do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34 th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countries Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome Subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so solicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or Practised in our Church Her Members are obliged only to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the Contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26 th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed and will be in part under the next head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28 th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is Repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and Eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifices of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31 st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of the Mass in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to
Books Printed by FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleets 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 Perswasion 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 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 The first Part. 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 Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Jun. for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. The Case Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes Communion therewith Vnlawful IN speaking to this Case we will First Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome Secondly 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 Thirdly Shew that the Agreement that is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England Unlawful First We think it necessary to Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For Instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Iudgment of Discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their faith and judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. Iohn cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19 th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can Naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Loud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25 th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the forementioned Popish Sacraments is implyed that she hath nothing to
have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24 th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very full of Comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification As to the Doctrine of Supererogation this is confuted Article 14. Voluntary Works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without Arrogance and Impiety For by them Men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly when ye have done all that are Commanded to you say we are unprofitable Servants As to making simple Fornication a meer Venial sin Our Church will endure no such Doctrine For as in the Litany she calls Fornication expresly a deadly sin so hath it ever been accounted in Our Church one of the most deadly even considered as distinct from Adultery As to the Church of Romes Damning all that are not of her Communion the Church of England is guilty of no uncharitableness like it and never pronounced so sad a sentence against those in Communion with the Church of Rome as great a detestation as she expresseth in the Homilies especially of her Idolatrous and Wicked Principles and Practices She is satisfied to Condemn the gross Corruptions of that Apostate Church and leaves her Members to stand or fall to their own Master nor takes upon her to Vnchurch her And as to the remaining most Immoral Principles and Practices of the Romish Church which are all as contrary to Natural as to revealed Religion the greatest Enemies Our Church hath cannot surely have the forehead to charge her with giving the least countenance to any such There being no Church in Christendom that more severely Condemns all instances of Unrighteousness and Immorality Thirdly The Church of England is at a mighty distance from the Church of Rome in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Whereas our Liturgy hath been by many Condemned as greatly resembling the Mass Book all that have compared them do know the contrary and that there is a vast difference between them both as to matter and form Although some few of the same Prayers are found in both and three or four of the same Rites of which more hereafter To shew this throughout in the particulars would be a very long and tedious task I will therefore single out the Order of Administration of Infant-Baptism as we have it in the Roman Ritual and desire the Reader to compare it with that in our Liturgy and by this take a measure of the likeness between our Liturgy and the Mass Book c. there being no greater agreement between the Morning and Evening Services and the other Offices of each than is between these two excepting that besides the Lords Prayer there is no Prayer belonging to the Popish Office of Baptism to be met with in ours For the sake of the Readers who understand no more of the Language that the Popish Prayers and Offices are expressed in than the generality of those that make use of them take the following account of the Popish Administration of Infant-Baptism in our own Tongue To pass by the long Bedroul of Preparatory Prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and Purple Robe calls the infant to be Baptized by his Name and saith what askest thou of the Church of God The God-Father answers Faith The Priest saith again What shalt thou get by Faith The God-Father replies Eternal life Then adds the Priest If therefore thou wilt Enter into life keep the Commandments thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self Next the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infants face and saith as if we come all into the World possessed by the Devil Go out of him O unclean Spirit and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter Then with his Thumb he makes the Sign of the Cross on the Infants Forehead and Breast saying Receive the Sign of the Cross both in thy Forehead and in thy heart Take the faith of the Heavenly Praecepts and be thy manners such as that thou maist now become the Temple of God After this follows a Prayer that God would always protect this his Elect one calling him by his Name that is Signed with the Sign of the Cross c. And after a longer Prayer the Priest laying his hand on the Infants head comes the Benediction of Salt of which this is the Form I exorcize or conjure thee O Creature of Salt in the Name of God the Father Almighty ✚ and in the Love of our Lord Iesus Christ ✚ and in the Power of the Holy Ghost ✚ I conjure thee by the Living God ✚ by the True God ✚ by the Holy God ✚ by the God ✚ which Created thee for the safeguard of Mankind and hath ordained that thou shouldest be consecrated by his Servants to the People entring into the Faith that in the Name of the
the holy Oyl and holy Spittle bestowed on the Infant And lastly to name no more additions tho there are divers others the Flax wherewith the anointed places are wiped is ordered to be burnt over a Pond of Water If those who are unacquainted with our Churches office of Baptism would after the Reading of this of the Romish Church consult ours they will immediately acknowledge that no two things can well be more unlike than are these two Offices And the like as was said may be seen in the rest as those may perceive who if they understand sorry Latine will take the pains to compare theirs with ours And whereas we asserted the same thing of their and our Forms of Morning and Evening Prayers we might particularly instance in the Litanies Our Litany which I think if comparisons may be allowed is the choicest part of our Service is more than any other part of the Liturgy condemned by Dissenters as Savouring of Popish Superstition But as nothing but great Ignorance can make any man think it really doth so so I am perswaded that the meer comparing it with that of the Romanists might incline the most prejudiced to call it a most Protestant piece of Devotion For they shall find invocations of Saints and Angels to pray for them the greater part of the Popish Litany Next after the Holy Trinity St. Mary is there invoked first by name then as the Mother of God then as the Virgin of Virgins Next to her three Angels are invoked by name Then all the Angels and Arch-Angels together Then all the holy Orders of Blessed Spirits Next Iohn the Baptist. Next all the Patriarchs and Prophets Next St. Peter and all the other Apostles and Evangelists by name Then Altogether Then all the holy Disciples of our Lord then all the Holy Innocents Then the Protomartyr St. Stephen and Ten other by Name Then all the Holy Martyrs 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 on Holy Days 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 of 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 Title 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 Iewish 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
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 Iews 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 that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to enquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited Not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to Imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition after their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5 th to the 24 th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24 th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it Unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.1 You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted
upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattle Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Iews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern our selves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Iews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Iews and the Pagans than it ought to be between Christians and them or between Protestants and Papists And we find that the distance that God made between the Jews and Heathens as very wide as it was was not wide enough to preserve the Iews from being very often and that generally too infected with their Superstitions and various kinds of Idolatry No though they frequently paid most dear for these their Wicked Imitations of them But thanks be to God there is no such inclination in the Members of Our Church to go over to that of Rome nor hath any such inclination been observ'd ever since the Reformation And where one of our Communion hath Revolted out of Love to Popery of those few Comparatively who have play'd the Apostates we have cause to believe that many have so done meerly upon the score of interest And I need not say that such Persons would not have been preserved from Apostasy by our Churches being set at the widest distance possible from the Church of Rome in indifferent things Nay 't is so far from being true that there is a general inclination in our Protestants to Popery that nothing is better known or hath of late been more observed than the greatest Antipathy and Aversation thereto imaginable in the generality Upon which account I say the foresaid and the like Prohibitions to the Iewish Nation although they should be understood in the sense of our Dissenting Brethren can by no parity of reason be obliging to us Protestant Christians And indeed most of them have seemed of late years to be pretty well aware of this and therefore divers of their Writers have limited the unlawfulness of Symbolizing with the Romish Church to things that have been abused notoriously in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services And that our Symbolizing with that Church in any such things is Unlawful they endeavour to demonstrate both by Scripture Precepts and Examples First They endeavour to demonstrate this by Scripture Precepts And if any such Precept as this could be produced That all such things as have been notoriously abused and Polluted in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious services should by all be abolished and laid aside there could be no place left for dispute about this matter and I doubt not but we should all of us express as great Zeal as our Brethren do for the abolishing of all such things But no such express and unlimited Precept is pretended but the chief of those Texts from whence our Brethren endeavour to Infer this Proposition That it is the will of God that all things so polluted should be utterly destroyed and laid aside are these following Isaiah 30.22 Ye shall Defile also the covering of thy Graven Images of Silver and the Ornament of thy Molten Images of Gold Thou shalt Cast them away as a Menstruous Cloath thou shalt say unto it Get thee hence Deut. 7.25 26. The Graven Images of their Gods shall ye burn with Fire thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is on them nor take it unto thee lest thou be snared therein for it is an Abomination to the Lord thy God Neither shalt thou bring an Abomination into thy House lest thou be a cursed thing like it but thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhor it for it is a Cursed thing Jude 23. hating even the Garment spotted with the Flesh. Revel 2.14 I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a Stumbling block before the Children of Israel to Eat things Sacrificed unto Idols c. v. 20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest that Woman Jezebel which calleth her self a Prophetess to teach and to seduce my Servants to commit Fornication and to Eat things Sacrificed to Idols Now to their alledging of these Texts to prove the foresaid Proposition I reply First That the last of them is altogether impertinent For the eating of things offered to Idols condemned in those two verses is nothing better than joyning and complying with Idolaters and Communicating in Idol-worships Which the vile Gnostiques held they might do and accordingly practised this doctrine to avoid persecution Which abominable Sect arose in the Church as we learn from Irenoeus Epiphanius Eusebius c. even in the Apostles times of which Simon Magus was the first Founder But St. Paul hath given us his judgment concerning Eating of things offered to Idols without any respect to Idols in Eating in 1 Cor. 8 chap. viz. That upon no other account but that of Scandal it is unlawful And the like he hath done 1 Cor. 10.27 28 29. If any of them that believe not bid you to a Feast and you be disposed to go whatsoever is set before you Eat making no question for Conscience sake But if any man say unto you this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake who shewed it and for Conscience sake c. Conscience I say not thine own but of the others For why is my liberty judged of another mans
page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgment But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious services ought to be abolished and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do will I presume sufficiently appear by these following considerations First The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous services but it was made an Idol it self Secondly It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol or Object of Religious Worship but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed Nay it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry It being not only bowed down to but had likewise Incense burnt to it this being a Rite which is never used in meer Civil Worship like bowing the Knee c. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship that no Rite is more so Nay farther Thirdly It was not thus notoriously Idolized by some few of the People but the People were Generally lapsed into this Idolatry As the Text plainly sheweth Nay Fourthly There was as little hope as could be of the Peoples being reclaimed from this Idolatry while the Idol was in being Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto For 't is said that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it which speaks it to have been not only a Custom but a Custom also of a long standing Fifthly Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed from the Peoples sight if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them and a Temptation to Idolatry Since now the use of it was ceased for which by Divine appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot Probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in idolatrous and grosly superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly The Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant
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 the Primitive Church in reading them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine Which in that Article is shewed from St. Hierom to have been the Practice of that Church And besides they are not now appointed to be ordinarily on Sundays read in Our Churches but only on Holydays These I take to be the chief of those instances of our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in the Composure of the Liturgy that Our Dissenters are offended at And as for their other Objections of this kind they are as easily answered And I most sincerely profess that t is not to me imaginable that any thing better than Extreme prejudice can make any Man a Separatist from Our Communion upon such accounts as these As also that I cannot understand how any devout and pious Souls that come to our Publick Prayers without prejudice can find themselves in the least tempted not to joyn in them heartily with the Congregation Absolute perfection is not to be expected in any thing of a human make but if all would read Our Liturgy with that Candour they use in reading the Books of those they have a good opinion of as I am sure they could think nothing intolerable therein so am I as sure they would freely acknowledg it to be exceedingly well adapted to the design of it viz. the exciting of Devotion and that good temper of mind that is necessary to Our Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth I am certain the experience of very many as excellent Christians as this Age can boast of do bear me witness that this is no lavish commendation of Our Prayers Dr. Tayler that Blessed Martyr gave this Testimony to Our Liturgy There was set forth by the most Innocent King Edward for whom God be Praised everlastingly the whole Church Service with great deliberation and advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorized by the whole Parliament and received and Publisht gladly by the whole Realm which Book was never reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was as fully perfected according to the Rules of Our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be Offended with any thing therein contained I mean of that Book Reformed What then would he have thought of it had he lived to see it twice more Reformed as it hath been since Lastly I proceed to the forenamed Rites and Ceremonies of Our Church in which our Symbolizing with Popery is so much Condemned and made a pretence for Separation But before I come to particulars I will observe in the general that the distance Our Church keeps from that of Rome in the imposition of Ceremonies is infinitely greater than her Agreement therein with her For as those imposed by our Church as hath been already said are exceeding few not the hundredth part scarcely of those imposed by the Roman Church so doth not our Church impose them as the other doth on the Consciences of her Members as things of necessity as parts of Religion or meritorious Services as hath been proved out of the Articles Now then 1. As to the Surplice our Church requires not the wearing of this Garment as an Holy Vestment like the Priestly Garments under the Old Law but meerly for the sake of Order and Uniformity whereas in the Church of Rome a Surplice may not be worn till 't is hallowed in a solemn manner by the Bishop or some one by his Allowance as may be seen in the Missal with divers prayers that it may defend him who wears it from the Assaults of the Devil the prayers being accompanied with a number of Crossings and in fine the Surplice besprinkled with Holy Water in the name of the Blessed Trinity But I say in our Church 't is used only as a Garment of distinction no more holiness is placed in it than in the Hoods worn over it meerly for distinction of degrees And the White is preferred before any other Colour because it was a very antient Custom in the Primitive Church for the Ministers to Officiate in White Garments Beza saith of the Surplice These linnen Garments we do not so stick at that we would have the progress of the Word of God hindred in the least for them And we might shew that Mr. Calvin much blamed contending with Authority about the wearing this Garment Particularly in his Epistle to Bullinger And since all the Popish abuse of this Garment is perfectly removed I know not why all Ministers should not be of their mind and much less can I imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it should be affrighted from our Churches by the meer sight of so Innocent a thing 2. As to the Cross in Baptism Our Church holds so little Conformity with the Papists herein that in no one thing of an Indifferent nature can our Symbolizing with them be less scandalous Dr. Burges in his defence of Dr. Morton Sheweth that we hold no Conformity with the Papists in the use thereof either in the time when or place where or manner how or