Churches and Societies of Christians 2. I observe further that tho the exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular Duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation for we cannot Actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments c. but with some particular Church yet every Act of Christian Communion though performed in some particular Church is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church Praying and Hearing and receiving the Lords Supper together does not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church tho in the Remotest parts of the World The exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the necessity of affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly Unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church When we pray together to God we Pray to him as the Common Father of all Christians and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him as members of such a particular Church but as members of the whole Body of Christ when we Pray in the Name of Christ we consider him as the great High Priest and Saviour of the Body who powerfully interceeds for the whole Church and for us as members of the Universal Church And we Offer up our Prayers and Thanksgiving not only for our selves and those who are present but for all Christians all the World over as our Fellow-members and Praying for one another is the truest notion of Communion of Prayers for Praying with one another is only in order to Praying for one another And thus our Prayers are an exercise of Christian Communion when we Pray to the same common Father through the Merits and Mediation of the same common Saviour and Redeemer for the same common Blessings for our selves and the whole Christian Church Thus when we meet together to Celebrate the Supper of our Lord we do not meet as at a private Supper but as at the common Feast of Christians and therefore it is not an Act of particular Church Fellowship but of Catholick Communion The Supper of our Lord does not signifie any other kind of Union and confederation between those Neighbour Christians who receive together in the same Church than with the whole Body of Christ The Sacramental Bread signifies and represents all those for whom Christ died that one Mystical Body for which he Offered his Natural Body which is the Universal Church and our eating of this Bread signifies our Union to this Body of Christ and therefore is considered as an Act of true Catholick not of a particular church-Church-Communion And the Sacramental Cup is the Blood of the New Testament and therefore represents our Communion in all the Blessings of the Covenant and with all those who are thus in Covenant with God So that there is nothing particular in this Feast to make it a private Feast or an Act of Communion with a particular Church considered as particular but it is the common Feast of Christians and an Act of Catholick Communion Which by the way plainly shews how groundless that scruple is against mixt Communions that Men think themselves defiled by receiving the Lords Supper with Men who are vicious For tho it is a great defect in Discipline and a great reproach to the Christian Profession when wicked Men are not censured and removed from Christian Communion yet they may as well pretend that their Communion is defiled by bad Men who Communicate in any other part of the Church or any other Congregation as in that in which they live and Communicate For this holy Feast signifies no other Communion between them who receive at the same time and in the same Company than it does with all sincere parts of the Christian Church It is not a Communion with any Persons considered as present but it is a Communion with the Body of Christ and all true members of it whether present or absent Those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt professors though they could form a Society as pure and holy as they seem to desire yet are Schismaticks in it because they confine their Communion to their own select Company and Exclude the whole Body of Christians all the World over out of it their Communion is no larger than their gathered Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt members as all visible Churches on Earth have unless we will except Independents because they have the confidence to except themselves and then their Separation does not Answer its end which is to avoid such corrupt Communions and yet if they do confine their Communion to their own gathered Churches they are Schismaticks in dividing themselves from the Body of Christians and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion but a Schismatical Combination This does not prove indeed that particular Churches are not bound to reform themselves and to preserve their own Communion pure from corrupt members unless all the Churches in the World will do so too because every particular Church whether Diocesan or National has power to reform its own members and is accountable to God for such neglects of Discipline but it does prove that no Church without the guilt of Schism can renounce Communion with other Christian Churches or set up a distinct and separate Communion of its own for the sake of such corrupt members which was the pretence of the Novatian and Donatist Schism of Old and is so of the Independent Schism at this day 3. I observe further that our obligation to maintain Communion with a particular Church wholly results from our obligation to Catholick Communion The only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a member of the whole Christian Church which is the Body of Christ and therefore must live in Communion with the Christian Church and yet it is Impossible to live in Communion with the whole Christian Church without Actual Communion with some part of it when I am in such a place where there is a visible Christian Church as no member can be United to the Natural Body without its being United to some part of the Body for the Union and Communion of the whole Body consists in the Union of all its parts to each other Every Act of Christian Communion though performed in a particular Church or Congregation is not properly an Act of particular Church-Communion but is the exercise of Communion with the whole Church and Body of Christ as I have already proved but it can be no Act of Communion at all if it be not performed
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
any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Government or Worship for in this case it is plain they leave the Church and form themselves into a new Church out of the Communion of the Church from whence they went because they did not think it safe to continue one Body with it This has often made me wonder what those Men mean who take all occasions to quarrel at our Constitution and assign a great many reasons why they cannot Communicate with us and yet at the same time will not own that they have made any Separation from us What middle state now shall we find for these Men who will neither continue in the Church nor allow themselves to be out of it It is possible for two particular Churches to be in Communion with each other and yet not Actually to Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but for two Churches to renounce each others Communion or at least to withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a professed dislike and yet still to continue in a state of Communion with one another is a down right contradiction To be in Communion is to be members of the same Body and Society and he that can prove and he that can believe two opposite Societies founded upon contrary principles and Acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the Ruin and Subversion of each other to be the same Body and the same Society are very wonderful Men to me 3. Those are Separate Churches who do not own each others members as their own Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place must be confined to that particular Church in which we live if it be a sound part of the Christian Church but Church-membership is not confined to any particular Church I am no otherwise a member of any particular Church then I am of the Universal Church which gives me a right of Membership and Communion in all the particular Churches of the World Now I would ask whether every Baptized Christian who by Baptism is made a member of the Catholick Church and has not forfeited this right by a Scandalous life be ipso facto a member of an Independent Church if he be not as it is plain by the constitution of Independency he is not for Independent Church-membership is not founded on Baptism but on a particular Church-Covenant then Independency is a Separate Communion from the Catholick Church for the members of the Catholick Church are not by being so made the members of an Independent Church and therefore an Independent Church is a distinct and separate Body from the Catholick-Church Nay I would know whether a member of one Independent Church by being so becomes a member of another Independent Church if he does not as it is plain he don't for every Independent Church is founded upon a particular Church-Covenant between such a particular Pastor and particular members then every Independent Church is a distinct and Separate Body from all other Independent Churches and so they are all Schismaticks to each other as not preserving the Unity of the Body And tho Independent Churches should be so civil to each other as to admit each others members to some Acts of Communion yet this is matter of courtesie not of right and therefore their constitution is Schismatical It is like two Neighbour Families which hold good correspondence with each other and often visit one another and Eat and Drink together but yet remain very distinct Families and have all their concerns apart and separate But the Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatick Thus let me ask whether the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in the same Christian Kingdom be one Church and members of each other and own each others members as such to be members of their own Body and Church If they do not as it is evident they don't from their holding distinct and separate Assemblies under a distinct kind and species of Government which both of them assert to be instituted by Christ and to be essential to the constitution of the Church from their forming themselves into distinct Bodies under different Governors which have no Communion as such with each other which yet is essential to the Communion of particular Churches that their Governors should be in Communion with each other from their Condemning each others constitution and particular modes of Worship and their great endeavours to draw away members from each other which necessarily supposes that they do not look upon each others members as their own I say if from these considerations it appears that they are not and do not think themselves to be one Body nor members of each other then they are two separate Churches and the Church which makes the separation is the Schismatick And indeed we may as well say that a Monarchy and Aristocracy and Democracy in the same Nation with their distinct Governours and distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as to assert that the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in England are but one Church 3. The last thing to be explained is what is meant by fixt or constant and by occasional Communion Now this is a question which would grievously have puzl'd St. Cyprian and St. Austin and other Ancient Fathers who never heard but of one sort of Communion For indeed there is no place for this distinction of constant and occasional Communion according to the Principles of Catholick Communion To be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and I take it for granted that a member signifies a fixt and constant not an occasional member not a member which is one day a member and the next day upon his own voluntary choice is no member which is a member or no member just as occasion serves And if Church-membership be a fixt and constant relation in it self considered then the Duties of this relation are fixt and constant also And therefore for the understanding of these Terms which were unknown to Antiquity we must consult the meaning of our Modern Authors who were the first Inventors of them Now by fixt Communion they mean an Actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt members of it occasional Communion is to Pray and Hear and receive the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be members as occasion serves that is either to gratifie their own Curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the Imputation of Schism Now this distinction is owing to such Principles as I have evidently proved to be very great mistakes For if to be in Communion with the Church signifie to be a member of it and that not of any particular Church as distinguisht from the whole Catholick Church but to be a member of the one Body of Christ
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-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-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-Parish-Churches is with our occasional Communion with other parish-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
are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
with the Sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick Church which he finds in that place But this does not reach the case of those who are constant Inhabitants of the place where the Schism is for they must not live in a Sceptical suspension of Communion all their days And there is one plain Rule to direct all Men in this Inquiry That wherever there is a Church Establisht by publick Authority if there be nothing Sinful in its Constitution and Worship we are bound to Communicate with that Church and to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians For the advantage always lies on the side of Authority no publick establishment can justifie a Sinful Communion but if there be nothing Sinful in the Communion of the National Church which is Establisht by publick Authority to Separate from such a Church is both disobedience to the Supreme Authority in the State and a Schism from the Church But it will be convenient to consider what these Men mean by suspending Communion For is it Lawful for an English Man during these Church divisions among us never to Worship God in any Publick and Religious Assemblies Never to Pray nor Hear nor receive the Lords Supper together If this were so it were the most Effectual way in the World to thrust out all Religion But this they will not they dare not say and therefore by Suspending Communion they mean that in case of such divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and setled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already observed how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is For no Act of Religion is an Act of Communion not so much as of occasional Communion which is not performed in the Communion of the Church and no Man is in Communion with the Church who is not a Member of it and whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and whatever Church he Communicates with tho it may be it is but once in a Year or once in his life as he occasionally Travels that way yet he Communicates as a fixt Member of the Catholick Church and of every Sound part of the Catholick Church for a fixt Member does not signifie our fixt abode or constant Acts of Communion in any particular Church but our state of Communion and fixt and permanent relation to the whole Christian Church and every part of it and therefore tho a particular Act of Communion may be performed upon some particular occasion with such a particular Church yet it is not an Act of occasional but of fixt Communion because tho I Communicate but once and that occasionally yet I Communicate as a Member of the Church which is not an occasional but a fixt Relation So that when Men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or Communicate with all of them If they perform these Acts of Communion without owning their relation to them as Members then they are in Communion with none of them notwithstanding all these pretended Acts of occasional Communion and so they live in Communion with no Church which yet I hope I have made it appear to be the Duty of every Christian to do if they Communicate with all these divided Parties as Members then they are in Communion with many Separate Churches are Members of Separate and Opposite Bodies that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismaticks but this will appear further from considering the two following Cases Case 2. The Second Case is this Whether constant Case 2 Communion be a Duty where occasional Communion is Lawful I have already made it appear that the very notion of constant and occasional Communion is absurd and a Contradiction to all the principles of Catholick Communion and therefore there is no place for this distinction nor for this question every Christian as a Christian is a fixt Member of the whole Christian Church and of every Sound part of it and for Men to talk of being Members of any one particular Church in distinction from all other particular Churches of which they will not own themselves Members is a Schismatical notion of Church-Membership because it divides the Christian Church into distinct Memberships and therefore into distinct Bodies which makes the one Church and one Body of Christ not one but many Bodies for if every particular Church has such a number of Members which are Members only of that particular Church wherein they are fixt and are not Members of any other particular Church then every particular Church is a distinct and entire Body by it self which has particular Members of its own which belong to no other Body just as every particular Man has his own Body which consists of such a number of Members united to each other and distinct from all other Bodies The plain state of the Case in short is this Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church but he must perform the Acts of Communion in some particular Church and the only allowable difference between constant and occasional Communion is this that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church in which we constantly live and Communicate occasionally with that part of the Church in which we are occasionally present and therefore there never can be any Competition between constant and occasional Communion in the same place I cannot Communicate constantly with that Church in which I Communicate occasionally unless I remove my Habitation and turn an occasional presence into a constant and setled abode nor can I without sin Communicate only occcasionally with that Church with which I may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there for this is only to do that sometimes which I ought to do always This is like a Mans living occcasionally in his own House which signifies that for the most part he is a stranger at home There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for occasional and another for constant Communion without Schism For it is evident these are two distinct Communions and that our relation to them is as different as it is to a House we live in and to an Inn where we lodge for a Night So that there is no foundation for this Inquiry among Men who understand the true Principles of Catholick-Communion It never can be a Case of Conscience whether I should Communicate constantly or occasionally with such a Church unless it be a Case of Conscience whether I should live constantly or occasionally within the bounds and jurisdiction of such a Church for where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the catholick-Catholick-Church
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
may 1 Cor. 14. 5. 12. receive Edifying That ye may excel to the Edifying Eph. 4. 12. of the Church For the Edifying of the Body of Christ And it is very observable wherein the Apostle places the Edification of the Body of Christ viz. in Unity and Love Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the 13. knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Till we are united by one Faith into one Body and perfect Man And speaking the truth in love may grow up in him into 15 16. all things which is the head Even Christ from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the Effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the Edifying it self in love This is an admirable description of the Unity of the Church in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together as Stones and Timber are to make one House and thus they grow into one Body and increase in mutual Love and Charity which is the very Building and Edification of the Church which is Edifyed and Built up in love as the Apostle adds 1 Cor. 8. 1. that knowledge puffeth up but charity Edifieth this Builds up the Church of Christ and that not such a common Charity as we have for all Mankind but such a love and Sympathy as is peculiar to the Members of the same Body and which none but Members can have for each other and now methinks I need not prove that Schism and Separation is not for the Edification of the Church to Separate for Edification is to Pull down in stead of Building up But these Men do not seem to have any great regard to the Edification of the Church but only to their own particular Edification and we must grant that Edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture according to St. Pauls Exhortation Comfort your selves together and Edifie one another 1 Thes 5. 11. even as also ye do And this Edifying one another without question signifies our promoting each others growth and progress in all Christian Graces and vertues and so the Building and Edification of the Church signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all Spiritual Wisdom and knowledge and Christian graces the Edification of the Church consists in the Edification of particular Christians but then this is called Edification or Building because this growth and improvement is in the Unity and Communion of the Church and makes them one Spiritual House and Temple Thus the Church is called the Temple of God and every particular Christian is Gods Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells and yet God has but one Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells only in the Church of Christ but particular Christians are Gods Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells in them as living Members of the Christian Church and thus by the same reason the Church is Edified and Built up as it grows into a Spiritual House and Holy Temple by a firm and close Union and Communion of all its parts and every Christian is Edified as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And therefore whatever extraordinary means of Edification Men may fancy to themselves in a Separation the Apostle knew no Edification but in the Communion of the Church and indeed if our growth and increase in all Grace and Vertue be more owing to the internal assistances of the Divine Spirit than to the external Administrations as St. Paul tells us I have planted and Apollos watered but God gave the 1 Cor. 3. 6 7. increase So then neither is he that planteth any thing nor he that watereth but God that gave the increase And the Divine Spirit confines his influences and operations to the Unity of the Church as the same Apostle tells us that there is but one Body and Eph. 4. 4. one Spirit which plainly signifies that the operations of this one Spirit are appropriated to this one Body as the Soul is to the Body iâ— Animates then it does not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christs Body 3. The Third and Last Case still remains which Case 3 will be resolved in a few words according to the Principles now laid down which is this Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two distinct and Separate Churches For this is thought of late days not only a very Innocent and Lawful thing but the true Catholick-Spirit and Catholick-Communion to Communicate with Churches of all Communions unless perhaps they may except the Papists and Quakers It is thought a Schismatical Principle to refuse to Communicate with those Churches which withdraw Communion from us And thus some who Communicate ordinarily with the Church of England make no Scruple to Communicate in Prayers and Sacraments with Presbyterian and Independent Churches and Presbyterians can Communicate with the Church of England and with Independents whom formerly they charged with down-right Schism and some think it very indifferent whom they Communicate with and therefore take their turns in all But this is as contrary to all the Principles of church-Church-Communion as any thing can possibly be To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two Separate and Opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those Separate Churches are to each other Christ hath but one Church and one Body and therefore where there are two Churches divided from each other by Separate Communions there is a Schism and Rent in the Body and whoever Communicates with both these Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have made an Actual Separation from the Church of England I have evidently proved already and therefore if the Communion of the Church of England be Lawful as those who can and ordinarily do Communicate with the Church of England must be presumed to acknowledge then they are Schismaticks and to Communicate with them is to partake in their Schism Now if Schism be an Innocent thing and the true Catholick Spirit I have no more to say but that the whole Christian Church ever since the Apostles times has been in a very great mistake but if Schism be a very great Sin and that which will Damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder then it must needs be a dangerous thing to Communicate with Schismaticks The Sum of all in short is this Besides these Men who justifie their Separation from the Church of England by charging Her with requiring Sinful terms of Communion which is the only thing that can justifie their Separation if it could be proved there are others who Separate lightly and wantonly for want of a due sense of the Nature of
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
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-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-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
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-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
Catholick Unity or Communion in the Church under Independency Q. 2. If it may which I suppose you will not deny will you not then upon this account make the Church you live in more guilty than the Independents Baptism you own is the onely thing which admits into the Catholick Church but they require no new Covenant at Baptism Ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of humane Inventions Ans Pray what comparison is there between the Church of England and Independency Whatever fault the Church of England may be charged with as to its Rites and Ceremonies which I will not now dispute with you yet all this is capable of a Remedy she may give occasion to Schism if she imposes any unlawful and Sinful Terms of Communion but yet the Frame and Essential constitution of the Church is not Schismatical but Independency is Schism in the very notion of it and an Independent Conventicle is never capable of becoming a Member of the Catholick Church But you say I own that Baptism is the onely thing which admits into the Catholick Church i. e. which makes us Members of the Universal Church and all sound parts of it and that nothing else is necessary to make a Church-Member Very right I do own this but what is my owning this to the Independents For they do not and will not own it they admit into their Churches not by Baptism but by a Human and Voluntary Covenant and will own none for Church-Members but such Baptism at most gives Men onely a disposition to be Church-Members but does not make them Members of any Church But they require no new Covenant at Baptism ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of human Invention that is they admit to Baptism without any new Covenant because Baptism does not as they believe admit into the Church ergo they admit into the Church without any clog of human Invention And yet Sir I perceive you do not understand this matter neither for though what their practise is now I cannot tell yet according to their Principles and former Practise though they required no new Covenant of the Child to be Baptized yet they would Baptize no Children but of such Parents as were in Church-Covenant with them which is the same thing and a much greater clog to Baptism than the Sign of the Cross which when I know your exceptions against I will consider them And now Sir nothing remains of your First Letter but some few Queries relating to the meaning of my Text. Your Three first Queries come onely to this whether every particular Church may not be called the Body of Christ I answer no doubt but it may and yet Christ has but one Body and all the sound Churches in the World are but one Body and must be but one Communion As you may see proved at large in the Defence of Dr. Still and the Vindication of that Defence and thither I refer you But what you mean by Christs Metaphorical Body I confess I cannot tell and therefore cannot answer that Question Your Fourth Query concerns the nature of Schism which you would not have consist in dividing Communion through difference of Opinions but through want of Charity because the Apostle says that the Members have the same care one of another Now methinks in the natural Body should the Members divide from each other though they should pretend to love one another dearly they would not be thought to have such care of one another as the Members of the same Body ought to have The Application is easy and you may find this matter plainly stated in the Defence to which I have so often referred you Thus Sir I have honestly answered all your Queries which you sent me in your First Letter and which you challenge me and conjure me as a Protestant Divine to answer Categorically in your Second whether they were so very considerable as to deserve either to be Printed or Answered I leave the Reader to consider Your Second Letter though it be somewhat Peevish yet creates me but little trouble It has brought forth but one Query and half of that is already Answered Whether if the nature of Catholick Communion requires a readiness to Communicate with any sound Church and yet a Church obliges us to Communicate with that alone while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent Communion with others is not that Church guilty of Schism in such an Injunction contrary to the nature of Catholick Communion Ans No Church can be so supposed to forbid Communion with any Church which is in Communion with her and as for Schismatical Conventicles which you are pleased to call sound Churches it is the Duty of the Church to forbid all Communion with them how near soever they be For Catholick Communion obliges us only to Communicate in the Catholick Church from whence Schismaticks have withdrawn and separated themselves and whoever Communicates with Schismaticks is in so doing a Schismatick Or at least as you proceed is it not impossible that he who Communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another can be a Schismatick or any more than an Offender against a positive human Law Ans If such true Churches be Schismatical he that Communicates with a Schismatical Church is Guilty of a Schismatical Act and how is it possible it should be otherwise Should a Man sometimes joyn with his Princes Forces and sometimes with his Enemies and Fight sometimes on the one side and sometimes on the other were he a Rebel or not To be sure he is a Rebel when he Fights against his Prince though sometimes he Fight for him We may and ought as occasion serves to Communicate with any Church which is in Catholick Communion but where there are two opposite and separate Communions to Communicate with both is like taking part on both sides and if one be in the right and the other in the wrong such a man cannot be in the right always Well but however he is no Schismatick but only an Offender against a positive human Law Yes certainly he is a Schismatick and an Offender not meerly against human positive Laws but against the Unity of the Church and the Evangelical Laws of Catholick Communion But this mention of Law puts me in mind of a passage or two at the beginning of your Preface You say perhaps it 's no absurdity to suppose that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws made for the outward management and ordering of it though not Fundamental and necessary to its being as he who incurs the penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil affairs may however be a sound Member of the State if he keep from Treason and other Capital Crimes Very right Sir While Men continue in the Communion of the Church they are Church-Members though they may be irregular and guilty of some Acts of
Disobedience but methinks it is a little absurd to say that those continue Members of the Church who separate from it Schism and Separation from the Church is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members You add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Ans Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient But Mr. Humphry's project which I perceive you are nibling at of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament which should declare Presbyterians Independants c. to be Parts of the National Church is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism that ever was thought on but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play Letters 3. p. 16. with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague p. 12. between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick p. 17. Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular p. 18. Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholick Church and bound to Communicate with that part of it in which he lives In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not p. 19. to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated p. 21. the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty
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
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-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
the words are these I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth I mean a Company of Men that profest at least so much as was necessary to Salvation and I believe there will be some where or other such a Church to the Worlds end This is his answer to that Popish Question about the perpetuity of the Visible Church whereby it appears that this Company of Men he speaks of are not single and scattered Individuals which are no Visible Church but he means a Formed and Visible Church-Society and his Answer is true though there were never a sound Church in the World For a corrupt Church which retains all the Essentials of Faith and Worship is a true Visible Church and this is the meaning of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer but how this proves that there is no need there should be any Visible Church at all or that Christians are not bound to actual Communion with the sound and Orthodox Church wherein they live is past my understanding At the same rate you defend your self against me in your Preface by the Authority of those two excellent Persons the Dean of Canterbury and the Dean of Saint Pauls Dr. Stillingfleet had asserted That all things necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them hence S. C. infers That the Governours of our Church have no Authority to teach Truth or to condemn Errours and all the People are become Prophets and all their Articles Answer to several Treatises p. 272. c. Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority and if he had added as he might have done with the same reason And all Church-Communion is needless it had been exactly what you aim at in this Citation The Dr. vindicates his Doctrine from such a wild Fanatical inference 1. By shewing the intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christian Faith living in the Communion of our Church And if this was his design as he says it was certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing which should overthrow the necessity of Church-Communion and then he can say nothing against me nor for you 2. He distinguishes between the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church that is what is necessary for every Christian considered in p. 275. a private Capacity to know and believe to make him capable of Salvation and what care the Church must take to instruct the ignorant to satisfie the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak and not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not barely the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot p. 276. be done without prudent Orders setting the bounds of Mens Employments c. i. e. though it is possible for a private Christian who lives alone and has the use of the Bible in a Language which he understands by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth as is absolutely necessary to Salvation yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church all this I firmly assent to and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of Church-Communion when it may be had upon Lawful Terms and so does this Reverend Person also and therefore I cannot look upon your alleadging his Authority against me to have any other design than to affront the Dean for his excellent Pains in vindicating the Communion of our Church and shewing people the Evil and Danger of Separation He has sufficiently declared what his Judgment is about Separation and therefore I need not concern my self any farther to prove that he is not my Adversary in this Cause At the same rate you deal with that great Man as you deservedly call him Dr. Tillotson who says I had much rather perswade any one to be a good Man than Preface to be of any Party and denomination of Christians whatsoever for I doubt not but the belief of the Ancient Creed provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it together with a good life will certainly save a Man and without this no man can have reasonable hopes of Salvation no not in an Infallible Church if there were any such to be found in the World How does this oppose me who assert the necessity of church-Church-Communion Is the Catholick Church then and the Communion of Saints no part of our Creed and is not Schism destructive to these great Articles of our Faith or is Schism which is the breach of Christian Charity properly so called which is the Love and Charity which the Members of the same Body ought to have for each other and consists in Unity and Communion consistent with a good Life if by that we understand an Universal goodness of which Charity is the most vital and essential part But do you indeed think Sir that the Dean believes a Man may be saved without Communion with any Church when it may be had without Sin when in the very next Paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to Communion with the Church of England I can easily forgive your usage of me since I find you cannot Read the best Books without perverting them and that you never spare any Mans Reputation to serve your Designes for your Reproaches and your Commendations are but different ways of abuse though I confess I should rather chuse to be reproached by you Your last Consideration is whether it be a good way to convert Schismaticks to prove that Schism is as Letter 3. p. 29. Damning a Sin as Murder or Adultery Truly Sir St. Cyprian and St. Austin and all the Ancient Fathers of the Church thought this a very good way for they insisted very much upon this Argument and if Men will not forsake their Schism though the Salvation of their Souls be endangered by it I am apt to think that no other Arguments will perswade them And if this be true as I verily believe it is and shall believe so till I see the Third Chapter of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still fairly answered I think it the greatest Charity in the World to warn Men of it and if it should prove by their perverseness no Charity to them it is Charity to my own Soul and delivers me from the guilt of their Bloud whether such Doctrine Preach Men into or out of the Church And now for your parting Blow Certainly if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation It could not blame Men for dividing from it Yes certainly upon such a Supposition the Church could and would blame Men for their Separation though it may be they might not deserve to be blamed for no doubt the more necessary the Church judges her Constitutions the more she will blame Dissenters But he who tells us or he
that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâ—th all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
are not discovered by our Governours either in Church or State No nor by as Learned and Religious Divines of all Perswasions as any in the World The most Divines by far the most and those as Pious and as Able as any are clearly of Opinion that there is nothing Vnlawful in our Worship but that on the contrary all things therein prescribed are at least Innocent and free from sin if not Pure and Apostolical So that if it should at last prove that they are all mistaken Yet the Law of God which forbids these things being so very obscure and the Sense of it so hardly to be found out it is a great Presumption that a man may very innocently and inculpably be Ignorant of it And if so it will be a very little or no sin at all in him to act against it Because if it was not his Duty to know this Law it cannot be his Sin that his Practice is not according to it And if it was his Duty to know it yet it being so obscurely delivered and only to be gathered by such remote Consequences it can at most be but a Sin of Ignorance in an ordinary Person where so many of the best Guides are mistaken if he should transgress it And then farther This must likewise be considered That if Conformity to our Liturgy and Worship should prove a sin in any Instance Yet the Evil Consequences of it extend no farther than the Mans Person that is guilty of it There is no damage ariseth either to the Christian Religion or to the Publick Interest of the Kingdom by any mans being a Conformist But on the contrary as things stand with us Vnity and Conformity to the Established way seem to bring a great advantage to both as I hinted before and to be a probable means to secure us from many Dangers with which our Reformed Religion and the Peace of the Kingdom is threatned Well but now on the other hand Let us suppose the contrary side of the Question to be true viz. That our Governours in this matter are in the Right and we are in the Wrong That there is nothing required of us in the Church of England as a Term of Communion but what is very Innocent and Lawful however it be our misfortune to Doubt that there is and in a zealous Indulgence to these Doubts we take the liberty to live in open disobedience to our Lawful Governous and to break the Unity of the Church into which we were Baptized I say admitting the thing to be thus what kind of Sin shall we be guilty of then Why certainly we are guilty of no less a Sin than causlesly dividing the Body of Christ against which we are so severely cautioned in the New Testament We are guilty of the Breach of as plain Laws as any are in the Bible viz. Of all those that oblige us to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace that Command us to Obey those that are over us in the Lord to be subject to the Higher Powers to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake to be subject not only for Wrath. but for Conscience sake I say these plain Laws we disobey for Conscience sake and we disobey them too in such Instances where we have the whole Catholick Church of old and far the greatest and the best part of the present Church of a different Perswasion from us Well but as if this was not enough What are the Consequences of this our Sin For by the Consequences of a sin the greatness of it is always to be estimated I speak as to the Material part of it with which we are here concerned Why they are most Terrible and Dreadful both with respect to our selves and others By this unnatual Separation we do for any thing we know put our selves out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the enjoyment of the ordinary means of Salvation We maintain and keep up Divisions and Disorders in the Church and lend a helping hand to all those Animosities and Hatreds all that bitter Contention and Strife and Uncharitableness which hath long torn the very Bowels of Christs Church and given occasion to that Deluge of Atheism and Profaneness and Impiety which hath over-spread the Face of it We put Affronts upon our Lawful Governours who should be in the place of God to us We give Scandal to all our Brethren that make a Conscience of living Peaceably and Piously And lastly as we offer a very fair Handle and Pretence to all Discontented and Factious men to Practice against the Best of Governments So we take the most effectual course to Ruine the Best Constituted Church in the World and with it the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom This now being the Nature and these being the Consequences of our Separation from the Established Church among us I leave it to any indifferent man to Determine whether any Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Communion though that Doubt be backed with greater Probabilities than do appear on the other side nay if you will with all the Probabilities that can consist with the nature of a Doubt can have weight enough to Ballance against such a Sin and such Consequences as Separation in our Case doth involve a man in I think there is no unconcerned Person but will pronounce that supposing where there are Doubts on both sides a man is to chuse that side on which there is the least appearance of Sin he is in this Case certainly bound to chuse Communion with the Established Church rather than Separation from it And that is all I Contend for But now after all this is said it must be acknowledged that if there be any man who hath other apprehensions of these matters and that after a Consideration of all things that are to be said for or against Conformity it doth appear to him upon the whole matter both more probable that our Communion is sinful than that it is a Duty and withal that to Communicate with us will involve him in a greater sin and in worse Consequences than to continue in Separation I say if any man have so unfortunate an understanding as to make such an estimate of things we must acknowledge that according to all the Rules of a Doubting Conscience such a man is rather to continue a Nonconformist than to obey the Laws of the King and the Church But then let him look to it for his acting in this Case according to the best Rules of a Doubting Conscience will not as I said before at all acquit him either of the Guilt or Consequences of Criminal Schism and Disobedience Supposing that indeed he is all along under a mistake as we say he certainly is and that there is nothing required in our Communion that he might not honestly and lawfully comply with as there certainly is not Unless in the mean time the man fell into these mistakes without any fault
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
Secession from us and professing you cannot joyn with us as Members and setting up Congregations of another Communion be more properly called Schism You gather Churches out of your Churches and set up Churches in an opposite way to our Churches and all this you do voluntarily and unwarrantably not having any sufficient cause for it And in the same Book they tell us of a Two-fold Schism Negative and Positive Negative when Men do peaceably and quietly withdraw from Communion with a Church not making a Head against that Church from which they are departed the other is when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body setting up a Church against a Church which say they Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency and further tells us There are Four Causes that make a Separation from a Church lawful 1. When they that Separate are grievously and intollerably Persecuted 2. When the Church they Separate from is Heretical 3. When it is Idolatrous 4. When it is the Seat of Antichrist And where none of these four are found there the Separation is insufficient and Schism Now we are fully assured that none of these Four Causes can be justly charg'd upon our Congregations therefore you must not be displeased with us but with your selves if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism All which is as true now as it was then and as applicable to us and them as it was to them and their Dissenters Admit then there were some things in our Constitution that might be contrived to better purposes and that needed Amendment and Alteration yet I hope every Defect or supposed Corruption in a Church is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant enough to rend and tear the Church in pieces Let Mr. Calvin judge between us in this matter Institut lib. 4. Sect. 10 11 12. fol. 349. who says That wherever the Word of God is duely Preached and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain Appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject its Admonitions or resist its Counsels or set at nought its Discipline much less Separate from it and Violate its Unity for that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately Separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a Separation is a denial of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of Separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments though otherwise it be over-run with many Blemishes and Corrupons Which is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly designed it against the Doctrine and Practice of the Modern Dissenters from our Church IV. Fourthly We entreat them to Consider Whether it be pure Conscience and mere Zeal for the Honour of Religion and not very often Discontent or Trade and Interest that has the main stroke in keeping them from Communion with our Church Far be it from me to judge the Secrets of Mens Hearts or to fasten such a Charge on the whole Body of Dissenters yea I accuse not any particular Person but only desire they would lay their Hand upon their Hearts and deal impartially with themselves and say whether they stand clear before God in this matter And there is the more Reason to put Men upon this Enquiry not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion but because this has been an old Artifice made use of to promote Separation Thus the Donatists in the Primitive Times upheld their Separation from the Catholick Church and kept their Party fast together by Trading only within themselves by imploying none to Till their Grounds or be their Stewards but those that would be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons by large Sums of Money to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our Modern Vid. Aug. Epist 173. ad Crisp Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Time was when it was made an Argument to prove Independency to be a Faction and not Edward's further Discovery p. 185. matter of Conscience because Needy broken decayed Men who knew not how to live and hoped to get something turned Independents and became Sticklers for it that some who had businesses Causes and Matters depending struck in with them and pleaded for them that so they might find Friends be sooner dispatched and fare better in their Causes that Ambitious Proud Covetous Men who had a mind to Offices places of profit about the Army Excise c. turned about to the Independents and were great Zealots for them Thus it was then and whether the same Leaven do not still spread and ferment and perhaps as much as ever there is just cause to suspect Whoever looks into the Trading part of this City and indeed of the whole Nation must needs be a very heedless and indiligent Observer if he do not take notice how Interests are formed and by what Methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many Thousands of the Poorer sort of Dissenters depend on this or that Man for their Work and consequently for their Livelihood and Subsistence how many depend upon others for their Trade and Custom whom accordingly these Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all Publick Occasions and what little Encouragement any Man finds from them that once deserts them and comes over to the Church of England There is another thing that contributes not a little to this Jealousie and Suspicion that many of the Chiefest and most Stiff and Zealous of the Dissenting Party are they at least the immediate Descendants of those who in the late Evil-Times by Rapine and Violence shared among themselves the Revenues of the Church and the Patrimony of the Crown and are said still privately to keep on foot their Titles to them And if so what wonder if such Men look on themselves as obliged in point of Interest to widen Breaches foment Differences increase Factions and all this to Subvert and over-turn the Church of England being well assured they can never hope but over the Ruines of this Church to make way to their once sweet Possessions Let Men therefore impartially examine themselves and search whether a Worldly Spirit be not at the bottom of their Zeal and Stiffness These I confess are Designs too Base and Sordid to be owned above Board but be not Deceived God is not Mocked Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart V. Fifthly
of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by church-Church-Communion Now church-Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
Church-Communion and our obligations to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace They have no notion at all of a Church or no notion of one Church or know not wherein the Unity and Communion of this Church consists and these Men think it is indifferent whether they Communicate with any Church at all or that they secure themselves from Schism by Communicating sometimes with one Church and sometimes with another that they may choose their Church according to their own fancies and change again when ever their humor alters But I hope who ever considers carefully what I have now writ and attends to those passionate Exhortations of the Gospel to Peace and Unity and Brotherly Love which cannot be preserved but in one Communion which is the Unity of the Body of Christ and the Peace and Love of fellow Members will not only heartily Pray to the God of Peace to restore Peace and Unity to his Church but will be careful how he divides the Church himself and will use his utmost endeavours to heal the present Schisms and Divisions of the Church of Christ THE END A LETTER TO ANONYMUS In Answer to his Three Letters TO Dr. SHERLOCK ABOUT church-Church-Communion LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A LETTER TO ANONYMUS In Answer to his Three LETTERS to Dr. SHERLOCK about Church-Communion SIR I Am very sorry that my Silence and Patience has been mistaken by you for an affront and neglect which is such a provocation as I find some sort of great minds cannot bear But yet that you may have a little mercy I shall give you a brief account of the reason why you had not an Answer before I did not answer your first Letter in so publick a manner as you desired because I believed your Objections were such as no body was concern'd in but your self and I cannot think it decent to trouble so numerous an Auditory with every particular mans conceits I did not answer your Second Letter because by the Temper and Spirit of it I easily foresaw that it would end in a publick Quarrel and if I must be in Print I henceforth resolve to Correct the Press my self and not to suffer any man to Print my private Letters for me But yet I called at Mr. R's Shop whither you directed me several times to have Invited you to a private Conference but could never see him till I accidentally met him in the street the same day I received the present of your Printed Letters The reason why I Printed those Discourses which you heard me Preach was because they were designed for the Press before they were designed for the Pulpit and before I dream't of your terrible Queries and were Printed and Preach'd exactly by the same Copy excepting the Introduction to fit them to a Text which you know is very convenient for a Sermon And the reason why I sent you one of those Tracts when it was Printed was because I did hope you might have had understanding enough upon a careful perusal of it when it lay before you to have answered those Objections which you made against it at the first hearing And now Sir I come to consider the Contents of your First Letter you have made some Repetition of what I Discoursed and a very good Repetition to be done by memory which gives you the commendable Character of a diligent and attentive hearer but when you had the Discourse before you in Print you ought not then to have depended upon your memory but to have given me my own again in my own words and order and with that dependance and connexion in which the whole strength of that Discourse consists and to have applied your Queries distinctly to those parts of the Discourse which they related to Had you done this you would either have been able to have resolved your own Queries or would more effectually have convinc'd me of my mistake or at least have given your Readers better satisfaction in the pertinency of what you say but now you have onely given us a heap of Queries which it is no easie matter to know to what they relate As for your Repetitions the Reader who desires satisfaction may compare them with what I have writ which is exactly the same with what I Preach'd and as for your Queries you know how easie a thing it is to ask Questions however I will endeavour to find out to what they belong and give as plain and short an Answer to them as I can for I assure you I am not at leasure now to write a long Book upon this Argument and therefore it is a great comfort to me that there is no need of it After your Repetition of what you could remember or what you thought fit to take notice of in my Sermon you give us a very mistaken Summary of it To sum up say you what I take to be the force of all p. 4. this The Apostles and their Successors were by our Saviour invested with a power of receiving Members into his Church upon his Terms and with such Rites as they should think fit and they who are not so received into the Church have no right to any of the blessings promis'd to the Members of Christ's Body This Power is by an uninterrupted Succession derived upon the Governours of our National Church wherefore all others that pretend to the exercise of this Power within this Nation are Vsurpers and all the Laity Baptized by their Pastors not being duly admitted into any particular Church are so far from being Members of Christ's Body that they are Vsurpers and Traitors to that Power which is derived from him in a right line Durus hic Sermo Had you not told the World in your Title-Page that you are a Lay-man to make your Triumph over a poor undone Dr. of Divinity the more glorious I should have taken you to be the Founder of some new Sect of Conjectural Divines and truly you are so happy in your guesses that I believe few men will ever be able to out-do you in this Art For there is not one word of all this matter in that Discourse which you pretend to sum up as it was delivered by me That to which you seem to refer is contained in one short Paragraph which I shall Transcribe and leave the most fanciful Reader to try his skill to sum it up as you have done Having before asserted that God onely can Constitute a Church I added And I think it is as plain that the only Resolut of Cases p. 5. visible way God has of Forming a Church for I do not now speak of the Invisible Operations of the Divine Spirit is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is Founded and investing some persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Convenant according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant-Rites and
no Man will say that in this sence we live in the French or Dutch Church because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us 5. Your next Query is Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the Means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1. Peter 2. 21. Ans What this concerns me I cannot tell I speak onely of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members you put a question whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism when it can't be had may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God I hope in some cases it may though I do not hope this from what St. Peter saies who onely speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience which is made at Baptism not of that which is made without it But what God will accept of in this case is not my business to determie unbaptized Persons are no Visible Members of the Church and therefore not capable of Visible Communion and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute 6. Query Why a profest Atheist who has been Baptized and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church is more a Member of the Catholick Church than such as are above described Ans Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit Resol of Cases p. 8. c. their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every man in his respective station and capacity as well as the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their duty according to the Divine Covenant Ans It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion
and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans The promise is that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any Church on Earth which is all I cited it for and so much it certainly proves The Second Proposition you raise Queries on is this 'T is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians This I do indeed assert that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant and to be in Covenant with God and to be Members of his Church is the same thing therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church also and this makes it very absurd to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptized Christians which supposes that they were not a Church before instead of considering the reason whereon this is founded as every honest Writer should do you onely put a perverse Comment on it By which say you I suppose you mean That Men ought not to Separate from such and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptized Christians which I conceive needs explaining But if this were true it were plain enough but the fault is that it is not true for we may Separate from any Church of Baptized Christians if their Communion be Sinful which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome and answers your two first Queries But indeed the Proposition as asserted by me does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church let the cause be what it will just or unjust For the Independents who are the Men for gathering Churches do not own that they Separate from any Church but that they form themselves into a Church-State which they had not before and which no Christians according to their Principle have who are not Members of Independent Churches Baptism they acknowledge makes Men Christians at large but not Church-Members which I shewed must needs be very absurd if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant for then Baptism which admits us into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church and they may as well rebaptize Christians as form them into new Church-Societies This I suppose may satisfie you how impertinent all your Queries are under this head Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome which was not made upon Independent Principles because they were no Church but because they were a corrupt Church 3. Whether every Bishoprick in England be not so many Churches within the National Ans Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church and the Union of them in one National Communion makes them not so many Churches within a National but one National Church which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separation 4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National Churches within a Church which is Schismatical but not one National Church as Bishopricks are 5. And therefore tho we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church which is a very liberal grant yet they are not in Catholick Communion because they are Schismaticks 6. And this is all I am to account for that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine I can hope as Charitably as any Man but I dare not be so Charitable as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing which is the great Bond of Christian Charity 3dly You take occasion for your next Queries from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant you say I suppose that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new contract no part of the Baptismal vow I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicite Covenant between Pastor and People that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians for no other Christians which are not in Covenant with them are Members of their Church nor can they be Members of any other Church And I proved that those are Separate Churches Resol of Cases p. 10. 32. which are not Members of each other and do not own each others Members for their own For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member and if no Man can be a Member of a Church but by such an explicite Independent Covenant then he is a Member of no Church but that with which he is in Covenant and consequently is in Communion with no Church but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant And if those be Schismaticks and Schismatical Churches which are not in Communion with each other then all Independents must be Schismaticks for they are in Communion with none but their own Independent Congregations Let us now hear your Queries Q. 1. Whether any Obstacle to Catholick Communion brought in by Men may not be a means of depriving Men of it as well as Covenant or Contract Ans Yes it may but with this Material difference Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up Encloses and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions as there are Independent Congregations Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion but there can be no
saies nothing that the divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Vnity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many Thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other Terms That the Divine Spirit confines his influences ordinarily to the Unity of the Church I do assert but that this is in Conformity to the Church of England I do not assert For Conformity to the Church of England is not Essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church for every Church has authority to prescribe its own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship in Conformity to the general Rules of the Gospel And therefore though the Unity of the Church is necessary to intitle Men to the ordinary influences of Gods Grace and consequently is necessary to Salvation yet Conformity to the Church of England is not necessary to the Unity of the Church because Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Unity of the Church without conformity to the Church of England Obedience indeed and Subjection to Church-Authority in all Lawful things is necessary to the Unity of the Church and necessary to Salvation and consequently it is a necessary Duty to conform to all the Lawful and Innocent Customs of the Church wherein we live but this does not make the particular Laws of Conformity which are different in different Churches to be necessary to Salvation unless you will say the Church has no Authority but only in things absolutely necessary to Salvation which destroys all the external Order and Discipline of the Church and charges all the Churches in the World with destroying Mens Souls if any persons be so Humorsom and Peevish as to break Communion with them for such Reasons But such kind of Cavils as these you may find answered at large in the Vindication of the Defence and thither I refer you if you desire to see any more of it Thus Sir I have with great patience answered your Questions not that they needed or deserved any Answer but that you might not think your self too much despised nor other weak People think your Questions unanswered And now I have given you an Answer I shall take the Confidence to give you a little Ghostly Counsel too which you need a great deal more than an Answer I have not troubled my Head to inquire Scrupulously who you are nor do I use to trust Common Fame in such matters but though I know not you yet I perceive you know me and if as you say you have often p. 1. heard me with great Satisfaction and as you hope not without edifying thereby I think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more Civility than you have done if it be in your Nature to be Civil to a Clergy-Man And I wish more for your own sake than for mine you had done so for I thank God I have learnt not only by the precepts and example of my great Master but by frequent Tryals to go through good Report and evil Report and to bear the most invidious and Spightful Reflections with an equal mind But as contemptible as a Clergy-Man is now these things will be accounted for another day For it is very evident that you have a great Spight at the whole Order whatever personal kindness you may have for some Men they are but a Herd of Clergy-men and you know no other use of a Bishop but to oversee admonish and Censure those who are apt to Preface go beyond their due Bounds I confess this way of Railery is grown very fashionable and I perceive you are resolved to be in the Mode and to be an accomplisht Gentleman but I never knew a man that was seriously religious who durst affront the Servants for their Masters sake But you Sir are in the very height of the fashion and think their Office as contemptible as their Persons generally are thought to be you hope to be saved without understanding the Notion of Church-Government as 't is intreagued by Clergy-men of all sides And I hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides Church-Government or else I doubt your Salvation may be hazardous But this is too plain a contempt of all Church-Authority for though the Church of Rome has usurpt an unlimited and Tyrannical Power under the Notion of Church-Government yet what has the Sound Church of England as you own it done What occasion did I give for this Censure who have expresly confined the Exercise of Church-Authority to Church-Communion to receiving in and putting out of the Church And if Resol of Cases p. 39. the Church be no Society I would desire to know what it is and if be a Society how can any Society subsist without Authority in some Persons to receive in and to shut out of the Society But the truth is tho you pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England you make the Church it self a very needless and insignificant thing for you know no necessity of Communicating with any Church you will not allow it to be Schism to Separate from the Church you think it a pretty indifferent thing whether Men be Baptized or not or by whom they are Baptized what your Opinion is about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I do not know though if you are consistent with your self I doubt that is a very indifferent Ceremony too Truly to deal plainly with you I think you have more need to be taught your Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books and let me in time warn you what the consequence of this way you are in is likely to be which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and institute Religion and consequently of Christianity Natural Religion may subsist without any positive Institutions but revealed Religion never did and never can for when God Transacts with Mankind in the way of a Visible Covenant there must be some Visible Ministers and Visible Sacraments of this Covenant And when the Evangelical Ministers and Sacraments fall into contempt Men must think meanly of Christianity and return to what they call natural Religion which is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice which cannot save a Sinner but by uncovenanted Grace and Mercy which no Man can be sure of and which no Man shall find who rejects a Priest and Sacrifice of Gods providing And to convince you of this you may observe that the contempt of the Notion of a Church of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments is originally owing to Deists and Socinians to those who profess to believe in God and to worship him according to the Laws of natural Religion but believe nothing at all of Christ or to those who profess to believe in Christ but believe him only to be a meer Man and a great Reformer of Natural
old in their calm mood who declare We testify to all Brownists Apol p. 7. An. 1604. Men by these Presents That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true ancient Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them See more in Baily's Disswasive cap. 2. p. 20 33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Part 1. § 9. p. 31. The Presbyterians if I may so call them for distinction sake do own it So Mr. Corbet The Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments by Discourse § 21 p. 43. Law established is heartily received by the Non-conformists So Mr. Baxter As for the Doctrine of the Church of England Preface to 5 Disp p. 6. the Bishops and their Followers from the first Reformation begun by Edw. 6. were sound in Doctrine adhering to the Augustan Method express'd now in the Articles and Homilies they differ'd not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritans The like is affirmed by the Independents The Confession of the Church of Peace-Offer ing p. 12. See Mr. Baxter's Defence of his Cure Part 1. p. 64. and Part 2. p. 3. and Wadsworth in his Separation yet no Schism p. 60 62. Mr. Throughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists cap. 3. p. 106. England declared in the Articles of Religion and herein what is purely doctrinal we fully embrace 2. As to the Worship they own it for the Matter and Substance to be good and for Edification So the old Non-Conformists as Mr. Hildersham There is Lecture 26. on John p. 121. nothing in our Assemblies but we may receive profit by it c. And again There is nothing done in God's Publick Worship among us but what is done by the Institution Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. So among the present it is owned by both Presbyterians and Independents by the former in the Morning Exercise Continuat Morning Exercise Serm 4. p. 91. Why may it not be supposeable that Christians may be moved by reasonable Considerations to attend the publick Forms the substantial Parts of them being thought agreeable to a Divine Institution though in some Circumstantials too disagreeable So it is acknowledged That in Throughton's Apol. p. 104. private Meetings the same Doctrine and Worship is used as in the Parish Churches only some Circumstances and Ceremonies omitted By the latter We know full well that we Peace-Offering p. 17. differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion established in England but only in some few things in outward Worship But I shall have further occasion to treat of this under the third General 3. As for the Ministry of the Church 1. It is acknowledged to be true and for substance the same which Christ hath established So Mr. Bradshaw I Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 16. affirm That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies howsoever it may in some particular parts of the Execution haply be defective in some Places is for the Substance thereof that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church This he speaks as he saith of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State 2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office so the grave and modest Confutation maintains The preaching of the whole Truth of God's Word Grave and modest Confutat p. 28. and nothing but it the Administration of the Sacraments and of Publick Prayer as they are of all parts of the Ministers Office prescribed in the Word so they are all appointed to our Ministers by the Law 3. They own That all the Defects in it whether in their Call or Administration do not nullify the Office Thus much Mr. Bradshaw doth contend for So many of our Ministers Unreasonableness of Separation p. 27 37. who in the Book of Ordination are called Priests and Deacons as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry are qualified according to the intent of the Laws have their Offices Callings Adminstration and Maintenance for the Substance thereof ordained by Christ And yet I deny not but there may be some accidental Defects or Superfluities in or about them all yet such as do not or cannot be proved to destroy the Nature and Substance of any of them This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England c. p. 86 87. And the like is also affirmed even by those of the Apologet. Narration p. 6. Congregational Way so the Brethren in their Apology The unwarrantable Power in Church-Governours did never work in any of us any other Thought much less Opinion but that the Ministry thereof of the English Churches was a true Ministry So Mr. Cotton The Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. Power whereby the Ministers in England do administer the Word and Sacraments is either spiritual and proper essential to their Calling or advantitious and accidental The former they have received from Christ c. The latter from the Patron who presents or the Bishop who ordains c. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordination defended may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici part 2 p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Divinum Regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism pag. 116. and his Defence of it pag. 35 37. Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed that the Church of England is a true Church in its Doctrine Worship and Ministry But when we come to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true there we shall find that they do differ The Presbyterians generally own a National Church and have writ much in the behalf of it as may be seen in the Books quoted in the * * * Jus Divinum Minist Evang. p 12 c. Brinsly's Church-remedy p 41 42. Cawdry Independ a great Schism p. 60 89 172. Margin Others look upon it as a prudential thing and what may lawfully be complied with So Mr. Tombs | | | Theodulia or just Defence § 15 16. Preface c. 9. § 3. It is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England the Church of England than it is to term Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any Institution of our Lord more for the one than the other But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a Constitution or that speak doubtfully of it do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches It 's acknowledged by all that the Distribution into Parishes is not of Divine but Humane Institution but withal its thought by some * * * Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh clouded p. 101 c. Cawdrey's Independ a great Schism p. 132 c. Church-Reformation p. 42. agreeable to the reason of the
Assemblies and the Corruptions there though great yet are not such as make the Worship cease to be God's Worship nor of necessity to be swallowed down if one would communicate in that Worship while any Christian that is watchful over his own Heart and Carriage as all ought ever to be may partake in the one without being active in or approving the other there God is yet present there he may be spiritually worshipped served acceptably and really enjoyed 3. They grant that the being present at Divine Worship is no consent to the Corruptions in it Thus Mr. Robinson He that partakes Lawfulness of Heaâ—ing c. p. 19 23. with the Church in the upholding any Evil hath his part in the Evil also But I deny as a most vain Imagination that every one that partakes with a Church in things lawful joyns with it in upholding the things unlawful to be found in it Christ our Lord joyned with the Jewish Church in things lawful and yet upheld nothing unlawful in it So Mr. Nye Case of great and present Use p. 16 18. Cure dir 35. p 196 c. Defence p. 96. Approbation is an act of the Mind it is not shewed until it be expressed outwardly by my Words and Gestures This Mr. Baxter undertakes to prove by several Arguments as that no Man can in Reason and Justice take that for my Profession which I never made by Word or Deed. That the Profession made by Church-Communion is totally distinct from this That this Opinion would make it unlawful to joyn with any Pastor or Church on Earth since every one mixeth Sin with their Prayers 4. They say that Corruptions though foreknown do not yet make those that are present guilty of them Thus the old Non-conformists declare It is all one to the People Letter of Ministers in Old-England to the Brethren in New-England p. 12 13 16. whether the Fault be personal as some distinguish or otherwise known before-hand or not known For if simple Presence defile whether it was known before-hand or not all Presence is faulty And if simple Presence defile not our Presence is not condemned by reason of the Corruptions known whereof we stand not guilty If the Error be such as may be tolerated and I am called to be present by such Fault I am not defiled though known before Mr. Baxter replies to those of a Curâ— p. 200. contrary Opinion after this manner Take heed that thus by affirming that fore-knowing Faults in Worship makes them ours you make not God the greatest Sinner and the worst Being in all the World For God fore-knoweth all Mens Sins and is present when they commit them and he hath Communion with all the Prayers of the Faithful in the World what Faults soever be in the Words or Forms he doth not reject them for any such Failings Will you say therefore that God approveth or consenteth to all these Sins I know before-hand that every Man will sin that prayeth by defect of Desire c. But how doth all this make it mine c. And he otherwhere adds It is another Man's Christian Diâ—ect p. 748 Fault or Error that you fore-know and not your own 5. It 's granted that the Fault of another in the Ministration of Divine Worship is none of ours nor a sufficient Reason to absent from it or to deprive our selves of it Thus Mr. Baxter The Cure p. 197. V. Jerubbaal justified p 16 c. 22 34. wording of the publick Prayers is the Pastors Work and none of mine c. And why should any hold me guilty of another Mans Fault which I neither can help nor belongeth to any Office of mine to help any farther than to admonish him And that the Faults of him that ministers are no sufficient Reasons to debar our selves of Communion in the Worship Mr. Nye affirms and proves by this Argument Case of great and present use p. 10. If I may not omit a Duty in respect to the Evil mixed with it which is my own much less may I thus leave an Ordinance for the Evil that is another Mans no way mine or to be charged upon me this were to make another Mans Sins or Infirmities more mine than my own Thus is the Case resolved Of Scandal a Discours p. 65. with respect to the Cross in Baptism I may not only saith one do that which I judg to be inconvenient but suffer another to do that which I judg to be unlawful rather than be deprived of a necessary Ordinance e. g. If either I must have my Child baptized with the sign of the Cross or not baptized at all I must suffer it to be done in that way though I judg it an unlawful Addition because the manner concerns him that doth it not me at least not so much so long as there is all the Essence He must be responsible for every Irregularity not I. Thus Jacob took Laban's Oath though by his Idols c. V. Crofton's Reformat no Separat p. 24. After the same manner doth Mr. Baxter resolâ—â— the Case in his Christian Directory pag. 49. Seventhly They grant That it is a Duty to joyn Arg. 7 with a defective and faulty Worship where we can have no better Thus the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy * * * Confer at the Savoy p. 3 12 13. An inconvenient mode of Worship is a Sin in the Imposer and in the Chuser and voluntary User that may offer God better and will not And yet it may not only be lawful but a Duty to him that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none This is acknowledged by an Author that is far from being favourable to Communion with the Church If the Word of God could be no Separat yet no Schism p. 64. where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be lawful yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without Sin Accordingly Mr. Baxter declares That Def. of Cure part 1. p. 78. it is a Duty to hold Communion constantly with any of the Parish Churches amongst us that have honest competent Pastors when we can have no better and professeth for his own part Were I saith he in Armenia Part 2. p. 176. and Cure p. 265. q. 6. Abassia or among the Greeks I would joyn in a much more defective Form than our Liturgy rather than none And he adds That this is the Judgment of many New-England Ministers to joyn with the English Liturgy rather than have no Church-Worship I have reason to conjecture from the Defence of the Synod c. Defence of Synod Pref. p. 4 5. Def. of Cure part 1. p. 78. n. 6. p. 96. n. 5. Now in what Cases this is to be presumed that we can have no better he shews 1. When it is so by a necessity arising
and Climb upon in sign of their desire to seek the things above and a stiff Straw put into the Childs Hand for a sign of Fighting against Spiritual Enemies as with a Spear And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceedings (a) (a) (a) Ames Ib l. 1. c. 3. Pâ—id 1 would rerurn with success upon themselves Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters Fifthly If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church because they are used out of it and in Civil cases then what will become of that Position before spoken of and generally asserted by those who oppose us that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription except the Natural Circumstances of Action for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident yet they may be and often are Separated for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship and which that cannot be performed without And if these and the like were used in the Church and applied and annexed to Divine Worship then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth wherever that reason is justify the like Practice and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us that is all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it 3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship from the ill consequences attending the contrary one of which is that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the VVorld but are Guilty and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful there is no Church we can hold Communion with There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expresly condemns and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires as the Church of Rome in it's Worshipping Saints and Angels and denying the Cup to the Laity c. And these things make it necessary for those to quit it's Communion that are of it and for those to avoid it that are not in it But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages and may so far lawfully be Communicated with But even none of these are there but what either wittingly or unwittingly do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ and Descent of the Holy-Ghost the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epis. 118. Januar. the Praying toward the East (b) (b) (b) Basil de Spir. S. c. 27. the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days (c) (c) (c) Aug. Epis. 119. Januar. especially from Easter to Whitsontide the Dipping the Baptized thrice in Water (d) (d) (d) Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacrament c. 7. c. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood yet it 's plain that none of these are required in Scripture and if so a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded and to hold Communion with a Church so using must have separated from the Catholick Church since if there be Credit to be given to the Fathers so reporting they all agreed in the use and Practice of the things above recited And he that held all fixed Holy-Days of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited must not have Worshiped with them who did not only thus do but thought it unlawful when universally Practised to do otherwise But again as there were some Rites universally held in estimation so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches and that were not thought to be obliging out of that particular Communion as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday and of most orhers to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epist 118. In the Church of Milain they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptized but in the Church of Rome they used it not (b) (b) (b) Ambros l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Now if Persons did beleive such things unlawful they could have no Communion with any particular Church because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution yet how could they have Communion with a Church where the contrary Custom did prevail as in the cases abovesaid And as it was then so it is now with all stated and settled Churchers in the World who do Practice against this Principle and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them and that Practice with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milain once did so in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling in some Standing in others Sitting In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once and in others thrice Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these Circumstances or of being a Member of any Church if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God and that we must joyn in nothing which has it not As for Instance what Church is there in the World which has not some form or forms of Prayer and whose Service for the most part generally speaking is not made up of them especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful and that forms of Prayer are no where prescribed then he cannot joyn with the Church so using but while in the body of the Church by residence he must be no Member of that Body in Communion Nay further if this be true then none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion since those that pretend most to it and urge it as a reason against Communion with us live in contradiction to it and to Practice and Use things which they have no more Authority nor can give more reason for than we do for the things they condemn and that is that they are lawful expedient and convenient As for Example let us consider the Sacraments in wich if any thing we might expect particular Prescription because they are meer Institutions where do they find that the Baptized Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled What Command or
is properly no Conscience unless by Accident we have nothing here to do with them but shall reserve them to another place Here we suppose that we do make a Judgment of the thing that is we are perswaded in our Minds concerning the goodness or badness of this or the other Action And that which we are to inquire into is how far that Judgment binds us to Act according to it Now if our Conscience be a Right Conscience that is if we have truly informed our Judgment according to the Rule of Gods Law It is beyond all Question and acknowledged by all the World that we are in that Case perpetually bound to Act according to our Judgment It is for ever our Duty so to do and there can no blame no guilt fall upon us for so doing let the Consequence of our Acting or not Acting be what it will So that as to a Right Conscience or a well informed Judgment there is no dispute among any sort of Men. But the great thing to be inquired into is what Obligation a Man is under to Act according to his Judgment supposing it be false supposing he hath not rightly informed his Conscience but hath taken up false measures of what God hath Commanded or Forbidden Now for the Resolution of this I lay down these Three Propositions which I think will take in all that is needful for the giving Satisfaction to every one concerning this point First Where a Man is mistaken in his Judgment even in that Case it is always a Sin to Act against it Be our Conscience never so ill instructed as to what is Good or Evil though we should take that for a Duty which is really a Sin and on the contrary that for a Sin which is really a Duty Yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be highly Criminal in us to Act in contradiction to this persuasion and the reason of this is evident because by so doing we wilfully Act against the best light which at present we have for the direction of our Actions and consequently our Will is as faulty and as wicked in consenting to such Actions as if we had had truer Notions of things We are to remember that the Rule of our Duty whatever it be in it self cannot touch or affect our Actions but by the Mediation of our Conscience that is no farther than as it is apprehended by us or as we do understand and remember it So that when all is done the immediate Guide of our Actions can be nothing but our Conscience our Judgment and Perswasion concerning the Goodness or Badness or Indifferency of things It is true in all those Instances where we are mistaken our Conscience proves but a very bad and unsafe Guide because it hath it self lost its way in not following its Rule as it should have done But however our Guide still it is and we have no other guide of our Actions but that And if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one Instance we may with as much reason reject its Guidance in all What is the Notion that any of us hath of a Wilful Sin or a Sin against Knowledg but this That we have done otherwise than we were convinced to be our Duty at the same time that we did so And what other measures have we of any Mans Sincerity or Hypocrisie But only this that he Acts according to the best of his Judgment or that he doth not Act according to what he pretends to Believe We do not indeed say that every one is a good Man that Acts according to his Judgment or that he is to be commended for all Actions that are done in pursuance of his Perswasion No we measure Vertue and Vice by the Rule according to which a Man ought to Act as well as by the Mans intention in Acting But however we all agree that that Man is a Knave that in any instance Acts contrary to that which he took to be his duty And in passing this Sentence we have no regard to this whether the Man was Right or mistaken in his Judgment for be his Judgment Right or Wrong True or False it is all one as to his Honesty in Acting or not Acting according to it He that hath a false perswasion of things so long as that perswasion continues is often as well satisfied that he is in the Right as if his Perswasion was true That is he is oftentimes as Confident when he is in an Error as when he is in the Right And therefore we cannot but conclude that he who being under a mistake will be tempted to Act contrary to his Judgment would certainly upon the same Temptation Act contrary to it was his Judgment never so well informed And therefore his Will being as bad in the one Case as in the other he is equally a Sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the Cases This I believe is the Sense of all Men in this matter If a Man for instance should of a Jew become a Christian while yet in his Heart he believeth that the Messiah is not yet come and that our Lord Jesus was an Impostor Or if a Papist should to serve some private ends Renounce the Communion of the Roman Church and joyn with ours while yet he is perswaded that the Roman Church is the only Catholick Church and that our Reformed Churches are Heretical or Schismatical Though now there is none of us will deny that the Men in both these Cases have made a good change as having changed a false Religion for a true one yet for all that I dare say we should all agree they were both of them great Villains and Hypocrites for making that change because they made it not upon Honest Principles and in pursuance of their Judgment but in direct Contradiction to both Nay I dare say we should all of us think better of an ignorant well meaning Protestant that being seduced by the perswasions and Artifices of a cunning Popish Factor did really out of Conscience abandon our Communion and go over to the Romanists as thinking theirs to be the safest I say we should all of us entertain a more favourable Opinion of such a Man in such a Case Though really here the change is made from a true Keligion to a false one than we should of either of the other Men I have before named All this put together is abundantly sufficient to shew that no Man can in any Case Act against his Judgment or Perswasion but he is Guilty of Sin in so doing But then our Second Proposition is this The mistake of a Mans Judgment may be of such a Nature that as it will be a Sin to Act against his Judgment so it will likewise be a Sin to Act according to it For what Authority soever a Mans Conscience has over him it can never bear him out if he do an
not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it if indeed Gods Law hath made it a Duty So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do when they withdraw from our Communion Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin A Sin against which there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians as against any other Sin whatsoever And therefore let those that forsake our Communion and set up or joyn with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours I say let them look to it that they be not involved in the Guilt of this dreadful Sin They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds if they would free themselves from the imputation of it It is not always enough to excuse them that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw For unless the thing be so indeed their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many but yet it is true for all that and will appear a little more Evident if we put the Case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concerned Here is one of the Roman-Catholick perswasion as they call it that hath been trained up in Popery and heartily believes it to be true Religion and the Only one wherein Salvation is to be had and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church doth pay Religious Worship to Images doth pray to Saints and Angels doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ to which his Soul and Deity is personally United Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not He doth verily believe that he is not He would abhor these Practices if he did in the least believe that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbid that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to
Pap. of the Presbyt p. 31. before these unhappy Wars began yielded to the laying aside of the Cross and making many material alterations c. They have not those apprehensions of these things that they are unalterable and obligatory upon all Christians as such or that the laying them aside for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God I would to God our Brethren at least would but meet us thus far as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceiv'd against them and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God so the use of them cannot be so neither Forgive the expression of Superstitious prejudices For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indifferent rites when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority that will alter the Case Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by I mean a causeless dread of God It is a passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Calvin that it is equally Superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy It is infinitely In 2 Praecept a nobler Conquest over our selves a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God to possess our selves with such notions of God and of indifferent things as to believe we cannot recommend our selves to him in the least measure by scrupling what he hath interpos'd no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful FINIS A Catalogue of the several Cases c. 1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawfull to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved The second Part. 16. The Case of â—ay-Communion with the Church of England considered 17. A Persuasive to frequent Communion c. 18. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England 's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution 19. The Case of compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith c. 6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE Lords Supper LONDON Printed by M. Flesher for 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 1684. A PERSUASIVE TO FREQUENT COMMUNION MY design in this Argument is from the Consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the World to awaken Men to a sense of their Duty and the great Obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their Duty in this particular because in this last Age by the unwary Discourses of some concerning the Nature of this Sacrament and the danger of receiving it unworthily such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of Men as utterly to deter many and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it to the great prejudice and danger of Mens Souls and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it and to the mighty scandal of our Religion by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points First Of the Perpetuity of this Institution this the Apostle signifies when he saith that by eating this 1 Cor. 11. 26. Bread and drinking this Cup we do shew the Lord's Death till he come Secondly Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution this is signified in that Expression of the Apostle As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup which Expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament Thirdly I shall endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the Minds of Men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from their receiving this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought which Objections are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says Wherefore whosoever
owned it at his Condemnation that perhaps he thought Colemans Tryal p. 101. Def. of his Answ to the Admonit p. 349. that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted And this is that which wise Arch-Bishop Whitgift long ago foresaw would come to pass when he told the Dissenters of those Days I am persuaded that Anti-Christ worketh effectually at this Day by our Stirs and Contentions whereby he hath and will more prevail against this Church of England then by any other means whatsoever And now upon the whole matter I desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider whether the orderly and truly Primitive Constitution of the Church of England or Innovation Schism and Separation be the likelier way to keep out Popery and do therefore Conjure them by all the Kindness which they pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us as which I believe humanely speaking to be if not the only at least the only safe and durable means of shutting Popery for ever out of Doors IX Ninthly We desire of them that if neither these nor any other Advices and Considerations can prevail with them they would at least cease to Reproach the Government for Reviving the Execution of the Laws about these matters I know it is very natural to Men to complain when any thing pinches them but then they ought to be so just as to consider whose fault it is that has brought it upon them The Laws in this case were framed with great Advice and upon dear bought Experience and every Nation in the World thinks it self obliged when no other ways will do it by Penalties to secure the Publick Peace Safety and Tranquility of the State though it may sometimes press hard in some particular Cases when Men through Fancy Humour Mistake or Design especially about little and as themselves confess indifferent matters shall endanger the Publick Welfare and by an ill Example expose the Reverence and Majesty of the Laws And yet notwithstanding all this and a great deal more that might be said we find them at every turn charging the Government for using them Cruelly and with the hardest Measure censuring their Superiours and speaking Evil of Dignities and this not only the Cry of the mean and common Sort but of their chiefest Leaders even to this Hour It being no hard matter but that I love not to exasperate to instance in several things that are no very good Arguments of that Obedient Patience which some of them so much pretend to It is far from my Temper to delight in Cruelty much more to plead for Severity to be used towards Dissenting Brethren and therefore should have said nothing in this Argument were it not necessary to Vindicate the Government which upon these occasions I have so often heard Blamed and Censured I would these Persons who complain so much would consider a while how their Predecessors were dealt with in the times of the good Queen Elizabeth which will appear either from the Laws then made or from the Proceedings then had against them The Laws then made against them were chiefly these In the First of the Queen An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. wherein among other Clauses and Penalties it is provided That if any Person shall in any Playes Songs Rhimes or by other open Words declare or speak any thing in the derogation depraving or despising the Book of Common-Prayer or any thing therein contained being thereof lawfully convicted he shall forfeit for the first Offence an hundred for the second four hundred Marks for the Third all his Goods and Chattels and shall suffer Imprisonment during Life A Clause which had it been kept up in its due Life and Power our Liturgy and Divine Offices had been Treated with much more Respect and Reverence then I am sure they have met with especially of late In Her Fifth Year an Act was passed for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo amongst others particularly levelled against such as refuse to receive the Holy Communion or to come to Divine Service as now commonly used in the Church of England with severe Penalties upon those that shall not yield up themselves to the same Writ Anno. 13. passed an Act of general Pardon but it was with an Exception of all those that had committed any Offence against the Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer or were Publishers of Seditious Books or Disturbers of Divine Service Anno 23. By an Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience it is provided That every Person above the Age of Sixteen Years which shall not repair to some Church or usual place of Common-Prayer but forbear the same by the space of a Month shall for every such Moth forfeit Twenty Pounds Which Act was again Confirmed and Ratified by another in the 29th Year of Her Reign with many Clauses and Provisions for the better Execution of it And by the Act of the 35th of Her Reign If any Person so forbearing shall willingly joyn in or be present at any Assemblies Conventicles and Meetings under colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion contrary to the Laws of the Realm such Person being lawfully Convicted shall be Imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize untill he Conform and if he do not that within Three Months he shall be obliged to Abjure the Realm and if refusing to Abjure or returning without Licence he shall be Adjudged a Felon and suffer as in case of Felony without benefit of Clergy Such were Her Laws and such also were Her Proceedings against those who faultered in their Conformity or began to Innovate in the Discipline of the Church and these Proceedings as quick and smart as any can be said to be against the Dissenters of this time Do they complain of their Ministers being Silenced now so they were then being deprived of their Benefices and Church-Preferments for their Inconformity Thus Sampson was turned out of his Deanry oâ— Christ-Church for refusing to Conform to the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church Cartwright the very Head of them Expelled the Colledge and deprived of the Lady Margarets Lecture Travers turned out from Preaching at the Temple with many more Suspended from the Ministry by the Queens Authority and the Approbation of the Bishops for not Subscribing to some new Rites and Ceremonies imposed upon them as appears from Beza's Letter to Bez. Epist 8. Bishop Grindal Anno 1566. Are any in Prison so they were then Benson Button Hallingham Cartwright Knewstubbs and many others some in the Marshalsey others in the White-Lion some in the Gatehouse others in the Counter or in the Clink or in Bridewel or in Newgate Poor Men miserably handled with Revilings Deprivations Imprisonments Banishments if we may believe what themselves tell us both in the First and Second Admonition And what is yet far beyond any thing which God be thanked our Dissenters can pretend to complain of
Sedition Sedition Rebellion and Rebellion the Ruine of Church and State And what wonder if the Laws bear a little hard there where there are the same Appearances and where there seem to be the same Tendencies and Inclinations to the same Dismal State of Things Whoever considers by what Ways the most flourishing Kingdom in the World and the best Church that ever was since the Primitive Times were miserably Harrassed and Destroyed cannot think that those who sit at the Helm should be content to have them Ruined again by the same means especially after the King for several Years together has in vain tryed by all the Methods of Favour and Indulgence to win upon them Thirdly Let those who now complain so much consider How little Favour themselves shewed to others when they were in Power How the Loyal and Episcopal Party were Plundered Sequestred Decimated Dungeoned Starved and often stunk to Death What Oaths and Covenants were Rigorously Imposed upon them what Restraints laid upon their Liberties both Civil and Ecclesiastical though all this while they had Law and Right standing for An Ordinance for putting in Execution the Directory August 11. 1645. them In the Year 1645 an Ordinance of Parliament was published That if any Person hereafter shall at any Time use or cause to be used the Book of Common-prayer in any Church or publick place of Worship or in any private Place or Family within the Kingdom every Person so offending should for the first Offence pay the Sum of Five for the second ten Pounds and for the third should suffer one whole Years Imprisonment without Bail or Mainprize This one would think was very hard but there is something harder yet behind For Cromwel being got into the Throne Published a Delaration 24 November 1655. at that time Equivalent to a Law That no Person who had been sequestred for delinquency or had been in Arms against the Parliament or adhered unto or had abetted or assisted the Forces raised against them should keep in their Houses or Families as Chaplains or Schoolmasters for the Education of their Children any sequestred or ejected Minister Fellow of a Colledge or Schoolmaster nor permit any of their Children to be taught by such upon pain of being proceeded against as was directed and that no Person who had been sequestred or ejected for delinquency or scandal shall hereafter keep any School either publick or private nor preach in any publick place or at any private Meeting of any other Persons then those of his own Family nor Administer Baptism or the Lords Supper or marry any Persons or use the Book of Common-Prayer or the Forms of Prayer therein contained upon Pain that every Person so Offending in any of the Premisses shall be proceeded against as by the said Order is provided and directed There needs no Comment upon these Proceedings they do not only Whisper but speak aloud to the present Generation of Dissenters to tell them how little reason they have to complain X. Lastly We beg of them that before they pull down any further Trouble or Suffering upon themselves they would Consider Whether the Cause they engage in be such as will bear them out with Comfort before God another Day 't is not Suffering or refusing to comply with the External Circumstances of our Religion that can be said to be a Persecution for Righteousness sake it not being the Suffering but the Cause that makes the Martyr Then I suffer as a Christian when the Honour of Christ or something that offers Violence to my Religion and Christianity is concerned in it when I suffer for that which I cannot avoid without disowning my self to be a Christian and making Shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience But where the Case is not evidently this a Man may draw Miseries upon himself and yet not suffer as a Christian because it may proceed from Humour or Interest or the Conduct of a misinformed Judgment mistaking things for what they are not Men very often place Religion in doing or not doing what is no part of it and then think they may safely Suffer upon that account when there is more it may be of Passion or Prejudice of Fancy or Opinion of Humour or Mistake then of the real Concerns of Piety or Religion I am very sure neither the Ancient Christians would have passed through the Fiery-Tryal every Day nor the Holy Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days have thought themselves obliged to Forfeit their Estates much less their Lives had no more been required of them then there is of us to come to Khurch or to Kneel at the Sacrament but would rather have Blessed God and thankfully owned the Favour of the Governours under which they lived might they have enjoyed both upon the same Terms as we do In Cases that only concern indifferent things and meer Circumstances of Worship stiffly and obstinately to stand out is rather for a Man to be a Martyr to his own Humour and Opinion then to the Cause of Christ Whether this be not the Case of our Dissenting-Brethren they themselves might quickly see would they but lay aside the unreasonableness of their Prejudices and lay no more stress upon things than they Obed. Patience p. 79. ought to bear Let us hear what Mr. Baxter in a late Book says to this matter I am One that have been first in all the Storms that have befallen the Ministry these Twenty Years past to look no farther back and yet my Conscience commandeth me to say as I have oft done that many through mistake I am persuaded now Suffer as Evil-doers for a Cause that is not Good and Justifiable I shall leave with them the Wise and Excellent R. Bernard's Christian Advert Counsels of Peace 1608. Counsel which was given by one in the time of the Elder Puritans Follow true Antiquity and the general Practice of the Church of God in all Ages where they have not Erred from the evident Truth of God If thou Sufferest let it be for known Truth and against known Wickedness for which thou hast Example in Gods Word or of the Holy Martyrs in Church-Story But beware of far-fetched Consequences or for Suffering for new Devices and for things formerly unto all Ages unknown seem they never so Holy and Just unto Man All that now remains is to call upon our Dissenting-Brethren by all the Considerations of Love and Kindness to themselves of Tenderness for the Honour of Religion the Edification of their Brethren and the Peace Security and Welfare of the Church and State wherein they live that they would duely and impartially Weigh and Consider things put a stop to the Separation wherein they are engaged return to and hold Communion with us and keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace Let them bethink themselves what a mighty Evil Schism is and will be so found before God at the last Day and whether any thing can be meet to be put in the Ballance with the Peace and Unity of the Church and those vastly-important Consequences that depend upon it Let us consider a little what a deep Sense the best and most pious Christians that ever were had of it It 's better to Suffer any thing than that the Church of God should be Rent asunder it is every whit as Glorious and in my Opinion a far greater Martyrdom to dye for not Dividing the Church than for refusing to Sacrifice to Idols says Dionysius the good Bishop of Alexandria in his Letter to Novatian Ap. Euseb lib. 6. c. 45. Epist 52. ad Antonian de Vnit Eccles fol. 181 184. c. And St. Cyprian speaks very severe things to this purpose That a Person going from the Church to Schismaticks tho in that Capacity he should dye for Christ yet can he not receive the Crown of Martyrdom And how oft elsewhere doth he tell us That such a one has no part in the Law of God or the Faith of Christ or in Life and Salvation that without this Unity and Charity a Man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and that although he should deliver up himself to the Flames or cast his Body to wild Beasts yet this would not be the Crown of his Faith but the Punishment of his Falshood not the Glorious Exit of a Religious Courage but the Issue of Despair such a One may be Kill'd but he cannot be Crown'd He rents the Unity of the Church destroys the Faith disturbs the Peace dissolves Charity and Profanes the Holy Sacrament And were it necessary I could shew that the Ancient Fathers generally say the same thing And can we now be such degenerate Christians if we can be said to be Christians at all as to make nothing at all of Schism and Separation Are not the Glory of God the Peace of the Church and the Good of Souls things as considerable as necessary and indispensable now as they were of old I beseech you Brethren return from whence you are fallen and let us all with one Shoulder set our selves to Support that Church with whose Ruine we are all likely to sink and fall Let us lay aside Envying and Strife Confusion and every Evil Work and let us follow after the things which make for Peace and things wherewith one may Edifie another FINIS
in all things that may Lawfully be done I cannot therefore see how they can avoid being self-condemned if they should forsake our Communion for if they judge it Unlawful they sinned Wilfully when they entred into it if they think it Lawful they would then Sin in withdrawing from it since it is injoyned by that Power which they confess they are bound to obey in Lawful things If they should say that they once thought it Unlawful after that they judged it to be Lawful and now conceive it Unlawful again This strange unsteadiness in Opinion would look a great deal more like Humor than Judgment And it might occasion vehement Suspicions in some not otherwise very Censorious that this Uncertainty proceeds not from Conscience but Design and that all their Compliance was only to serve a present turn to decline an Ecclesiastical Censure to keep a beneficial Place or to be qualified for an Office in some great Corporation Thus men might be apt enough to suspect but I am willing to believe any thing rather than that they that have always made shew of so great a Tenderness should be guilty of so much Hypocrisie and Prophaness together as to dare even to approach to the Lord's Table under great dissatisfaction of mind it may be meerly to advance some Secular end But I hope their Behaviour for the future will sufficiently clear them from such an imputation I shall therefore apply my self only to those that do still forbear our Communion and offer something very briefly which I conceive may be useful for the satisfying their most known and ordinary Doubts that as we do all profess the same Faith we may all agree in the same way of Discipline and Worship and all become peaceable and orderly Members of the same Church And for the obtaining this most Excellent end First I shall desire them impartially to consider of some things that may incline them to be Peaceably minded and tend to the removing of the general Prejudices they have unhappily conceived against the Church of England Then I shall endeavor to give what satisfaction I can to the chief Objections against us which they are wont to urge in Defence of the present Separation And lastly I shall exhort them to a brotherly Vnion upon such Motives and Arguments as the Gospel suggests and make for the Credit and Safety of the Protestant Religion The things that I would commend to their serious Consideration which may serve to dispose them to Peace and to remove the Prejudices they have taken up are such as these In the first place they should be very careful that it be not any sinister end or corrupt Passion that did either engage them in the Separation at the beginning or provokes them now to continue in it I do not mention this because I know any one of our Dissenting Brethren to be guilty of it but because it must be confessed that mens minds are too often influenced by their carnal Interests and Affections These will be always mixing themselves in all their Consultations these do commonly blind and pervert their Judgments and lead them into ten thousand Errours These are the occasion that Fancy sometimes passes for Conscience that Melancholy Fumes are admired for Divine Inspirations and that the overflowing of our Gall is looked upon as pure Zeal These and the like are very dangerous and usual Mistakes that do frequently proceed from the prevalency of our Passions If therefore we do divide from a Church it will most highly concern us to be very Cautious that we be not acted by any such Principle For if we hope to Gain and grow Rich by our Departure if we are Ashamed or Scorn to retract the Opinions we have once Professed if we imagine we have more Light than the first Reformers when indeed we are very Ignorant if we cannot endure to be Opposed in any thing if we Murmur and Repine at our Governors when they require our Obedience where we are unwilling to pay it these are signs that our Affections are turbulent and unruly and while we are thus disposed we can never be assured but that Covetousness Pride and Impatience might be the greatest Motives that induced us to make a Separation and the strongest Arguments that we have to maintain it But I cannot charge our Dissenting Brethren with these things I believe that many of them may be Upright and Sincere in their Intentions But because they are all in the same estate of Degeneracy and Corruption which others are I would intreat them to be very careful that they be never led away by these or the like temptations but that they would always labor to preserve those holy Dispositions of Integrity Meekness Humility and Condescension which are the best Preparatives to the receiving of the Truth in the Love of it After they have thus freed their minds from all irregular Passions and Designs it would conduce exceedingly to the PEACE of the Church if they would be sure to express their greatest Care and Concern in the more Weighty and Substantial things of Religion This would prevent many of the Quarrels that do often arise in matters but of small Importance If real Holiness and Piety be the thing that we aim at then when we may be secured of this we should not be so very forward to enter upon fierce and endless Disputes about the external Modes and Circumstances of Worship If I may serve God there in Spirit and in Truth why should a Gown or a Cloak or a Surplice fright me from the Church when either of these is injoyned by my Superiors If I may be instructed in the way of Salvation and eternal Happiness why should I forsake the Publick Assemblies because I am not allowed to joyn my self to what Congregation I please and had not an immediate hand in the choice of my Pastor When our hearts are bent upon the great things of Religion we shall see but little Reason to be Contentious about matters of lesser Consequence a few indifferent Rites will scarce be able to tempt us to break off Communion with that Church with which we are at perfect Agreement in all Fundamental and Necessary points The next thing that may tend to the promoting our Vnion is the Consideration of the heinous Nature and Guilt of Schism which is nothing else but the Separating our selves from a True Church without any just Occasion given The want of due apprehensions of the Sinfulness of this seems to be the main Cause of our present Divisions Men are not generally sufficiently sensible how much they do Oppose that Spirit of Peace and brotherly Love which should diffuse it self through the whole Body of Christian People when they suppose every slender Pretence enough to justifie their departing from us and setting up a Church against a Church They think it a matter almost Indifferent and that they are left to their own Choice to joyn with what Society of Christians they please
themselves Which giddy Principle if it should prevail would certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errors and Mischiefs that can be imagined But our blessed Lord founded but One Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucified for us and Prayed not for the Apostles alone but for them also that John 17. 20 21. should believe in him through their word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst divers others to the same purpose was That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me This it is plain was to be a visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an inducement to move men to the embracing of the Christian Faith Therefore as we would avoid the hardening of men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in us lies wholly ineffectual we should be exceeding Cautious that we do not wilfully Divide his holy Catholick Church We are often warned of this and how many Arguments does St. Paul heap together to perswade us to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are called in one hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all And how pathetically does the same Apostle exhort us again to the same thing by all the mutual endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ Phil. 2. 1 2. if any Comfort of Love if any Fellowship of the Spirit if any Bowels and Mercies fulfil ye my joy that ye be like minded having the same love being of one accord of one mind These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige us to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing that is Unlawful of us The Church of Rome will not admit us unless we profess a belief of Transubstantiation and Purgatory and a certain kind of Infallibility no body knows where unless we will worship the Host and Saints and Images and do many other things directly repugnant to the Word of God We cannot therefore Communicate with her unless we should partake of her gross and superstitious Errours But the Church of England does not exact any thing from us that God has forbidden therefore we may Communicate with her without Sin and if we may it must be a Sin in us if we do not do it Certain it is that every causless Separation is a very great one so great that some of the Antients have thought it is not to be expiated by the Blood of Martyrdom and I know no Cause sufficient to defend our leaving a Communion but a necessity of being involved in Sin if we should remain in it Now since it must be confessed that Schism is a very grievous Sin we had need be well assured that we have just occasion for it before we withdraw from the Communion of a Church and if we have rashly withdrawn we are bound to return without delay Then we may consider farther that all Christians are obliged to endeavour as much as they can to avoid all differences of Opinion that may occasion Quarrels and Contests among them This will appear from that passionate Intreaty and Admonition which the holy Apostle gave the Corinthians when they were in danger of being rent into several Factions upon misunderstandings and emulations not much unlike unto ours Now 1 Cor. 1. 10. I beseech you Brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no Divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgment Such an Universal agreement and harmony in the Church is very desirable and every one is bound to promote it And the first step that can be made towards this happy Concord in Opinion and Affections is to dispose our minds to a calm and teachable Temper to be always ready to acknowledg the force of an Argument though it contradict our former Perswasions never so much to be grieved at the Animosities and uncharitable Contentions which a diversity of Judgment is wont to produce to follow after the things which make for Peace Rom. 14. 19. to be desirous to see an end of these Unchristian Divisions and glad of every Opportunity that may bring us nearer to one another and think we have gained a glorious Victory when we have overcome any mistake that kept us at a distance from our Brethren This is a generous and truly Christian disposition and that which has an immediate tendency towards the reconciling all manner of Differences On the other side there can be little hopes that men should ever agree when they seem resolved to maintain the point in Controversie whatever it is when they do not study to be Satisfied but to cherish their Scruples and hunt about for New ones when their old Objections are fully answered This is a most perverse and untractable Humour which takes away all possibility of a good Accord For while either of the Dissenting Parties is thus unwilling to be Convinced and searches after Exceptions there will never be wanting some Cavil or other that must be sure to serve them to perpetuate the Dispute But 't is a shrewd Sign we esteem our Cause little better than Desperate when after the Weapons we began the Fight with are wrested from us we snatch up any thing that comes next to hand to throw at our Adversary This Obstinacy does not well become us In all our Debates our aim should be to find out the truth and not to triumph over our Antagonist All sober Christians especially where the Peace of the Church is concerned should always strive to bring the Controversie to a happy issue and composure and not seek for Pretences to widen the breach And then we might all join in Praising and Glorifying of God and be restored again to that blessed estate they were in at the first Preaching of the Gospel when the Multitude of Acts 4. 32. Ch. 2. 42. them that believed were of one Heart and of one Soul and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers These few Considerations I have now mentioned might be something useful to the procurement of such a Holy and Heavenly Peace in all Christian Societies throughout the World And if we were but careful never to be byassed by Passion or Interest if our greatest Zeal and Concern were placed upon the more Weighty and Substantial matters of Religion if we should seriously consider how grievous a Sin it is to Separate from a Church without any just cause and if we were disposed to Peace and willing to have our Doubts and
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper together they are said to be in Communion with one another and to live in Communion with that Church with which they joyn in all Acts of Worship Now we must acknowledge that Publick Acts of Worship performed in the Communion of the Church are an Exercise of Christian Communion but Church-Communion is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion For no Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion but he who is in a State of Communion with the Christian Church What natural Union is in natural Bodies that Communion is in Bodies Politick whether Civil or Religious Societies a member must be vitally united to the Body before it can perform any natural Action or Office of a member before the Eye can see or the Feet can walk or the Ears can hear and the union of the Eye or Foot to the Body does not consist in seeing or walking but seeing and walking are the effects of this Union Thus in a Body Politick when Men by any common Charter are United into one Society they become one common Body or one Communion and this gives them right to all the priviledges of that Body and obliges them to all the Duties and Offices which their Charter requires of them but should any Man who is not regularly admitted into this Society pretend to the same Priviledges or do such things as are required of those who are members of this Body this would be so far from being thought an Act of Communion with them that it would be censured as an unjust Usurpation Should a Man who is no Citizen of London open his Shop and drive a trade as other Citizens do or give his Vote at a Common-Hall and in all other cases Act like a Citizen this would not make him a Citizen but an Intruder He is a Foreigner still and his presuming to Act like a Citizen when he is none is no Act of Communion with that Body of which he is no member but justly exposes him to censure and punishment Thus it is in the Christian Church which is one Body and Society united by a Divine Covenant Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church which we are made by Baptism The exercise of this Communion consists in all those Offices and Duties which all the members of the Church are obliged to and which none have any right to perform but they such as praying and receiving the Lords Supper together c. Now should any Man who is no member of the Church nor owns himself to be so intrude into the Church and Communicate in all holy Offices this can be no more called an Act of Communion than it can be said to make him a member of the Church of which he is no member and resolved not to be Prayers and receiving the Sacraments c. are Acts of Communion when performed by Church-members in the Communion of the Church but they are no Acts of Communion when performed by those who are no Church-members tho to serve a turn they thrust themselves into the Society of the Church As for Instance suppose a member of a Presbyterian or Independant Conventicle should for reasons best known to himself at some critical time come to his Parish Church and there hear the Common-Prayer and Sermon and receive the Lords Supper according to the order of the Church of England does this make this Man a member of the Church of England with which he never Communicated before and it is likely will never do again If it does not all this is no Act of Communion which can be only between the members of the same Body So that to be in Church-Communion does not signifie meerly to perform some such Acts which are Acts of Communion in the members of the Church but since the decay of Church Discipline may sometimes be performed by those who are not members which is such an abuse as would not have been allowed in the Primitive Church who denyed their Communion to Schismaticks as well as to the Excommunicate upon other accounts but to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church to be Embodyed and Incorporated with it and I suppose what that means every one knows who understands what it is to be a member of any Society of a City or any Inferior Corporation which consists of Priviledge and Duty and requires all those who will enjoy the benefits of such a Society to discharge their respective trusts and obligations To be in Communion with or to be a member of the Church includes a Right and Title to all those Blessings which God hath promised to his Church and an obligation to all the Duties and Offices of Church Society as Subjection to the Authority Instructions Censures of the Church a Communion in Prayers and Sacraments and other Religious Offices and he who despises the Authority or destroys the Unity of the Church renounces his membership and Communion with it These things are extreamly plain and though Men may cavil for disputes sake yet must needs convince them that no Man is in Communion with a Church which he is not a member of tho through the defect of Discipline he should sometimes be admitted to some Act of Communion with it and I shall observe some few things from hence of great use 1. That Church-Communion primarily and principally respects the universal Church not any particular Church or Society of Christians For to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church or Body of Christ which is but one all the World over Church Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion which can be performed only among those who are present and Neighbours to each other but in membership now a member is a member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it how large soever the Body be All the Subjects of England those who live at St. Davids and those at Tarmouth who never saw nor converst with each other are all members of the same Kingdom and by the same reason this membership may extend to the remotest part of the World if the Body whereof we are members reach so far And therefore we may observe 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 Universal Church and I observed before that a Church-state which is the same thing with Church-Communion is founded only on a Divine Covenant and therefore since there is no other Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches as distinguisht from the Universal Church such particular Church-membership is at best but a human Invention and indeed nothing else but a Schism from the Universal Church which alone if well considered is a sufficient confutation of Independency which is a particular Church-State as distinguisht from all other
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
averse to Communion Baxter's Cure p. 311. with the Parish-Churches than the Nonconforming Ministers are as one complains and whatsoever they might think of the Conformity of Ministers because of the previous Terms required of them they would judg what is required of the People to be lawful as some Continuat Morning Exercise Serm. 4. p. 89. of them do And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the People's may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private Capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the the Ministers but widely different from it would be induced to hold Communion with the Church and to joyn with those of their Ministers that think it their Duty so to do and are therein of the opinion of the old Non-Conformists that did not act * * * Rathband's Epistle to the Reader prefixed to the grave and modest Confutation c. as if there were no middle between Separation from the Church and true Worship thereof and Subscription unto or Practice or Approbation of all the Corruptions of the same For †††Nichol's plea for the Puritans though they would not subscribe to the Ceremonies yet they were against Separation from God's publick Worship as one of them in the name of the rest doth declare So that as great a Difference as there is betwixt Presence and Consent betwixt bare Communion and Approbation betwixt the Office of the Minister and the Attendance of a private Person so much is there betwixt the Case of Ministerial and Lay-Communion And therefore when we consider the Case of Lay-Communion we are only to respect what is required of the People what part they are to have and exercise in Communion with the Church Now what they are concerned in are either the Forms that are imposed the Gestures they are to use and the Times they are to observe for the Celebration of Divine Worship or the Ministration which they may be remotely suppos'd also to be concerned in The lawfulness of all which and of all things required in Lay-Communion amongst us I shall not undertake to prove and maintain by Arguments taken from those that already are in full Communion with the Church of England and so are obliged to justify it but from those that in some things do differ from it who may therefore be supposed to be impartial and whose Reasons may be the more heeded as coming from themselves and from such that are forward in other respects to own the Miscarriages of the Church as those that wholly separate from it For the better understanding of the Case and of their Judgment in it I shall consider 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England 2. What Opinion they have had of Communion with that Church 3. What Opinion they have had of such Practices and Usages in that Church as Lay-men are concerned in 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England And that will appear in these two things First That they owne her to be a true Church Secondly To be a Church in the main very valuable First They own her to be a true Church Thus Mr. Baily saith of the old Non-Conformists They Disswasive â— 2. p. 21. did always plead against the Corruptions of the Church of England but never against the Truth of her Being or the Comfort of her Communion And as much is affirmed of the present by a grave and sober Person amongst them The Presbyterians generally hold the Church of Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. England to be a true Church though defective in its Order and Discipline Thus it 's acknowledged in the name of the rest by one that undertakes their Defence and would defend them in their Separation We acknowledg the Church of England to be a true Church Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 13. and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them This they do not only barely assert but also undertake to prove This is done by the old Non-Conformists in their Confutation of the Brownists who thus begin That the Church of England is a true A grave and sober Confut. p. 1. c. p. 57. Church of Christ and such an one as from which whosoever wittingly and willingly separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ we doubt not but the indifferent Reader may be perswaded by these Reasons following 1. We enjoy and joyn together in the use of those outward means which God hath ordained in his Word for the gathering of a visible Church and have been effectual to the unfeigned Conversion of many as may appear both by the other Fruits of Faith and by the Martyrdom which sundry have endured that were Members of our Church c. 2. Our whole Church maketh Profession of the true Faith The Confession of our Church together with the Apology thereof and those Articles of Religion which were agreed upon in the Convocation-House Anno 1562. whereunto every Minister of the Land is bound to subscribe so far forth as they contain the Confession of Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments do prove this evidently c. So Mr. Ball Wheresoever we see the Word of God Friendly Tryal of the Gâ—ounds of Separat c. 13â— p 306. truly taught and professed in Points fundamental and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred there is the true Church of Christ though the Health and Soundness of it may be crazed by many Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in the Life and Manners of Men. As much as this is also affirmed in the Letters passed betwixt the Ministers of Old-England A. Letter of many Ministers in Old-England to others in New England p. 24. and New-England It is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it be laid upon Christ the Foundation which being done the remaining of what is forbidden or the want of what is commanded cannot put the Society from the Title or Right of a true Church And if we enquire into the Judgment of the present Non-Conformists we shall find them likewise arguing for it Thus the Author to Jerubbaal The Jerubbaal or the Pleader impleaded p. 18 27. Essentials constitutive of a true Church are 1. The Head 2. The Body 3. The Union that is between them Which three concurring in the Church of England Christ being the professed Head she being Christ's professed Body and the Catholick Faith being the Union-band whereby they are coupled together she cannot in justice be denied a true though God knows far from a pure Church If we should proceed in this Argument and consider the Particulars I might fill a Volume with Testimonies of this kind 1. The Doctrine of the Church is universally held to be true and sound even the Brownists owned it of
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
this Head we may observe That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons according to the Principles they espouse they agree not in the Constitution of Churches c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be as I have observed before true Churches of Christ that Communion with such Churches is lawful and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing as whether it be an Act of Communion and about the Call of those they hear yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches are equally condemned by all 3. They hold that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church and affect the Vitals of Religion or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion 1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church or affect the vital Parts of Religion So saith Mr. Tombs Not every nor many Corruptions Theodulia Answer to Preface § 23. p. 47 48. of some kind do unchurch there being many in Faith Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia Aid Blake 's Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 229 c who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of Errors in Faith as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith to wit Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man and Salvation by him Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in Life by evil Manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched For till then the Corruptions are tolerable and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church or to depart from it So Mr. Brinsly Arraignment of Schism p. 50. Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us yet are they tolerable If so then is Separation on this ground intolerable unwarrantable in as much as it ought not to be but upon a very great and weighty Cause and that when there is no Remedy So Mr. Noyes Private Brethren may not Temple measured p. 78. separate from Churches or Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners Heresy or Prophaneness To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen and Mr. Cotton The former asserts That many Errors in Evangelical Love p. 76. Doctrine disorders in sacred Administrations irregular walking in Conversation with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers may fall out in some Churches and yet not evacuate their Church-state or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion and separate from them The latter saith Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 156. Unless you find in the Church Blasphemy or Idolatry or Persecution i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion there is no just Ground of Separation This is universally own'd But if any one should yet continue unconvinced let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture collected by Mr. Baxter and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable Observe saith he that no Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 5. p. 40 c. one Member is in all these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful And therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were 2. They are not to separate if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these On the Sacrament p. 239. The Church may be corrupted many ways in Doctrine Ordinances Worship c. And there are degrees of this Corruption the Doctrine in some remote Points the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom How many Churches do we find thus corrupted and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth c. to separate I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption hold the Communion But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed the Worship is become idolatrous and what is above all if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful in that Case Come out of Babylon The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature nor thus strictly required then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful and may be a Duty So saith Mr. Corbet in the name of the present Nonconformists We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33. true Church as no Church for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof while our personal Profession of some Error or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more for he saith Irenicum c. 23. p. 162 163. Where these Causes are not viz. the being constrained to profess believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith or being deprived of Means altogether necessary or most expedient to Salvation but Men may communicate without Sin professing the Truth and enjoy all Ordinances as the Free-men of Christ Men must not separate from a Church tho there be Corruption in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion yet if not actually imposed upon us our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue So Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 103. though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation as it is also own'd for saith one When the Corruptions of a Church are such as Jerubbaal p. 12. that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably that seems to me to be a just Ground though not of a Positive yet of a Negative though not of a total yet of a partial Separation i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser but is not so for the greater Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion
may make Separation from We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine than the Example of our Saviour himself c. For why should our Saviour use it if it was unlawful Or why should it be a Sin to us The unâ—easonableness of Separat p. 104. who have not such Eyes to pierce into the Impiety of Mans Traditions as he had as Mr. Bradshaw argues The same Measures were observed also by the Apostles after the Establishment of the Christian Church This is not to be gainsaid and is therefore granted by one in other things rigid more than enough I Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 15. do not say that every Corruption in a true Church is sufficient Ground of Separation from it The Unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law were not sufficient Ground of Separation from them for the Apostles held Communion with them notwithstanding these Corruptions Now by Parity of Reason it will follow that if Separation was not to be allowed from those corrupted Churches then surely not from such as are not so corrupted as they So Mr. Cawdrey Independ a great Schism p. 195. pleads Corinth had we suppose greater Disorders in it than are to be found blessed be God in many of our Congregations why then do they fly and separate from us And if our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from such Churches much less should we who may without doubt safely follow the Advice given by an Author above quoted When you are at England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 111. a stand think how Christ would have carried what he would have done in the like case with yours and we may thereby be concluded Thirdly They further argue That Christ doth Arg. 3 still hold Communion with defective Churches and not reject the Worship for tolerable Corruptions in it and so neither ought we It is supposed by Dr. Owen That there is no such Society of Christians Discourse of Evangelical Love c. 3. p. 81. in the World whose Assemblies as to instituted Worship are so rejected by Christ as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them until they are utterly as it were extirpate by the Providence of God c. For we do judg that where ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon there is Salvation to be obtained however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own Sins and Errors And if this may be said of Churches though fundamentally erroneous in Worship then Who shall dare as another saith to judg when Christ hath forsaken a People Troughton's Apol. p. 110. who still profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his Word though they do or are supposed to fail in circumstances or lesser parts of Duty Now this granted the other will follow that then we are not to separate from such Churches Thus Mr. Hildersham concluded of old from the Practice Lect. 35 on John p. 165 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384. of Christ and observes 1. So long as God continueth his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People so long it is evident that God dwells among them and hath not forsaken them c. And till God hath forsaken a Church no Man may forsake V. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God p. 293. it 2. No Separation may be made from those Assemblies where Men may be assured to find and attain Salvation But Men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies where the Ministry of his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained So Mr. * * * On the Sacramen p. 242. Crofton's hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noye's Temple measured p. 79. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Davenport's Apol. reply p. 281. Ball 's Tryal p. 159 c. Vines The Argument saith he of Mr. Brightman is considerable If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances Grace and Spirit it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother while his Father owns her for his Wife I might heap up Authorities of this kind but shall content my self with a considerable one from †††Comment on 1 Epist John p. 156. Mr. Cotton who reasons after this manner The Practice of the Brownists is blame-worthy because they separate where Christ keeps Fellowship Rev. 1. 18. And that he walks with us we argue because he is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life and edifies many Souls thereby and therefore surely Christ hath Fellowship with us and shall Man be more pure than his Maker where Christ vouchsafes Fellowship shall Man renounce it Upon this are grounded the wholesome Exhortations of many eminent Non-conformists as that of Mr. Calamy You must hold Communion with all Godly Mans Ark Epist Ded. those Churches with which Christ holds Communion you must separate from the Sins of Christians but not from the Ordinances of Christ Of Mr. R. Allein Godly Mans Portion p. 122. Excommunicate not them from you excommunicate not your selves from them with whom Christ holds Communion Judg not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way Methinks saith another in his V. Bains on the Ephes c. 2. 15. p. 297. England's Remâ—mbrancer Serm. 16. p. 455. Farewel Sermon where a Church as to the main keeps the Form of sound Words and the Substantials of that Worship which is Christ's some adjudged Defects in Order cannot justify Separation I dare not dismember my self from that Church that holds the Head I think whilst Doctrine is for the main sound Christ stays with a Church and it is good staying where he stays I would follow him and not lead him or go before the Lamb. To such we find a severe Rebuke given very lately by one of themselves Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 16. p. 459. and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him Fourthly They argue That to separate for such Arg. 4 Defects and Corruptions would destroy all Communion If this should be saith Mr. Bradshaw then no Unreas of the Separaâ— p. 103. Man can present himself with a good Conscience at any publick Worship of God wheresoever because except it should be stinted and prescribed he can have no Assurance but that some Errors in Matter and Form will be committed So Mr. Ball One Man is of Opinion Trial of the Grounds of Separat c. 8. p. 137 138. that a prescribed Form is better than another another that a prescribed Form is unlawful c. In these Cases if the least Eâ—ror do stain the Prayers to others that
separate to those Churches which they account better because they never found those where they were before to them good Find the setting up Christ in your Hearts by the Ministry and then you dare to account it Antichristian Thus one in a Farewel Sermon speaking of supposed Defects in a â—nglanâ—'s Reâ—embrancer Serm. 16. p. 456. Church doth advise his Auditors Enlarge your Care and Pains in your Preparations a right Stomach makes good Nourishment of an indifferent Meal you may be warm though in a colder Air and Room than you have formerly been if you will put on more Cloaths before you come Watch your Hearts more narrowly and speak things to your Hearts more than you have done Ecclesiast 10. 10. If the Iron be blunt then must he put to more Strength But supposing it be really for Edification yet this they declare is no sufficient reason for Separation So Mr. Burroughs If you be joyned to a Pastor Iren. c. 12. p. 85. so as you believe he is set over you by Christ to be a Pastor to you though this Man hath meaner Gifts than others and it would be more comfortable for you to have another Pastor yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you And so the Ministers in New-England Platform c. 13. § 5. deliver their Minds To separate from a Church for greater Enlargements with just Grief to the Church is unlawful and sinful So when this Question was put Are they not at all times obliged to use the Means which are most edifying It 's answered by the aforesaid Author They may say at all times when they have nothing to outweigh Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 4. p. 91. their own Edification So that Edification may be outweighed and then it can be no standing and sufficient Reason So Mr. Burroughs declares in this Irenic c. 12. p. 85 86. case Men must consider not only what the thing is in its own Nature but what it is to them how it stands in reference to their Relations It is not enough to say the thing is in it self better but is it better in all the References I have and it hath Is it better in regard of others in regard of the Publick for the helping me in all my Relations may it not help one way and hinder many ways Of the same Opinion is Mr. Baxter Many things saith he Defence part 1. p. 85. must concur and especially a respect to the publick Good to know which is the best So that Edification is not to be adjudged of alone our own Improvement is not to determine us in our Actions and especially not with respect to Church-Communion for then other Reasons do give Law to it and over-rule it Thus we see those that dissent from the Church in other things agree with her in this And they give several Reasons and Arguments for it First If we were sure we could not profit yet we must Arg. 1 come to do Homage to God and shew Reverence to his Lect. 28. p. 129 309. Ordinance This is Mr. Hildersham's Opinion Secondly The leaving a Church for better Edification Arg. 2 is built upon a false and dangerous Principle which is that we must always chuse the best So Mr. Burroughs To hold what is in it self best must be chosen Irenic c. 12. p. 84 87. and done not weighing Circumstances or References is a dividing Principle And afterwards he saith A Christian without comparing one thing with another will hack and hew and disturb himself and others in the ways of Religion I belive some of you have known those who whatsoever they have conceived to be better than other they have presently followed with all Eagerness Of this V. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. p. 75 76 78 never considering Circumstances References or Consequences but the thing is good it must be done yet being wearied with this they have after grown loose in as great an excess the other way Thirdly This Principle of better Edification if followed Arg. 3 would bring in Confusion So Mr. Hildersham Lect. 66. This factious Disposition of the Hearers of God's Word hath in all Ages been the cause of much Confusion in the Church of God and greatly hindred the Fruit of the Gospel of Christ This saith Mr. Brinsly the moderate Author of the late Irenicum Mr. Burroughs Arraignment of Schism p. 48. will by no means allow but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of Disorder and Confusion into the Church and I think none who are judicious but will therein subscribe to him It will not be amiss to transcribe his own Words It is in it self a better thing to enjoy a Ministry Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 85. of the most eminent Gifts and Graces than one of lower but if this should be made a Rule that a Man who is under a Pastor who is faithful and in some good measure gifted upon another Mans coming into the Country that is more eminent he should forsake his Pastor and joyn to the other and if after this still a more eminent Man comes he should leave the former and joyn to him and by the same Law a Pastor who hath a good People yet if others be more likely to receive more good he may leave his own People and go to them what Confusion and Disorder would there be continually in the Church This is condemned also by the New-England Ministers This Mr. Cawdrey doth expose If a Man may lawfully Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. § 1. Independ a Schism p. 50. separate from a true Church c. only with a good mind to serve God in Church-Institutions true or conceited by his own Light all the Sectaries and Separatists Donatists Brownists in the World may be justified This saith another speaking of hearing Methermeneut p. 72 74. for this Reason is a Church-destroying Principle sure if one Member be not fixed then not another nor another c. and then not the Pastor nor Teacher and so farewel Churches Fourthly This will be endless So Mr. Burroughs Arg. 4 Men must not separate from a Church though there Irenic c. 23. p. 163. be Corruptions in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable First Because we never find the Saints in Scripture separating or raising Churches in such a Case And Secondly There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship if this were admitted for what Church is so pure and hath all things so comfortable but within a while another Church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there And he concludes with this prudent Maxim The general Peace of the Church should be more regarded than some comfortable Accommodations to our selves So Mr. Baxter Defence part 1. p. 85. What if twenty Ministers be one abler than another in their several degrees doth it
follow that only the ablest of all these may be joyned with because that all the rest do worse And yet this must be if Edification be always to be consulted and is to determine us in our choice of Ministers Churches and Ordinances Fifthly They say Edification doth not depend Arg. 5 so much upon the external Administration of Worship as God's Blessing and that we are not to break the Order Peace and Union of the Church for the sake of it The former is asserted by Mr. Hildersham Lect. 54 p. 254 Lect. 58. It 's our Sin and Shame and is just cause of humbling to us if we cannot profit by the meanest Minister God hath sent The Power of the Ministry dependeth not on the Excellency of the Teacher's Gift but God's Blessing The latter is maintained by Mr. Vines It 's said Order in an Army kills no On the Sacrament p. 246. Body yet without it the Army is but a Rout neither able to offend or defend So haply Order in the Church converts no Body yet without it I see not how the Church can attain her End or preserve themselves in begetting or breeding up Souls to God Therefore is the Advice of Mr. Baxter Do not In his Farewel Sermon think to prosper by breaking over the Hedg under the pretence of any right of Holiness so of Edification whatsoever following any Party that would draw you to Separation The Mischief of which is represented by Dr. Tuckney Experience saith Sermon at Pauls on Acts 9. 31. he hath taught us that the Church of God hath been poorly edified by those who have daubed up their Babel with untempered Mortar c. when the Church is rent by Schisms and Factions and one Congregation is turned into many Conventicles falsely now called Churches this doth diminish weaken and ruine Lastly When they do grant that Edification may serve to guide us and that we may hear where we can most profit it 's with such Limitations and Cautions as these it must be seldom in a great Case without Offence and Contempt Thus Mr. Hildersham I Lect. 54. p. 253. dare not condemn such Christians as having Pastors in the places where they live of meaner Gifts do desire so they do it without open breach or contempt of the Churches Order to enjoy the Ministry of such as have better Gifts c. so they do it without contempt of their own Pastors and without Scandal and Offence to them and their People So again You ought not to leave your own Pastor at any Lect. 58. time with contempt of his Ministry as when you say or think alas he is no body a good honest Man but he hath no Gifts I cannot profit by him And as if he could not be too cautious in the case he lays down this as the Character of one that doth this innocently He only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent Gifts than his own Pastor's and learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better and to profit more by him That this is to be but seldom we have the concurrent Testimony of the Provincial Assembly of London who upon this Question Would Jus Divinum Minist Evangel p. 11 12. you have a Man keep constantly to the Minister under whom he lives do answer We are not so rigid as to tye up People from hearing other Ministers occasionally even upon the Lord's-Day But yet we believe 't is most agreeable to Gospel-Order upon the Grounds forementioned Thus it is resolved also by one of a more rigid way Methermeneut p. 72. who puts this Question Whether Members of particular Churches may hear indifferently elsewhere and returns this Answer God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice as distance of Habitation handing such a point But most certainly Members of Churches ought mostly to be with their own Churches The imagined Content in hearing others is rather a Temptation than Motion of the Spirit From all which we may conclude that the pretence of better Edification is no sufficient Reason for Separation from a Church Worship or Ministry without there be other Reasons that do accompany it and then it is not for this Reason so much as those it is in conjunction with But admitting this yet it will hardly be granted to be a reason for Separation from the Church of England if the Testimony of many worthy Persons be of any Consideration Thus Mr. Hildersham declares Lect. 29. p. 131. when he is reproving such as make no Conscience to come to the beginning of God's Publick Worship and to stay to the end of it he thus proceeds Because I see many of them that have most Knowledg and are forwardest Professors offend in this way I will manifest the Sin of these Men. 1. They sin against themselves in the Profit they might receive by the Worship of God There is no part of God's Service not the Confession not the Prayers not the Psalms not the Blessing but it concerns every one and every one may receive Edification by it This he otherwhere repeats and saith By the Confession Lect. 28 p. 129. and all other Prayers used in the Congregation a Man may receive more Profit than by many other Of this Opinion as to the most of the Prayers in our Liturgy were the old Non-conformists We are perswaded that not only some few Letter of the Minist in Old-England to the Brethren in New-England p. 13. select Prayers but many Prayers and other Exhortations may lawfully be used with Fruit and Edification to God's People As for the Word preach'd amongst us Nr. Nye Case of great use p. 3. saith That there is a Sum of doctrinal Truths which in the Enlargement and Application are sufficient both for Conversion and Edification to which the Preachers are to assent And That the Word of God interpreted and applied by preaching in this way is a choice Mercy and Gift wherewith God hath blessed this Nation for many Years to the Conversion and Edification of many thousands And he afterwards ascribes the want of Edification to the prejudices of People Such reasonings saith he against Pag. 25. hearing though they convince not the Vnlawfulness of it yet they leave such Prejudices in the Minds of them which are tender as perplex and render hearing less profitable and edifying even to those that are perswaded of its Lawfulness This Mr. Tombs declares himself freely Theodulia c. 9. § 8. p. 317. in If we look to experience of former Times there is now ground to expect a Blessing from conforming Preachers as well or rather more than from Preachers of the separated Churches Sure the conversion consolation strengthening establishing of Souls in the Truth has been more in England from Preachers who were Enemies to Separation whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies or Conformists Presbyterial or Episcopal even from Bishops themselves than from the best of the Separatists I think all
That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g) (g) (g) Trial p. 121 129 140 156. but little less even by Mr. Norton (h) (h) (h) Resp ad Apol c. 13. who saith It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter c. Is it not a high degree Sacril desert p. 102. Defence Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224. of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ's Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day have offered such Worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms and that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the old Non-conformists were unworthy your Communion I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer but I know also that these are answered by them But since the most common is that of quenching and stinting the Spirit I shall briefly give their sence of it They say 1. To say that Persons should use no set Form but Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal c. 5. p. 83. pray as moved by the Spirit is a fond Error 2. They say that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask not in what phrase of speech It stirreth up in us holy Desires but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad c. 3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Ibid. p. 91. Words and Forms but in fervent Sighs and Groans 4. That there is nothing letteth but that in such Rogers Ibid. Forms the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble to quicken and to comfort And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may Disc of Prayer p 222 231 232. be for edification and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God 5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case are grounded upon Mistakes and are misapplied as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested Theodulia p. 164 238. Fourthly I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common-Prayer both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it As to the Liturgy it self it 's acknowledged 1. That the Matter for the most part is good sound Bryan's dwelling with God Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29 59. Crofton Refor no Separ p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal p 35. and divine and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers that may not bear a good construction and so Amen may be said to it as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain 2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms so ours is the best So the old Non-conformists Compare the Doctrines Leâ—ter of the Minist in Old-Engl p. 12. Prayers Rites at those Times throughout in use in the Churches with ours and in all these blessed be the Name of the Lord we are more pure than they And it 's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter in the name of Second Plea for Peace p. 101. the present Non-conformists 3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable and hinders not but that it 's acceptable to God and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons Tolerable So Mr. Corbet The Worship contained Plea for Lay-Communion p. 2. V. Ball 's Tryal c. 9. p. 58. in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in it being sound for substance in the main and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders and passable in the most though in some offensive inconvenient or less perfect Acceptable to God So the old Non-conformists Letter of the Minist in Old-England p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers according to Christ's Command and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed notwithstanding the Corruptions we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God c. Edifying to well-disposed Persons To this purpose Mr. Hildersham Mr. Rogers c. Treat 3. c. 4. p. 224l And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience (a) (a) (a) Corbet Plea p. 3. Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal and spiritually by those that are Spiritual It is my part to make the best of it being the established Form As to Communion in the Liturgy it is granted 1. That there is no cause to renounce it or the Communion of the Church for it and that so to do is a Sin (b) (b) (b) Gifford's plain Declaâ—ation Ball 's Trial c. 7. p. 121. Sacril desert p. 105. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come among us where it is used (c) (c) (c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure p. 68. 3. It 's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d) (d) (d) Ball 's Tryal p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it (e) (e) (e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl p. 14. And for the present it 's declared We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer but read it our selves (f) (f) (f) Mr. Mead's Case p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp 4. of Church-Gov p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life p. 157. I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists but shall content my self with that which it seems was much Trial. c. 8. p. 152. insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball and their Reply to it The Liturgy in the whole Matter and Form thereof is Object too like unto the Mass-Book If the Liturgy be Antichristian it is so either in Answ respect of the Matter or of the Form Not of the Matter for that which properly belonged to Antichrist the foul and gross Errors is purged out Not of the Form for Order and Phrase of
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.
there is nothing Answer Indifferent in the Worship of God for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it All Persons grant this in the latter and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong ought to bear with the Weak and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty and yet is bound so to do in the case of Scandal and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed why may it not be also little infringed when restrained by others How can it be supposed that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced and yet he that is restrained By anothers Conscience 1 Cor. 10. 29. as the Apostle saith should keep intire And if it should be said this is Occasional but the other is perpetuated by the Order perhaps of a Church I answer that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary and are only intended to bond so long as they are for the good of the Community And if they are for continuance that alters not the case For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it yet he did not suppose that could be damnified though for his whole life it was restrain'd For thus he resolves If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the World standeth which certainly he would not have condescended to if such a Practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had before it was restrain'd by particular institution and which is call'd Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law but were restrain'd from the Practice and use of things otherwise and in themselves Lawful by severe Prohibitions Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied was call'd Christian because by the coming of Christ all these former restraints were taken off and all the World both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it it was as the Scope of the Epistle doth shew to warn them against returning to that Jewish State and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind or had the same tendency or were alike necessarily impos'd as those of the Mosaical Law then Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation but where these reasons are not our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them As long I say as they are neither peccant in their Nature nor End nor Number they are not unlawful to us nor is our Liberty injur'd in the use of them And so I am brought to the last General which is V. That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in it self and so necessary to all Christians or else what is indifferent and so may be lawfully used by them By things required I mean such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church and imposed upon the Lay-members of it for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it if the foundation I have laid be good and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things by for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worship as the Church of Rome is in its Half-Communion nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue and in the multitudes of its Ceremonies I think it will be acknowledged that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached the Sacraments intirely and truly Administred the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship and the manner of its performance and I think the things of that kind Objected against refer either to Time or Forms or Gesture To Times such are Festivals or Days set apart for Divine Service to Forms such are our Prayers and the Administration of our Sacraments to Gestures as Standing up at the Creed or Gospels and Kneeling at the Lord's Supper But now all these are either Natural or Moral Circumstances of Action and which as I have shewed are inseparable from it Of the former kind are Days and Gestures of the latter are Forms of Administration and so upon the reasons before given may be lawfully determined and used Again these are not forbidden by any Law either expresly or consequentially and have nothing that is indecent disorderly or unedifying in them and which if any should engage his own opinion and experience in he would be answered in the like kind and have the opinions and experience of Thousands that live in the practice of these to contradict him And if there be nothing of this kind apparent or what can be plainly prov'd as I am apt to beleive there cannot then the Proposition I have laid down needs no further proof But if at last it must issue in things inexpedient to Christians or an unlawfulness in the imposure are either of these fit to be insisted upon when the peace of one of the best Churches in the World is broken by it a lamentable Schism kept up and our Religion brought into imminent hazard by both Alas how near have we been to ruin and I wish I had no reason to say how near are we to it considering the indefatigable industry the united endeavours the matchless policy of those that contrive and desire it Can we think that we are safe as long as there is such an abiding reason to make us suspect it and that our divisions are both fomented and made use of by them to destroy us And if this be our danger and Union as necessary as desirable shall we yet make the breach wider or irreparable by an obstinate contention God forbid O pray for the Peace of Jerusalem they shall prosper that love thee Let Peace be within thy Walls and Prosperity within thy
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
it In a word if he be prejudiced or biassed any way it is on the side of Authority being rather deâ—â—rous to find himself mistaken and his Governours in the Right than himself in the Right and his Governours miâ—taken I say shew us such a Man as this and we readily grant you have produced a Person that doth sincerely use his endeavours to satisfie himself about the Lawfulness of our Communion But then we must say this also that as the Case stands between the Church of England and the Dissenters we can hardly believe that such a Man will long continue in Separation from the Church but will in a little time gain the Satisfaction of seeing not only that he may Lawfully joyn with us but also that it is his Duty so to do But let us admit that a Man may have endeavoured to Inform his Judgment as well as he can and yet be so far from being convinced that it is his Duty to joyn with us in our Worship that he is still of Opinion that it is his Duty to Separate from us What will we say of such a Man Will we still brand him for a Schismatick notwithstanding he hath done all he can to bring himself over to us but cannot To this I answer in the second Place according to the Principles I have before laid down that if such a Case do ever happen though the Man cannot be excused from Schism as to the matter of it because wherever there is an Actual Separation from a Church with which we ought and with which we may Lawfully Communicate there is an Actual Schism Commenced let the pretence for the Separation be what it will yet I trust he shall not be charged before God with the Formal guilt of the Schism any farther than the Error that led him into it was contracted by his own fault Though Schism in it self as we have said be a great Sin yet we do not say that all those who are engaged in the same Schism are equally Guilty before God In the first place those that separate from the Church to serve any private secular turn these are most horribly guilty of Schism and there is nothing to be said in their excuse In the second Place those who separate from the Church through misperswasions and mistakes of Judgment which they groundlessly and foolishly took up and might have avoided and would yet still certainly correct in themselves if they were but so Careful and Conscientious about their Duty as they ought to be These Men have indeed far more to say for themselves than the former but yet they are very blameable and are bound as they Love their Souls to take more Care of Informing their Conscience aright that so they may leave that Sin they are engaged in But Thirdly those that separate from the Church of God because they know no better nor never had means to know better Or those that have sincerely endeavoured to understand their Duty as much as could be expected from one in their Circumstances yet through weakness of understanding or want of Opportunity light into wrong Paths In a word those that are unhappily engaged in a Schism but God Almighty who searcheth the Hearts knoweth that it is not through the Fault of their Wills but the misfortune of their Circumstances I say if there be any Man among us that is in this Condition though he be a Schismatick Materially yet he is Innocently at least Pittiably so And if he be as free from blame in the other parts of his Life be may be a good Christian for all that And God Almighty we hope who Judgeth of Men by their inward Sincerity and not by their outward Circumstances will impute that Schism which in others perhaps is a wilful Crime to this Man no otherwise then as a pure Sin of Ignorance which shall not upon a general Repentance for all Sins known and unknown be accounted for at the last day Especially if this Innocently mistaken Man we speak of do to the other Regularities of his Life add a diligent Care in these four following Points First that he be not Obstinate and Pertinacious in his way but that he keep his mind readily prepared and disposed to receive any Conviction which God by any Means or Instruments shall offer to him Secondly That he Separate no farther from the Church of which he ought to be a Member than he needs must but do chearfully comply with the Publick Laws and Establishments in all those Instances where he is Satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly that where he cannot give Active Obedience to the Laws he do in those Instances Patiently and Christianly submit to the Penalties which those Laws inflict Neither exclaiming against his Governours or the Magistrates as Persecutors for enacting or Executing those Laws Nor using any undue Illegal means to get himself more ease and Liberty But in all things behaving himself as a quiet and peaceable Subject to the Government he lives under And Fourthly and lastly that he shew himself a good Neighbour as well as a good Subject in avoiding all peevish and bitter Censures of those that differ in Opinion and perswasion from him and Exercising Humanity and Friendliness and Charity to all his Fellow Christians Whosoever I say of our Brethren of the Separation make good these Points That is to say are in the first place very sincere in their endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in the matter of our Communion And in the next place when they cannot Satisfie their Conscience about our way do yet in their Dissent from us Observe the four Particulars I have now named I should be loth for my part to Censure them either as ill Men or ill Subjects or ill Christians But then all that I have said in this matter doth no more justifie the Sin of Schism or Extenuate the hainousness of it in its own Nature Than it would serve to justifie or Extenuate the Sin of Idolatry if all that I have now said was applied to the Case of an Ignorant well meaning devout Papist For I do verily believe that what I have now represented by way of Apology for an innocent mistaken Separatist will hold true mutatis mutandis in the Case of a deluded Romanist who is invincibly and without any fault of his intangled in the Practice of their Idolatries But I believe for all that the Sin of Idolatry is in it self a most grievous Sin and so I believe is the Sin of Schism and therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the Innocence or Excuseableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To come to a conclusion that which I would most seriously press from what hath been said is this It appears from the foregoing Discourse how absolutely necessary it is that every Man should
hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Ballance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes clothed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Vsury and Law Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it was to any purpose If this now be admitted for Truth we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us and that is this There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom and to a mans self to be obtained by Worshiping God in the way of the Church and likewise so many both Publick and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Over-ballance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case And that man who is not swayed by them doth not Act so reasonably as he might do For my part I should think it very foolishly done of any man that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong as every one that Doubteth is should be so confident of his Point as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives and the Security of the Religion Established and withal his own Ease and Liberty and lastly the Fortunes also of his Posterity And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfuless of the things enjoyned in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this was well considered by our Doubting Dissenters They are wise enough as to the World in other matters it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this And if they were I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run to have it said of them that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Publick Peace and Vnity they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruine by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about But this will appear much clearer when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt as indeed it is in its own Nature Which I come now to do In the Second place There are other Dissenters who as they have good reason do Doubt on both sides of this Question As they Doubt on one hand whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful So on the other hand they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it because the Laws of the Church and of the Land do require them so to do And of these as I said there are likewise two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally That is to say of the Two it appears more probable to them that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty Now as to the first of these Cases The Answer is very short and it is this We have before proved by many Arguments that in a Case of a Pure Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Ballance on its own side so as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth but it is his Duty to do it he sins if he do not For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case where the Doubt is unequal And here the Case is this As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church and obey the Laws So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do Because it doth appear more probable to him that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty And a greater Probobility caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this where the Ballance is so far inclined one way the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side Yet in this Particular Case of Church Communion there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them as will with any Impartial Conscientious Man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a Perswasion and make it reasonable for him rather to Conform how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity so long as it is but a Doubt than to continue in Separation Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt pag. 27. This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us and I refuse no indifferent Man that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say to be Vmpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren as to this Controversie In the first place let us suppose and admit that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship doth really Doubt on the true side and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God if he should Conform to it But then it must be admitted likewise that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute is wonderfully obscurely declared There are no direct Prohibitions either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences And those Consequences likewise are so obscure that the Catholick Church from Christs time till our Reformation was wholly ignorant of them For though it doth appear that either these or the like Usages have always been in the Church Yet it doth not appear in all that compass of Time either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful Or indeed that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them And even at this Day these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
we be said to give offence to others in either of these sences by conforming to the Institutions and Rites of the Church of England 1. Not in the first sence for that can onely be in one or both of these two cases either first by doing that which is essentially and in its own nature evil and a sin Or secondly by doing that which is directly a temptation and a snare to induce another to do that which is a sin Now if it can be shewn that complying with the Rites and Service of the Church of England is giving offence in either of these sences then I here profess I will my self immediately turn their Proselyte and renounce Conformity and protest against it for ever 1. It hath scarce ever yet been so much as intimated that the Church of England requires any thing as a condition of Communion with her that is essentially evil None of our adversaries that I know of have yet dared to charge her Doctrine with falshood or her Discipline with any thing that is in it self evil And when any shall adventure to do it I doubt not but he will find enough to enter the lists with him Even our bitterest Enemies of the Romish Communion have dared to charge us no further in either of these but onely that we are defective in both and reject many things which the Church of Christ as they pretend hath believed and practised in the ancient and primitive ages of it They would rather chuse to call us Schismaticks than Hereticks or to prove us Hereticks not because we believe or teach any things for necessary Doctrines which are false but rather because we do not teach or believe all things that are Christian and true Neither do they charge our Liturgy and Service or Form of Worship with any thing that is materially evil no nor redundant but onely deficient in many Usages and Rites which they pretend to be Apostolical And if our own Brethren must be more spightful and bitter against us than our worst Adversaries let them look to it that even they become not their accusers at the great day But yet thanks be to God they have not adventured to do this and will be unsuccessful enough when they do it and therefore themselves free us from giving any offence in our Conformity in this sence of giving offence i. e. doing any thing which is formally a Sin our selves and thereby inducing others into the same evil by joyning with us 2. Neither secondly do I see any one sin that Conformity is directly introductive of or a temptation unto and I will believe it will puzzle the most curious and inquisitive to find out any such I have so much charity for my dear Mother the Church and so much duty I thank God yet left in me as to dare to justifie her from this imputation I am sure she intends no sin in what she doth nor knowns of any evil that her Communion will betray any man into All that she designs in her Doctrine is to teach the truth as it is in Jesus and to keep close to that Symbol of Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints And what she intends and aims at in her Liturgie and Discipline is by the one to keep men from innovating and corrupting that Faith or debauching it in their manners and deteining it in unrighteousness And by the other to direct them to worship God in such a way as is suitable to his own nature and to the Principles of such a holy Religion and thereby conciliate that grace that may enable them to live so as the Worship of such a God and the Belief of such a Religion require and oblige them to do I must confess in one thing the Church of England may be an occasion of a great deal of sin in the world but it is such as will as little advantage our Brethren to have it granted as it will be any disparagement or disadvantage to be caused by it I mean in being an occasion of all that in and guilt that all those bring upon themselves that rail and cry out so much upon it that separate and divide from it and studiously maintain and keep up an unreasonable and downright Schism against it But certainly all men will see that this is an offence onely taken and not given and ought no more to be objected against the Church than Murther and Adultery Theft and Robbery ought to be charged upon the Laws of God that declare the same to be sin Were there no such thing as the Constitution of a Church these men would not be guilty of Schism and unjust Separation from it But so if there were no Law there would be no transgression and Adulterers may as well accuse the Law for their sin in one case as Schismaticks can accuse the Constitution of the Church in the other They are both in this case equally culpable i. e. indeed not at all In a word and to conclude this Period if Piety and becoming expressions of Devotion in the publick Worship of God If Gravity Decency and Order in the Offices of Religion And if engaging men to a due respect and regard to the rules of the Gospel be sins or evils to be eschewed and dreaded by men then I will grant that Conformity to the Church of England may possibly give offence in this sence of giving of it but if not I do not see any reason to apprehend or fear any danger at all of it By these considerations it will appear we are free from giving offence by our Conformity to the Rules of our Church in this first sence of Scandal and giving Offence 2. I proceed therefore now to enquire if we cannot clear our selves sufficiently from it in the second notion of these things also And this I think will best and most plainly be determined by considering what can be thought just cause of sorrow and grief to a good man or a reasonable discouragement or hinderance to him in his way of Duty I mean still cause of these given to him by another Now these I think I may reduce pretty safely to these three Heads 1. Some dishonour offered to God and his Religion 2. The Wickedness and Profaneness of men 3. The making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome and difficult than otherwise it would be These are great and just causes of offence and grief to a good man It cannot but greatly afflict a good man to behold his God whom he adores and honours and loves above all things affronted and dishonoured his Laws violated his Authority contemned and trampled upon by daring and foolish men Rivers of waters saith the holy Psalmist run down mine eyes because men keep not thy law Psal 119. 136. And it cannot but be cause of the like sorrow to such a man to see other men for whom he hath a great and concerning charity and whom he loves as his own soul to live in sin
and a contempt of God to wound and destroy their precious Souls and to provide matter for eternal torments And any thing that discourageth a man in the way of his Duty or renders it more perplexed and troublesome to him may be justly called an offence or grief to him I do not easily understand how this kind of offence can properly be said to be given any other but by some of these ways Now let our debate be determined by these things and let the issue be Whether Conformity can be grieving others upon any of these accounts It cannot I am sure be said or at least nothing like a proof be offered that we offend men hereby because we either do any dishonour to God or to his holy Religion by it It is much truer that we bring honour and reputation to both by it To God by taking the best course we can pitch upon to secure the Solemnity and Decency of his Worship And to Religion by taking care that all the great Services of it be performed decently and to edification and not profaned by the ignorance or temerity of every bold and unskilful undertaker 2. Nor secondly can it be pretended that hereby we let men be spectators of our wickedness and profaneness and so grieve and make sad the hearts of good men while they see us without any fear of God before our eyes I have that charity for the modesty and integrity of our Dissenting Brethren that they will not call our Worship Idolatry and the service of Baal any longer though it cannot be dissembled that a great part of the less-discerning Rabble have been taught by them so to account and think of it But if any have been misled into such an Opinion I would beg them to come and behold our way of publick Worship for their better conviction 3. No nor thirdly do I see how it can be any offence upon its making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome or difficult to others than it would be It would be a hard matter for any to shew where he is hindred from being good by seeing others conformable to the Church or what obstruction that casts in his way of Duty I will at any time undertake to shew that it may be an help and advantage to him and a furtherance to him in the way of Religion and Salvation but let or hinderance it can be none If it be pretended that by this we make Religion cumbersome and clog that with Rites and Ceremonies that is a plain and easie thing I grant the Objection were reasonable and the Charge of giving offence undeniable were it either so as it began to be of old in St. Augustin's time or is at present in the Roman-Church clogged with so many antick and garish Ceremonies that it requires a great deal of study to be an exact Ritualist and is a thousand times harder to remember and observe all the Rites and Modes of any Service and Office in Religion than to do the thing a hundred times over But let me beg men to consider whether this Charge can be just against a Church and its Liturgy which enjoyn but three Ceremonies against which the Dissenters themselves can object and these too not in the same but so many distinct Services and which are little more than barely determining those circumstances of Habit and Gesture which are natural and necessary to all our actions If these things can be thought to make the Practice and Services of Religion burthensome then any of the Postures in which our Brethren perform their Worship will make that so too and then the Directory will be as chargeable and faulty in this as the Liturgy These things will be sufficient upon this first way that I proposed to shew that conforming to the Institutions of the Church is not concerned in any thing the Apostle speaks in this place nor can come under his notion of giving offence to any which he speaks against in it I will not deny but that some may be offended and troubled at it It is too visible how much some men are troubled to see a Church constituted among us to behold it protected by Law and Power and to see so great a deference and respect payd unto it and its way of Worship as blessed be God is at present by multitudes both of great and good men I do not doubt but it is greatly maligned and envyed by men and it is little less than a continual trouble and grief to them It is contrary to their private Interest and so long as it is so their designs and aims will never be effected But so ill men are troubled at a good Government and Thieves and Robbers may be vexed that Honest men are secured from them and these may as well cry out that the Laws and the Government are an offence to them as others may that they are offended at the Church and Conformity Sure we know things better than to call every thing a Scandal that any man is vexed or troubled at If we must acknowledge that an offence or forbear doing every thing for fear of Scandal that every ill designing man is pleased to take exceptions against it is more than probable we must do nothing at all nor venture to undertake any thing till we see whether all persons will be pleased with it or not We must not call every thing an offence that pleaseth not the humour of every man for then nothing can avoid that character But this is not enough to say in this matter for it will serve us much further not onely to justifie our selves from this imputation but to reflect it back upon those that charge us For when we have well considered things we shall find that the Scandal will fall upon our Accusers and not Conformity but Separation will be found to be the giving Offence and that in both the notions of giving it that have been named Separation is indeed the Scandal as being both an evil in it self and that which betrays others into many evils If ever there were such a thing as Schism in the world or if the Separation of the Donatists or any that were ever made from the Communion of a National Church were a Schism I think it hath been sufficiently proved on our behalf that the present Separation from our Church is really a Schism And if Schism be a damnable sin and so it is if we will judge either by the Doctrines of the Apostles or their best Successors yea and few sins greater then we shall need no other argument to prove Separation to be indeed the Scandal and that in the greatest notion of Scandal too And we sadly see what great mischiefs it is introductive of what uncharitableness and railing what pride and censoriousness it betrays men into Schism was scarce ever content to be alone Men think it not enough to separate from the Communion of the Church unless they go to justifie their Separation by
will suggest enough to him Neither God nor Religion can be so much concerned in the one as in the other nor can the Souls of men or the peace of the World be so much endangered by private offences as by those against the publick Church Mens guilts are higher and more injurious to themselves and the effects are more dangerous and mischievous to others which is another good consideration to sway men in this case For a wise man will weigh the probable effects of what he doth and where an honest and uninstructed man is uncertain whether he may do or forbear such things and after his enquiry remains scrupulous and unresolved it is a good means to determine himself by to consider as well as he can what the effects and consequences of what he is going to do or forbear in all likelihood will be and that which he sees attended with a train of the worse and more mischievous consequences disargues it self and pronounceth its own condemnation And by these effects he may make as true a difference as if the plain essence and nature of the things were naked unto his view 3. Offending the Church of God is offending those to whom we owe more duty than we do unto any private party whatsoever I confess charity and respect and all the possible ininstances of it we owe to every private person with whom we converse and to whom we are any way related and God hath made all this matter of plain duty But it is a great deal more than this that we owe those that are over us in the Lord and his whole Church even as much more as we owe of deference and Duty of Obedience and Submission to a Father and a Governour and those that God and Nature hath set above us above that common Charity and Duty that we are to owe to one that is in all respects our equal The Laws of all Nations consider us under greater obligations to our Parents and to our Country than to any single persons whatsoever and make injuring of a Father or our Prince more heinous than doing the same to a common person upon the same level with us And I am sure the Laws of God and Religion too considering us as Members of the Church and calling the Governours of it our Fathers in Christ let us know what great duty we owe to them and of how much greater guilt it must needs be to offend them than our Fellow-christian or any Party in which we can be engaged There is a complication of sins and guilt in the one when there is but the breach of common charity in the other I deny not but men may joyn themselves to such a Party and make another man their Guide and commit themselves to the Conduct of him and thereby oblige themselves to more duty than they owe to others But this is duty of their own choice and the failure in it a sin of their own causing and doth no more supercede their original and primer obligations which God and Nature had layd on them than the being faithful to a company of Banditi will excuse disloyalty to our Prince and Country or than giving a gift to the Corban among the Jews would atone undutifulness to a wanting Parent However men may divide themselves from the Church of which Providence and Religion have made them Members and enter themselves into separate Factions yet they must remember that they owe duty to it still that no voluntary and second Compacts of their own can dissolve their primitive Obligations or their care to continue faithful to the one expiate their regardless offending of the other for they do owe more duty to the one than to the other what they pretend to owe to one is contracted by themselves but what they owe to the other is bound on them by the sacred and strong ties of Religion and Providence And this is another good Argument to determine a scrupulous person in this matter If he be in doubt which he had best to offend the Church of Christ or his own private Party and know not by what considerations to determine his resolution let him in Gods name consider to which he owes most what the Laws of God make his duty to the one more than to the other and then if he be honest and single-eyed he will soon be able to resolve his scruple and know what choice he ought to make 4. Offending the Church of God is truly a grievous Scandal and an Offence in the true Gospel-notion of it but the offending particular persons may possibly not be so That which I mean is this the Church of God we may be sure will not take offence but upon just reason but other men may call that an offence to them which really is not If we do that which grieves and injureth the whole Church then we do properly offend and are guilty of Scandal in the true notion of it But if we onely offend some private persons of our own party they may call that an offence which is not so For every grieving and offending of another in that sense of the word is not a formal Scandal as I hinted before and hath been since this made clear by a better Pen. And to apply this to our present matter in debate this is really so in our Case of Conformity the refusal of it and separating our selves from the Communion of the Church is truly that giving of offence which the Gospel condemns it is laying a snare in the way of men intrapping them into that damnable sin of Schism it is an obstructing the effect of Religion and a direct hinderance of that Concord and Love that Unanimity and Peace that it so strictly calls for among Christians and designes to render the World happy by But you may challenge any dissenting person to shew how angring some private persons and a single party of Schismaticks can be a Scandal to them or to name any one sin that it is temptation to them to commit and to instance that prejudice or disservice that it doth to Christian Religion It is possible I must confess that grief and anger at such a persons Conformity may irritate and provoke men to some things that are evil But then I say that this is the fault of them that are angry and not his with whom they are causelesly offended it may be taking an offence on their parts but not giving it by him For if we must call every thing an offence that any man doth pervert into an occasion of evil there will scarce any no not the best actions of men escape that denomination This methinks is a very material consideration and ought always to sway with men in this Case and if men could not determine themselves in it by other Reasons yet they might by this They should consider which is most likely to judge truest what is Scandal and what is not and when both sides say they are offended
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
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
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
all of them as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them The Second instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof you reply not one word to any of them But you think you have balanced as your word is those five with five of your own 1. You say These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship But we say they do and our yea is as good as your nay 2. You say many read false oftentimes And whose fault is it if they do But it appears from what is coming that you cannot prove it 3. You say Many Children and Girls understand not what they doe And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons 4. Those that cannot read you say are not edified in a confused noise not being able to understand what is read And then I hope you might have spared your second particular for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to doe in this confused noise 5. You say Many leud and profane persons are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Publique Worship c. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Publique Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister and then we will grant that not onely no profane men but no Lay-men neither be they never so good may have their part therein 6. You say There is no such practice in the Churches of God in New England Scotland France Holland c. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant that you urge such an Argument as this to him If you do you are much mistaken Sir But Mr. Baxter tells you in his fifth particular That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses And therefore those Churches you mention should doe well to imitate ours in this particular I am constrained Sir to tell you again that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this The Third instance is The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal You say you wish our Author had told us how many But I say 't is not worth the knowing if it were I could soon tell you if those that are taken thence are all good ones And considering what hath been said this is a sufficient Answer Remember our Author hath told you that our Departure from the Church of Rome was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty and those that were innocent occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's which I have heretofore somewhere met with viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23 d. Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfie you that you might have spared it Onely let me once for all tell you that whereas both here and elsewhere you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things wherein we symbolize with the Church of Rome you ought to know that while they are Enjoyned we who are under Government are not at liberty as the Christians in the Apostles days were as to the Eating of Meats c. And whereas you touch here upon the topick of Scandal I can not hope to satisfie you about this Point if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it To which I refer you and ought so to doe it not falling within our Author's Undertaking The Fourth instance is The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books And what you say under this head amounts to thus much that you think it were better if they were not appointed And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation and Consequently you can have no controversie with our Author about it Whether it were better or not that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on Holy-days and ordinary Week-days merely for Example of life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine let it be left to our Superiors to judge But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters as to this matter yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits nor made to doe what they cannot as well as you apprehend lawfull No God forbid that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him for not being at Church on a Week-day Holy-day But I must take notice of one more passage before I proceed viz. Holy-days are the same with Sabbath-days with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either Here is a good Wipe for our Author But I pray Sir did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath He said that indeed pag. 40th from whence it may be inferred that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholick Church and is that such a small matter to found it upon When 't is the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures But who are they that tell you that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other Holy-days Name any one if you are able that so saith or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church in which our Author saith pag. 45. Our symbolizing with Popery is so much condemned And you say pag. 24th that he observeth in the general 1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part you should have added scarcely of those used by the Papists And this you grant but you add that we may as well Symbolize in thirty as in three But I must make bold to tell you you never uttered a more inconsiderative saying It seems then 't is no matter how many Ceremonies are used in Divine Worship so they be all innocent I am sure St. Augustin was not of this mind But it may be you 'll say there are none innocent But if so you cannot say that we may as well use thirty as three Because the thirty must necessarily be a great hindrance to that attention of mind that Divine Worship calls for but he must have a Weak head indeed whose mind must needs be diverted by three 2. Our Author saith that our
the Governed who could never part with their Right in chusing Officers c. But what Right they have you will soon learn from the Reverend Dean Stillingfleet in his Vnreasonableness of Separation pag. 307 c. There you will find they have no Right at all or I am much mistaken From what you say in these two Pages and that which follows in which your discourse is such that 't is hard to say certainly what you would be at I shrewdly conjecture that you believe it Lawfull to separate from the Church of England although she had neither Ceremonies nor Liturgy to scare men away Your Second case is When a Church is turned Idolatrous that then it is necessary to depart from it And here we have no Controversie Your Third is When a Church will not admit a man's abiding in it unless he will doe something which his Conscience tells him is sinfull But Sir will you not acknowledge that it cannot justifie our Separation that something is required which we judge sinfull whilst we will not impartially use all means for the duly informing of our judgments whilst we call it a running into Temptation to read what is offered us in Defence of the Lawfulness of that we have a prejudice against Whilst we so confide in our own judgments or in the judgments of our Party as not to bear to hear that 't is possible we should be mistaken Surely all truly good men will acknowledge this You say in all these Cases Separating is Lawfull if not Necessary For in the two first Cases we ought to Separate And then I hope in those cases it is Necessary and not onely Lawfull to Separate in the last we may prudently and warily depart c. And why do you so mince the matter by changing your phrase when your meaning is that you may Separate And why do you so mince it too in saying in the two first Cases we ought to Separate which supposeth that in this Case you are at your Liberty and that though you may lawfully Separate yet it is not a necessary duty so to doe And why again do you say we judge this no sinfull Separation Why don't you speak out and say 't is a Necessary one Except you think that a man may lawfully act against his Conscience But you have given me sufficient assurance in your Book that this you do not think You say pag. 33. If any others in former Ages or in our own have had any other apprehensions of the significancy you would have said signification of the Terms Church Schism and Separation whom we own to have been Holy and Excellent men till we see their Notions justified from Holy Writ which alone can determine these things we must crave leave to dissent from them and believe that had they lived in our times they would have dissented from their own Apprehensions under a more perfect light c. But 1. What would you have said to us if we had given this Answer to your citing Holy and Excellent men such as Calvin whom our Author hath so often appealed to in his Book and others against our Notions I am sure you would have severely upbraided us with having a wonderfull opinion of our own judgments Especially if our Notions ran counter to all Antiquity and the Judgments of all Holy Excellent men in former Ages and to the generality of such in our own Age and Time But this I dare say may be asserted of your Notions concerning the Terms Schism and Separation and much of your talk concerning the Term Church too 2. How came you to have more light than the Holy and Excellent men in former Ages and in our own Age too which you plainly suppose your selves to have Nay you suppose this as to multitudes of such persons also as are your Contemporaries For you say pag. 7. We are far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens c. that is Among Conformable Divines of the Church of England 3. This Answer would far better become the Quakers than you they pretending to inspiration which you do not I will now conclude with a Remarque or two on those words with which you begin the concluding part of your Book You say pag. 29. And now how happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing how far it is lawfull for the Spouse of Christ to have Communion with the Great Whore and onely argue how far we come short of symbolizing with the First and Purest Gospel Churches of which we have Records in Holy Writ To this I say 1. How Unaccountable is this Charge you lay against your Brethren when you know that they are in as perfect a Separation as your selves from the Communion of that Apostate Church which you mean by the Great WHORE 2. It lieth not in your power to shew us a Church which more symbolizeth with the First and Purest Gospel Churches than the Church of England And as for those Churches which you believe do come nearer to the First and Purest it hath often enough been demonstrated with invincible strength that the main thing viz. the point of Government in which you conceive they more agree with these Churches doth speak them far less to agree with them than the Church of England does And speaks them to be therein unlike to the whole Catholique Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years together from the time of the Apostles We do not pretend that the Constitution of our Church is absolutely perfect we do believe that such a Constitution is the peculiar privilege of the Church Triumphant but we bless God that 't is no more imperfect and we who live in complete Communion with this Church are well assured that there is nothing either in the Constitution thereof or in what is required thereby that hindereth us from being as good Christians as ever were in the world We cannot find after all the pains that you and others have taken to prove the contrary that there is imposed upon us any one condition of Communion that does contradict any Law of God that tends in the least to the depraving of our Souls to the gratifying of any one corrupt Affection or the making us unmeet for the Heavenly Happiness And this our Holy Martyrs thought as well as we And gave a Demonstration hereof by their Excellent Lives and Heroick Behaviour under the greatest Torments they not onely patiently but also joyfully enduring them for the sake of Christ Nor do we find any more than they did that we are debarred by our Church of any Helps for the building of us up in our most holy faith And whereas you express such mighty zeal for Purer Ordinances we think that zeal would be much better employed in endeavouring after Purer Hearts And that this contending with your Superiours and your Brethren about some things enjoined hath been infinitely more
eight days shall be circumcis'd among you God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental Initiation upon the account of natural incapacity that he limited the time for the administration of it beyond which he would not have it deferr'd And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist and Christ who were both Circumcised the * * * Luke 1. 59. 2. 21. eighth day Nay when any Gentile turned Jew they immediately Circumcised his Children if he desired it always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents Thus saith God unto Abraham I will establish my Covenant between thee and me and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and of a religious Consideration and differed from the Children of Unbelievers as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents and look upon them as Holy upon their account it is no wonder that he should oblige them to dedicate and devote them betimes unto him by solemn initiation into his Church I say he called and elected them in their Parents and with them separated them unto himself from the World and agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call and separation he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church by the initiating Ordinance which the Children of Heathens were not capable of because they were not so called and chosen and separated of God This was ground enough for their admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers though they could not make open Profession of their Faith as Abraham did before he was Baptized and it is certain after the example of Abraham all * * * Selden de Synedr l. 2. c. 3. adult Proselytes did But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Circumcised Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circumcised before he professed or could profess his Faith because if he lived he was as sure to profess it by vertue of his Calling and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father or if the Child had none of the Susceptor or God-father 1 Maccab. 2. 46. and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be †††Seld. de jure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c 3. imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant when they were not circumcised as it is written Every uncircumcised Male whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant and therefore if the Act of Parents Cassand de Baptism Infant p. 732. in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs much more their Act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their Act and Deed. Thus in Numb 3. 28. we find the keeping of the Sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards because their Fathers actually kept it and they were to be trained up unto it and in Deut. 29. 11 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into Covenant with God because the Men of Israel did so and thus also our Blessed Lord who took upon him the Seed of Abraham although he healed * * * Matth. 9. 29. grown Persons for their own Faith yet he healed †††Mark 9. 23. Matth. 8. 13. Joh. 4. 50. Vid. Cassand de Baptismo Infant p. 729. Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants Great Exemplar Part. 1. Sect. 9. Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents or others who besought him for them as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith Having now briefly discoursed of the Original and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church and the Initiatory Sacrament of it and the persons that were initiated thereinto I now proceed to make a few Observations upon the Alteration of it from the Mosaical into the Christian Oeconomy or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament into the Evangelical under the New For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel that it was under the Law The Foundation is the same tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different For Abraham is still the Father of the Faithful and we that believe under the Gospel are as much his Seed and Children in God's prime Intention and the true meaning of the Words as those that were Believers under the Law Hence it comes to pass that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament the New and Supernal Jerusalem to let us know that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism the same City new reformed constituted upon a new Charter blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly and every way better built and more August than it was Thus in Rev. 3. 12. Unto him that overcometh saith the Son of Man I will write the Name of my God and the Name of the City of my God which is New Jerusalem which is come down out of Heaven from my God that is I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly and for a true Member of the pure Catholick christian-Christian-Church which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband meaning Jesus Christ So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above or the Supernal Jerusalem is a free City which is the Mother of us all Hence also it comes to pass that St. Peter in his first General Epistle calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews as unto his peculiar People viz. a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an Holy Nation a peculiar People which must needs imply that the Christian Church is fundamentally and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild
Hither we may refer abundance of those Precepts which concerned their Washings and Purifications or their Abstinence from menstruous Women and unclean Creatures which God imposed upon them in that State of Minority chiefly to lecture unto them moral Purity and Temperance For they had childish Understandings and were like Children to be instructed by Symbols and Symbolical Lessons as is plain from the Precept about their Phylacteries Numb 15. 38. Speak unto the Children of Israel and bid them that they make Fringes in the Borders of their Garments throughout their Generations and that they put upon the Fringes of their borders a Ribband of Blue and it shall be unto you for a Fringe that you may look upon it and remember all the Commandments of the Lord and do them and that ye seek not after your own Heart and your own Eyes after which ye use to go a Whoring But Secondly As many of their Rites and Ceremonies were annulled at the time of Reformation because they were inconsistent with the manly nature of the Christian Religion so others were annulled because they were not consistent with the free nature of it in opposition to the Servile nature of the Jewish Church which is excellently set forth by the Apostle Gal. 4. 22 c. Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bond-maid the other by a Free-woman but he that was born of the Bond-maid was born according to the Flesh but he that was born of the Free-woman was born by virtue of the Promise which God made unto Abraham Which things are an Allegory for these two Women are the two Covenants The one the Covenant which was made on Mount Sinai which gendreth to Bondage and this was Agar For this Agar is the figure of Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem which now is and is still in Bondage with her Children But Sarah is the figure of the Spiritual Jerusalem which is come with Christ from above which is the Mother of us all Now this Ecclesiastical Bondage and Servitude of the Jews consisted in the vast number of their Religious Rites and Observances which if a Man consider in retail as to the Days Weeks Months and Years which they were bound to observe the multitude of Sacrifices of all sorts which they were bound to offer the frequent Washings and Purifications they were bound to undergo the strict distinction they were to make of clean from unclean Animals the Rules and Ceremonies they were bound to observe at Births Marriages Burials at Bed and Board at Home and Abroad in Sickness and in Health nay even in Plowing Sowing and Reaping he shall find that they were left almost in nothing to their own Freedom and Discretion but that the Observances to which they were bound in almost all their Actions took up half of their time Such a burdensom and grievous Oeconomy was that under which the Jews lived but yet how severe and slavish soever it was it was suitable to the slavish temper of that People upon whom God imposed all these Carnal Ordinances for the hardness of their hearts and propension to Idolatry as * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr often observes in his Dialogue with the Jew They were apt to forget God and therefore he loaded them with so many Divine Rites and Observations that at all times and places and in every action they might be put in mind of him and this Ceremonial Yoke was so heavy upon them that it was little less than intolerable according to St. Peter who said Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear This he said in the Council at Jerusalem against the believing Pharisees who taught that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentile Christians and to command them to keep the Mosaical Law not yet rightly understanding or believing that it was one end of Christ's coming to set them free from the Mosaick Observances as the Apostles then declared and as St. Paul afterwards instructed the Galatians who were led away into this error saying Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again with the Yoke of Bondage Hither therefore we are to refer the annulling not so much of any particular sort of Jewish Ceremonies as of the whole Mass of them even the dissolution of the whole Ceremonial Law of which the Jews were grown weary and with which they had been for a long time heavy laden when Christ called them to take his Yoke and Burden upon them which was to be so easie and light But then in the last place as the obligatory force of all the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were taken away because they were inconsistent with the free nature of the Christian Church So some more especially were annulled as being inconsistent with the universality of it as it was to be a Catholick Church Hither we may refer all those which were set up by God as * * * Maimonides more Nevoch p. 3. c. 37. Mounds and Hedges to keep the Jews from mixing and conversing with their Idolatrous Neighbours and their Idolatrous Neighbours from being too familiar and well acquainted with them Such as these were those of not rounding the Corners of their Heads and of not shaving of the Corners of their Beards of not letting their Cattel gender with divers kinds of not sowing their Fields with mingled Seed nor their Vineyards with divers Seeds of not Plowing with an Ox and an Ass together and of not wearing a Garment of Linnen and Woolen God injoined them these and other things in opposition to the neighbouring Idolatrous Nations that there might be a mutual strangeness and hatred betwixt them and that by these and other Ceremonial Singularities they might be distinguished from the rest of the World But then Christ coming to break down the middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles and to abolish the Enmity of Ordinances that was betwixt them that he might make Peace betwixt them and reconcile them both into one Body in the Cross it was requisite to this end that he should abolish these and all other distinguishing Characters betwixt them which would have hindred the Progress of the Gospel had it been clogg'd with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies which were become so odious and ridiculous to all the Gentile World In particular For this reason he was obliged to change the Initiatory Sacrament and the Seal of the Covenant of Grace I mean Circumcision by which the Jews excepting a few * * * The ancient Egyptians Ethiopians Ismaelites Cholchians Nations were distinguished from all the World They were become †††Jura Verpe per Anchialum Mart. Credat Judaeus Apelles Horat. Ferro succiderit inguinis oram Petron. Mox praeputia ponunt Juven 1 Cor. 7. 18. Is any Man called being circumcised let him not be uncircumcised i. e. Let him
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles that these Men do now then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ But since it is so universal and ancient a practice that no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus unus est Exitus variasse debueâ—at error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Quod autem apud multos unum invenitur non est eâ—ratum sed traditum Tertull. de praescriptione Haeret. c. 28. Churches erred they would have varied saith Tertullian but what is one and the same amongst them all proceeds not from error but Tradition Or as St. †††De Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Augustine saith upon this Subject That which the Universal Church doth hold and was never instituted by Councils but was always retained in the Church we most rightly believe to have descended from nothing less than Apostolical Tradition * * * Cassand advers Anabapt p. 675. Menno one of the most learned of the Anabaptists about the time of the Reformation was so pressed with this way of arguing that he acknowledged Infant-Baptism to be as old as the time of the Apostles but then he said it proceeded from false-Apostles and false-Teachers in the Apostles times But if it came first from false Apostles and false-Teachers in the time of the Apostles how came it to pass that we heard nothing of that Innovation in the Writings of the Apostles or of their Companions and Contemporaries such as St. Clement St. Ignatius St. Polycarp c How came St. John who survived unto the latter end of the first Century to pass it over in silence or how came the Spirit in the Revelations which by his Pen reproved so many abuses in the Churches not to censure this It is very strange that none of the Pen-men of the Holy-Ghost nor none of their Assistants and Companions should animadvert upon so scandalous an abuse of the Holy-Ordinance of Baptism which in a short time would fill the Church with sham Christians and destroy the Essence thereof In like manner if it came in by false Teachers in the next Age to the Apostles how came it to pass that none of the famous Saints and Martyrs who flourished then opposed it as a dangerous Innovation nor gave us any account thereof They wrote against the Heresies of Simon Menander Saturnus Cerinthus Ebion Valentinus Basilides Marcion c. but we find nothing in them against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from * * * Omnes enim venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur ad deum infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores i. e. Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born again to God Infants and little Ones and Boys and Young and Old In the Ancient Writers Baptism is called Regeneration and Baptized Persons are said to be Regenerate or born again according to the Scripture which calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Hence saith Just Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So hath Phavorinus observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Baptism is called Regeneration and those who would see more proofs of it may consult Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19. 28. John 3. 5. Selden de jure l. 2. c. 4. But if after all this evidence any Anabaptist will say that renascuntur in this place of Irenaeus doth not signifie Baptized or born again of Water then it must signifie Regenerated or born again of the Spirit and if Infants and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit then they are capable of being born again of Water or of being Baptized as Vossius argues disp de Baptismo p. 181. Irenaeus and †††De Baptisma Where what he speaks about deferring the Baptism of Infants shews that it was the practice of the Christians in that Age Pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipuè tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tum necesse sponsores periculo ingeri Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum But this Opinion of his that it was more convenient to defer the Baptism of Infants was his own singular opinion as much as that was of deferring the Baptism of Virgins and Widows till they were Married which follows in the next words Non minore de causâ innupti procrastinandi c. And he shews the same cause why he would have the Baptism of Children and un-married Women deferred for fear they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism Siqui pondus intelligant Baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem fides integra secura est de salute But then how absolutely necessary he thought Baptism for Infants in case of extream danger is evident from other Passages as Cap. 13. Quum vero praescribitur nomini sine Baptismo competere salutem and Cap. 17. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut personae conditio compellit Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur quoniam reus erit perditi hominis si supersederet praestare quod liberè potuit So likewise in his Book de anima Cap. 39. Adeo nulla fermè Nativitas munda est Ethnicorum Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ Spiritu non ibit in regnum Dei i. e. Non erit Sanctus Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Tertullian that it was practised in that Age. Ignatius Polycarp Papias who were all the * * * Act. Mart. Ignat. Scholars of St. John as likewise Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Hegesippus were all contemporary with Irenaeus who was a a a Ep. Irenaei ad Florinum advers Haeres l. 3. cap. 3. l. 5. cap. 33. the Disciple of Polycarp and who as he tells us in several places of his Works conversed with several Antient b b b Epist ad Florinum advers Haeres lib. 2. cap. 39. Presbyters that had lived in the Apostles times of whom he had enquired after the Apostles practices and yet this inquisitive Father says nothing against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from him and his contemporary Tertullian that it was then of general practice in the Church What meaned all these Men to let such a pestilent practice pass uncondemned which in a short time would leave none in the Church but Mock Christians and so prevail against the Catholick Church which our Lord promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against What would not the Holy Ghost preserve so much as one Church among so many from such a dangerous error but suffer them all to embrace it without Opposition * * * Nunc omnes Ecclesiae erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus uti eam in
allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on oftensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as tehy are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Governmenr is necessary because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason and
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
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâ—her rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †††Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
a a a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b b b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enâ—â—â— them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * * * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gâ—ntilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * * * Heb. 13. 17. Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †††Act. 16. 4. Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of
the Church in this Particular by shewing First That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants And Secondly That the Baptizing of them conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church First then Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants because they are capable of the Benefits and Priviledges of Baptism This I shewed in general before under the first Question and now I will shew it in a more particular manner of Induction by insisting upon the several Ends for which Baptism was ordained First then Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God and dedicated to his Service and I hope I need not prove that Children are capable of this benefit since Jewish Infants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision and the Scripture tells us that * * * Judges 13. 15. Sampson was a Nazarite from the Womb and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning was dedicated unto the Lord. Secondly Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Body which is the Holy Catholick Church This is a great and honourable Priviledge and no Man can deny but Infants are as capable of it under the New as they were under the Old Testament Nay so far are they from being under any Natural Incapacity as to Church-Membership that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms Cities and Companies and therefore why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them as the Jewish Church was and Civil Societies usually are I profess I cannot tell Thirdly it was ordained That the Baptized Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath into a State of Adoption or Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath. But by our Second Birth in Baptism we are made Children of God And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual as well as from one Temporal State to another or be Solemnly Adopted by God as well as Man or Lastly Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel as well as under the Law I am confident those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants would be puzzled to give any rational account In the Fourth place Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptized Persons the pardon of their Sins and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life but Baptism hath this Effect upon Infants as well as upon adult Persons for it washes them clean from * * * De hoc etiā David dixisse credendus est illud qui in peccato concepit me mater mea pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen in Ep. ad Lous l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Nativitate contraxit Cyprian in Ep. ad Fidum Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin before the time of the Pelagian Controversie may consult Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14. 17 21. and many more cited out of Just Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar Athanasius c. by Vossius in his Hist Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil Carthag 112. Original as it doth Men and Women both from Actual and Original Sin I say it washes them clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the assurance of God's favour unto them and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natural vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God they become reconciled unto him and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life upon their justification as any actual Believer in the Word I cannot deny but they may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God and so may actual Believers who die unbaptized if they did not contemn Baptism but then the hopes which we ought to have of Gods Mercy in extraordinary Cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed means unto which they are annexed But in the Fifth place Baptism was ordained That being admitted into the Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body we might acquire a present Right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto te promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner and measure as they are capable thereof This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true that they called Baptism by the names of * * * Heb. 6. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. 94. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 40. †Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Donatum Illumination Grace and Unction and we need not doubt but they talked as they felt and for this reason they Baptized Infants because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism who would be sure to preside and watch over them and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity and prevent them in their very first doings with his gracious helps Wherefore though it should be granted that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural incapacity as Anabaptists rashly assert yet the Baptizing of them is not frustraneous as to this great End of Baptism because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances and Illuminations of the Holy Spirit which they shall receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes This distinction betwixt having the Spirit and having a Right unto the Spirit holds not only in Infant-Baptism but in the Baptism of Hypocrites and secret Sinners who by submitting unto the Ordinances of Baptism acquire an actual Antecedent Right unto the Spirit although they are in a moral incapacity of receiving the Graces of it till their Hypocrisie is removed Nevertheless their Baptism is not ineffectual as to this End but is a means of conferring the Holy Ghost upon them without re-baptization because though they cannot receive it at the moment of their Baptism by reason of their Hypocrisie as sincere Penitents do in whom there is no such Moral
Lord Jesus Christ whereunto you are now called through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit Amen I received Yesternight from you Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel a Letter wherein you gently require my Judgment concerning the Baptism of Infants which is the effect thereof And before I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word and of his true Infallible Church touching the same I think it not out of the matter first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend Being in the midst of my sweet rest it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure and white four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof yea the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy And as Charity is no Churle but would have others to be Partakers of his delight some thought I called to others I cannot tell whom and whilst they came and we together beheld the same by and by to my great Grief it vaded away This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ and the appearance of it in the Sky signifieth the Heavenly State thereof whose Conversation is in Heaven and that according to the Primitive Church which is now in Heaven Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth for as the Prophet David saith The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World as the Prophet affirmeth saying God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost and Peace which passeth all Understanding as it is written in the Psalms As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision and to behold this wonderful City I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me musing on your Letter to the end that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith and to conform your self in all points to the same which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments and having with a greater fulness than we have now the first fruits of the Holy Ghost did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter which should teach them all truth And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church which is our Mother let us all that be obedient Children of God submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture Let us not go about to shew in us by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had lest we deceive our selves For there is but one Faith and one Spirit which is not contrary to himself neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures and be at peace with them according as the true Catholick Church is at this day And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss through our Obedience to Faith with them Therefore God commandeth us in Job to ask of the Elder Generation and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers For we are but Yesterdays Children and be Job 8. ignorant and our days are like a Shadow and they shall teach thee saith the Lord and speak to thee and shall utter words from their Hearts And by Solomon we are Prov. 6. commanded not to reject the direction of our Mother The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her and to abhor contention with her For as St. Paul writeth If any Man be contentious neither we neither the 1 Cor. 11. Church of God hath any such custom Hitherto I have shewed you good Brother S. my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable and then doubtless you cannot err but boldly may be glad in your Troubles and Triumph at the hour of your Death that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only and not after God's Word I will take the ground of your Letter and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful commendable and necessary whereof you seem to stand in doubt Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Auxentius one of the Arrians Sect with his Adherents was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up
great Significations in them had not the express Institution of God for their warranty and yet were well enough receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church and comply'd with by our Saviour himself Secondly take we a view of the Christian Church and that both as to the first ages of it and all the later Reformations that have been made 1. We may observe even from the days of the Apostles themselves the Church hath taken the Liberty of making use of one Rite or other that hath signifi'd things of greatest weight and moment to instance in a twofold Custom primitively us'd amongst Christians that lookt much more Sacramentally than our use of the Cross in Baptism that is the institution of them seem'd Apostolical being frequently mentioned in their Holy writings and they were immediatly annext to the Holy Eucharist and in their Signification bore some analogy with what that Sacrament it self was in part the token and seal of these were the Holy Kiss and the Agapae or Feasts of Charity The Holy Kiss was perform'd as the best Writers generally conceive after all other preparations immediatly before they entred upon the Celebration of the Dr. Caves prim Christ part 1 Chap. 11. p. 346. 352. Lord's Supper and at the close and upshot of the whole Solemnity from whence Tertullian gives it the term of signaculum orationis the Seal of Prayer This the Apostle is suppos'd to direct to when he enjoyns the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16. 20. to greet one another with an holy kiss And this was kept Quae oratio cum divortio sancti osculi integra Tert. de orat up with that Reverence in Tertullian's time that he speaks as if the Service of the Publick Prayers were maim'd and imperfect if it concluded not with this kiss This was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another and the unfeigned reconciliation of their Minds that they came with no inward heart-burnings against one another being that great Christian Grace and Vertue so much insisted upon in our Saviour's Gospel and after that by his Apostles made one great Evidence of the Professors having pass'd from Death to Life And yet that this custom had not its Foundation in any Divine Appointment but the voluntary use the Church made of it seems agreed to on all hands because afterward it is not only prohibited by some Councils but by an universal consent in all Churches wholly laid aside and grown out of all use Again we may observe as to that custom of the Agapae or Feasts of Charity which in the Apostles days 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. probably were celebrated immediately before the Lords Supper and in some Ages afterward not till the Holy Communion was finished But whether they had them before or after it is certain they had great Significations in them not only of Christians mutual Love and Communion but also of the equal regards that God and our Blessed Lord had toward all sorts and conditions of Men the poor as well as the rich those of meaner degree and quality as well as the high and noble when they were all to eat freely together at one common meal This the Apostle seems to point at in the remarks he makes upon the disorders in the Church at Corinth that in their Love-Feasts every one taketh before other his own Supper and so did despise the Church of God And those that had Houses to Eat and Drink in sham'd those that had not Now though this custom was hallowed by the practice of the Apostles and had so great Significations in it and was from the first so annext to the Holy Eucharist that it always either begun or concluded it and consequently lookt much more Sacramentally than our Sign of the Cross in Baptism can be suppos'd to do yet is it plain by the universal disuse of it in these later ages of the Church that it self never was esteem'd any Sacrament I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation or breathing upon the Person that was to be Baptis'd Aug. de nupt concup lib. 2. 29. call'd by one of the Fathers an ancient Tradition which they us'd as a sign of expelling the Evil Spirit and breathing into them the good Spirit this seem'd to signifie more the Grace of God than Duty of the Christian and yet not suspected as any Sacrament Thus the Baptized Persons stripping of his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man which was corrupt according to his deceitful Lusts doth it not look full as Sacramentally as our Cross in Baptism Yet we find it anciently practis'd without any jealousie of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting Holy Sacraments To say no more what think we of the trine immersion once accounted a pious usage in the Church whereby the Person being thrice dipt or put under water at the mention of each Person of the Trinity was suppos'd to be Baptiz'd in the beleif of that great Article So Tertullian expresseth it Nam nec semel Advers Praxeam Again in lib de Coron milit sed ter ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur We are dipped not once but three times at each name and so are Baptiz'd into the three Persons And besides this Signification of the three Persons by this threefold immersion which Tertullian and not only he but St. Ambrose have mention'd there are others of the Fathers that have suppos'd the Death the Burial and the Resurrection of our Saviour together with his being in the Grave three days was signifi'd by this custom And yet was this so far from being accounted any Sacrament of it self or a Sacrament within that of Baptism that the Church hath thought fit to lay Immersion aside for the generality and the threefold Immersion much sooner particularly in Spain and that upon a reason that made the single dipping as significant as the Trine had been when it was in use viz to distinguish themselves from the Arrians who had taken occasion from this threefold dipping in Baptism to assert the three distinct substances pretending a Testimony from the Catholick Church by this usage Much such a reason by the way the Reform'd Churches in Poland govern'd themselves by when in a general Synod they decreed against the Posture of sitting at the Lords Supper because that Custom had been brought in first by the Arrians who as they irreverently treat Christ so also his sacred appointments Which leads to a view of the Church in all Synod Petricov An. 1578. its later Reformations 2. Is it not very evident that in none of our later Reformations nay even in those of our Dissenting Brethren themselves but they do in their most Religious Solemnities some things that are very Symbolical Actions that have great significations in them 1. There giving to every Baptiz'd Infant a new Name which both they and we do call the Christian Name this seems to
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
publick Worship of God and all this without the least notice taken by without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation 3 The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies This is clear partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorn'd it with which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable partly from that tedious See part 1. p. 58. and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumens and Penitents with before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries To be admitted to the Sacrament so onely as to behold it and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice was heretofore accounted a high honour and priviledge But to make one at this heavenly Feast and to receive the pledges of our Lords love was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life Heretofore with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age to be excluded from the Holy Communion was look'd upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted and on the other hand to be a Communicant to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded the sum of a Christians hopes the center of all his wishes during his abode here 4. For standing in time of Divine Service both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars would swell this Discourse beyond measure and besides it would be a needless labour since the great Patrons of sitting or the common Table-gesture Gillesp Disp against En. Po. Cer. point 1660. p. 190 191. do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies both at their ordinary Prayers and at the Communion-service Howsoever I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular 5 Which is this That the Primitive Christians though on the Lords days and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing yet at other times used the gesture of Kneeling at their publick Devotions Which will appear from a Decree pass'd in the first general Council assembled at Nice in words to this effect Because there are some Can 20 about the year 325. which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost that is between Easter and Whitsunday it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer we observe a Standing gesture to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the publick Worship of God but onely as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified viz. on the Lords days and the Feast of Pentecost when for any Christian to stand was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time For this Council did not you must note introduce and establish any new thing in the Church but onely endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians And from that clause in the Canon Because there are some which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost c. we may with good reason infer that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr which will put this matter out of doubt and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lords day It is Respons ad quest 115. p. 468. saith he that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ that for six days we pray upon our Knees is in token of our Fall by Sin but that on the Lords day we do not bow the Knee doth symbolically represent our Resurrection c. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles for which he cites Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter That it was ancient appears from Tertullian who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus and speaks of it as if it had been establish'd An. Dom. 198. by Apostolical Authority or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law for these are his words We esteem Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit 1617. Epiph. exposit Fid. Cathol p. 1105. edit Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hieronym prolog Comment in Ep. ad Ephes it a great act of wickedness or villany either to Fast or Kneel on the Lords day Which intimates too that Fasting and Kneeling in their publick Worship were both lawful and customary at other times To whose Testimony if we joyn that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith where he certifies that the weekly stated Fasts of Wednesday and Friday were diligently kept by the Catholick Church the whole year round excepting the fifty days of Pentecost on which they do not Kneel nor is there any Fast appointed The reason of which Custom was as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of
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
have been lessen'd with the character of dull honest and moral Men fit onely for Catechists and Christians of the lowest Form Tickle but their imaginations with conjectural Discourses about the Situation of Paradise of old or Hell now and you are a sounder Divine than he that onely draws wholsom Conclusions from Adam's prevarication to caution you against sin of the like nature or how to avoid those dismal flames where ever they are And others have been silly and phantastick in admiring those who have pratled about the length of the Sword that guarded Paradise or how the Spirits above pass Eternity away and scorn'd him who in plain methods chalkt them out the way that will lead them to Heaven The ancient Gnosticks because they 1 Tim. 1. 4. made a mixture of the Jewish Fables and Genealogies of their Lilith and Behemoth and fetcht in the Stories of the Gods out of Orpheus and Philistion two great Divines in the Pagan Religion into plain Christianity thought themselves the most knowing Men of the Secrets of God and Heaven and wondred how onely Faith upon Jesus and keeping of the Commands could be knowing of God or Wisdom from above The wranglings of the Schools with their fine distinctions and barbarous terms fitter for Magick than Christianity by their Disciples have been priz'd for great and precious Truths And Enthusiastick Raptures and slights making once the Brain to swim have snatcht the hearers beyond themselves and then thought them the Dictates of the Spirit and the Teachings of God and the more dark and obscure the Doctrine hath been the greater illumination it was esteem'd and call'd a noon-day Thought which was a mid-night Dream Such things as these pass with too many for saving Truths a great part of Mankind being ignorant in their Heads and corrupt in their Practice espous'd to Parties and Interests having Constitutions and Passions fit for these they readily swallow them down The Apostle confirms the truth of this telling 2 Tim. 4. 3. us the time will come when they will not endure sound Doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves Teachers having itching Ears caus'd by some disease of Vice within which is not to be cured by good Physick but onely scratch'd and gratifi'd and if the Food though wholsom and good be not to their Palate and Fancy they complain of hunger and starving These and many more are the Instances of a weak and sickly nature craving onely nice and curious things for Spiritual Meat and kecking at the sincere Milk of the Word plain and substantial Truths that it may grow thereby To give therefore a liberty to every Man to run from an established Church upon the account of better Edification which is so often and easily mistaken is to direct Men into temptation and a snare and is dangerous and sinful and when once the gap is open where will especially the Vulgar stop May we not add that this pretence of better Edification is very fit to disguise and colour other Vices When Controversies have unhappily risen from an unjust denial of the Ministers Rights and Dues or the accidents of civil conversation they make the Ministry that was spiritual and good before to be call'd dull and mean and better must be sought elsewhere while onely Revenge or Covetousness is at the bottom Wandring Reports or their own lavish Tongue and censorious Temper have call'd some Pastours Covetous or Intemperate or branded them with other Vices and then cry out they cannot Edifie in such a Church and so make one fault help out another and Defamation must excuse their Schism 2. In taking the Opinions of Parties for undoubted Truths essential to salvation When men have once wedded a Party and the Opinions peculiar to it they magnifie and propagate them grow furious for their defence and call them the best part of Religion and if these be not abetted and cry'd up by the Pastours of our Church or they differ from them in explications and distinctions of them the way of salvation is not taught they do not improve their Spiritual condition and therefore is a just cause of their Separation Because the Notion or Explication of Faith and Spirit Church and Grace Justification Regeneration Conversion Adoption and other things of the like nature are generally different in our Church from those of the Separation they therefore cry we destroy the saving Truths of the Gospel and instead of being Edifi'd they find themselves weakned in their Christian Faith Though 't is plain to all impartial judgments that their sense and interpretation of them by natural consequences lessen the Grace of the Gospel and give security to lazy Sinners a strange sort of Edification For though our Charity is not so narrow as to think every man a vicious person who is thus mistaken in his conclusions yet however this alters not the nature of these Opinions and their consequences and who knows how far men of ill Principles do improve them Such is the perverse and angry temper of many about their own Opinions no way necessary to salvation wherein wise men and good men may differ which are not stated by Authority and may not be determin'd till Elias come yet if these be not insisted on and press'd with vehemency the great things of the Gospel are omitted and truths are wanting to their perfection And if once the People are possess'd with Opinions and Notions they grow fierce about them and call them salvation-truths and run head-long into a Sea of disorder and tumult for their defence The Disciples of the fifth Monarchy the Pretenders to the Spirit the Enemies of Childrens Baptism think themselves wrong'd and the Gospel hidden if casually they hear you making Interpretations of the Kingdom of Jesus the Operations of the Spirit and that divine Institution different from their lewd sense And many Questions when determin'd after a great deal of labour and passion and expence of time may improve our Knowledge but not Faith and a good Life the onely Edification The early and best Christians thought themselves mighty Saints and secure of Heaven if they onely knew Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent and the World being such ill Judges about any other Edification it would be well if they return'd to this good old way and rest satisfi'd there lest they take the Inventions of Men Rhetorick or subtlety secular interest or conjectures for the Pillars of the Temple to support their Faith and so upon the score of Edification break the Peace and Unity of the Church and Obedience to our Governours the great things of Religion 3. In taking sudden heats and warmth for true Edification When melting tones affectionate expressions solemn looks and behaviour passion and vehemency and other Arts have play'd upon the fancy and put their constitutions into different motions some have though themselves so strangely Edifi'd as though it was the impulse and powerful acting of the Divine Spirit which
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
sav'd or no being the perfection of all other marks and signs of our assurance of Life and Glory When we are so Edifi'd and Religious we are certain that we are justifi'd and adopted accepted and treated like the Sons of God that we are in Christ and have our wedding-Garments on our proper qualifications for the state of Heaven Such an honest Principle as this makes our Prayers to be heard our Devotions to be regarded our Hopes to be strengthened This is the great intention of Christianity the Holy of Holys of our Temple and all Religion Such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoyn'd and zealously taught in our Church no ways disguis'd by a dress of Phrases or corrupted into soft and lushious sences we need not complain for want of the means of Grace and Edification we need not cross the Seas or run into private corners for it 't is nigh us even at our Doors in the establish'd Government of the Church of England Some use to say that brown Bread and the Gospel was very good Fare but now they are grown as nice and delicate about Religion and Edification as about Sawces and Dresses Thanks be to God 't is a knowing Age I wish it was as good The Corruption of it doth not arise for want of Knowledge and Information if it doth the Cure is near let them value that Church and Government that hath all things in it sufficient to Mens Salvation Let them not think so light of Schism and speaking evil of the Rule and Discipline in our Church so fit and necessary to the preservation of Christianity let them not cry up other Pauls and Apollos's any other Teachers making Divisions among us than this Church hath allowed for their Edification which is so far from Spiritual Edification that it calls such Men Carnal For the desire 1 Cor. 3. 4. of any other Nourishment beside such plain Food is Spiritual Pride and Wantonness and they pamper their Fancies while they starve their Judgments Let us therefore stick to such a manly Religion one great part of which is to preserve Obedience Peace and Order and say of our Church that teacheth it as the Disciples of its Author Thou art he and we seek for no other whither shall we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life She hath all things in her that are necessary for the perfecting of Ephes 4. 12 13. the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the Edifying of the Body till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the Knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That such a Religion as this in our Church is pleasing both to God and Man we have the Testimony of an Apostle He that Rom. 14. 18. in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd of Men. FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling c. The Second Part. 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. A Discourse OF PROFITING BY SERMONS AND Of going to HEAR where men think they can PROFIT most LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard F. Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. A Discourse Of PROFITING by SERMONS AS there is nothing that all good Men more desire nothing that they more heartily seek and endeavour than a Happy re-union of all those with us who have Rent themselves from us which we should reckon to be one of the highest blessings that God can now bestow upon us so there is little hope of seeing those desires and endeavours satisfied while the smallest Scruples seem a sufficient cause to hinder many People from joyning with us But among all the Reasons that I have heard alledged for leaving our Churches this seems to me to be the weakest and most ungrounded That our Ministers are unedifying Preachers for they cannot profit by their Sermons Which I am informed is so commonly objected and some lay such weight upon it and it carries with it such a shew of Piety it being a very commendable thing to desire to be the better for every Sermon one hears that it is thought to be worth some body's pains to try to remove this unjust Prejudice which too many have entertained against the most instructive and useful Sermons that perhaps are preached any where in the Christian World This may seem too high a commendation but it is the Judgment of more indifferent persons then we are on either side of
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
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
several of them lost their Lives Barrow and Greenwood were Executed for their Scandalous and Seditious Writings Penry and Vdal Indicted and Arraigned for Defaming the Queens Government in a Scandalous Book Written against the supposed Governours as they called them of the Church of England for which they were both Cast and Condemned to be Executed as Felons but Arch-Bishop Whitgift interposing they were Reprieved and Vdal suffered to Die as he did soon after in his Bed The truth is the wise and wary Queen beheld Schism growing on apace and needed not to be told what ill Influence it was like to have both upon Church and State and therefore Resolved to carry a Streight Hand as well over Puritanism on the one side as Popery on the other and in order hereunto She charged Arch-Bishop Whitgâ—ft Sir G. Paul Life of A. B. Whitgift Numb 53. p. 29. to be Vigilant and Careful to Reduce Ministers by their Subscription and Conformity to the setled Orders and Government Adding That She would have the Discipline of the Church of England formerly Established of all Men duly to be Observed without alteration of the least Ceremony But nothing more fully discovers her Judgment and Resolution in this matter then what She gave in Command to the Lord-Keeper-Puckering to tell the Parliament part of his Dr. Peirce New Discov against Mr. Baxt. 1659. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. p. 109. Speech Transcribed and Published some Years since from the Original Copy under his own Hand Writing by an Eminent Divine of this Church was as followeth And especially you are Commanded by Her Majesty to take heed that no Ear be given or Time afforded to the wearisome Sollicitations of those that commonly be called Puritanes wherewithall the late Parliaments have been exceedingly Importuned Which sort of Men whilst in the Giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership they do nothing else but disturb the good Repose of the Church and Common-wealth which is as well grounded for the Body of Religion it self and as well guided for the Discipline as any Realm that professeth the Truth And the same thing is already made good to the World by many of the Writings of Learned and Godly Men neither Answered nor Answerable by any of these new fangled Refiners And as the present Case standeth it may be doubted Whethey they or the Jesuits do offer more Danger or be more speedily to be repressed For albeit the Jesuits do impoison the Hearts of Her Majesties Subjects under a Pretext of Conscience to withdraw them from their Obedience due to her Majesty yet do the same but closely and only in privy Corners but these Men do both Publish in their Printed Books and Teach in all their Conventicles sundry Opinions not only dangerous to the well-setled Estate and Policy of the Realm but also much derogatory to Her Sacred Majesty and Her Crown as well by c. In all which Things however in many other Points they pretend to be at War with the Popish Jesuits yet by the Separation of themselves from the Unity of their Fellow-Subjects and by abusing the Sacred Authority and Majesty of their Prince they do both joyn and concur with the Jesuits in opening the Door and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is Threatned against the Realm Thus far he by her Majesties most Royal Pleasure and Wise Direction as he there speaks To which let me add That the Speech took such effect that the Parliament passed the Act of 35th of Eliz. the Severest Act against Dissenters in the whole Body of our Laws And indeed so Jealous was the Queen of the least appearances of Innovation that Arch-Bishop Grindall only for giving too much encouragement to Prophesyings which were beheld as likely to prove Nurseries of Schism and Faction as indeed they did fell under Her Displeasure and was Sequestred from his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction and though great intercession was made in his behalf yet could he never be restored to his Dying Day This was the State of things then and yet these were the Proceedings of those Days which our Dissenters at another time are wont so much to Magnifie and Extol nothing of late having been so much in their Mouth as the Wisdom and Prudence the Care and Diligence the Zeal and Piety of Good Queen Elizabeth I speak not this to cast any reflexion upon the Memory of that incomparable Princess whom we have all the reason in the World to own to have been the Glorious Instrument of Perfecting and Setling the Reformation in this Kingdom and whose Memory will be dear and pretious as long as the Protestant Name has a Being in England But I only take notice how extreamly partial People are and how apt to be prejudiced against the present Government under which they live and to be always Crying out That the former Days were better then these whereas supposing their Circumstances were really harder than they are and harder then those of the Puritans in former times yet they have no reason to accuse the Government of Rigor and Severity towards them if three Things be farther taken into Consideration First That the Dissenters of old especially the first Race of them were generally much more Modest and Peaceable then those of latter times more Conformable to the Laws less Turbulent and Offensive to the Government when they could not Conform as Ministers they yet did as private Christians and quietly acquiesced in their Suspension or Deprivation and as one truly says of them When they could not be Active without Sinning as they judged they could be passive without Murmuring They medled not with things without their Line nor mixt themselves with matters of State Declared that Kings have See a Book called The Protestation of the Kings Supremacy 1605. Numb 8 9. 11. power by the Law of God to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as tend to the good Ordering of the Churches in their Dominions that the Churches ought not to be Disobedient to any of their Laws that if any thing were Commanded contrary to the Word they ought not to resist the King therein but peaceably to forbear Disobedience and sue to him for Grace and Mercy and where that cannot be obtained meekly to submit themselves to the punishment They generally came to Church and did not run into Separate Congregations nay writ stoutly and smartly against those who began then to attempt a Separation But whether our Modern Dissenters have observed the same Course and be of this Spirit and Temper let the World judge yea let themselves be Judges in the Case Secondly Sad Experience of the Evil Consequences of Schism and Separation have made it necessary for the Government to take all just and lawful ways for preventing the like for the time to come Men first began to be dissatisfied with the Rites and Orders of the Church then discontented that they were not presently gratified with an Alteration Discontent brought on
out of England without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches which are in Communion with each other though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church then Constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful I suppose because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church though we may occasionally Communicate with it But certainly Sir Had you ever considered what I discourst about constant and occasional Communion you would not have made such an Objection as this For this is a Modern distinction which has no sence at the bottom as I plainly shewed But however by constant Communion our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion always or ordinarily in the same Church and by occasional Communion performing the Acts of Communion sometimes or as occasion serves in another Church now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion as it signifies the constant and ordinary or the Occasional Acts of Communion must that question be understood whether Constant Communion he a Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful the meaning of which question is this whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it and there being no other reason to justifie non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate but onely Sinful Terms of Communion and there being no Colour for such a Pretence where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful I hence conclude that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally or sometimes with it But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question as you now do not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition to say that constant Communion by that meaning presential and personal Communion is always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful For at this rate if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France Geneva Holland Germany be Lawful it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time which no man can do who can be present but in one place at a time But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin I am also bound to Communicate constantly with whenever such reasons as are necessarie to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Dutie to do so And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense But this you think cannot be my meaning For accorcording to me no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may Communicate with both It is wonderful to me Sir how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me and I would desire of you for the future if you have no regard to your own Reputation yet upon Principles of Common Honesty not to write so hastily but to take some time to understand a Book before you undertake to confute it Where do I say that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another I assert indeed that no Baptized Christian is a Member of any particular Church considered meerly as particular but is a Member of the universal Church and of all sound Orthodox Churches as parts of the Universal Church This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another The first supposes that every Christian whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in is a Member of the whole Christian Church and of all particular Sound Churches the second supposes the quite contrary that Christians are so Members of one Church as they are not of another that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate So that the question is not what Church I must be a Member of for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church not meerly of this or that particular Church but what particular Church I must Communicate in now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church results from the place wherein we live The Church in which we were Born and Baptized and have our Ordinary abode and Residence the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects if it be a true and sound Christian Church Challenges our Communion and Obedience Now in the same place there never can be any Competition between two Churches because there must be but one Church in the same place and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate which must be the Church in which we live But is there not a French and a Dutch as well as an English Church in London and since distance of place does not hinder may we not choose which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with I answer no we have onely the Church of England in England The French Church is in France and the Dutch Church is in Holland though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches and are under their Government and Censures but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England but only of the Church of England and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience one particular Church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate Communion which is Schismatical but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live can onely Challenge our Communion and I suppose
Questions besides that it cannot serve any purposes of piety if it declines from duty in any instance it is like giving Alms out of the portion of Orphans or building Hospitals with the Money and spoils of Sacrilege 4. It is further said by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius If determination by Superiours is sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal then they do very ill that they do not so far as is possible determine all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving Offence by the use of them Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferent things Then St. Paul might have spared all his directions about forbearance out of respect to weak Brethren and fully determined the matters in debate and so put an end to all fear of Scandal This truly seemeth a very odd way of arguing and all that I shall say to it is that it supposeth nothing else worthy to be considered in the making of Laws or in the determinations of Superiours about indifferent things but only this one matter of Scandal and the project it self should it take would prove very vain and unsuccessful For tho we truly say that we are bound to comply with the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England they being but few and innocent and so giving no real ground of Offence yet we do not say the same upon supposition our Church had determined all circumstances in Gods Worship she possibly could which would perhaps have been a yoke greater than that of the Ceremonial Law to the Jews nor if she had prescribed as many Ceremonies as the Church of Rome hath done which manifestly tend to the disgrace and Scandal of our Christian Religion and as for the course St. Paul took it is plain that some things upon good reasons were determined by the Apostles as that the Gentile Converts should abstain from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols which decree I presume they might not Transgress out of charity to any of their Brethren who might take Offence at such abstinence and other things for great reason were for a time left at liberty which reason was taken from the present circumstances of those the Apostles had to deal withal tho afterwards as I observed before when that reason ceased determinations were made about those things which St. Paul had left at liberty and if St. Paul had determined the dispute about meats and days one way they who had followed so great an Authority whatever had happened had surely been free from the sin of Scandal but still the Scandal had not been prevented but all the contrary part had been in danger to have been utterly estranged from Christianity and that was reason sufficient why St. Paul did not make any determinations in that case For Governours are not only to take care to free those that obey them from the sin of Scandal but also to provide that as little occasion as is possible may be given to any to be Scandalized There are other Objections offered by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius and Rutherford against this Doctrine of our obligation to obedience to Superiours in things lawful notwithstanding the Scandal that may follow but they either may be Answered from what I have already said or else they chiefly concern the case of Governours and are brought to prove that they act uncharitably and give great Offence contrary to St. Pauls rules who take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites by which they know many good Men will be Scandalized but this is not my present business to discourse of tho I cannot forbear saying these two things which I think very easie to make out 1. That our Church of England hath taken all reasonable care not to give any just offence to any sort of persons and the offences that have been since taken at some things in our Constitution could not possibly have been foreseen by those who made our first Reformation from Popery and so they could not be any reason against the first establishment Nor 2. Are they now a sufficient reason for the alteration of it unless we can imagine it reasonable to alter publick Laws made with great wisdom and deliberation as often as they are disliked by or prove Offensive to private persons If this be admitted there then can never be any setled Government and order in the Church because there never can be any establishment that will not be lyable to give such Offence They who now take Offence at what the Church of England enjoyns on the same or a like account will take Offence at whatever can be enjoyned and the same pretences of Scandal will be good against any establishment they themselves shall make for tho they will not use these reasons against their own establishment yet in a short time others will take up their weapons to fight against them and what served to destroy the present Church will be as effectual to overthrow that which shall be set up in its room so that whatever alteration is made if this be allowed for a sufficient ground of it viz. to avoid the Offence that some men take at the present constitution yet still we shall be but where we were and new Offences will arise and so there must be continual changing and altering to gratifie the unreasonable humours and fancies of Men and should any one party of Dissenters amongst us get their Form of Government and Worship established by Law I doubt not but they would Preach to us the very same Doctrine we do now to them They would tell us that private persons must bend and conform to the Laws and not the Laws to private persons that it was our own fault that we were Offended that our weakness proceeded from our unwillingness to receive instruction that the weak were to be governed not to prescribe to their Governours that we must not expect that what was with good reason appointed and ordered should be presently abrogated or changed out of complyance with Mens foolish prejudices and mistakes It is sufficiently known how strict and rigorous botht the Presbyterians and Independents are and have been where they have had any advantage and what little consideration or regard they have had of their Dissenting Brethren tho they would have us so tender of them Thus much I think sufficient to shew that the Precept of Obedience to Superiours in things Lawful is more obligatory than the Precept of avoiding Scandal whence it follows that it is our duty to obey in such instances tho Offence may be taken at it because no sin is to be committed for the avoiding Scandal I might from this head further argue that if we must not commit any sin to avoid giving Offence then it is not Lawful to Separate from our parish-Parish-Churches upon that account because all voluntary Separation from a Church in which nothing that is unlawful is required as a condition of