was thereby exempted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according to this principle no publick 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 a general mischief They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our publick way of Worship is not the best that can be devised that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we could 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 inconveniences of any Alteration till it comes to be tryed 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 determined 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 expressed 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 such Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of publick Order and divine Charity for better surely it is to serve God in a defective imperfect manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and brotherly Communion For this we have the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour who lived and died in Communion with a Church where there were far greater Corruptions both as to Persons and Practises than can be pretended to be in ours at this day yet though he was the great Reformer of Mankind he forsook not the Jewish Church but assembled with them in their publick Synagogues which answer to our Parish-Churches preached in the Temple though they had made it a Den of Thieves observed their Festivals tho some of them of humane Institution nay commanded his Disciples to continue to hear the Scribes and Pharisees tho they were a most vile and wretched Generation of Men. Great were the Pollutions and Misdemeanours in the Churches of Rome Corinth
is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning but less knowing members of it and by degrees produces a distast or dislike of our Worship and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administred in our Church whilest it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt and why there should not be a due regard had to those many who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship as well as of those who are said to be Scandalized by our Church service I cannot at all guess I shall only say here that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mens unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers their indecent postures and antick gestures at their devotions the extravagancies and follies not to say worse some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching in a word the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous then all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be 4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt concerning which the forenamed Mr. Jeans in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil hath these words If saith he it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck than to offend a little one a poor and illiterate Artizan what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate to a Religious Prince to a Parliament and Convocation to an whole Church and Commonwealth 5. By this Separation from the Church great Scandal is given to the Papists not that they are displeased at it they are not indeed offended in that sense but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship it increaseth their confidence that their Church is the only true Church of Christ because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us that Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and he saith of himself that he is persuaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the multitude of Sects among our selves This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us and hit us in the teeth with and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation 6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing a matter of endless dispute and debate it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Publick Peace of Societies when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheisme and all kind of Prophaneness and Irreligion After this manner it was of old and always will be where there are Parties in Religion and one contends that their Separation is lawful and the other that it is unlawful the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion I might add here that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity they beget implacable enmities and animosities Hence cometh strife emulation envying one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other watching for one anothers halting rejoycing in one anothers sins and misfortunes constant undermining one another to the disturbance of the Publick Government and endangering the Civil Peace of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undenyable an evidence that there need no more words to shew the mischiefs that attend such Divisions and now let any one judge whether the Peace and Unity of the Church the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren the keeping out Popery and Atheism the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate and quiet of the Society we are Members of the honour and credit of our Religion Lastly Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division nay Scandalizing them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal be not of far greater and more weighty consideration than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren Wo to those by whom Offences come But these things I have very lightly touched because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published To sum up all I have said Since they who dissent from the Church of England are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalize or Offend them in that sense in which the Scriptures use those words since tho we did give Offence to them by our Conformity yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief I think I may safely conclude that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent himself from his Parish-Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending his weak Brethren I end all with one word of Advice First to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity Secondly to those who are satisfied that it is lawful 1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request since they require all others to be so tender of them They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our publick Churches Let them not affront our Service and Common-Prayers nor revile our Bishops and Ministers nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches nor talk nor read in Books nor make sour
cannot charge the Church with any plain degeneracy or open Apostacy from the Doctrine or Practice of the Scriptures When any particular Church degenerates plainly either in Doctrine or Worship there I am not concerned to determine how far she forfeits all that respect that she might otherwise claim from men nor how much the Credit of a single person may vie with her Perhaps when the Church was degenerated into Arrianism the judgement of Athanasius and some few other Bishops was more to be regarded than that of a whole Synod and in the horrid Apostacy of the Roman Church perhaps the single Doctrine of John Huss was preferable to that of the whole Council of Constance But still in both these Cases or any other parallel ones that respect derived it self not from their persons but was wholly owing to truth and the holy Scriptures that stood with them But blessed be God this is not our case our Church doth challenge and triumph over all charges of any such Apostacy and all the disputes and contests with her by any of these men are about things confessedly doubtful and such as are in their own nature indifferent things about which to say the least it is as possible that single persons may erre and mistake as it is for the Church unless in this also as in many other instances men fall in with the grossest Tenet in Popery that single persons may more reasonably pretend to Infallibility than the whole Church Every man derides and thinks he can baffle all the pretences of the Bishop of Rome to Infallibility and therefore should blush and be ashamed of his own either arrogating it to himself or ascribing it to another For the truth is I do not see but his pretences are as just as another man's i. e. indeed they are both monstrously unreasonable And yet alas this is not the least source of the unhappiness of this Age nor need I be condemned for staying a little while to drop a tear upon it Men turn Dictators in Religion and impose their own Dreams as magisterially upon their Followers as if they were oracular and I am perswaded their Disciples hang as much upon their single authority and confidence and yield as absolute and implicite Faith to all their Doctrines as ever any poor Papists against whom they exclaim so tragically for blind Obedience and Faith They are kept in as absolute subjection to their placits and dare no more read and consult Books that are written to inform them than a poor Papist dare let a prohibited Book be seen in his House by a Father of the Inquisition If ever people followed their leaders blindfold these men do they will not hear any thing against them They have their persons in admiration and I wish I could not say of some for filthy lucres sake or at least some mean reasons equivalent thereto They will not so much as submit to means of Information they commonly say they are satisfied already and the single blustering of one of their own Rabbies shall signifie more with them than all the Arguments of the most Learned and sober men living beside But I am insensibly drawn aside from my chief Subject which is not to treat so much of a respect of Credit and Faith as of Tenderness and Charity which is certainly as justly due from us to the Church as to any private persons whatsoever and it cannot but be as unreasonable to fail in the one as in the other It is every whit as unjust for men to be more regardless of grieving and troubling the Church of Christ as it is foolish and unreasonable to set up one single man's opinion against that of many others that are in the same circumstances and advantages of Knowledge and every way both as knowing and as upright as himself Whatever considerations there are to determine our Charity to single persons there are the same at least to make it necessary towards the Church and as strong reasons to restrain us from offending the one as the other Whatever becomes an Argument in one case is equally so also in the other and if it be not as effectual with us we are partial in the Law and distinguish without any reasons but those of our own partial and unjust respects Let men be pleased to look into the Scriptures and consult the practices of our Lord himself or his Apostles after him and their thoughts will soon be resolved in this matter they will find the one calling for as much deference and respect to the Church as to private persons and the other upon all occasions as careful to pay it and in all cases extreamly careful not to give offence to it in any thing whatsoever as were easie to shew in Instances enough that are plain and obvious to all that read and can scarce pass unobserved by any This is the first Consideration and I appeal to all if it be not a very easie Postulatum a very modest and reasonable intimation and yet I assure you it were a good point gained and a very good step towards our peace were men hearty in their concessions of it Would men pay but the same deference to the Church of Christ and her Constitutions as they readily do to their own single Opinions or the confident suggestions of some admired Leader we might quickly hope to see some end of our Questions and Disputes And would they be but as tender of giving any offence to the Publick as they are of doing so to every little person of their own party we might begin to hope that the Constitutions of our Church might gain some respect and some measure of peaceableness and modesty bless the Inhabitants of this Nation once more 2. But this is too little to suggest and the lesser part of what I would propose to consideration upon this Subject and therefore in the second place I desire it may be considered whether we ought not to have a greater respect to the Church of God than to any single or private persons whatsoever And truly I think this is as reasonable a Postulatum as the other and that which will be as soon granted true by all that duly consider things In all things whatsoever the Publick requires more respect from us than any private person and the welfare of the one is to be preferred by us before that of the other If the Church of Christ and any private Party of men come in competition and it so happen that we probably may give offence to one we ought to let our regard to the Church sway and determine us and think it a less evil that some particular persons be offended than that trouble or offence be given to the whole Church That saying of Caiaphas recorded Joh. 11. 50. though spoken with an unjust and barbarous design yet is a certain and rational truth It is expedient that one man suffer and not the whole Nation perish And it is certainly a less evil
preces aliunde describit non eis utatur nisi prius eas cum instructioribus Fratribus contulerit i. e. And whosoever shall write out Prayers for himself from elsewhere that is from any Book that hath not been publickly received and allowed for what else can be meant by aliunde he shall not presume to use them till he hath first consulted about them with his more learned Brethren Which is a plain evidence that they used Forms before otherwise how could they have written them out from elsewhere or from other mens composures Whereas before therefore they had liberty to add new Forms as they thought fit to the received Liturgy they are so far restrained by this Council as not to do it without the advice and approbation of their more learned Brethren but this restriction being found insufficient to prevent the ill consequences of their former liberty it was ordained a few years after in the Council of Mela (s) (s) (s) Concil Milev c. 12. That those Prayers which had been approved of in the Council whether Prefaces or Commendations or Impositions of Hands should be used of all and that none should be said in the Church but such as had been treated of by the more prudent or allowed in the Synod lest any thing contrary to the Faith should be inserted either through ignorance or want of care Now though these indeed were but Provincial Councils and so in themselves could oblige no farther than their particular Provinces yet the very Canon above-cited out of the first of them (t) (t) (t) Concil Laod. c. 18. is taken into the collections of the Canons of the Catholick Church being the 122th therein which Collection was received and establish'd in the General Council of Chalcedon (*) (*) (*) Concil Chalced. c. 1. An. 451. By which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies so far as the authority of the General Council extends And then in the year 541 these Canons are made Imperial Laws by the Emperour Justinian who enacted (u) (u) (u) Justin Novel 131. c. 1. that the Canons of those four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcadon should oblige as far as the Empire did extend Of what authority the use of formed Liturgies were in this Emperour's time and long before may be easily collected from his Novels for he complains of the remissness of some Bishops that they did not take care to inforce the observance of the sacred Canons and tells us that he had received several complaints against the Clergy Monks and some Bishops that they did not live according to the Divine Canons and that some among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not acquainted with the Prayer of the Holy Oblation and Holy Baptism (w) (w) (w) Id. Nov. 137. Preface and then he declares that for the future he was resolved to punish the Transgressors of the Canons which had it been done before saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (x) (x) (x) Id. ib. c. 1. Every one would have endeavoured to learn the Divine Liturgies that he might not be subject to the condemnation of the Divine Canons Which is a plain argument not onely that there were form'd Liturgies before Justinian for otherwise how could he expect the Clergy should learn them but that these Liturgies had been long before establish'd by the Canons of the Church And then among other things he requires that for the future such as were to be ordained should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (y) (y) (y) Id. ib. c. 2. Recite the Office for the Holy Communion and the Prayer for Holy Baptism and the rest of the Prayers which Prayers were not made in Justinian's time but long before they being as he tells us before establish'd by the Ecclesiastical Canons And after this he enjoyns all Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (z) (z) (z) Id. ib. c. 6. That they should not say these Prayers silently but so as that the People might hear them that so their minds might be raised to an higher pitch of Devotion Thus for near six hundred years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the publick use of Forms of Prayer And from henceforth or a little after down to Mr. Calvin's time all are agreed that no other Prayers were admitted into the publick Worship but what were contain'd in the establish'd Liturgies of the respective Churches and even that great Light of the Reformation Mr. Calvin though he used to pray extempore after his Lecture yet always used a Form before (a) (a) (a) Praef. ad praelect Calv. in Min. proph and his Prayers before and after Sermon were rather bidding of Prayers according to the ancient usage than formal Prayers (b) (b) (b) Beza in praef ad Conc. Calv. in Job and as he used a Form himself so he composed one for the Sunday-service which was afterwards establish'd by the Order at Geneva And in his Letter to the Lord Protector in the Reign of Edward the Sixth he thus declares his judgment concerning publick Forms (c) (c) (c) Calvin Ep. 87. For so much as concerns the Forms of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I highly approve that it be determined so as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their Administration to vary from it Nor is there any one reformed Church whether Calvinistical or Lutheran but what hath some publick Office or Form of Prayer especially for the Administration of the Sacraments So that our Dissenting Brethren in England who disallow the use of publick Forms do stand alone by themselves from all the World And as for that extempore way of praying which they so much celebrate and for the sake of which they despise and vilifie our publick Liturgy as a Relick of Popish Idolatry they would do well to consider who it was that first introduc'd it into England and set it up in opposition to our Liturgy For first there was one Faithful Commin a Dominican Friar who in the 9th of Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church thereby to serve the ends of Popery began to pray extempore with such wonderful Zeal and Fervour that he deluded a great many simple People for which he was afterwards amply rewarded by the Pope (d) (d) (d) Vid. Foxes and Fire-brands p. 7 c. After him one Thomas Heath a Jesuit pursued the same method exclaiming against our Liturgy and crying up Spiritual or Extempore Prayers (e) (e) (e) Id. p. 17. thereby to divide the People from our publick Worship telling the Bishop of Rochester by whom he was examined That he had been six years in England labouring to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer (f) (f) (f) Of which see more in the Preface of the Learned Treatise The Vnreasonableness of Separation beginning at p. 11. And I hope when our Brethren have well considered
must with all our Old Churches c. or we are guilty of an inexcusable violation of the Divine Law And to except such things as these after they have Evinced from such Scriptures our obligation to destroy all things notoriously polluted in grosly Superstitious and Idolatrous Services seems to be making too too bold with the express Laws of God which make no such exceptions nor doth the forementioned reason of them imply any such And therefore they have been highly condemned for making such like exceptions by others of their Brethren who have Attained to a higher dispensation And considering this Concession that such things as the fore-named may still be lawfully used as also the Concessions of a nameless Author in his famous Book call'd Nehushtan that no Creature of God is to be refused nor any necessary or profitable devices of men need be sent packing upon the account of their having been much abused to the foresaid ends I appeal to their own more sedate thoughts whether all that can be concluded from such Scriptures is any more than this that things so abused ought to be destroyed or abolished by all who have power to do it in some certain case or cases and not merely for this reason because they have been so abused This I presume none of us will deny and if they will acknowledge it as they must do if they will stand to those their Concessions they will be Constrained to give up this Cause I will conclude the Argument in hand with the judgment of that Eminent Reformer Mr. Calvin whose Authority goes farther with the generality of our Brethren than I think any Mans next to the Apostles Saith he upon the Second Commandment I know that the Jews throughout the time of their Paedagogy were Commanded to destroy the Groves and Altars of Idolaters not by vertue of the Moral Law but by an Appendix in the Judicial or Politick Law which did oblige that People for a time only but it binds not Christians And therefore we do not in the least scruple whether we may Lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abused 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 violently things in their own Nature indifferent be not too Superstitious It is equally Superstitious to Condemn things indifferent as Vnholy and to Command them as if they were Holy Thus you see Mr. Calvins sense agreeth exactly with Ours touching this Point of Controversie between us and many of our Dissenting Brethren Secondly They endeavour also to make out this Doctrine of theirs by Scripture Examples There are four or five of these Examples insisted upon but I will trouble the Reader with considering only one of them both because it is the Principal Example and that which they lay most stress on and because the Reply I shall make to this will be as satisfactory in reference to the rest It is that of Hezekiah his breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent that Moses had made because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Now saith a certain Noted Author What Example is more considerable than that of Hezekiah who not only abolished such Monuments of Idolatry as at their first Institution were but Men's inventions but brake down also the Brazen Serpent though Originally set up at Gods Command when once he saw it abused to Idolatry And he adds that this deed of Hezekiah Pope Stephen doth greatly Praise citing Wolphius for it and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation that when our Predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time and afterwards they are converted into Error and Superstition they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them Which soever of the Stephens this was he was a strangely Honest Pope especially had he Practised according to this his Profession and his Infallibility-ship had judg'd Impartially of Errors and Superstitions And he cites Farellus out of an Epistle of Calvins for this saying That Princes and Magistrates should learn by this Example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant Rites of Mens devising which have turned to Superstition And he farther adds that the Bishop of Winchester in his Sermon on Phil. 2. 10. acknowledgeth that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of Men when it is drawn to Superstition cometh under the Compass of the Brazen Serpent and is to be abolished And he saith he Excepteth nothing from this Example but only things of Gods own Prescribing But 't is strange if a Bishop should not except Churches and some other things besides which are of an humane make and as strange if there be nothing going before or coming after this acknowledgment to lead us to a better understanding of it We will not question our Authors faithfulness in Transcribing it but wish he had told us which Bishop of Winchester this is and in what page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgment But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolished and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do will I presume sufficiently appear by these following Considerations First The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services but it was made an Idol it self Secondly It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol or Object of Religious Worship but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed Nay it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry It being not only bowed down to but had likewise Incense burnt to it this being a Rite which is never used in meer Civil Worship like bowing the Knee c. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship that no Rite is more so Nay farther Thirdly It was not thus notoriously Idolized by some few of the People but the People were generally lapsed into this Idolatry As the Text plainly sheweth Nay Fourthly There was as little hope as could be of the Peoples being reclaimed from this Idolatry while the Idol was in being Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto For 't is said that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it which speaks it to have been not only a Custom but a Custom also of a long standing Fifthly Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed from the Peoples sight if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them and a Temptation to Idolatry Since now the use of it was ceased for which by Divine
appoint Patriarchs and Primates in every Province that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together In short for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops and call it Antichristian can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together Secondly As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick Offices It is easie to shew that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church that 't is highly Commendable For as herein our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church than with that of Rome as she is now Constituted nothing being more certainly known than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing so nothing is more highly expedient for the due management of the publick Worship of God than the use of a Liturgy And indeed instead of Expedient I might say Necessary it being impossible to secure the performance of publick Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse to which I refer the Reader I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of Calvins Epistle Ad Protectorem Angliae saith he As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to depart in the exercise of their Function Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear And lastly to put a barr to the skipping Levity of others who Affect certain innovations And therefore as he proceeds Statum esse Catechismum oportet Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem publicam item precum Formulam there ought to be an Established Catechism an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Establisht and also a Publick Form of Prayers And he accordingly composed a Liturgy to be used by the Ministers in Geneva on Sundays and Holydays And the Exiles that resided at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary did by his advice draw up a Liturgy which was Printed in the English Tongue in the year 1556. Thirdly As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein is sufficient to shew that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church upon the account of the Symbolizing that is between these two Churches in this particular But we will perticularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Roman Service which are most offensive to our Brethren they are especially these four 1. Our many short Prayers which some have too lighly called short Cuts and Shreddings and rather Wishes than Prayers But there needs no other reply hereunto than that our Learned Hooker gives viz. That St. Augustin saith Epist 121. That the Brethren in Aegypt are reported to have many Prayers but every of them very short as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind which in Prayer is very necessary should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance if their Prayers were few and long But that which St. Austin alloweth they Condemn c. He might as well have said What that good Father Commendeth nay his words imply no small commendation And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls who without prejudice joyn with us in our Publick Prayers whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their Devotion I don't question but that such will readily acknowledge that they find it an help And therefore in my weak judgment our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in this particular is Symbolizing with her in that which is highly commendable as 't is so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches 2. Another instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness but the Fitness and Expediency also of Symbolizing herein with the Church of Rome Saith he 1. The Scripture no where forbids it 2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre there can be no reason given but they may Lawfully do it in Prose 3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ that they would have taken it for an injury or quenching of the Spirit to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church 4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the Mind and stirs up Gods graces in his Servants 5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that first shut out the Responses while they kept up the Ancient Zeal they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship Though I were under no obligation of brevity I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter 3. Another instance of this Nature is the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book But to this I give this I hope as satisfactory as short Answer viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad if they are bad ones they may not be used though they were not in the Mass-Book and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful not upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Roman Church But if they are all good ones as they are very good then from what hath been said 't is Evident that this Symbolizing cannot make them bad and 't is a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture because they use it Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation 4. The last instance is The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books But herein we Symbolize with the Primitive Church rather than with this of Rome For as hath been shewed out of the 6. Article of our Church they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture and we perfectly agree with
veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de patre ut esset doctor veritatis Neglexerit Officium Dei villicus Christi Vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere aliter credere quam ipse per Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Tertul. de praescript Haereticorum c. 28. Would he suffer them all so soon to Apostatize and to practise and believe otherwise than Christ had taught and the Apostles preached No! It is impossible that they should all consent in such a dangerous error or that they should all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration should be made without Observation no body can tell how or when Wherefore these Dissenters are very unreasonable in charging the Church universal with apostasie from Christ upon the account of Infant-Baptism and in striving to throw her out of the possession of such an ancient and general practice merely by such indirect and consequential Arguments from the Scriptures as the Ancient Fathers never drew from them nor we can admit against their general practice and consent Certainly those places of the * * * Neque verò ignota fuerunt Ecclesiae priscis Ecclesiae patribus Evangelicae Apostolicae Scripturae loca in quibus poenitentia fides unà cum Baptismo requiri videntur Sciebant enim probe haec ad adultos Cassand Praefat advers Anabapt New Testament which require a Profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the Ancient Fathers they undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but yet they never drew this absurd Consequence from them that because Faith and Repentance were to go before Baptism which is an Institution of Latitude in Adult Persons that therefore Baptism was not to go before Faith and Repentance in Children and Minors as both Circumcision and Baptism in the like Case were wont to go before them in the Jewish Church They knew the difference betwixt the admission of actual and potential See Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants great Exemplar Sect. 9. part 2. Believers and also knew it was a very great inconsequence to argue from the Qualifications which the Gospel requires in those to the Exclusion of these I freely acknowledge to them that no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful yet when they are so I appeal to any sober Dissenter of this or any other Perswasion whether the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentical Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men. They thought Infant-Baptism lawful and valid and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism and let any modest and moderate Man judge whether so many Famous * * * Hanc desipuere praeterita saecula ut tot millibus parvulorum per mille eo amplius annos illusorium Baptisma tribuerent à Christi temporibus usque ad vos non veros ei Christianos sed Phantasticos crearent Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum tantaque huc usque caligine involutus ut ad aperiendos oculos suos ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam post tot Patres Martyres Pontifices universalem Ecclesiarum Principes vos tamdiu expectarit Petrus Abbas Cluniacens apud Cassandr Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times should fall into such a Delusion as to conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians and Mock-Churches or that a little Sect which must have separated from all the Ancient as well as Modern Churches that were ever yet discovered should be in a great and grievous Error themselves Let them begin with the first Testimonies about the practice of Infant-Baptism viz. at the latter end of the second and beginning of the third Century and take the pains to consult the successive Writers of the Church St. Irenaeus as I have observed was the Disciple of St. Polycarp who was the Disciple of St. John and Tertullian was contemporary with the last days of St. Irenaeus and the next Writer in whom we find Infant-Baptism mentioned as an a a a In Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam Spiritum ablui deberent In Lucam Homil. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum in lib. Homil. 8. quia per Baptismi Sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli Apostolical and Universal Practice I mean Origen flourished within fifteen years after Tertullian's Death St. Cyprian was Contemporary with the latter days of Origen and his Epistle to Fidus the Presbyter is such an account of Infant-Baptism that it alone is enough to Convince any Soul where Prejudice doth not reign that it always was the practice of the Church Fidus had written unto him to let him know that he thought it was not lawful to Baptize Children before the Eighth Day according to the Law of Circumcision to which he returned this Answer b b b Quantum autem ad causam Infantum pertinet quas dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos Baptizari non oportere considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae ut infra octavum diem eum qui natus est Baptizandum Sanctificandum non putares longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est Ep. 58. p. 95. Ed. Rigalt That he and the Council which consisted of 66 Bishops were of another Opinion having determined that as God under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons So he was no accepter of Ages but that Infants might be Baptized as soon as they were born to wash away their Original Sin The African Church was one of the most flourishing strict and pious of the Primitive Churches and this resolution of the Council which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after was not novum decretum supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original and immemorial practice of that Church This Council sat about the middle of the third Century 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus c c c Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou a Child Let not Sin get the advantage but let him be sanctified from his Infancy and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned because of the weakness of his Nature what a silly Mother art thou and how weak in Faith Anna promised Samuel to God before he was born and
not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a a a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b b b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c c c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a a a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b b b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c c c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d d d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a a a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2 Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veteru de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same mother-Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b b b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c c c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20.
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
Prebendaries of Exon. THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART II. Wherein these QUERIES are considered IV. Whether Kneeling commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages V. Whether it be unlawful for us to Receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Took at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1685. Query IV. Whether Kneeling commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages THe onely way for any man to give or receive satisfaction in this point is diligently to consult the Records of ancient Times and from them make a faithful report of the Customs and Usages of the ancient Catholick Church For when once these are made manifest it will be very easie by comparing things together to discern whether they are consistent or contrary one to another Whether the Practice of the Church of England as to Kneeling at the Sacrament be agreeable or repugnant to that of the Primitive Christians In Answer therefore to this Question my business is to give a plain Historical Account of the practice of the Church in those early Ages of Christianity from whence it may evidently appear that the Church of England by obliging her Communicants to Kneel doth not oblige them to practise any thing but what is agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure Antiquity And this I will endeavour to do under these Two general Heads 1. It 's highly probable that the Primitive Church used to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament as our Custom at present is 2. It 's most certain they used an Adoring Posture But before I enter upon this undertaking I will crave leave to premise somewhat concerning this Query in general and somewhat for explication of a Term contained in it viz. What we are to understand by The first and purest Ages As to the Case it self in general it is of such a nature and requires such an Answer that not one among Twenty thousand of the ordinary and common sort of people is duely qualified to understand it and pass a true judgement upon it the merits of the Cause are quite out of their reach and whether we are in the right or the wrong they know not but believe as they are taught and upon the credit of others who they suppose are able to inform them about such matters For in order to estimate the present Case aright and as it ought it is necessary that a man have some competent knowledge of and insight into the Customs and Constitutions of the ancient Church the Decrees of Councils the Works of the Fathers and the Original Languages wherein they wrote which I am sure few or none of the Vulgar have attained to And truly upon this very consideration I should have pass'd this Query by without taking the least notice of it had I not in my converse with several Dissenting Laymen heard it started and pleaded in justification of their Nonconformity to the Custom and Constitution of the Church of England I confess I did a little wonder to find men make that a Rule of Conscience and boldly rely and practise upon it which they do not at all understand to find this Weapon put into the hands of ordinary and illiterate persons not onely to defend themselves against the Commands of their lawful Superiours and those who are set over them by God to be their Rulers and Guides in all such cases especially where they are not able to guide and direct themselves but also to wound and murder the Reputation of the National Church as degenerate from all Antiquity as introducing and imposing novel Customs and Ceremonies repugnant to the Principles and Practices of the first and purest Ages Whether it be well done in Nonconforming Ministers to furnish the common people with such kind of Arguments as these so much out of their way and above their pitch and capacity I leave the honest part of the world to judge The 2 thing I would premise is this Supposing Kneeling at the Sacrament was never used by the ancient Church yet such an Objection is a wretched Plea in the mouth of a Dissenter to justifie his Nonconformity by as to this particular Gesture For if Kneeling be a crime and unlawful because it was not used in Primitive times Sitting at the Sacrament is a much greater for that was condemned as an irreverend Posture as will appear by and by Besides they themselves have a very little value for Antiquity and in all things almost run counter to it And one would think that they should be very willing to receive Kneeling for that very reason which they produce against it that is because it is contrary to the currant practice of all Antiquity as they would make their Party to believe This might be expected from them because they will not be perswaded by any means or entreaties to comply with such Customs and Ceremonies of our Church as were undoubtedly used by the ancient Christians such as God-fathers and God-mothers the Cross in Baptism the Ring in Marriage the Feasts or Holy-days of Christmas Easter c. but instead of Conformity to these things they raise an Hue and Cry upon the Church as Popish and Anti-christian for enjoyning such Ceremonies and pretend they had much rather endure any extremity than submit their Necks to such an intolerable Yoak But how hard is the Government put to it to please such humoursome persons When our Governours tread in the very steps of the Primitive Bishops and blessed Martyrs then they are Popish and Antichristian and the Consciences of our dissenting Brethren will not suffer them to conform and at other times they cannot conform because they require them to do what was never required nor practised in the Church of Christ throughout all preceding Generations till Transubstantiation was established in the World So that to follow Antiquity is a great Objection against Conformity at some times and not to follow it as great at others When ever they please to make it so it is so say or do what one can to the contrary Thus much concerning the Case in general Let us now see the meaning of that Phrase The first and purest Ages This I think may be easily made out from the Writings of those men who have stoutly defended Sitting or a common Table-Gesture who have delivered their minds with as much clearness and as roundly as one would wish concerning this matter For thus the Author of a Book formerly cited affirms That Antiquity is wholly against us and the Primitive Churches never Dispute upon Quest of Kneel c. to the Reader id p. 67. so much as heard of Kneeling
months space was granted to Berengarius to consider in and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals That God would shew by some sign from Heaven who was in the right the Pope or Berengarius It seems the Doctrine of the Popes Bâ—nno Card. in vita Hild. Epis Dunelm Hist Trans p. 135. Infallibility was not known to that Age and that of the Corporal presence much doubted But however thus much we may conclude upon That from the dark and mysterious Writings of those men Paschasius and Amalarius did that monstrous Errour of Transubstantiation spring which afterwards came to be established as an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome As to the time then wherein we are to contain this Discourse it shall be the first 700 years after Christ and to Authors onely that liv'd within that compass I will appeal for evidence in the matter under dispute and surely our Dissenting Brethren will allow that they lived in the first and purest Ages because they were dead before the Doctrines either of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation were hatcht much less received or establisht in the World If I would take all the advantage that our Adversaries give us I need not confine my self within so narrow a compass For they challenge us to produce one instance for Kneeling before the days of Honorius the Third who lived 1220 or thereabouts and confidently affirm Kneeling was never heard of nor used for 1200 years after Christ I hope therefore they will not complain of foul dealing or that I strain the point since I give away 500 years wherein the pure ancient Catholick Faith touching the Holy Sacrament began to decline and was by various arts and tricks at last foully corrupted Which piece of liberality I need not have exercised but that I design purely to convince not to contend Let us therefore bring this matter under examination and see what the practice of the Church was within the compass of 700 years after Christ or which is all one in the first and purest Ages And what I shall produce out of Antiquity may be conveniently placed under these two general Heads according to the method proposed in the beginning of this Discourse 1 That notwithstanding several Nonconformists well esteemed of for Learning have in their Writings boldly asserted Kneeling to be contrary to all Antiquity it is highly probable the Primitive Christians did Kneel in the act of Receiving as the Custom is in the Church of England 2 It 's certain they used an Adoring posture As to the first I hope I shall be able to make it good by this following Account which I shall give with all possible plainness and sincerity And I declare beforehand to all the World that I will offer nothing for satisfaction to others which I do not think in my Conscience to be true and that I would not use a Fallacy to serve the Cause though I were sure it could never be detected by any of our Separating Brethren In the first place for the first Century or 100 years wherein our Lord and his Apostles lived the Scripture hath left us in the dark and under great uncertainty what the particular Gesture was which they used at the Institution and Celebration of the Holy Sacrament which I think I have sufficiently evinced in my Answers Part 1. p. 17. to the first and second Query In the next place I desire those who urge a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting which was a usual posture at Meals among those Eastern Nations as well as among us now to observe that Sitting was esteemed a very irreverend Posture to be used in the Worship and Service of God by the Primitive Church of which I shall give a few instances The ancient Loadicean Which met under Pope Sylvester 1. between the Neocaesarian Synod and the first general Council of Nice that is between the years 314 and 325 as some learned men think or Anno Dom. 365. after the first general Nicaene Council as others Synod finding great inconveniencies to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lords Supper prohibited absolutely the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was of Solemnizing those Feasts The words of the Canon are these The Feasts of Charity ought Can. 28. not to be kept in the Lords House or in the Church neither may ye eat or make Couches in the House of God This was afterward forbidden by the Council of Carthage and the Decrees of both these Provincial or National Councils were ratified by the 6th Trullan Council and that under the pain of Excommunication Can. 74. upon which in some time the Custom dwindled to nothing Now the Reasons which induced these holy Bishops and ancient Fathers to prohibit these Feasts of Charity and the use of a discumbing posture upon Beds or Couches in the House of God which was too an ordinary Table-gesture according to the custome of those times were in all probability taken from the Disorder and Irreverence the Animosities and Excess that accompanied these Feasts and which both poor and rich were guilty of They did not distinguish between their spiritual and corporal Food between the Lords Supper and an ordinary Meal they did not discern the Lords Body as St. Paul speaks and I am apt to think that the same abuses which had crept in so early into the Church of Corinth and which St. Paul took notice of and reproved continued and spread till the Church by her Censures and Decrees opposed the growing evil and rooted up the causes of such mischievous effects To these Canons of Councils if we adde the Testimony of particular Bishops who lived in those first Ages and who speak not their own private sence and Opinions but Customes and Usages of the Church in their time we shall plainly discern that Sitting was accounted an irreverent posture in the Worship of God while they were engaged in Prayer or Praise or receiving the Holy Sacrament Justin Martyr who lived in the second Century which immediately Flor. Ann. D. 155. succeeded that of the Apostles seems to hint that the people sate at the Sermon and while the Lessons were reading when he informs us concerning the Christian Assemblies in his Apol. 2. time and the place where he lived After the reading of the Lessons and the exhortatory Sermon of the Bishop we rise up saith he all together and send up our Prayers He doth not indeed signifie what the particular Gesture was which they used at their Prayers but it 's clear enough they did not Sit and they might Kneel for any thing he saith to the contrary For it 's customary among us to sit at the Sermon and during the reading of the Lessons and after they are ended we may be truly said to rise up all together and send up our Prayers But if any one should hence infer that we stood and not kneeled he would conclude
plain account in these words Let the Bishop give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice by which name the Holy Sacrament was called in Primitive times saying The Body of Christ and let him that receives say Amen Then let the Deacon take the Cup and at the delivery say The Bloud of Christ the Cup of Life and let him that drinketh say Amen Now although it cannot be denied but that these Constitutions are in many things adulterated yet it is allowed on the other hand that in many things they are very sincere and convey to us the pure Practice of the most ancient times That they give a true and sound account in this matter relating to the Sacrament we may rest fully satisfied from the concuring Evidence of other ancient Writers who lived in the fourth Century For both St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Jerusalem Ambr. de Sacr. lib 4. c. 5. p. 440. To. 4. St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Mystag 5. Universa Ecclesia accepto Christi Sanguine dicit Amen Resp ad Orosi quest 49. To. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. make express mention of the peoples saying Amen when the Minister said The Body of Christ So also St. Austin speaks of it as universally practised by the Church of Christ when the Cup was delivered And there is a very remarkable passage recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History which being very apposite to our purpose I will set down for the close of all Novatius a Presbyter of the Church of Rome having renounced the Communion of the Church and the Authority of his rightful Bishop Cornelius set up for himself and became the head Epist Cornel. ad Fab. apud Euseb Eccles Hist lib. 6. c. 35. de Novato of an unreasonable and unnatural Schism and the better to secure to him the Proselytes he had gained he altered the usual form of Prayer at the Sacrament and in the room thereof substituted a new-fangled Oath which he obliged every Communicant to take at the time of their receiving which among other wicked actions is particulary taken notice of and charged upon him by Cornelius as the worst of all and the most villanous Innovation When he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came says he to offer Sacrafices i. e. to celebrate the Lords Supper and to distribute to every one his part at the delivery of it he constrained those persons who unhappily sided with him to take an Oath instead of offering up Prayers and Praises according to custom and instead of saying Amen he forced every Communicant when he received the Bread to say I will never return to Cornelius as long as I live From these plain instances we may see how closely our Church follows the steps of pure antiquity in the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by the Minister at the giving of the Bread and the Cup to the people which runs thus The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life c. which last Clause was added by latter times by way of explication to that short Form which the Primitive Church used and surely it 's every Christians interest as well as his duty to joyn with the Minister in such a Prayer and return a hearty Amen to it I will now briefly sum up the Evidence that hath been produced out of Antiquity in justification of Kneeling at the Holy Communion according to the custom and practice of our Church and observe where it directs us to fix and what to resolve upon And in this order it lies Sitting was adjudged by the ancient Catholick Church a very unfit and irreverent posture to be used in time of Divine Service when they were solemnly engaged in the Worship of God the Holy Sacrament was esteemed the most solemn Act or Branch of Christian Worship The Primitive Christians generally used standing at their publick Devotions onely on the Lords days and all that space of time that falls between Easter and Whitsunday At all other times in their religious Assemblies Kneeling was their Worshipping posture and they were wont to meet and receive the Lords Supper every day and particularly on their stated Weekly Fasts which they kept every Wednesday and Friday when to stand was thought as great an irregularity as to kneel was on the Lords day And lastly the Holy Sacrament was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer and that on those days when they constantly prayed Kneeling All these things therefore being considered I think the least that can be concluded from them is what I asserted and designed viz. that in all likelihood the Primitive Christians did kneel at the Holy Communion as the Custom is in the Church of England For sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent Gesture by the Primitive Church and no man in his wits will say that prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever used in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so it must be therefore one of these two either Standing or Kneeling As for Standing all the time of publick Worship which was used onely on the Lords day and in Pentecost the reason thereof was drawn not from the Sacrament but from the day and festival season when they did more particularly Communicate the Resurrection of our blessed Saviour openly testified their belief of that great Article at such times therefore they chose standing as being a gesture sutable to the present occasion and as an Emblem and sign of the Resurrection And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary days when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to stand at the Sacrament in all likelyhood they used Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They used one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lords day and for fifty days after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then should any man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and received in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may howsoever promise my self thus much success That whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church used at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never used nor heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World 2. But secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they received the Lords Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justifie the present
Remark The pretence of their convenient usefulness would be no better Excuse on their behalf than was that Plea for sparing the best of the Antalekites Cattel that they might be a Sacrifice when God had devoted them to Destruction For if God as they say hath commanded that all such Things and Rites should be utterly abolished as were of mans devising and had been abused to Idolatry then the convenient usefulness of such Places and Things will never bear them out 4 If it be sinful to Kneel at the Sacrament because that Cesture hath been and is notoriously abused by Papists to idolatrous ends so also is Sitting which is contended for with so much shew of Zeal For the Pope himself sits in the Act of Receiving as was before noted and if any credit be to be given to a Doctor of the Church of Rome for the same reason which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution and Celebration of the Sacrament If any enquire why the Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa Sedendo Communicat potest dici quod hoc sit in recordationem quod Beatus Petrus alii Apostoli sedendo Corpus Domini in Coena ultima acceperunt Alex. Hales Tract de Missa par 2. Quest 10. par 4. Pope Receives Sitting it may be rereplied that he useth that Gesture in remembrance of St. Peter and the o-other Apostles who Received the Body of our Lord at the last Supper Sitting To conclude If Kneeling be unlawful because it hath been abused 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 have been or is notoriously abused by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I have now finisht what I undertook and endeavoured all that in me lies to satisfie all honest and peaceable Dissenters that they may lawfully and innocently Kneel in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament What Success this Discourse will have I know not but this I am sure of it is well meant and if it be read with the same Charity as it was written with an honest teachable mind a mind not pleased with its Scruples I hope by Gods blessing it will do some good in the World And really if any of our Dissenting Brethren shall Receive thus much satisfaction from what I have written That by Kneeling in the Act of Receiving they transgress no known Law of God nor act contrary to our blessed Saviours Example That they do nothing but what becomes them and is very sutable to the nature of the Lords Supper nothing but what is agreeable to the practice of the universal Church in the first and purest Ages I don't see what other Scruples about Kneeling should block up their way to the Lords Table and hinder them from communicating with us There are a sort of men I confess who separate from our Church upon whom I despair of doing good by any attempts of this nature and they are such whose Scruples arise from a vitious Principle not from the weakness of their understandings but the obstinacy of their wills not from a great fear of offending God which keeps pace with all their actions for such I have as tender a compassion as any man but from Humour Self-Conceit Affectation of popular Applause and the being thought the wiser and better men for finding fault with every thing enjoyned by lawful Authority and every thing that is written in defence of it Nor upon men whose Scruples against Government by Bishops the Liturgie and Rites of the Church arise not from their Consciences but their Stomachs from Pride and Ambition from private piques disappointments in the State from Hypocrisie and Interest when the more they rail and except against Ceremonies the better Trade they drive in the World From such as these I expect nothing but Contempt and Derision and that the Medicine will be turned into Poison For as a great man observes on Prov. 14. 6. He Lord Bacon Advan of Learn fol. p 230. that comes to seek after Knowledge with a mind to scorn and censure shall be sure to find matter enough for his Humour but no matter for his Instruction FINIS For Kneeling I never yet 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 supposed to be contradicted But 1 there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ's Example can never be proved to oblige us more in this than in many other circumstances that are confessed not obligatory As that he delivered 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 sealed Pardon from Christ by his Embassadour upon our Knees Mr. Baxter 's Christian Directory par 2. p. 111. Quest 3. §. 40. A DISCOURSE ABOUT Edification IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION Whether it is Lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England and go to the Separate Meetings because he can better Edifie there The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. A DISCOURSE About EDIFICATION In Answer to a Question WHether it is lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England and go to the separate Meetings because he can better Edifie there Answer It is Unlawful To make this plain two things must be consider'd First What sort of Person this is who asks this Question Secondly What he means by Edification As to the Person he is suppos'd to be one that is fully satisfied that he may lawfully Communicate with the Church of England That there are no Terms of Communion put upon him but which he can comply withal with a good Conscience That there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God natural Reason or plain Consequences fetcht from both or either And therefore he who thinks that there are some things unlawful in the Communion of the Church of England is not concern'd in the Question for he separates upon the Account of Unlawfulness and not Edification onely as is suppos'd in the Question Secondly By Edification is meant an Improvement of his Spiritual Condition in the full latitude whereinsoever it may truly consist whether in the Articles of his Faith which in the separate Congregations are better taught more clearly prov'd more fitly appli'd to his practice and to support his hopes of Heaven or whether in the Rules of Life which are there more exactly laid down and more
many times is no more than a bright or a lowring day can do acting upon the Animal Spirits and a Dose of Physick will do the same And if they carry the men no further improve no virtue in them they are nothing else but downright flesh and blood And they are hot and cold high and low very changeable and uncertain according as the humours flow and as is the bodily temper of the men Upon this account some are melted into Tears and others are fired into Rage and Zeal their Spirits like Tinder easily catching the flame and these have happened in the worst of Men serving onely the Designs of Fury and Hypocrisie and can no more be called Edification than the Fire from the Altar that may consume the Temple Zeal Yet such mistakes as these have been too common Anger and Revenge have been called Zeal for God Trade and Interest have been Baptized Christianity Fury and Fumes of the Stomach have been thought the Divine Spirit ridiculous Looks and unmanly Postures have been fanci'd true Acts of Devotion and when they themselves were pleas'd and in the good humour God was reconcil'd and when they were dull and heavy the Spirit was withdrawn and according as these heats and bodily passions were stirr'd so the Ministry was Edifying or unprofitable pale Cheeks and hollow Looks have been Matth. 6. 16. counted signs of Grace and the Diseases of their body pass'd for the Virtue of their mind And when a Doctrine hath been so insinuated as to hit and favour these they were strangely improv'd and had obtain'd a good degree in Religion Many of these may be beginnings or occasions leading unto Religion and may serve some good purposes in men that can manage them well but to cry up these for Edification and going on unto perfection is to betray their People into the power of every Cheat and Impostor who hath the knack to raise these heats which pass for reason and conviction of mind and most commonly are great hindrances to solid and sound reasoning plain discourses the true way to Edification to make firm and lasting impressions upon the mind while the silly and the weak who are most subject to these heats and colds the uncertain motions of their Spirits are fickle and inconstant turning round in all Religions such men being all Sail are more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine 3. Argument to confirm the Answer is That pretence of better Edification will cause endless Divisions in the Church This Question doth suppose that every man must judge and so great a part of the World being ignorant and vicious partial and prejudic'd false and insincere to themselves and others they may run from Teacher to Teacher from Presbyterian to Independent from Independent to Anabaptist or Quaker and never stop till they come at their Grave to find out better Edification ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth ever seeking and 2 Tim. 3. 7. never satisfi'd till they find the Pattern upon the Mount or the new Jerusalem be come down from above till they meet with such a perfect Church as perhaps will never be here upon earth till her great Master comes The ignorant will easily mistake and who can know the heart and intention of the false and the Hypocrite And the Governour hath nothing to do here to retrench this liberty which as they pretend is either born with them or given them by God At this rate may not every single person be a Church leaving all other Christian Societies fancying that he can better Edifie at home with the workings of his own mind and some pretended infusions of the Spirit that he shall better meet with in his privacies and retirements than in an external and carnal Ministry and Crowd When once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces and set up their more Edifying Meetings in comes whole shoals of Vices Envy and Detraction Strife and Emulation Murmurings and Complainings Fierceness and Wrath and a great number of things more prejudicial to the State of the Kingdom the interest of Families the good of Friendship and all civil Conversation a wonderful Edification destroying the very Soul of Christianity The same Principles that divide them from this Church will crumble them into endless Parties and every little Chip may call it self a Building and so destroy all good Government and Discipline so necessary to propagate and preserve Christianity in the World And should I live to see that fatal day when the Government in our Church should be dissolv'd and liberty given to every man upon pretence of better Edification to chuse his Pastour and his Church so many Mischiefs and Confusions would follow from it that if there was any regard to common Christianity or sense of temporal happiness left within their Breast they would too late repent their Schism as once in a great degree many of them did and beg upon their Knees that the Pale of this Government in Church might be set up again and they would receive it with all its pretended load of Impositions This will certainly follow from dividing from the Church to the laughter of Rome and joy of all the Enemies of our Christian Religion All this would be avoided if men were sensible of the hainous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in such black colours though others think our Divisions in the Church are no more than variety of Companies and Liveries in a City 4. What great discouragement this is to an honest and truly Christian Ministry When a Pastour of our Church shall diligently and faithfully plainly and devoutly unfold the Articles of Faith and lay down Rules for Practice which will certainly bring him to Heaven yet his Flock or Charge one after another upon pretence of greener Pastures greater Knowledge better Elocution Delivery Tone or the like to be had elsewhere shall run from him will it not cool his Zeal check his Labours and affront his Person and Office This may be done to the painful as well as idle to the judicious and learned as well as imprudent and Ignorant Pastour where the People shall have liberty of Separation for the sake of Edification The ill effects of this have turn'd upon their own Ministers and new Government and the most judicious among them have sadly complain'd of it Formerly they Petition'd for a painful and preaching Ministry but this pretence of better Edification gives denial to their own request such Discouragements as these happening severely sometimes to the best of Pastours as well as the worst And they have no cure for this having put a power into the Peoples hands which they cannot recal for neither King Parliament Bishop or Pastour can tell them what is Edification so well as themselves And are the Pastours of the Church to be so treated and trifled with who derive their Offices and Authority from God to Command and
the Canons and Liturgy had been to those of the Discipline They drew up Reasons * * * Id. ib. p. 116. A. 44. against the Directory of Church Government by Presbyters They afterwards Printed an open Remonstrance against Presbytery of which the Assembly complain'd to Ib. A. 45. p. 189. the House as of a Scandalous Libel And there were those who Reproach'd the Presbyterians in the same Phrases in which they had given vent to their displeasure against the Liturgy of the Church of England The Ministers of Lancashire * * * Harm Consent p. 20. complain'd concerning them That they had compared the Covenant to the Alcoran of the Turks and Mass of the Papists and Service-book of the Prelates As likewise that they said it was a Brazen-Serpent fit to be broken in pieces and ground to Powder rather than that Men should fall down and Worship it Amongst the Disciplinarians some were confident of Success One of them * * * Mr. S. Symp. in Serm. of Reform A. 1643. p. 29. for he was not then gone over to the Part of the Independents expressed his assurance in these most unbecoming Words before the Commons It will said he bring such a Blot on God as He shall never wipe out if your poor Prayers should be turn'd into your own bosoms that Prayer for Reformation A Speech not fit to have been repeated if it were not necessary to learn Sobriety of Wisdom from the Remembrances of Extravagance in former Times Others accknowledg'd their hopes but did not dissemble their Fears Six years ago said a person eminent * * * D. John Arr. in Ser. call'd The Great Wonder c. before the Commons A. 1646. p. 36. amongst them after this Parliament had sate a while it was generally believ'd that the Woman the Church was fallen into her Travel but she continues still in pain Insomuch as they begin to think she hath not gone her full time and earnestly desire she may because they fear nothing more than an abortive Reformation Others did openly confess that their hopes were not answer'd and that the State of Religion was much declined The Ministers of the Province of London * * * Testim to Truth of Jesus Christ subscribed Dec. 14. 1647. p 31. used upon this occasion these passionate words Instead of a Reformation we may say with Sighs what our Enemies said of us heretofore with scorn we have a Deformation in Religion Those Independents who adher'd to that part of the House which joyned with the Army prevailed for a Season but they also were disturb'd by those who went under the Names of Lilburnists Levellers Agitators * * * See Hist of Indep 2 part p 168. Then likewise Gerard Wynstanly * * * In Mystof Godlin c. Anno. 1649. Wynst in Saints Paradise C. 5. p. 54. c. publish'd the Principles of Quakerism discoursing or rather repeating the Dreams of his Imagination in such Expressions as these If you look for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ you must know that the Spirit within the Flesh is the Jesus Christ Every Man hath the light of the Father within himself which is the Mighty Man Christ Jesus Then Enthusiasm excited in part by the common pretence of an extraordinary Light revealed as of a suddain in those days in England brake forth into open distraction Then Joseph Salmon a present Member of the Army publish'd his Blasphemies and defended his Immoralities He justify'd himself and those of his way saying * * * Whitl Memoirs A 1649. p. 430. That it was God who did Swear in them and that it was their Liberty to keep Company with Women for their Lust Wyke his Disciple * * * Id. ibid. kissed a Soldier three times and said I breath the Spirit of God into thee Salmon himself printed a Pamphlet call'd a Rout in which he set forth his villainous self as the Christ of God saying * * * Salmon 's Rout. in Pref. and p. 10 11 c. I am willing to become Sin for you though the Lord in me knows no Sin We love to sweat drops of Bloud under all mens offences We shall see of the Travel of our Souls Enthusiasm tho' not in this rankness of it was now openly favour'd by Cromwell himself who together with six Soldiers prayed and preached at Whitehal * * * On Sund. after East day Ann. 1649. H. of Indep part 2. p. 153. His own temper was warmed with fits of Enthusiasm * * * See View of the late Troubles p. 366. And he confess'd it to a Person of Condition †††E. M. I. C. from whom I receiv'd it as did others yet living that he pray'd according to extraordinary Impulse And that not feeling such Impulse which he call'd Supernatural he did forbear to pray oftentimes for several days together In Process of time his House of Commons and he himself were publickly disturb'd by that wild Spirit in the rasing of which they had been so unhappily instrumental A Quaker came to the door of the House * * * Whitl Memoirs A. 1654 p. 592. and drew his Sword and cut those nigh him and said He was inspir'd by the Holy Spirit to kill every Man who sate in that Convention And he himself was not only conspir'd against by those who call'd themselves the Free and Well-affected People of England * * * See their Declar. in A. 1655. in Whilt Me. p. 606. but openly bespattered by the Ink of the Quakers in several Pamphlets * * * See Ed. Burroughs Trumpet of the Lord sounded p. 2. A. 56. and by their Clamours affronted in his own Chappel where before his face they gave bold interruption to his Preachers †††Whilt Memoirs p. 62. 4. Other Historical Memorials might be here produced relating to the hopeful Rise and mighty Progress and equal Declension of the Disciplinarian Party But in such cases I choose rather to take off my Pen than to lean too heard upon it Yet the nature of my Argument did necessarily lead me to the former Remarks and if useful Truth smarts let Guilt suffer a Cure and not kick against the Charitable Reporter In Sum the longer the Church of England was dissettled the greater daily grew the confusion and the division of Sects was multiplyed not unlike to that of Winds in the Mariners Compass in which Artists have increas'd the Partitions from four to two and thirty Insomuch that the very Distractions which were among us did in some measure prepare the way for the return of the King and the Restitution of the Church men finding no other common Bottom on which the Interests of Religion and civil Peace might be established Now if the Dissenters could not then when so fair Opportunities were in their hands carry on their cause to any tolerable Settlement much less
lay it upon the Jesuits thereby tacitly acknowledging that they had so great a power over some of them as to make them to become their Instruments for the cutting off the Lord 's Anointed For if they will not allow Cromwell and Ireton and some others of that Order to have been Dissenters properly so called yet certainly they must not deny that Name to Mr. Peters Mr. John Goodwin and many like to them who appeared publickly in that very black and insolent wickedness How far it is true that the Jesuits influenc'd those Counsels I do not now examine nor do's my Talent lie in Mysteries of State But that in the late Revolutions Popery was not routed out no Man can remain ignorant who is of competent Age and had not perfectly lost the use of his memory though he has made the most negligent Observations Robert Mentit de Salmonet * * * Hist des troâ—bles de la grand Bret. a Parâ—â— 1661. lib. 3. p. 165 See sport view of the late Troubl p. 564. a Scotchman and a Secular Priest in actual exercise of Communion with the Church of Rome hath publickly taken notice of the many Priests slain at Edge-Hill and of two Companies of Walloons and other Catholicks as he is pleased to style them in the Service of the States It hath been commonly said * * * Arbitr Government p. 28. that Gifford the Jesuit appeared openly in the Year 47 amongst the Agitators and that his Pen was used in the Paper drawn up at a Committee in the Army and call'd the Agreement of the People * * * See Whitl Memoirs p. 279 280 282. K. Charles the Martyr speaketh of such things as notorious in one of his printed Declarations * * * Exact Col. p. 647. All Men know said he the great number of Papists which serve in their Army Commanders and others In the Year 49 * * * Id. ibid. p. 405. Those in the House were acquainted with divers Papers taken in a French Man's Trunk at Rye discovering a Popish Design to be set on foot in England with Commissions from the Bishop of Chalcedon by Authority of the Church of Rome to Popish Priests and others for settling the Discipline of the Romish Church in England and Scotland Mr. Edwards * * * Gangrena p. 1â— p. r. 2 reports from Mr. Mills a Common-Council-man who was so informed by a knowing Papist that the Romanists did generally shelter themselves under the Vizor of Independency It is certain that a College of Jesuits was established at Come * * * Narr sent up to the Lords from the Bishop of Heâ—eford p. 7. in the Year 52. And in a Paper found there mention was made of 155 reconcil'd that year to the Church of Rome Oliver himself used these words in a Declaration publish'd by the Advice of his Council * * * Prot. Declaration Octob. 31. 1655. It is not only Commonly observed but there remains with Us somewhat of Proof that Jesuits have been found among some discontented Parties in this Nation who are observed to quarrel and fall out with every Form or Administration in the Church or State Dr. Bayly * * * In the Life of Bish Fisher p. 260 161. the Romanist openly courted Oliver as the present hopes of Rome and with a Flattery as gross as the Jingle was ridiculous call'd him Oliva Vera And one of his Physitians * * * V. Elench Mot. par 2. p. 341. hath said of him that he was once negotiating with the Romanists for Toleration but brake off the Bargain partly because they came not up to his price and partly because he feared it would bâ— offensive to the People It is also publickly told us * * * H. Indep part 2. p. 245 c. that an Agreement was made in 49 even with Owen ô Neal that bloody Romanist and that he in pursuance of the Interest of the State so called raised the Siege of London-derry A great door was opened to Romish Emissaries when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were by publick Order taken away For they were Tests of Romamism Likewise the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath revived in those days by Roger Williams * * * See Mr. Cotton's Lr. Exam. A. 44. p. 4 5 Simplicit defence A. 1646. p. 22. Min. of Prov. of Lond. Testim p. 18. Samuel Gorton and others helped equivocating Papists to an evasion as I fear it may do at this day among the Quakers So we may be induced to believe by comparing present with former Transactions For we are informed that in the Reign of King James * * * Gee's Foot out of the Snare p. 58 59. A. 1621. Thomas Newton pretended to have had a Vision of the Virgin Mary who said to him Newton See thou do not take the Oath of Allegiance And being of this publickly examined at the Commission-Table and asked how he knew it to be the Virgin Mary which appeared He answer'd I know it was she for she appeared unto me in the form of her Assumption It was the Church of England which in our late Troubles principally fortify'd and entrench'd the true Protestant Religion against the Assaults of Rome This Church was still in being though in Adversity She had strong Vitals and did not die notwithstanding there was some Distemper in her Estate There was still a Constitution where Primitive order and decencie might be found and in which Men of Sobriety might be fixed And great numbers of the Church-men by their constant adherence to their Principles under publick contempt and heavy pressure gained daily on the People and convinced the World that they were not so Popish and Earthly-minded as popular clamour had represented them Also their learned Books and Conferences reduced some and establish'd many and we owe a part of the stablity of Men in those times to God's blessing on the Writings of Arch-bishop Laud Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Bromhall Dr. Cosins Dr. Hammond and others Last of all It is the Opinion of the Papists themselves that their Cause is promoted by our Dissensions and according to these measures of Judgment they govern their Councils This was the Opinion of the Jesuite Campanella in his Dâ—scourse touching the Spanish Monarchy written about the Year 1600 and in 54 publish'd at London in our Language * * * Campan Disc of Span. Mon. c. 25. p. 157 Concerning the weakning of the English says that Jesuit there can no better way possibly be found out than by causing Divisions and Dissentions among themselves And as for their Religion it cannot be so easily extinguished and rooted out here unless there were some certain Schools set up in Flanders by means of which there should be scattered abroad the Seeds of Schism c. And whether these kinds of Seeds have not come from hence to us as well as those better ones of the
We desire them to Consider Whether it be not a Just Prejudice to their Cause and that which ought to prevail with Men Modest and Peaceable that in those things wherein they differ from us they are Condemned by the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for Fifteen Hundred Years together This were I minded might afford a large Field for Discourse but I shall instance only and that very briefly in a few Particulars And First We desire them to produce any settled part of the Christian Church that ever was without Episcopal Government till the time of Calvin it being then as hard to find any part of the Christian World without a Church as to find a Church without a Bishop This is so evident in the most early Antiquities of the Church that I believe our Dissenters begin to grow sick of the Controversie And if Blondell Salmasius and Daille whose great Parts Learning and indefatigable Industry could if any thing have made out the contrary have been forced to grant That Episcopacy obtained in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolick Age We are sure we can carry it higher even up to the Apostles themselves There are but two passages that I know of in all Antiquity of any Note and both of them not till the latter end of the Fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority The One That famous and well known passage of St. Jerom which yet when improved to the Idem Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent c. Hier. in Epist ad Tit. c. 1. utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jeroms Writings that he often Wrote in haste and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and the eagerness of his Temper that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and over-top the Presbyters which tempted him to Magnifie and Extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Priviledges of Priesthood For at other times when he Wrote with cooler Thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differed nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error meerly through Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustathius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aimed at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretick and drave him and his followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius Cont. Aer haeret 75. who was his Contemporary represents him as very little better than a Madman and adds that all Heresies that ever were from the beginning of the World had been hatched either by Pride or Vain Glory or Covetousness or Emulation or some such Evil Inclination But his Heresie it seems was not long-liv'd for we hear no more concerning this matter till the Reformation at Geneva Secondly We desire them to shew any Christian Church that did not constantly use Liturgies and Forms of Prayer in their Publick Offices and Administrations of Divine Worship I take it for granted that there were Forms of Publick Prayer in the Jewish Church and I make no doubt but that the use of such Forms was together with many other Synagogue-rites and Usages transferred into the Practice of the Christian Church and did actually obtain in the most early Ages in all Churches where there were not Miraculous Gifts and every where as soon as those Miraculous Gifts ceased it being very fit and proper and agreeable to Order and Decency that the Peoples Devotions should be thus Conducted and Governed in their Publick Ministrations Not to insist upon the Carmen or Hymn which even the Proconsul Pliny says the Christians upon a set Day were wont one among another to say to Christ as to their God Apparent footsteps of some Passages of their Ancient Liturgies are yet extant in the Writings of Origen and St. Cyprian And when Eusebius gives us an account how Religiously Constantine Devit Constant lib. 4. c. 17. the Great ordered his Court That he was wont to take the Holy Bible into his Hands and carefully to Meditate upon it and afterwards to offer up Set or Composed Prayers together with his whole Royal Family he adds He did this after the manner or in imitation of the Church of God Nazianzen tells us of St. Basil That he composed Orders and Forms of In Sanctum Basilium Orat 20. Bas Ep. 63. Prayer and appointed decent Ornaments for the Altar And St. Basil himself reciting the manner of the Publick Service that was used in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution says That nothing was done therein but what was Consonant and Agreeable to all the Churches of God And the Council of Laodicea holden much about the Year 365 expresly provides that the same Liturgy or Form of Prayers Can. 18. conf Conc. Milev can 12. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 23. should be always used both Morning and Evening That so it might not be lawful for every one that would to compose Prayers of his own Head and to repeat them in the Publick Assemblies as both Zonaras and Balsamon give the reason of that Canon Further than this we need not go the Case being henceforward evident beyond all Contradiction Thirdly Let them shew us any Church that did not always set apart and observe Festival Commemorations of the Saints besides the more solemn times for Celebrating the great Blessings of our Redeemer his Birth-day and Epiphany Easter in Memory of his Resurrection Pentecost or Witsuntide for the Mission of the Holy Ghost they had Annual days for solemnizing the Memories of the Blessed Apostles they had their Memoriae and Natalitia Martyrum whereon they assembled every year to offer up to God their Praises and Common Devotions and by Publick Panegyricks to do honour to the memory of those Saints and Martyrs who had suffered for or Sealed Religion with their Bloud Not to mention their Lent Fast and their Stationary Fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays which Epiphanius more than once expresly Sâ—rm compâ—nd de Expos fid p. 466. â—dv Aer Haeres 75. says were a Constitution of the Apostles But the less need be said on this head because few that have any Reverence for Antiquity will have the hardiness to oppose it Fourthly We desire them to produce any
Printed Licensed dispersed up and down in City and Country openly a Quarter of these Errours Heresies Blasphemies which have been all these ways vented by the Sectaries the People would have risen up and stoned them and pulled down their Houses and forced them to forbear such Doctrines O how is the Scene changed within these few Years and not long after he tells us that These are Risen Increased Reign and Prevail so far under a Parliament Sitting not under the Bishops Corrupt-Clergy Court-party but under a Parliament And in his Epistle to the Lords and Commons before the first part of his Gangraena he tells them That the Errours Heresies Blasphemies and Practices of the Sectaries of this Time had been Broached and Acted within these Four last Years in England and that in Your Quarters and in the places under your Government and power for which I tremble to think least the whole Kingdom should be in Gods Black Bill that together with their Reformation come in a Deformation and worse things were come upon them than ever they had before they had put down the Book of Common-Prayer but there were many amongst them that had put down the Scriptures slighting yea Blaspheming them he tells them they had cast out the Bishops and their Officers and they had many that had cast down to the ground all Ministers in all the Reformed Churches they had cast out Ceremonies in the Sacraments and they had many that had cast out the Sacraments themselves with many more sad complaints which he there makes To sum up all in the words of my Author Vbi supra p. 73. In this Catalogue the Reader may see great Errors and yet may turn himself again and behold greater namely damnable Heresies and yet turn himself again and read Horrid Blasphemies and a third time and read Horrible Disorders Confusions strange and unheard of Practices not only against the Light of Scripture but Nature as in Women's Preaching in Stealing away Men's Wives and Children from Husbands and Parents in Baptizing Women Naked in the Presence and Sight of Men c. And thus we see by what means it was that the Nation came to be Pestred with Opinions and Practices Impious beyond the Example of former Ages and such as were not once named among the Gentiles to the A Letter from a Noble Venetian to Card Barbarino translated and Printed 1648. p. 19. Infinite Prejudice and dishonour both of our Religion and our Nation It being the Observation which an Ingenious Foreigner who resided at London in those times made upon this occasion one of the Fruits says He of this Blessed Parliament and of these two Sectaries Presbyterians and Independents is that they have made more Jews and Atheists than I think there is in all Europe besides I doubt not but that the greatest part of our Dissenters do from their Souls detest the Heresies Blasphemies and Wickednesses that have been mentioned but then the Consideration ought to oblige them to double their diligence to prevent the like dismal Effects for the time to come and not to open the Gap again at which they must necessarily flow in upon us By what has been done they may see what a Blessed Reformation they may expect by the Ruin of this Church for the thing that hath been is that which shall be the same causes set on foot by the same Principles will Eternally produce the same Effects and though Men at first may mean never so well yet Temptations will insensibly grow upon them and Accidents happen which in the Progress will carry them infinitely beyond the Line of their first Intentions and engage them in Courses out of which when they come to discern their Errour it may be too late for them to Retire In the beginning of the long Parliament I make no question but the far greatest part of them met together with very honest and good Intentions and designed no more than to Correct some little Irregularities which they apprehended to be in Church or State But wee see how these very Persons where cariied from one passage to another and in time transported to those very things which at first they had so vehemently protested and declared against till at length Horrid Enormities came to be acted by and under them which no age can Paralel which ought to be a Sufficient Caution to all how they shake the least Stone that belongs to the Foundation least by picking out one after another the whole House tumble about their Ears when it is beyond their own Power to support it I shall shut up this Head with a brief Recapitulation of some of those Inferencs which Mr. Edwards makes from the State of those Loose and Licentious times we have been speaking of and then leave the Reader to judg whether they be not as Applicable to present Circumstances under which we are He infers thus First we may hence see how dangerous it is to Cat. and Discov Part 3 d. p. 52 53 57 70. Further Discov p. 195 203. despise and let alone a small Party Secondly That it is more than time fully and Effectually to settle the Government and Discipline of the Church Thirdly What the Mischief Evil and Danger of a Toleration and pretended Liberty of Conscience would be to this Kingdom and what it would Prove and Produce Fourthly That it sufficiently Justifies in the Sight of the World those Ministers and People who are Zealous for setling Religion and cry out for Government who Preach Petition speak often one to another of these things Fifthly what a great Evil and Sin Separation is from the Communion of the Reformed Churches and how highly displeasing to God for Men to make a Rent and Schism in the Church of God Sixthly That all such who have been deceived and drawn away under pretence of greater Purity Holiness c. and have any Fear and Awe of God and his Word be Exhorted to leave and forsake them and return to the Publick Assemblies and Communion of this and other Reformed Churches And God grant we may hearken to this Counsel and may seriously lay these things to heart VIII Eighthly We desire it may be considered what plain and apparent Advantages Separation gives to the Common Enemy of the Protestant Religion in these Nations The Church of England is notoriously known to have been the most strong and standing Bulwark of Protestancy ever since the Reformation for being Founded on Scripture-grounds and the Practice of True Genuine Primitive Antiquity and having been reformed by the most wise regular and justifiable Methods it stands like a Rock impregnable against all the Assaults which the Church of Rome makes upon it This has engag'd them to Plant all their Batteries to beat it down as being the only Church considerable enough to stand in their way and when not able to effect it by any other Arts they have betaken themselves to the old Artifice of Ruining us by dividing us In
Order hereunto they have upon all occasions strenuously promoted the Separation mixed themselves with our Dissenters put on every shape that they might the better follow the Common outcry against our Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring on the people to call for a more pure and spiritual way of worship and to Clamour for liberty and Toleration as wherein they well knew they themselves were like to have the greatest share and that having subverted all Order and beaten people out of all sober Principles they foresaw they must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This was a Trade they began betimes almost in the very Infancy of the Reformation Witness the Story of Faithful Commin a Dominican Fryer who passed under the notion of a Zealous Puritan and was much admired and followed by the People for his seeming Piety spiritual Gifts and Zeal against Popery But being apprehended Anno 1567. and accused for an Impostor was examined at large before the Queen and her Council and put under Bail when finding the Climat was like to be too hot for him and having by a cheat brought off his Bail and told his deluded followers that he was acquitted by her Majesty and the Council and warned of God to go beyond the Seas to instruct the Protestants there and that he would come again and having assured them that Spiritual Prayer was the chief Testimony of a true Protestant and that the set Form of Prayer in England was but the Mass Translated and having with abundance of extempore-Prayers and Tears squeezed out of them a Collection of a Hundred and Thirty Pounds for his Journey besides private Gifts away he goes for Rome and acquaints Pope Pius Quintus with what he had done and by what Methods and how odious he had made the Church of England to the Puritans and that it would be a stumbling-block to that Church while it was a Church Upon which the Pope commended and rewarded him with Two Thousand Ducates for his good Service All which particulars are Foxes and Fire-brandâ— Print 1680. p. 7. c. more fully made out from Secretary Cecil's Papers whose Memorials were lately brought to light Witness also that other passage concerning Thomas Heath a Jesuite who much about the same time was sent over into England to Act the same Part which he did not only by Preaching but by crying up Spiritual Prayers and running down all set Forms as being without any warrant from Scripture by Labouring to refine the Protestants as he called it and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies that in the least tended to the Romish Faith For all which he was mightily flocked after and admired every day more and more But Anno. 1568. he was discovered by a Letter that casually dropt out of his Pocket as he was Preaching in the Pulpit at Rochester importing that the Council of their Fraternity had sent him Collections and Instructions for carrying on the Work and that this way of dividing Protestants was the only way for the recalling Men back again to the Mother Church Hereupon he was examined by the Bishop of Rochester and did not much deny the main of the charge and upon the searching of his Lodgings there were found several Books fitted for his purpose as against Infant Baptism c. and in one of his Boots a Licence from the Fraternity of the Jesuites and a Bull of Pius Quintus giving him leave to preach what Doctrine that Society pleased for the dividing of the English Protestants or as he called them Hereticks The issue was that Heath was close Imprisoned set in the Pillory at the High Cross his Ears cut off his Nose slit his Fore-head branded and he condemned to perpetual Imprisonment but soon after he dyed suddenly being suspected to have poysoned himself The whole account hereof being published from the Authentick Register of the Church of Rochester The same Course we need not doubt the Papists held on in the succeeding times these being some of the main Directions which Contzen the Jesuit gives Polit. l. 2. c. 18. Sect. 6. for the reducing Popery into a Country that it be done under pretence of ease to tender Consciences and that Liberty be granted to that end and that as much use be made of the division of Enemies as of the agreement of Friends What a stroak they had in fomenting the differences and distractions that brought on the late Civil Wars and how active they were both in the Counsels and Proceedings of the Parliament Party the World needs not to be told at this time of day great numbers of them both Commanders and others serving in their Armies great industry was used to corrupt the Loyalty and Affection of those of that Religion and private promises and undertakings were made to them that if they would assist them against the King all the Laws made in Octob. 23. 1642. vid. Collect. of the Kings Works Part. 2. fol. 213. L' Historie des troubles c. p. 165. see the short view of the late troubles in England c. 43. p. 564. their prejudice should be Repealed as the late King of blessed Memory tells the World in one of his publick Declarations after the Victory at Edgehil Adding that tho some few of Eminent Abilities for Command and Conduct and of moderate and unfactious dispositions were employed in his Service yet we are confident that a far greater number of that Religion is in the Army of the Rebels than in our own And the King it seems had good reason to say so For as de Salmonet a Secular Priest who wrote in French a History of our late Civil Wars informs us in that very Fight at Edge-hill besides two Companies of Walloons and other Roman-Catholicks that served there that says he which did most surprize every Body was that several Popish Priests were found amongst the Dead that were slain on the Parliament side So plain is it that they served in their Armies were present at their Councils and upon all occasions mix'd with their Parties that they might widen the Breach beyond all recovery Thus was it then And about the See Dr. Stilling-fleet's Preface to the unreasonableness of Separation p. 20. c. time of the King 's coming in a Letter of Advice was written by Seignior Ballarini concerning the best way of Managing the Popish Interest in England upon his Majestie 's Restauration wherein it was advised especially to obstruct the Settlement of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent its Doctrine and Worship as coming too near to 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 engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties And Mr. Coleman himself