Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms
nothing can be distinctly heard To this I answer that those who can read may bring Books and those that cannot may attend to those that are near Nay I have been credibly inform'd that some devout People that cou'd never read have attain'd to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited I shall add that for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presum'd that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted Now if the People may join in Vocal Praise why may they not also join in Vocal Prayer If it be said there is some example or warrant in Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of Scripture for the one is an imply'd warrant for the other I have already shewn Chap. 3. that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer was very anciently practis'd and if this was the Primitive way 't is probable that it was the way in the Apostles times I know 't is objected that the People's speaking to God in the Church is disorderly and a breaking in upon the Minister's office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrench'd upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and worshipped the Lord and prais'd him saying for he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7.3 Ecclesiastical Order is secur'd by the Minister's presiding in God's public Worship and guiding the performance of it but not to allow the People to make an Audible confession of sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and â—â—ted by him seems rather to favour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear of the Minister's office being invaded Some urge that Women are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 but this is strangely misapply'd to the Matter in hand For 't is plain that the speaking mention'd by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophesying Interpreting Preaching and Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching implies Authority whereas the Woman's part is obedience and subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the meaning of St. Paul 5. I proceed in the next place to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church Now if Sermons and Catechizing be allowable besides the Word of God why may not some Apocryphal Lessons be read which contain excellent Rules of life Especially since those Writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other human writings also were publicly read as well as the Scriptures and those Chapters of the Old Testament which are omitted do either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or matters of fact deliver'd in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood If it be said that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority 't is more profitable to read any part of that than any other good Lesson I answer that then no place will be left for Sermons which are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons There is no danger of any person 's mistaking the Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical Scripture because the Church speaks so plainly in her Sixth Article nor do we read them otherwise than the antient Church did I shall only add that no Apocryphal Lesson is read upon any Lord's Day in the Year and as for other exceptions I refer the Reader to Dr. Falkener's Libertas Eccles p. 164 c. 6. If any object against our Standing at the Creed Mr. Baxter saies his judgment is for it where it is required and where not doing it wou'd be aivisive and scandalous Nay elsewhere he saies that 't is a convenient praising gesture c. See his Christ Direct p. 858. I proceed now to the Vindication of the Litany against which 't is pleaded 1. That the People utter the Words of invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the matter of it to them But this Objection is of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted If it be said that the People bear too considerable a part to the disparagement of the Minister's office I answer that 't is a great mistake For 1. tho' the People say Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord yet the Minister saies the other and the far greater part of the Prayer 2. They are but these Two short and known Petitions which are excepted against and if the People may be allowed any part in Vocal Prayer I know of nothing more proper than these nor are they repeated but when they are apply'd to new and distinct matter Besides they relieve our attention and cherish our warm affections in Prayer and I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries whether if Good Lord deliver us were apply'd but once in gross to that part of the Litany we shou'd not be more apt to languish in the offering it up than as it is now ordered But 3. 'T is plain that in those Prayers the Minister has the principal and guiding part in that he utters all the distinct matter of the Prayer which the People do not whereas he utters words of invocation as well as they And consider I pray whether if the People were to utter that which is the Minister's part now and the Minister to say that only which is theirs we shou'd not have more grievous complaints that the Minister's authority was slighted in the whole design since he seem'd only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for 2. 'T is Objected that we pray to be deliver'd from all deadly sin which seems to imply that there are some sins which are not deadly Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said that these words do not necessarily imply a distinction between sins that are and sins that are not deadly But admitting that such a distinction were intended yet we must observe that tho' all sin be in its own nature deadly or damnable yet thro' the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ sins of mere infirmity are not imputed and therefore not deadly to us But there are some sins so heinous that he who commits them is thereby put into a damnable state and 't is of such sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication from Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as
both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule An example may help to interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a rule no example is a competent warrant and if the example be according to the rule 't is not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by because he was an Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example
Son of God will strike a Man almost naturally into the humblest posture of Adoration But if any reverence be due at such a time I am sure Sitting is a very unfit posture to express it In a word whatsoever Gesture best answers the Principal ends of this Holy Feast do's best sute it 's nature and ought to be best esteem'd of if we will be guided by the nature of the thing and that Kneeling do's best answer the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper I think I have fully prov'd I shall crave Leave to observe in the last place that the Primitive Church had no such Notion of the necessity of a Table-gesture as the Dissenters maintain There is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings for the space of 200 years after Christ For they call the Place on which the Consecrated Elements stood the Altar and the Eucharist they call an Oblation and a Sacrifice and what connexion I Pray is there between an Altar or a Sacrifice and a Table-gesture The Dissenters indeed (f) Dispute against Kneeling arg 1. p. 6. â—6 c. say that Kneeling or an Adoring-gesture is against the dignity of Guests and debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table such as social admittance and social entertainment that it is against the purpose of Christ whose intention was to dignify us by setting us at his Table and much more of this nature but 't is plain that the Fathers thought otherwise as the Phrases they use and the Titles they give the Sacrament plainly demonstrate They call it as St. Paul doth the Lord's Supper the Kingly Royal and most Divine Supper which import Deference Distance and Respect on our parts the Dreadful Sacrifice the Venerable and Vnbloody Sacrifice the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language call'd the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they styl'd the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. They advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and down-cast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-gesture contend for as the Privilege of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table Fourthly I am to shew that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper is not contrary to the general Practice of the Church in the first Ages This I shall do by proving 1. That it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament as our custom at present is 2. That it 's most certain they us'd an Adoring Posture First then it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament I have already shewn that the Scripture do's not inform us what Gesture was us'd at the Institution of the Lord's Supper and I desire those who contend for a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting to observe that the Primitive Church thought sitting to be a very irreverent Posture in the Service of God The Laodicean Synod finding great inconveniences to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lord's Supper forbad the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was at those Feasts The same Practice was forbidden by the Council of Carthage c. 28. and the Decree was Ratify'd by the sixth Trullian Council c. 74. and that under the pain of Excommunication Now the Reasons upon which 't was forbidden were in all probability taken from the disorder and irreverence the animosities and excess that accompany'd those Feasts Justin Martyr who liv'd in the Second Century saies We rise up together and send up our Prayers Apol. 2. from whence 't is clear that they did not Sit but in most other places they were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears plainly from what Philostorgius (g) Hist Eccles l. 3. p. 29. observes of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly Reform'd this That the People were wont to Sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them and Sozomen (h) Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 19. notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read Optatus Bishop of Milevis (i) De Schism Donat. l. 4. See also Albaspin not in Optat. cites a passage out of the 50. Psalm and applies it home to Parmenianus the Donatist after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him that sits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you saies he are more particularly pointed at in the Text For the People are not Licens'd to sit in the Church Now if it had not been the general Custom to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might easily have retorted this Argument upon Optatus as concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charg'd in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he (k) De Orat. c. 12. Tertullian reproves it as an ill custom that some were wont to sit at Prayer and a little further in the same Chapter he has these words Add thereunto the Sin of irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did wou'd take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for how much more irreligious is this gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by Vnless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer has tir'd us Eusebius also (l) De Vit. Constant l. 4. commends Constantine because when he was present at a long Panegyric concerning Christ's Sepulchre and was sollicited to sit down he refus'd to do so saying it was unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things shou'd be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be us'd in Divine Service except at
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 1 Kings 11.7 Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can But what reason is there for this For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill and not in things wherein they do well No Man can shew a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
Good for the sake of the Evil. We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony that is purely Popish but we must part with the best things in our Religion if all those things are sinful which the Papists abuse And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them in those things wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them in those things wherein they are right CHAP. IX The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answer'd SOme think that the Church is to consist of none but real Saints and therefore finding many corrupt Members in the Church of England they separate from her Communion and set up Churches of their own Consisting in their judgment of none but truly sanctify'd Persons The Ground of this dangerous mistake is their false Notion of that holiness which the Scripture applies to God's Church Holiness in Scripture is twofold 1. Inherent Holiness and that can be in none properly but God Angels and Men. In God Originally as he is that Being in whom all Excellencies do possess infinite Perfection and hence he is call'd the Holy One of Israel In Angels and Men by way of Participation 2. Relative Holiness founded in a Separation of any thing from common uses and an Appropriating it to the Service of God Thus the Sabbath is holy and Judea and Jerusalem are holy and thus the Church is holy that is a Society separated from the World to serve God after a peculiar manner Thus the Israelites even when very much corrupted were call'd God's holy People Deut. 7.6 and the Apostles call the Churches by the name of Saints tho' there were strange immoralities amongst them because they were separated to God and in Covenant with him Well but did not Christ die that the Church shou'd be holy and without blemish Eph. 5.27 that is really holy Yes But then by Church we must understand not the whole Universal Church but either that part of it which is really holy in this World or that Church which shall be hereafter when the corrupt Members shall be utterly cut off Neither is this to make two Churches but only to assign two different states of the same Church This being premis'd I shall prove these three Propositions 1. That an external profession of the Christan Faith is enough to qualify a person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church 2. That every such Member has a right to all the external privileges of the Church till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges 3. That some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of separation from her First then an external Profession of the Christian Faith made either by himself or by his Sureties is enough to qualify a Person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church For 1. This is the qualification prescrib'd by our Lord Go teach all Nations that is make Disciples of all Nations Baptizing them c. Matth. 28.19 Now the Pastors of the Church cannot know the sincerity of Mens hearts but their Profession of Christianity entitles them to baptism By this Rule the Apostles acted whilst Christ was upon Earth and Baptiz'd more than were sincere for of so many Persons that were Baptiz'd not above 120 continu'd with Christ to the last 2. By the same Rule they acted afterwards for St. Peter Baptiz'd about 3000 in one day upon their professing the Word Acts 2.41 tho' all wou'd not probably prove sincere and two of them Ananias and Sapphira were gross Hypocrites St. Philip Acts 8.12 Baptiz'd both Men and Women at Samaria and and amongst them was Simon Magus whom the holy Deacon might justly suspect for his former practices and whose Hypocrisie appear'd afterwards Such other Members of the Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander whose bare Profession Entitled them to that privilege 3. Christ foretels (a) Matth. 3.12 and 13.24 c. Joh. 15.1 that his Church shou'd consist of Good and Bad by comparing it to a Field of Wheat and Tares a Net of all sorts of Fishes a Flour of Corn and Chaff c. St. Paul saies (b) Rom. 9.6 they are not all Israel that are of Israel and Christ saies that many are call'd but few chosen 4. The many corrupt members (c) 1 Cor. 11.20 21. 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 1 Cor. 6. Gal. 3. Rev. 3. of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia prove the same For if the Apostles themselves admitted mere formal Professors we may conclude that they thought it God's Will that it shou'd be so 5. No other Rule in admitting Persons into the Church is practicable since the Officers of Christ cannot make a certain judgment of men because they themselves have short and fallible understandings Secondly therefore every such member has a right to all the External privileges of the Church till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges By External privileges I mean only a Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances for the pardon of sin and comforts of the Holy Ghost c. are Internal privileges which belong to none but the truly Good who are born not of water only but of the Spirit Now when a Man by gross and notorious wickedness has forfeited the Internal privileges of the Church he ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded from the External privileges also but till the sentence of the Church is past upon him we must not forsake the Church ourselves to avoid Communion with him because till then his right to them remains inviolable and that for several reasons 1. Because the Baptismal Covenant gives Men a right to God's Promises as far as they perform the conditions If a bare federal holiness gives Men a relation to God then it gives them a title to the blessings that belong to that relation Not that unworthy Men shall receive the special reward of the truly Good but they are to be allow'd the liberty to partake of those External blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole family 2. Church-Membership necessarily implies Church-Communion or else it signifies nothing For to what purpose is a Man a Member of a Society if he cannot enjoy the privileges of it 3. All the Jews were commanded to join in the public Worship tho' I doubt many of them were wicked Livers and therefore mere Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in it's most Solemn and Sacred Ordinances 4. It appears that St. Paul makes the Number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as great as that of those that were Baptiz'd For they were all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 that is in the Cup of the blessed Sacrament and all are partakers of one Bread 10.17 and we read that they all the 3000 Ananias and Sapphira being of the number continu'd in the Apostles Doctrine and in breaking of Bread and
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
Better Edification amongst the Dissenters and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England But First what Purer Ordinances wou'd Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Vertue and Efficacy The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is not any such defect or addition as alters their nature and destroys their Vertue but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which he likes best is guilty of gross Superstition and attributes the Vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution Secondly the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation For this Edification must be understood either of the whole Church or of particular Christians Now Edification is building up and is apply'd to the whole Church consider'd as God's House and Temple This is the true Scripture Notion of it as appears by many Texts 1 Cor. 3.9 10. and 8.1 and 14.5 12. Eph. 2.21 and 4.12 13 15 16. Matth. 21.42 Acts 4.11 2 Cor. 10.8 12 19. and 13.10 Now it 's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other As for the Edification of particular Persons which is also spoken of in Scripture 1 Thess 5.11 it is therefore call'd Edification because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church so that every Christian is Edify'd as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And indeed if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit than to the external administrations as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 3.6 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church there being but one Body and one Spirit Eph. 4.4 then it do's not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christ's Body St. Jude v. 19. seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most Holy Faith and Pray'd in the Holy Ghost and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God if he continue in the Church than if he separate But I shall examine this pretence at large and shew that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings than in our Churches as will appear if we consider First how fit our constitution is to Edify Mens Souls Secondly that this constitution is well manag'd for Edification First then That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls will appear if we consider Four things 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith that are necessary to Salvation but we have no nice and obscure matters in them We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful that is all that Christ and his Apostles taught and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church laies upon a good Life and Works The Articles of her Creed when firmly believ'd do plainly tend to make Men good She declares that without preparatory Vertues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God and that it is but show unless obedience follow Such a Faith she laies down as Fundamental to Salvation as produces excellent Vertues and determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God Her Festivals commemorate the Vertues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent her Prayers are for Holiness her Discipline is to force and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety which her whole constitution aims at She tells Sinners plainly that unless they repent they must perish and saies that plain Vertues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edify'd by such a Church as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion because she gives us true Notions of God and our selves by describing his attributes and our wants Her Prayers are grave and of a due length and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience The Offices of the Lord's Supper Baptism and Burial are extremely good in their kind Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion and they will make the Church a Choire of Angels 4. Her Order and Discipline are such that she makes Religion neither slovenly nor too gay Wise and good Men have judg'd all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful and they are of great Antiquity and fit to make our Services comely And truly whilst we have Bodies these outward helps are very convenient if not necessary Her Goverment is so well temper'd that her Members may not be dissolute nor her Rulers insolent And if all Vices are not chastiz'd the reason is because unnecessary divisions have stopp'd her Discipline upon offenders Her Goverment is Apostolical Primitive and Universal None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her but considering all things she is the best constituted Church in the World If therefore (a) Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 15.2 1 Cor. 14.3 Edification be going on to perfection or growing in grace if it is doing good to the Souls of Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men then it is to be found in this Church Secondly that our Constitution is well manag'd for Edification will appear if we consider 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edify Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these commands are obey'd by our Pastors For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion who have honesty and judgment enough to confess that they have found it true and to say that they are prejudiced and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is uncharitable Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Goverment condemn'd the Separation Magnify'd our Pastors and wish'd they were under such a Discipline and Translated many of our Mens Works to Edify their People Dissenters
in these by the help of our Sermons the fault must be either in the Matter of the Sermon or in the manner of it And as for the former of these I can scarce think that any Dissenter will except against our Sermons upon that account they being taken out of the Scriptures which were never better open'd and apply'd than in our Sermons I am sure all heavenly truths are faithfully declar'd in them Matters of Controversy are rarely handled in our Pulpits for the drift of our Preachers is to make the People good They resolve Cases of Conscience and press the motives to believe and the arguments to convince Men of their duty They condemn all Vices recommend all Vertues and apply the Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel And if Men cannot profit where such things are constantly well managed I am sure the fault do's not lie in the Matter of the Sermons but somewhere else If some say that the Matter is good but the manner is such that they cannot reap the like benefit by them as by the Non-Conformists Preaching I answer that the fault must then lie either in the Composition or the Delivery First as to the Composition I am confident that never did Men more endeavour after clear method and plain Language than our Preachers now do If it be objected that they do not keep the old method of Doctrine Reason and Vse I answer that they alwaies chuse it when it is natural but the ancient Doctors never observ'd any constant Rule and yet the People profited much more than they do now Secondly as to the Delivery if it be objected that our Preachers are not vehement enough I answer that they are when the Matter requires it but vehemence loses it's effect if it be spent upon all things alike Vehemence do's not consist in the strength of voice nor yet in that heat of temper which makes some Men speak earnestly when they are not so deeply affected as some of cooler tempers are Sedate Men may instruct and move by the help of serious consideration and those affections that are rais'd without it are little worth But neither all your Men nor all ours have the same voice or the same temper and therefore this can be no more hindrance to Edification among us than among you If reading of Sermons be objected I answer that some of our Preachers use no notes in the Pulpit others read but little and if a Man will but turn his head another way and not look upon the Preacher a Sermon that is read altogether will sound as well as if it were pronounced without book If reading make a thing unprofitable the Bible when 't is read must be unprofitable and it must be got without book to make it Edifying Besides some famous Preachers of your own read every word and therefore you may profit by ours as well as by them But I fear that when Men complain they cannot profit by our Sermons they mean nothing but that our Preachers do not move their affections as the Non-Conformists do To this I cou'd say much but it will be sufficient to mention only three things 1. Your Men and ours have several Talents some for informing the judgment others for moving the affections and others for both All your Men do not move you alike and yet you make such account of all that you think it a very disorderly thing for People to run from their own to another Minister tho' of the same way merely to have the affections more mov'd Because 2. It is far from profiting by Sermons to be tickl'd for a while and never to grow the better for them 3. The chief thing is this that affections rais'd merely by the earnestness of the Preacher are nothing comparable to those which we raise by consideration and reflection upon what we have heard And these affections our Sermons will certainly raise if you will take a little pains with your selves and lay them close to your Consciences Now since our Sermons cannot be blam'd I pray consider where the fault must lie if you cannot profit by them I beseech you in the fear of God by whose Word we must one day be all judg'd to consider impartially and ask your Consciences such Questions as these 1. Had you not some prejudice against the Minister you came to hear either for his Conformity or his strictness in it and the like If you had such prejudices bar the heart so strongly against the most excellent instructions that a Man will not profit by them 2. Did you not come to Church but once or twice and then conclude too hastily that there was no good to be gotten there and were you not willing to have this excuse for absenting your self wholly from it Had you attended much perhaps you had never left it Try again for some time and when you are acquainted with your Minister's method and stile and way of reasoning his Sermons may be clear easy and awakening to you The Scriptures themselves are obscure to the best of us till we are acquainted with them and if they had been treated as our Sermons are I mean rejected because they are not presently understood they had been thrown away long since as unprofitable 3. Did you not leave the Church because when you came the Minister happen'd to Treat of a Subject cross to your opinion Hasty persons fling away from those that contradict them but had you had patience you might have been profited and convinced by such Discourses 4. Was not the Minister when you chanc'd to go to Church treating of some distastful Subject which you love not to hear of Was it not Schism or Disobedience to Governours It is certain there are such sins which are very dangerous and he ought to Treat of them some time or other and if he Preach of Vnity and Obedience may not you profit by it I doubt you have heard some of your own Ministers speak harder words of Conformity and Conformists than you wou'd have had them and you fancy you can profit even by those Sermons why then shou'd you leave our Ministers because they press some duties more strictly than you like Do not many of your own way complain of their unprofitableness under your own Ministers which arises perhaps from a natural dulness and will not prejudice passion and disaffection to the way of worship or to any Christian Doctrine hinder profiting much more than natural indisposition So that if you complain of deadness and unprofitableness under our Ministry it is no more than many do under your own You shou'd not rashly conclude our Ministry to be Unedifying but rather suspect your selves to be guilty Those also who fancy that tho' they can profit something by our Ministry yet they can profit more by others ought to consider the same things and ask their own consciences the same questions Do's not this conceit arise from the foremention'd causes Are you not more earnestly press'd in our
this is not the least that God's public Worship is perform'd among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is But I will transcribe no more only I shall earnestly desire two things First that you wou'd consider seriously how you wou'd have lik'd what I have transcrib'd from Mr. Hildersham if one of our Men had Preach'd it especially if he added that for the Reverence of God's public Worship care shou'd be taken that the place where the Congregation Assembleth may be decent and comely and that 't is a foul sin and contempt of God's house to be careless about the Neatness of it If you wou'd have thought it unprofitable then consider why such things as please out of one Man's mouth shou'd displease out of another's Is it not manifest that partiality makes you not profit by our Sermons Or if you cou'd not like such Discourses either from Non-Conformists or our Ministers then are you not mistaken about profiting by Sermons when you think those discourses unprofitable which sober Men of all sides have thought necessary For Mr. Hildersham saies Prophaness and Atheism hath made us too void of all care in beautifying the house of God Secondly If you think such a Sermon profitable consider whether you have learnt so much out of Scripture as to study and observe those Rules Do you for instance pay Reverence to God's house and come at the beginning of Service and stand up and kneel with the Congregation c If you do not then the fault is not in our Sermons that you do not profit for you do not profit by the Scriptures themselves which plainly teach these things To conclude if we have all things necessary to the building us up in our most Holy Faith in the Communion of the Church it will be but a poor excuse for our Dividing from it that we hoped to be better Edify'd when we had no encouragement at all to hope it as long as we continu'd in the state of Separation upon this Pretence For it is the Blessing of God alone and not any Man's Skill in dispensing them that can make the word and ordinances any way beneficial to us With the help of his grace those means of Instruction which we undervalue most may be profitable to our Salvation Without it our Ears may be tickled and our Fancies pleasantly entertain'd for the time but we cannot be truly Edify'd by the most fluent and popular Tongue or the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World CHAP. XI The pretence of it's being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England Answer'd HAving Answer'd the most considerable Objections against our Communion I am now to deal with such Persons as separate from us tho' they have nothing to object against us such as pretend that they are not satisfy'd in our way that 't is against their Conscience to join with us or that they doubt of the lawfulness of our Communion or at least they scruple it But I shall shew that these excuses are utterly insignificant and that they cannot escape the wrath of God who commit a sin and think to cover it by pretending Conscience for it But before I enter upon these Matters I shall lay down the Principles I mean to proceed upon by treating distinctly on these Five Heads 1. Of the Nature of Conscience 2. Of the Rule of Conscience 3. Of the Power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience And particularly 4. In the instances of Church-Communion 5. Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by it in his actions I. Then to find out the Nature of Conscience let us consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to use it Now as to this I observe First that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own actions We do not for instance make it a point of Conscience whether a thing be true or false or whether an accident be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man has done well or ill These things indeed may please or trouble us but our Conscience is affected only with that which is willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly We never use the Word Conscience about our actions but only so far as those actions are to be directed by some Law or Rule with which if they agree they are good and if they disagree they are evil Thirdly Our actions as we concern our Conscience in them are either already done or not already done But whether they are done or not done whether past or future they are either commanded by God and so they are Duties or forbidden by God and so they are Sins or neither commanded nor forbidden and so they are indifferent actions Our actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under these considerations and in all these respects we mean the same thing by Conscience For First If the action be not already done we think it either commanded by God and say we are bound in Conscience or think it our duty to do it or forbidden by God and say it is against our Conscience or we think it a sin to do it or else we think it is indifferent and say we may do it with a safe Conscience that is we believe the action may be done without transgressing any Law of God This is undeniably every Man's meaning when he talks of Conscience as to actions that are not yet done Secondly If we speak of our actions that are done and past saying my Conscience bears me witness or I am satisfy'd or troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done we mean nothing more than this that reflecting upon our own actions we find that we have either done as we are convinc'd we ought to do and this is a satisfaction to us or not done as we ought to do and the remembrance of this troubles us But in all these Cases we mean the same thing by Conscience to wit our Judgment and Persuasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do Only in the first sort Conscience is consider'd as the guide of actions to be done and in the second sort as the witness of those that are already done but in both sorts Conscience is the same thing to wit the Judgment of a Man's mind concerning the Morality of his Actions This is the true Notion of Conscience in general but if we put Epithets to it and talk of a good or evil Conscience a tender Conscience or the like then it includes more than I am now concern'd to give an account of II. I proceed to the Rule of Conscience It appears by what I have said that Conscience must alwaies have a Rule to follow For since Conscience is a Man's judgment about actions as good or bad or indifferent it is certain a Man must have some measure by applying
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
to this Principle no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho' a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great Evil or general Mischief They are not fit to be put in the ballance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devis'd that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we cou'd invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no Man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration till it comes to be try'd yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determin'd some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere express'd like knocking a Man on the Head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion CHAP. XIV The pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd BUT there are some who tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is injoin'd by the Church of England but then there are many other godly but weaker Christians of another persuasion with whom they have long been join'd And shou'd they now totally forsake them and Conform they shou'd thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinc'd of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church Which sin say they is so very great that our Saviour tells us Matth. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a mill-stone were hang'd about his neck and that he were drown'd in the depth of the sea and in St. Paul's account 't is no less than spiritual murther a destroying him for whom Christ dy'd Rom. 14.15 These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter by shewing that No private Christian as the case now stands amongst us is obliged to absent himself from his Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his Weak Brethren And this I shall do by inquiring 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother 2. What it is to Offend such an one 3. How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother I. Then a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3.1 Conversion to Christianity is call'd our New-birth and the Converts were for a while reckon'd as in an infant State and accordingly were to be most gently us'd till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age Heb. 5.14 They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines and great Prudence and Caution was to be us'd toward them lest they shou'd suddenly fly back and repent of their change For they having been Jews and Gentiles retain'd still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old Man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable The stronger and wiser Christians wou'd not stand rigidly on any little Matters but Tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now labour'd under Hence I observe 1. That the Rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suted to the Infant-state of the Church till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World The Apostle's design in all his complyances was to win many to Christ 1 Cor. 9.19 Now to do as St. Paul did wou'd alwaies be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times wherein Christianity is the National Religion than the same Cloaths which we did wear in our Infancy wou'd serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of Childrens way lest they stumble and fall but 't is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions but every one learns Christianity as he do's his Mother-Tongue St. Paul wou'd not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself labour'd hard night and day because he wou'd not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2.9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where public maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers and those who call them Hirelings and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre In short there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provides or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concern'd 2. The Dissenters according to their weak opinion of themselves are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only sober and godly Party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or Regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers or
Table-gâ—sture and expresses Fellowship with Christ c. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace and yet 't is not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper 4. And lastly Suppose that an Independent when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant shou'd signify his assent by holding up his hand or the like this is an outward and visible sign of no less then a new state of life that is of being made a Member of Christ's Church and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it and yet this was never charg'd upon them by the Presbyterians as introducing a New Sacrament Now from all these instances 't is evident how unreasonable a thing it is that our using the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he the Infant shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ crucify'd c. shou'd be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But 't is objected that our Convocation c. 30. declares That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated c. Now say they Baptism is it self a Seal of Dedication to God and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross is adding a New Sacrament To this I answer that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptiz'd Person and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration That this is the meaning of our Church is evident if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together Both the Rubric and Canon say that Baptism is compleat without the sign of the Cross It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock before 't is sign'd with the Cross Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism is acknowledg'd compleat without or before the sign of the Cross we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism that is the one is the sign of the Dedication and the other the Dedication it self So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptiz'd Person is admitted to and what engagement he lies under Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number We receive this Child c. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. whereas in Baptism the Minister alone as the immediate Agent of Christ pronounces in the singular number I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From what has been said I hope it appears that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it that may in the least justify a separation from us CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd THO' the Communion-Office for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferr'd by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet it has not past free from exception For I. 'T is objected against it that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body and our Souls wash'd by his most precious Blood implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleans'd by the Blood of Christ and only the Body by Christ's Body But I answer that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine the Priest saies The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was c. And therefore 't is plain that our Church teaches that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ Nor do's the mentioning of one alone exclude the other for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone 1 Cor. 10.17 and sometimes of the Wine alone 1 Cor. 12.13 and yet all Men must grant that he meant both II. 'T is said that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person 's hands with a Form of words recited to every one of them as we do But I answer 1. That this do's not appear from Christ's words for the Evangelists may well be suppos'd to give a short account of the Institution and then what might be particularly said or done to every one wou'd be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all 2. Suppose that our practice do's vary from this circumstance of the Institution it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinner-time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Man think that when great numbers are to be Baptiz'd together the Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. may not lawfully be express'd severally to every Person And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsutable to the Institution of Christ or the nature of the Sacrament and the alteration of it wou'd be for the worse and abate the Solemnity of its Administration See Falkner 's Libert Eccles p. 218 c. III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament and therefore I shall consider it largely and endeavour to shew 1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament 2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example 3. That 't is not unsutable for its being no Table-gesture 4. That 't is not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages 5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes First then Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other and if Authority did not restrain our Liberty we might either sit kneel or stand without the least violation of the Law of God The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament which the Scripture relates in several places (a) Matth. 26.26 c. Mark 14.22 c. Luke 22.19 c. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. were the Representatives
of the whole Church and are to be consider'd under a double capacity either as Governours and Ministers Intrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administring the Sacrament or as ordinary and Lay-communicants If we consider them as Governours and Stewards of the Mysteries their duty to which they are oblig'd by the express Command of their Lord is to take the Bread into their hands to Bless and Consecrate it to that Mysterious and Divine use to which he design'd it to break and distribute it and so in the like manner to take and bless the Cup and give it to their Fellow-Christians But if we consider them as Private Men and in common with all Believers their duty was to take and receive the Bread and Wine and to eat and drink in Commemoration of Christ's Love But what syllable or shadow of a Command is there in all the History for the use of any gesture in the act of receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter it 's silence is a full and clear demonstration that kneeling is not repugnant to any express command of our Lord because no gesture was ever commanded at all But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm that when our Lord Commanded his Disciples to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he us'd at that time as well as to take eat drink c. To this I answer 1. That if our Lord did sit at the Institution which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason to think that He intended by these words do this to oblige us to observe this Gesture only and not several other circumstances which he observ'd at the same time as well as this For Example if the words may be Interpreted thus Do this that is sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is Celebrate the Sacrament in an Upper-room in a Private-house late at night or in the evening after a full Supper in the Company of Twelve at most and they only Men with their Heads cover'd according to the Custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lies as great an obligation upon us to observe all those circumstances in imitation of our Lord as there do's to sit 2. Even the two last of those circumstances are generally allow'd but all the rest are mention'd in Scripture and were most certainly observ'd by Christ whereas the gesture us'd by them is not mention'd and what it was is very disputable as I shall afterwards prove How then can any Man think himself oblig'd in Conscience to do what Christ is not expreslly said to do and not oblig'd to do what the Scripture expresly saies he did 3. 'T is clear from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. that do this respects only the Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Blood of Christ and actions that are specify'd by him which are essential to the right and due Celebration of that Holy Feast For when 't is said Do this in remembrance of me and this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me and as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 't is plain that do this must be restrain'd to the Sacramental actions there mention'd and not extended to the gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it and consequently do this is a general Command obliging us only to such particular actions and rites as he had instituted and made necessary to be us'd in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that bloody Sacrifice which he offer'd upon the Cross for us miserable Sinners Nay the Practice of our Dissenters proves that no particular gesture is commanded For there are many serious and sincere Persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty they cou'd use kneeling as well as any other gesture but they think that an indifferent thing becomes unlawful when 't is injoin'd by Authority I have already confuted this opinion but 't is certain that by granting they cou'd use the posture of kneeling were it not injoin'd and consequently that 't is in it's own nature indifferent they do thereby grant that there is no Command for any particular posture I must add that the Reform'd Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia stand the Dutch generally sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they stand The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustane Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden thro' Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuania and Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were Reform'd by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffer'd Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time and those of the Ausbourg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reform'd by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so call'd But these Churches so early reform'd and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church injoins at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetic Confession did in three (b) 1. At Cracow Anno Dom. 1573. 2. Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3. Wiadislaw 1583. general Synods unanimously condemn the sitting Gesture tho' they esteem'd it in it self lawful as being scandalous for this remarkable Reason viz. because it was us'd by the Arians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change sitting into kneeling or standing both which Ceremonies we indifferently leave free according as the custom of any Church has obtain'd and we approve of their use without scandal and blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which uses Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemn'd Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French (c) Harmon 4. Synods of Holl. do and at last conclude thus These Articles are so setled by mutual consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be chang'd augmented or diminish'd What now shou'd be the ground and reason of this Variety
and as to the truth of the Matters of fact she places it not in the testimony of any particular Church but in the Vniversal Tradition of Jews and Pagans as well as of all Christians II. I am to shew that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing The Dissenters tell us that those things which are indifferent in their own nature do cease to be indifferent and become sinful if they have been us'd by the Church of Rome For say they we read Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances Now not to insist on the vast difference of our circumstances from those of the Israelites I answer that it is an absurd thing to imagin that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be obliged to be unlike those People in all their actions The things forbidden from verse 5 th to 24 th are not Indifferent but Incestuous Copulations and acts of uncleaness and God do's expresly enough restrain that general Prohibition to those particulars in saying v. 24 th Defile not your selves in any part of these things for in all these the Nations are defil'd which I cast out before you And they were therefore forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites because they were the doings of those People whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even in their greatest immoralities If it be said that in other places God forbids the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in things of an indifferent nature I answer 1. That supposing this were so it do's not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But 2. That God has any where prohibited the Israelites to symbolize with Heathens in things of a mere indifferent and innocent nature I mean that he has made it unlawful for them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens merely upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.2 You shall not cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who sees not that 't is unnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by cutting off their Eye-brows this was not merely indifferent neither it being a Custom at Funerals misbecoming the People of God and which wou'd make them look as if they sorrow'd for the Dead as Men without Hope Another place is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse Kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled Seed nor shall a garment of linnen and woollen come upon thee But I answer that tho' these things are indeed indifferent in their own nature yet they are forbidden not because the Heathens us'd them but because they were mystical instructions in moral duties If it be objected also that God forbad the Jews Hos 2.16 17. to call him by the Name of Baali which was a very good Name and signify'd only My Lord because that word was abus'd in being the name of the Idol Baal I answer that God did not forbid the Name Baali because an Idol was call'd by that Name for he is call'd Baal in other places of the Hebrew Bible and also Jah which the Heathens us'd for an Idol but because the word Baali signifies an unkind husband or Lord such as Baal was to his worshippers whereas God Promises he wou'd be call'd Ishi that is a tenderly-loving husband for he design'd to be kind to his People Israel I shall add that Baalim in the next verse signifies Idols which God there Promises to destroy But suppose that God forbad the Jews to call him Baal for the future yet it might be because of their vehement inclination to the worship of Baal lest by using it they shou'd be tempted to worship him again whereas our Ceremonies were us'd by the ancient Fathers without any Superstition or Idolatry and we are not in danger of returning to Popery by retaining them Well but they say it appears from Scripture-precepts and examples that it is unlawful to symbolize with the Church of Rome in things that have been notoriously abus'd in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services To this I answer First that it is not sinful to use those things which have been abus'd to Idolatry as I shall prove by these following Arguments 1. No abuse of any Gesture tho' it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be us'd in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in it's own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abus'd by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be us'd at all then the Jews sinn'd in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observ'd in the worship of their false gods If the Dissenters say they except all such Rites as were commanded or approv'd of by God I reply that such an exception avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be us'd at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what has been once abus'd must ever remain so that is an infinite Power can't undo what has been done and clear it from ever having been abus'd And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practise in the worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry For if it be God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position wou'd plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This principle intrenches upon Christian liberty if St. Paul himself may judge who tells us 1 Cor. 10.25 c. that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and to eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture