before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED And the Lawfulness of it shew'd from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Perswasions Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlesly expose themselves to The Second Edition corrected by the Author LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M. DC LXXXIV TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England Dear Brethren YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it It 's both your Duty and Interest to enquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws Communion with the Church of God and thereby expose our Religion to danger and your selves to suffering In which unless the Cause be good the Call clear and Mr. Mede 's Farewel Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3. the End right it cannot bring Peace to your selves or be acceptable to God Not bring Peace to your selves For we cannot suffer joyfully the Mr. Read 's Case p. 4. spoiling of our Goods the confinement of our Persons the ruin of our Families unless Conscience be able truly to say I would have done any thing but sin against God that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God to whom all are accountable Continuat of Morn Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92. for what Portion he hath intrusted them with of the things of this Life and are not to throw away without sufficient reason and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us as you are told by some Read Ibid. in the same condition with your selves To assist Persons in this Enquiry I have observed that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question and have handled them with that Candor and Calmness which becomes their Profession and the gravity of the Arguments and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied to peruse and consider them But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons to remove as much as may be that Obstruction I have in this Treatise shewed that these Authors are not alone but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them who do generally grant that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it The sence of many of these I have here collected and for one hundred I could easily have produced two if the Cause were to go by the Poll So that if Reason or Authority will prevail I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church is not to be despaired of Which God of his infinite Mercy grant for your own and the Churches sake Amen THE CONTENTS THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1 The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church p. 4 That they are not totally to separate from it p. 12 That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can p. 16 That Defects in Worship if not Essential are no just reason for Separation p. 23 That the expectation of better Edification is no sufficient reason to with-hold Communion p. 39 The badness of Ministers will not justify Separation p. 48 The neglect or want of Discipline no sufficient reason to separate p. 59 The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England which its Lay-Members are concerned in p. 64 That Forms of Prayer are lawful and do not stint the Spirit ibid. That publick prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with p. 66 That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is for its Matter sound and good and for its Form tolerable if not useful p. 69 That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous nor unlawful and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance p. 71 72 That standing up at the Creed and Gospel is lawful p. 73 The Conclusion ibid. THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks Ecclesiastical and Civil usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity Ministers and People The Clergy besides the things essentially belonging to their Office are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions or both to own and maintain the Doctrine Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted Thus in the Church of England they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Christians which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers But the Laity are under no such Obligations there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them nor any thing more than to attend upon and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church Thus it is in the Church of England as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to whom when it Defence of the Cure part 2. pag. 29. was objected that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion he replies What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches but your actual Communion it self In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all It 's observed by one That the Original of all Our Mischiefs A Book licensed by Mr. Cranford sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God tho performed by the Liturgy than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths c. Certainly if this Difference were but observ'd and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood the People would not be far more
averse to Communion Baxter's Cure p. 311. with the Parish-Churches than the Nonconforming Ministers are as one complains and whatsoever they might think of the Conformity of Ministers because of the previous Terms required of them they would judg what is required of the People to be lawful as some Continuat Morning Exercise Serm. 4. p. 89. of them do And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the People's may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private Capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the the Ministers but widely different from it would be induced to hold Communion with the Church and to joyn with those of their Ministers that think it their Duty so to do and are therein of the opinion of the old Non-Conformists that did not act * * * Rathband's Epistle to the Reader prefixed to the grave and modest Confutation c. as if there were no middle between Separation from the Church and true Worship thereof and Subscription unto or Practice or Approbation of all the Corruptions of the same For †††Nichol's plea for the Puritans though they would not subscribe to the Ceremonies yet they were against Separation from God's publick Worship as one of them in the name of the rest doth declare So that as great a Difference as there is betwixt Presence and Consent betwixt bare Communion and Approbation betwixt the Office of the Minister and the Attendance of a private Person so much is there betwixt the Case of Ministerial and Lay-Communion And therefore when we consider the Case of Lay-Communion we are only to respect what is required of the People what part they are to have and exercise in Communion with the Church Now what they are concerned in are either the Forms that are imposed the Gestures they are to use and the Times they are to observe for the Celebration of Divine Worship or the Ministration which they may be remotely suppos'd also to be concerned in The lawfulness of all which and of all things required in Lay-Communion amongst us I shall not undertake to prove and maintain by Arguments taken from those that already are in full Communion with the Church of England and so are obliged to justify it but from those that in some things do differ from it who may therefore be supposed to be impartial and whose Reasons may be the more heeded as coming from themselves and from such that are forward in other respects to own the Miscarriages of the Church as those that wholly separate from it For the better understanding of the Case and of their Judgment in it I shall consider 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England 2. What Opinion they have had of Communion with that Church 3. What Opinion they have had of such Practices and Usages in that Church as Lay-men are concerned in 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England And that will appear in these two things First That they owne her to be a true Church Secondly To be a Church in the main very valuable First They own her to be a true Church Thus Mr. Baily saith of the old Non-Conformists They Disswasive â— 2. p. 21. did always plead against the Corruptions of the Church of England but never against the Truth of her Being or the Comfort of her Communion And as much is affirmed of the present by a grave and sober Person amongst them The Presbyterians generally hold the Church of Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. England to be a true Church though defective in its Order and Discipline Thus it 's acknowledged in the name of the rest by one that undertakes their Defence and would defend them in their Separation We acknowledg the Church of England to be a true Church Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 13. and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them This they do not only barely assert but also undertake to prove This is done by the old Non-Conformists in their Confutation of the Brownists who thus begin That the Church of England is a true A grave and sober Confut. p. 1. c. p. 57. Church of Christ and such an one as from which whosoever wittingly and willingly separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ we doubt not but the indifferent Reader may be perswaded by these Reasons following 1. We enjoy and joyn together in the use of those outward means which God hath ordained in his Word for the gathering of a visible Church and have been effectual to the unfeigned Conversion of many as may appear both by the other Fruits of Faith and by the Martyrdom which sundry have endured that were Members of our Church c. 2. Our whole Church maketh Profession of the true Faith The Confession of our Church together with the Apology thereof and those Articles of Religion which were agreed upon in the Convocation-House Anno 1562. whereunto every Minister of the Land is bound to subscribe so far forth as they contain the Confession of Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments do prove this evidently c. So Mr. Ball Wheresoever we see the Word of God Friendly Tryal of the Gâ—ounds of Separat c. 13â— p 306. truly taught and professed in Points fundamental and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred there is the true Church of Christ though the Health and Soundness of it may be crazed by many Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in the Life and Manners of Men. As much as this is also affirmed in the Letters passed betwixt the Ministers of Old-England A. Letter of many Ministers in Old-England to others in New England p. 24. and New-England It is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it be laid upon Christ the Foundation which being done the remaining of what is forbidden or the want of what is commanded cannot put the Society from the Title or Right of a true Church And if we enquire into the Judgment of the present Non-Conformists we shall find them likewise arguing for it Thus the Author to Jerubbaal The Jerubbaal or the Pleader impleaded p. 18 27. Essentials constitutive of a true Church are 1. The Head 2. The Body 3. The Union that is between them Which three concurring in the Church of England Christ being the professed Head she being Christ's professed Body and the Catholick Faith being the Union-band whereby they are coupled together she cannot in justice be denied a true though God knows far from a pure Church If we should proceed in this Argument and consider the Particulars I might fill a Volume with Testimonies of this kind 1. The Doctrine of the Church is universally held to be true and sound even the Brownists owned it of
old in their calm mood who declare We testify to all Brownists Apol p. 7. An. 1604. Men by these Presents That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true ancient Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them See more in Baily's Disswasive cap. 2. p. 20 33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Part 1. § 9. p. 31. The Presbyterians if I may so call them for distinction sake do own it So Mr. Corbet The Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments by Discourse § 21 p. 43. Law established is heartily received by the Non-conformists So Mr. Baxter As for the Doctrine of the Church of England Preface to 5 Disp p. 6. the Bishops and their Followers from the first Reformation begun by Edw. 6. were sound in Doctrine adhering to the Augustan Method express'd now in the Articles and Homilies they differ'd not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritans The like is affirmed by the Independents The Confession of the Church of Peace-Offer ing p. 12. See Mr. Baxter's Defence of his Cure Part 1. p. 64. and Part 2. p. 3. and Wadsworth in his Separation yet no Schism p. 60 62. Mr. Throughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists cap. 3. p. 106. England declared in the Articles of Religion and herein what is purely doctrinal we fully embrace 2. As to the Worship they own it for the Matter and Substance to be good and for Edification So the old Non-Conformists as Mr. Hildersham There is Lecture 26. on John p. 121. nothing in our Assemblies but we may receive profit by it c. And again There is nothing done in God's Publick Worship among us but what is done by the Institution Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. So among the present it is owned by both Presbyterians and Independents by the former in the Morning Exercise Continuat Morning Exercise Serm 4. p. 91. Why may it not be supposeable that Christians may be moved by reasonable Considerations to attend the publick Forms the substantial Parts of them being thought agreeable to a Divine Institution though in some Circumstantials too disagreeable So it is acknowledged That in Throughton's Apol. p. 104. private Meetings the same Doctrine and Worship is used as in the Parish Churches only some Circumstances and Ceremonies omitted By the latter We know full well that we Peace-Offering p. 17. differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion established in England but only in some few things in outward Worship But I shall have further occasion to treat of this under the third General 3. As for the Ministry of the Church 1. It is acknowledged to be true and for substance the same which Christ hath established So Mr. Bradshaw I Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 16. affirm That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies howsoever it may in some particular parts of the Execution haply be defective in some Places is for the Substance thereof that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church This he speaks as he saith of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State 2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office so the grave and modest Confutation maintains The preaching of the whole Truth of God's Word Grave and modest Confutat p. 28. and nothing but it the Administration of the Sacraments and of Publick Prayer as they are of all parts of the Ministers Office prescribed in the Word so they are all appointed to our Ministers by the Law 3. They own That all the Defects in it whether in their Call or Administration do not nullify the Office Thus much Mr. Bradshaw doth contend for So many of our Ministers Unreasonableness of Separation p. 27 37. who in the Book of Ordination are called Priests and Deacons as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry are qualified according to the intent of the Laws have their Offices Callings Adminstration and Maintenance for the Substance thereof ordained by Christ And yet I deny not but there may be some accidental Defects or Superfluities in or about them all yet such as do not or cannot be proved to destroy the Nature and Substance of any of them This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England c. p. 86 87. And the like is also affirmed even by those of the Apologet. Narration p. 6. Congregational Way so the Brethren in their Apology The unwarrantable Power in Church-Governours did never work in any of us any other Thought much less Opinion but that the Ministry thereof of the English Churches was a true Ministry So Mr. Cotton The Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. Power whereby the Ministers in England do administer the Word and Sacraments is either spiritual and proper essential to their Calling or advantitious and accidental The former they have received from Christ c. The latter from the Patron who presents or the Bishop who ordains c. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordination defended may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici part 2 p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Divinum Regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism pag. 116. and his Defence of it pag. 35 37. Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed that the Church of England is a true Church in its Doctrine Worship and Ministry But when we come to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true there we shall find that they do differ The Presbyterians generally own a National Church and have writ much in the behalf of it as may be seen in the Books quoted in the * * * Jus Divinum Minist Evang. p 12 c. Brinsly's Church-remedy p 41 42. Cawdry Independ a great Schism p. 60 89 172. Margin Others look upon it as a prudential thing and what may lawfully be complied with So Mr. Tombs | | | Theodulia or just Defence § 15 16. Preface c. 9. § 3. It is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England the Church of England than it is to term Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any Institution of our Lord more for the one than the other But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a Constitution or that speak doubtfully of it do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches It 's acknowledged by all that the Distribution into Parishes is not of Divine but Humane Institution but withal its thought by some * * * Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh clouded p. 101 c. Cawdrey's Independ a great Schism p. 132 c. Church-Reformation p. 42. agreeable to the reason of the
thing and somewhat favoured by Scripture and by Experience has been found to be of such Convenience Advantage and Security to Religion that Mr. Baxter hath more than once said †††Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace Epist Serm. on Gal. 6. 10. p. 24. Defence p. 21. par 1. p. 36. I doubt not but he that will preserve Religion here in its due Advantages must endeavour to preserve the Soundness Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches And Mr. Corbet saith | | | Mr. Corbet's Account of the Principles c. of several Non-Conformists p. 26. That the nullifying and treading down the Parish-Churches is a Popish Design But whatever Opinion others may have of that Form yet all of one sort and another agree that the Churches so called are or may be true Churches This was the general Opinion of the old Non-Conformists Thus saith a late * * * Troughton's Apol. p. 103. Writer who though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church yet doth admit as he needs must at least that they did own the several Parishes or Congregations in England to be true Churches both in respect of their Constitution and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship and that there were in them no such intolerable Corruptions as that all Christians should fly from them And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church did so declare It was saith Mr. Baxter the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy Defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. V. Letter of Ministers of Old England to New p. 49. which Mr. H. Jacob the Father of the Congregational Party wrote for Communion with against Fr. Johnson and in respect to which he called them Separatists against whom he wrote The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw Dr. Ames and other Non-conformists whom the Congregational Brethren think were favourable to their way And if you will hearken to the abovesaid Apologist he saith again and again That the general Sence Apol. c. 4. p. â—17 of the present Non-conformists both Ministers and People is that the Parishes of England generally are true Churches both as to the Matter of them the People being Christians and as to the form their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine and Manners deserve not to be degraded But lest he should be thought to incline to one side I shall produce the Testimony of such as are of the Congregational Way As for those of New-England Mr. Baxter doth say That Defence of his Cure part 2 p. 177. their own Expressions signify that they take the English Parishes that have godly Ministers for true Churches though faulty Mr. Cotton professeth that Robinson's denial of Way cleared p. 8. the Parishional Churches to be true Churches was never received into any Hearts amongst them and otherwhere saith We dare not deny to bless the Womb that bare us His Letter p. 3. printed 1641. and the Papes that gave us suck The five Dissâ—nting Brethren do declare * * * Apologet. Narr V. Hooker's Survey Pref. and part 1. p. 47. We have this sincere Profession to make before God and the World that all the Conscience of the Defilements in the Church of England c. did never work in us any other Thought much less Opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the true Churches and Body of Christ To come nearer Dr. T. Goodwin On the Ephes p. 477 488 489. doth condemn it as an Error in those who hold particular Churches those you call Parish-Churches to be no true Churches of Christ and their Ministers to be no true Ministers and upon that Ground forbear all Church-Communion with them in hearing or in any other Ordinance c. and saith I acquitted my self before from this and my Brethren in the Ministry But the Church of England is not only thus acknowledged a true Church but hath been also looked upon as the most valuable in the World whether we consider the Church it self or those that minister in it The Church it self of which the Authors of the grave and modest Confutation thus write All the known Pag. 6. Churches in the World acknowledg our Church for their Sister and give unto us the Right-hand of Fellowship c. Dr. Goodwin saith If we should not acknowledg these Ibid. Churches so stated i. e. Parish-Churches to be the true Churches of Christ and their Ministers true Ministers and their Order such and hold Communion with them too in the Sence spoken of we must acknowledg no Church in all the Reformed Churches c. for they are all as full of Mixtures as ours And Mr. J. Goodwin saith Sion College visited that there was more of the Truth and Power of Religion in England under the late Prelatical Government than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England as it was then Mr. Bradshaw Unreasonableness of the Separat p. 97. gives it Our Churches are not inferiour for number of able Men yea and painful Ministers to any of the Reformed Churches of Christ in foreign Parts c. And certainly the Number of such is much advanced since his time But I cannot say more of this Subject than I find in a Page or two of an Author I must frequently Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 56. p. 263. use to which I refer the Reader Before I proceed I shall only make this Inference from what hath been said That if the Church of England be a true Church the Churches true Churches the Ministry a true Ministry the Doctrine sound and Orthodox the Worship in the main good and allowable and the Defects such as render not the Ordinances unacceptable to God and ineffectual to us I think there is much said towards the proving Communion with that Church lawful and to justify those that do joyn in it Which brings to the second General which is to consider II. What Opinion the sober and eminent Non-conformists Sect. II. have of Communion with the Church of England And they generally hold 1. That they are not totally to separate from it this follows from the former and must be own'd by all them that hold she is a true Church for to own it to be such and yet to separate totally from it would be to own and disown it at the same time So say the Members of the Assembly of Divines Thus to Papers for Accommodation p. 47. depart from true Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such And saith Mr. Baxter Nothing will Reasons for the Christian Relig. p. 464. warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church which yet is the case in total Separation but the want of
supposing again they are not necessarily imposed and unavoidable then Separation for the sake of such is unwarrantable But to make this the more uncontroulably evident I shall consider the Corruptions as they respect Worship or Discipline In Worship I shall consider the Defects of it in it self in the Ministration the Ministers and those that joyn with it and shew that these do not disoblige from Communion in it and Attendance upon it 1. The Defects of Worship if not essential are consistent with Communion and no just Reason for withdrawing from it This the Brownists did acknowledg Apol. p. 7. with some Qualification Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for Blemishes and Imperfections which every one according to his Calling Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 157. should studiously seek to cure c. So Mr. Cotton Suppose there were and are sundry Abuses in the Church yet it was no safe Ground of Separation When the Sons of Eli corrupted the Sacrifices of God their Sin was great yet it was the sin of the People England's Remembrance Serm. 2. p. 38. to separate and abhor Thus a Reverend Person in his Farewel Sermon doth rightly instruct his Auditors A means to hold fast what you have received is diligent Attendance on the publick Ordinances and Worship of God if and when you can enjoy them in any measure according to God's Will though not altogether in the manner you desire and they should be administred in c. Though I dare not advise you to joyn in any thing that is in it self or in your Judgment evil till you be satisfied about it yet I must advise you to take heed of Separation from the Church or from what is good and God's own Ordinance c. For the fuller Proof of which it may not be amiss to produce the several Arguments used by them in Confirmation of this Truth As First To break off Communion or to refuse it for Arg. 1 such Defects would be to look after a greater Perfection than this present State will admit of So the Brownists do declare None is to separate from a Church Confession of Faith Art 36. rightly gathered and established for Faults and Corruptions which may and so long as the Church consisteth of mortal Men will fall out and arise among them And Mr. Jenkins argues upon this Principle Must not Comment on Juâ—e v. 19. he who will forbear Communion with a Church till it be altogether freed from Mixtures tarry till the day of Judgment till when we have no promise that Christ will gather out of his Church whatsoever doth offend This was it that amongst other Reasons conquer'd the Prejudices of that good Man Mr. J. Allen and kept him from Separation of which His Life p. iii. we have this Account He knew of how great Moment it was that the publick Worship of God should be maintained and that its Assemblies should not be relinquished though some of its Administrations did not clearly approve themselves unto him because upon the account of some Imperfections and Pollutions in them supposed or real to withdraw Communion is evidently to suppose our selves join'd before our time to the heavenly Assembly or to have found such an one upon Earth exempt from all Mixtures and Imperfections of Worshippers and Worship The want of this prudent Consideration makes many to expect more than can be reasonably expected and to look upon every Defect or Corruption as intolerable to prevent which therefore Mr. Baxter doth give this Advice to his Brethren Teach them to know that all Men are imperfect and faulty and so is all Men's Worship of God and that he that will not communicate with faulty Worship must renounce Communion with all the World and all with him Secondly They argue our Saviour and the Apostles Arg. 2 did not separate from defective Churches and Worship but communicated in it notwithstanding the Corruptions and therefore it 's not unlawful for others so to do No doubt it was written for our Instruction saith one in a Farewel-Sermon our Lord Jesus Christ England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94 95. who was as zealous for Purity in God's Worship as much against corrupt Mixtures of Mens Inventions therein as any can pretend to be used to attend on the Publick Worship in his time notwithstanding the many Corruptions brought into it That he went into their Assemblies not to joyn in any Worship but only to bear witness against their Corruptions is no where written but rather the contrary is held forth in Scripture when he acknowledgeth himself a Member of the Church of the Jews approves of and justifies their Worship as right for substance that Salvation might be attained therein which he denies to be attainable in any other Worship John 4. 22. We know including himself amongst those that worshipped God aright what we worship for Salvation is of the Jews This is sufficiently proved by * * * Ball 's Tryal p. 132. many that Christ did communicate with the Jewish Church and is granted as well by those of the Congregational as †††The Platform of Discipline in New-England c. 14. § 8. Presbyterial Way And yet Doctrine and Discipline and Worship were much corrupted of which Mr. Hildersham doth give a | | | Lect. 35 on John p. 165 166. Specimen but especially Dr. * * * Dwelling with God p. 294. Brian There were many great Corruptions in the Church of the Jews in Christ's time the Priests and Teachers were ignorant and wicked and had a corrupt and unlawful entrance into their Calling and the People were like to the Priests generally notoriously and obstinately ungodly and the Worship used in that Church was wofully corrupt many superstitious Ceremonies the Observation whereof were more strictly urged than the Commandments and Ordinances of God the Temple made a Den of Thieves the Discipline and Censures shamefully abused the Doctrine was corrupt in many Points yet the Word tells you Christ whose Example it binds you to follow and you profess your selves Followers of him in all imitable things made no Separation from this Church professed himself a Memeber of it was by Circumcision incorporated a Member received Baptism in a Congregation of that People was a Hearer of their common Service and their Teachers allowing and commanding his Disciples to hear them communicated in the Passover with the People and the Priests No more did his Apostles make Separation from this Church after his Ascension till their day had its Period c. By their Example it appears that till God hath forsaken a Church no Man may forsake it c. So that we Ibid. conclude from hence with Mr. Hildersham Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation though they have many Corruptions remaining in them are to be acknowledged as true Churches of God and such as none of the Faithful may make Separation from We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine than
the Example of our Saviour himself c. For why should our Saviour use it if it was unlawful Or why should it be a Sin to us The unâ—easonableness of Separat p. 104. who have not such Eyes to pierce into the Impiety of Mans Traditions as he had as Mr. Bradshaw argues The same Measures were observed also by the Apostles after the Establishment of the Christian Church This is not to be gainsaid and is therefore granted by one in other things rigid more than enough I Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 15. do not say that every Corruption in a true Church is sufficient Ground of Separation from it The Unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law were not sufficient Ground of Separation from them for the Apostles held Communion with them notwithstanding these Corruptions Now by Parity of Reason it will follow that if Separation was not to be allowed from those corrupted Churches then surely not from such as are not so corrupted as they So Mr. Cawdrey Independ a great Schism p. 195. pleads Corinth had we suppose greater Disorders in it than are to be found blessed be God in many of our Congregations why then do they fly and separate from us And if our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from such Churches much less should we who may without doubt safely follow the Advice given by an Author above quoted When you are at England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 111. a stand think how Christ would have carried what he would have done in the like case with yours and we may thereby be concluded Thirdly They further argue That Christ doth Arg. 3 still hold Communion with defective Churches and not reject the Worship for tolerable Corruptions in it and so neither ought we It is supposed by Dr. Owen That there is no such Society of Christians Discourse of Evangelical Love c. 3. p. 81. in the World whose Assemblies as to instituted Worship are so rejected by Christ as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them until they are utterly as it were extirpate by the Providence of God c. For we do judg that where ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon there is Salvation to be obtained however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own Sins and Errors And if this may be said of Churches though fundamentally erroneous in Worship then Who shall dare as another saith to judg when Christ hath forsaken a People Troughton's Apol. p. 110. who still profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his Word though they do or are supposed to fail in circumstances or lesser parts of Duty Now this granted the other will follow that then we are not to separate from such Churches Thus Mr. Hildersham concluded of old from the Practice Lect. 35 on John p. 165 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384. of Christ and observes 1. So long as God continueth his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People so long it is evident that God dwells among them and hath not forsaken them c. And till God hath forsaken a Church no Man may forsake V. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God p. 293. it 2. No Separation may be made from those Assemblies where Men may be assured to find and attain Salvation But Men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies where the Ministry of his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained So Mr. * * * On the Sacramen p. 242. Crofton's hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noye's Temple measured p. 79. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Davenport's Apol. reply p. 281. Ball 's Tryal p. 159 c. Vines The Argument saith he of Mr. Brightman is considerable If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances Grace and Spirit it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother while his Father owns her for his Wife I might heap up Authorities of this kind but shall content my self with a considerable one from †††Comment on 1 Epist John p. 156. Mr. Cotton who reasons after this manner The Practice of the Brownists is blame-worthy because they separate where Christ keeps Fellowship Rev. 1. 18. And that he walks with us we argue because he is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life and edifies many Souls thereby and therefore surely Christ hath Fellowship with us and shall Man be more pure than his Maker where Christ vouchsafes Fellowship shall Man renounce it Upon this are grounded the wholesome Exhortations of many eminent Non-conformists as that of Mr. Calamy You must hold Communion with all Godly Mans Ark Epist Ded. those Churches with which Christ holds Communion you must separate from the Sins of Christians but not from the Ordinances of Christ Of Mr. R. Allein Godly Mans Portion p. 122. Excommunicate not them from you excommunicate not your selves from them with whom Christ holds Communion Judg not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way Methinks saith another in his V. Bains on the Ephes c. 2. 15. p. 297. England's Remâ—mbrancer Serm. 16. p. 455. Farewel Sermon where a Church as to the main keeps the Form of sound Words and the Substantials of that Worship which is Christ's some adjudged Defects in Order cannot justify Separation I dare not dismember my self from that Church that holds the Head I think whilst Doctrine is for the main sound Christ stays with a Church and it is good staying where he stays I would follow him and not lead him or go before the Lamb. To such we find a severe Rebuke given very lately by one of themselves Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 16. p. 459. and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him Fourthly They argue That to separate for such Arg. 4 Defects and Corruptions would destroy all Communion If this should be saith Mr. Bradshaw then no Unreas of the Separaâ— p. 103. Man can present himself with a good Conscience at any publick Worship of God wheresoever because except it should be stinted and prescribed he can have no Assurance but that some Errors in Matter and Form will be committed So Mr. Ball One Man is of Opinion Trial of the Grounds of Separat c. 8. p. 137 138. that a prescribed Form is better than another another that a prescribed Form is unlawful c. In these Cases if the least Eâ—ror do stain the Prayers to others that
they may not lawfully joyn together with whom shall the Faithful joyn at all Is not this to fill the Conscience with Scruples and the Church with Rents Such as these must if they will be true Sacriâ—eg defer p. 95. to their own Principles renounce Communion with all the World and be like those that Mr. Baxter tells us he Defence of his Cure part 1. p. 47. knows That never communicate with any Church nor ever publickly hear or pray or worship God at all because they think all your ways which he directs to Mr. Bagshaw and other Non-conformists of Worship to be bad With this there can be no continuance in any Communion so much Mr. Burroughs doth maintain There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship Irenic c. 23. p. 163. if this a Separation from a Church for Corruptions in it were admitted for what Church is so pure and hath all things so comfortable but within a while another Church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there Upon the mischievous Consequences of this did Mr. R. Allein ground his last Advice to his Parishioners Destroy Godly Mans Portion p. 127. not saith he all Communion by seeking after a purer Church than in this imperfect State we shall ever attain According to this Principle no Communion at all if not in all where shall we rest In all Society something will offend With this lastly there can be no Order Union or Peace in the Church So Mr. Baines a Person of Comment on â—phes c. 2. 15. p. 297. great Experience This seeking the Peace of Sion reproveth such as make a Secession or Departure from the Church of God our visible Assemblies either upon dislike of some Disorders in Administration Ecclesiastical or disallowed Forms and manner of procuring things which the Communion of Saints for full Complement and Perfection requireth This is not in my conceit so much to reform as to deform to massacre the Body and divide the Head c. and will end in the Dissolution Morton's Memorial p. 78 c. Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure part 2. p. 171. of all Church-Communion if it be followed as is notoriously evident in the case of Mr. R. Williams of New-England that for the sake of greater Purity separated so long that he owned no Church nor Ordinances of God in the World and at his motion the People that were in Communion with him dissolved themselves as we have the account from thence This therefore is one of the Doctrines we are to avoid according to the prudent Advice in a Book above-cited Doctrines crying up Purity to the England's Remembrancer Serm. 14. p. 371. Ruine of Unity reject for the Gospel calls for Unity as well as Purity Fifthly They argue That to separate upon such Arg. 5 an account is not at all warranted in Scripture Thus Mr. Cawdrey It is no Duty of Christ's imposing no Independ a. Schism p. 192. Priviledg of his purchasing either to deprive a Mans self of his Ordinances for other Mens Sins or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some Reformation in lighter Matters Saith Mr. Blake Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 228. We read not of Separation in his way for the sake of Abuses and Corruptions approved nor any Presidents to go before us in it we read a heavy Brand laid upon it Jude 19. These be they who separate themselves sensual not having the Spirit So the Congregations in New-England declare The Faithful in the Church of Platfoâ—m of Discipline in New-England c. 14. § 8. Corinth wherein were many unworthy Persons and Practices are never commanded to absent themselves from the Sacrament because of the same therefore the Godly in like Cases are not presently to separate It should rather have been inferr'd are not to separate for so much must be concluded from the Premises if any thing at all This is accordingly infer'd by Mr. Noyes For Brethren to separate from Temple measured p. 78. Churches and Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners in Heresy or Prophaneness is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice both of Christ and his Apostles Unto whom I shall add the Testimony of Mr. Tombs Separation Theodulia Answ to Pref. § 25. p. 48. from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in Worship or Conversation c. is utterly dissonant from any of the Rules or Examples which either of old the Prophets or holy Men or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed is for the most part the Fault of Pride or bitter Zeal and tends to Strife and Confusion and every evil Work Sixthly They argue That there is no necessity Arg. 6 for Separation for the sake of such Corruptions because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions It was the Opinion of the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy-Conference Confer Savoy p. 12 13. Mr. Baxter's Defence of the Cure p. 34 35. that not only the hearing but the reading a defective Liturgy was lawful to him that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none And if there was a Possibility of thus separating the substance from the circumstantial Defects in the Ministerial Use of such Worship much more may this be supposed to to be done by those that only attend upon it and are not obliged by any Act of their own to give an explicite Consent to all and every thing used in it 1. This Separation of the good from the bad in Divine Worship they grant possible So Mr. Ball If Trial of the Grounds c. p. 308. some things human be mixed with divine a sound Christian must separate the one from the other and not cast away what is of God as a nullity fruitless unprofitable defiled because somewhat of Men is annexed unto them In the Body we can distinguish betwixt the Substance and the Sickness which cleaveth unto it betwixt the Substance of a Part or Member and some Bunch or Swelling which is a Deformity but destroyeth not the Nature of that Part or Member c. So Mr. Calamy It 's Door of Truth opened p. 7. one thing to keep our selves pure from Pollution another to gather Churches out of Churches 2. They grant that what is faulty and a Sin in Worship is no Sin to us when we do not consent to it So Mr. Corbet My Non-conformists Plea c p. 6. partaking in any Divine Worship which is holy and good for the Matter and allowable or passable in the mode for the main doth not involve me in the blame of some sinful Defects therein to which I consent not and which I cannot redress So another in his Farewel Sermon While all necessary fundamental Truth is England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94. publickly professed and maintained in a Church is taught and held forth in publick
Secession from us and professing you cannot joyn with us as Members and setting up Congregations of another Communion be more properly called Schism You gather Churches out of your Churches and set up Churches in an opposite way to our Churches and all this you do voluntarily and unwarrantably not having any sufficient cause for it And in the same Book they tell us of a Two-fold Schism Negative and Positive Negative when Men do peaceably and quietly withdraw from Communion with a Church not making a Head against that Church from which they are departed the other is when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body setting up a Church against a Church which say they Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency and further tells us There are Four Causes that make a Separation from a Church lawful 1. When they that Separate are grievously and intollerably Persecuted 2. When the Church they Separate from is Heretical 3. When it is Idolatrous 4. When it is the Seat of Antichrist And where none of these four are found there the Separation is insufficient and Schism Now we are fully assured that none of these Four Causes can be justly charg'd upon our Congregations therefore you must not be displeased with us but with your selves if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism All which is as true now as it was then and as applicable to us and them as it was to them and their Dissenters Admit then there were some things in our Constitution that might be contrived to better purposes and that needed Amendment and Alteration yet I hope every Defect or supposed Corruption in a Church is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant enough to rend and tear the Church in pieces Let Mr. Calvin judge between us in this matter Institut lib. 4. Sect. 10 11 12. fol. 349. who says That wherever the Word of God is duely Preached and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain Appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject its Admonitions or resist its Counsels or set at nought its Discipline much less Separate from it and Violate its Unity for that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately Separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a Separation is a denial of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of Separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments though otherwise it be over-run with many Blemishes and Corrupons Which is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly designed it against the Doctrine and Practice of the Modern Dissenters from our Church IV. Fourthly We entreat them to Consider Whether it be pure Conscience and mere Zeal for the Honour of Religion and not very often Discontent or Trade and Interest that has the main stroke in keeping them from Communion with our Church Far be it from me to judge the Secrets of Mens Hearts or to fasten such a Charge on the whole Body of Dissenters yea I accuse not any particular Person but only desire they would lay their Hand upon their Hearts and deal impartially with themselves and say whether they stand clear before God in this matter And there is the more Reason to put Men upon this Enquiry not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion but because this has been an old Artifice made use of to promote Separation Thus the Donatists in the Primitive Times upheld their Separation from the Catholick Church and kept their Party fast together by Trading only within themselves by imploying none to Till their Grounds or be their Stewards but those that would be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons by large Sums of Money to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our Modern Vid. Aug. Epist 173. ad Crisp Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Time was when it was made an Argument to prove Independency to be a Faction and not Edward's further Discovery p. 185. matter of Conscience because Needy broken decayed Men who knew not how to live and hoped to get something turned Independents and became Sticklers for it that some who had businesses Causes and Matters depending struck in with them and pleaded for them that so they might find Friends be sooner dispatched and fare better in their Causes that Ambitious Proud Covetous Men who had a mind to Offices places of profit about the Army Excise c. turned about to the Independents and were great Zealots for them Thus it was then and whether the same Leaven do not still spread and ferment and perhaps as much as ever there is just cause to suspect Whoever looks into the Trading part of this City and indeed of the whole Nation must needs be a very heedless and indiligent Observer if he do not take notice how Interests are formed and by what Methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many Thousands of the Poorer sort of Dissenters depend on this or that Man for their Work and consequently for their Livelihood and Subsistence how many depend upon others for their Trade and Custom whom accordingly these Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all Publick Occasions and what little Encouragement any Man finds from them that once deserts them and comes over to the Church of England There is another thing that contributes not a little to this Jealousie and Suspicion that many of the Chiefest and most Stiff and Zealous of the Dissenting Party are they at least the immediate Descendants of those who in the late Evil-Times by Rapine and Violence shared among themselves the Revenues of the Church and the Patrimony of the Crown and are said still privately to keep on foot their Titles to them And if so what wonder if such Men look on themselves as obliged in point of Interest to widen Breaches foment Differences increase Factions and all this to Subvert and over-turn the Church of England being well assured they can never hope but over the Ruines of this Church to make way to their once sweet Possessions Let Men therefore impartially examine themselves and search whether a Worldly Spirit be not at the bottom of their Zeal and Stiffness These I confess are Designs too Base and Sordid to be owned above Board but be not Deceived God is not Mocked Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart V. Fifthly
A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England By some Divines of the City of London In Two Volumes To each Volume is prefix'd a Catalogue of all the CASES and DISCOURSES contain'd in this Collection LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. A CATALOGUE OF ALL THE Cases and Discourses Contained in the first Volume of this COLLECTION 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 4. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered 5. The Case of mixt Communion 6. The Case of indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and stated 7. A Vindication of the Case of indifferent things c. 8. A Discourse concerning Conscience In two Parts 9. A Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience containing some plain Directions for the Cure of it 10. Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to weak Brethren 11. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity refelled and reflected back upon Separation A PERSWASIVE TO COMMUNION With the Church of England The Second Edition Corrected Ephes 4. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed by J. Redmayne for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A Perswasive to COMMUNION With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THere is nothing that does more scandalize and unsettle the Weak nor tempt the Proud and Licentious to a professed neglect of all Religion than the many causless Divisions which do sometimes happen in the Church And he is no lively Member of that Mystical Body of Christ that is not sensibly affected with the Fatal Consequences of these things and does not endeavor what he Lawfully may to do something towards the healing of those Wounds which have been made by the extreme Scrupulosity of some and are still kept Bleeding by the Subtilty and cunning Artifice of others For it is manifest enough and cannot now be denied that the Papists have always attempted to pull down the Church of England by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of the facility of our Dissenting Brethren to bring about their own Designs I wish the eminent Danger we have been brought into would prevail with them at last to forbear to Batter and Undermine us as they have done when they cannot but see that the Common Enemy is waiting all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those Breaches which they are making They might condemn the rashness of their own Counsels and lament it it may be when it would be too late if they should see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which they themselves had overthrown We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has always been and the only visible Security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Vnion of the whole Protestant Profession and there is nothing wherein there is the least probability that we can ever be all Vnited unless it be the Church of England as it stands by Law established agreeable to the Rules of the Holy Gospel consonant to the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Christians and not only Allowed but highly Honored by all the Reformed Churches in the World Here is a Point fixed in which we all may Center whereas they that differ from us are not yet and it may be never will be perfectly agreed upon their own New Models of Discipline and Government neither can they find one Precept or Example in Scripture or Antiquity for the Constituting any Church without an Episcopal Power presiding over it And if any Party amongst them could have that Form of Church Government confirmed by Law which they esteem the most Apostolical it is manifest from reason and experience that it would be presently Opposed by all the rest with no less Violence than ours is and instead of putting an end to our Divisions would most certainly increase them Therefore though they have all still imposed their several Forms with the greatest Rigor wherever they have had the Power or but the Hopes of it in their hands yet that all Sorts of Dissenters may be drawn into the Confederacy for the present we hear now of nothing so much as the Mischief of Impositions and the Natural Right and great Advantages of Toleration Which is the very thing which the Romish Emissaries have always aimed at and seems to be one of the subtilest parts of the Popish Plot As might be made out by divers undeniable Arguments and appears sufficiently from many of the Letters Tryals and Narratives that have been lately published And it can be no wonder that they should give their Cordial Assistance to such a Design which if it should ever pass into an Act would reward their Diligence with a cheap and easie Victory For they may plainly foresee that it would be so far from Vniting us that it would undoubtedly break us in pieces by a Law Now if Vnion be always necessary upon the common Obligations of Christianity it will be much more so in the present Conjuncture considering the strength and incouragements that may be given to the Popish Cause by the continuance of our Dissensions And if there be far greater hopes that we may at length by the blessing of God be sooner Vnited in the way of the Church of England than in any other then it must needs be the greatest Service that can be done to the Protestant Interest if we could all be perswaded to joyn heartily in the Communion of that Church that has hitherto been and still is so great a Defence against the Errors and Superstitions of Rome It would be an unpardonable Vanity to imagine that these short Papers should be able to effect what so many Learned and Solid Treatises have not yet done But I address this little Essay only to those that have not time to peruse a larger Volume I have been incouraged to this Undertaking by the Numbers of those here in London that have seemed formerly to dissent from us who have lately joyned with us not only in Prayer but in the Holy Communion of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ And I hope that many more may be invited and disposed by their good Example to receive the same Satisfaction that they have found These that are already come in will not stand in need of any farther Perswasion but only that they would continue Constant in that Communion they have now embraced For if they should leave us again and return to their Separate Assemblies they would seem by this to condemn themselves For if it were Lawful for them to Communicate with us once it must be Lawful for them to do so still and they will not refuse to submit to Authority
Scruples satisfied I think most of the Prejudices against the Church of England might be easily removed and we might all joyn in the same Communion to the Glory of God and the Joy and Comfort of all good Protestants and the Confusion of those that design to swallow us up and have no other hopes of prevailing but by the help of those Differences which for that end they have a long time most studiously fomented amongst us Let not our unreasonable Fears and groundless Jealousies encourage their Attempts with too great a probability of Success It would be a sad addition to our Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to our Charge With what remorse should we reflect upon it when the heat of our Passion was over if the Protestant Profession should be farther endangered and the Agents of Rome get greater Advantages dayly by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintained by our selves With what face should we look to see our Enemies not only triumphing over us but mocking and deriding us for being so far imposed upon by their cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of our own ruin But God Almighty in his wise and gracious Providence so confound all their Devices that tend to the subversion of the Truth and so Unite and Compose our Differences that hereafter we may have no just occasion to fear either their Treachery o their Force This is a Petition I am sure in which no good Christian can refuse to joyn and if we do heartily desire this let us do what we can to promote it if our Prayer be not unsincere and hypocritical we shall make use of our best endeavours to obtain the thing we have prayed for And now if our Vnion be thus desirable and necessary what should hinder but that at last we might be all most happily united under the Discipline and Government of the Church of England A Church that is already Framed and Constituted that has the Countenance and Establishment of the Laws that has been Protected by a Succession of Wise and Pious Princes that was Defended unto Death by our late Martyred Sovereign that was Restored by His Majesty that now is and has been ever since so graciously Cherished by him as if the Care of it were a Quality inherent and hereditary to the Crown A Church that was Reformed by full and sufficient Authority upon mature and serious Deliberation with a perfect submission to the Rule of holy Scripture and a due regard to the example of the most Primitive times A Church that has constantly rejected all the Errours and Corruptions of Rome that admits of neither their Infallibility nor Supremacy that allows no Purgatory nor Indulgences no adoration of Reliques and Images no Praying to Saints nor Angels that does not think that God can be pleased with idle Pilgrimages or a forced Celibacy or any set number of Ave's and Paternoster's or other formal Devotions exactly computed upon a string of Beads and muttered over in an unknown Tongue that does not rob the Laity of half the Communion nor teach them that strange and contradictious Doctrine that the Elements are transubstantiated into the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper that does not only constantly deny these and many more absurd and erroneous Opinions of the Papists but has always sent forth as stout and able Champions to oppose them as any the Christian World affords A Church whose Doctrine is confessed to be Orthodox by the generality of our Dissenting Brethren and whose Discipline and Order of external Worship has nothing in it repugnant to any Law of God And what imaginable ground can there then be to justifie a Separation from such a Church Certainly the use of a few Indifferent things appointed only for Order's sake will not be enough to do it These are not Forbidden and therefore cannot be Sinful in themselves and where God has not Forbidden our Superiours may Command and in all such cases we are bound to Obey Some indeed there are that will not be satisfied with this They tell us that it is not sufficient that a thing be not Forbidden but that it must be Commanded or else it cannot be used in the Worship of God without Sin But if this Opinion be true I must confess that then it is Unlawful to hold Communion not only with ours but with any Church that is or ever was in the World for I do not believe that One can be found amongst them All that has not required the use of some Indifferent thing that was not Commanded Our Dissenting Brethren themselves will allow that the Time and Place of Religious Assemblies may be prescribed by Authority And if these necessary Circumstances may be thus Determined though they be not Commanded by God then it will be as Lawful to prescribe what particular Gestures and Habits shall be there used For these are things of the same Nature Circumstances as necessary as Time and Place and if we have any respect to the Decent and Reverent performance of the Service of God they may be as necessary to be determined too However it must be acknowledged that some things that are not Commanded may be Lawfully Enjoyned and Submitted to and if some then all that are of the same Indifferent nature unless there can be some sufficient reason assigned why some should be excepted and some not which will be very difficult where the Nature of the things is the same And in our present case it will be hard in the general to conceive how the Command of a Lawful Power should make that Unlawful which was not Forbidden and by consequence was Lawful before But if it should be still insisted on that nothing must be Commanded that God has not Commanded they that are of this Perswasion should be very certain that they have clear proof out of the Scriptures for it before they undertake to Forbid that which God has not Forbidden or else they stand condemned by their own Principle Now the Arguments they bring for this out of the New Testament are very few And those very obscure and no way applicable to the matter in hand without being mightily strained Those out of the Old Testament are not many that which has been chiefly urged and seems indeed the most pertinent and material is this The whole Levitical Service was particularly prescribed by God himself and Moses was strictly charged to make the Tabernacle and all the Utensils that belonged unto it After the pattern that was shewed him Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 3. 5 6. in the Mount And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant and so is Christ as a Son over his own House that is the Church Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules to be observed in the Worship of God under the Legal Dispensation so has Christ under the Evangelical and it is as
dangerous to add as it is to detract from these written Rules we may no more do what is not Commanded then what is Forbidden This I take to be the main Argument that is brought against us in the present Controversie and if this can be Answered all the rest will be but of little Force Therefore to give what satisfaction I can to this I say first that throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebrews where Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel are compared the scope of the Apostle is to shew the exact Correspondence there was betwixt the Type and the Antitype and not that our Saviour had as particularly prescribed the Order of external Worship as Moses by Gods appointment had done For it is certain he did not to give but one instance of very many The manner Exod. 12. of Celebrating the Passover how it should be Killed and how it should be Eaten is it set down with every minute Circumstance But the Institution of the Supper of our Lord is not so delivered unto us We have only a short Narrative with a general Command superadded Do this in remembrance of me And when Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. St. Paul repeats it again he does it without any mention of the Posture of Receiving The Gospel which teaches us a more Spiritual way of Serving God is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we would have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he should have done it It would be better argued if we should say The Gospel has not expressly determined these things as the Law did therefore they are left to the prudent determination of those that have the Rule over Heb. 13. 17. us to whom we are Commanded to be Obedient and submit our selves that the Episcopal Power may be equivalent to the Sacerdotal and the Service of God as regularly Administred in the Church as it was in the Temple Besides it was not a Sin even under the Law to ordain and observe some things relating to the Worship of God that were not written And these could not be esteemed additions to the Word if they were not imposed as Divine Precepts but as Prudent Constitutions appointed only for the more Orderly management of the external Offices of Religion But that any thing should be Unlawful meerly because it is not Commanded is a Doctrine I think that was never heard of among Jews or Christians till very lately God had Commanded the setting up of a Tabernacle and most punctually described how it should be made We have been told that there was not to be one Pin about it for which there was not some special Direction And God never spake a word concerning building of an House See 2 Sam. 17. yet this notwithstanding David without any Command 1 Chron. 17. had it in his thoughts to build one and Nathan in his private judgment approved of the design and God himself though he suspended the execution of it for some time commended him for it and rewarded his pious Intentions with a promise of building him 2 Chron 6. 8. another kind of House by confirming the settlement of the Crown in his Family Which is proof enough that every thing then that was not Commanded was not therefore Sinful The antient Church of the Jews were so fully satisfied in this that they made no Scruple of ordering divers things for which they could not find a Command The Feast of the Dedication is a known and pregnant instance it was of modern and humane Institution and yet our Saviour vouchsafed to be present at John 10. 22. it Some things they a little altered and added others at the Passeover as their eating of it not Standing but Sitting or Lying at the Table and their Singing a Paschal Hymn after it which with some other like Usages were observed by our blessed Lord and his Disciples and it can be no less than Blasphemy then to conceive that there could be any thing that was Sinful in them The whole matter may be concluded thus If it were not Sinful under the Law where the external Form of Divine Worship was particularly specified to admit of certain Usages that were not Commanded then much less is it Sinful to do so now under the Gospel where the external Form is not so specified where we have little more than such general Rules as these to be respectively applied by Superiors and Inferiors Let all things be done Decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 4. 15. Obey them that have the Rule over you Where no Law is there is no transgression I have been something the longer in considering this Argument because the whole debate must issue here which way soever this be decided the Controversie is at an end If our Church require any thing of us that is Unlawful we are bound to Separate from her if she do not we are strictly ingaged to Communicate with her They therefore that Divide should first shew that she injoyns something Unlawful But that never was and I verily believe never can be made appear For we are told in the Person of St. Paul that All things are Lawful which must of necessity be understood 1 Cor. 6. 12. 10. 23. of things that are not Forbidden And then since it cannot be charged upon our Church that she Commands any thing that is Forbidden it must be granted that she Commands nothing but what the Apostle has declared to be Lawful What Reason then can be pretended why we should rend and tear her very Bowels Why should we run so headily into opposite Parties and Factions Why should we hazard the Protestant Cause upon a number of little disunited Independent Interests that are as much at Difference one with another as they all are with us What should make us so timorous in this when we are so daring in some other cases Why should we be afraid to joyn in Communion with a Reformed Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox whose Rites ae Innocent whose Government is Apostolical A man would wonder truly what could be pleaded in defence of a Separation when none of these can be justly accused And yet there are certain Objections brought against us which those that withdraw would fain perswade us to think sufficient to justifie their Departure To some of the chief of these I shall now endeavour to give what satisfaction I can Our Dissenting Brethren therefore are wont to plead That there is a Liturgy or Set Form of Publick Worship prescribed That there are certain Ceremonies injoyned That the use of these Controverted things gives great Scandal to the weak That they cannot Safely joyn in our mixt Communion That they leave our Assemblies for the sake of greater Edification which they can find elsewhere And for these Reasons they think
more perfectly informed in some necessary Duty or more efficaciously moved to the practice of what they Know but when they are 2 Tim. 4. â— more gratified and pleased at the hearing of a Sermon or the like This is nothing but one sort of those itching Ears the Apostle speaks of And they that are troubled with this disease instead of being Edified as they pretend are commonly the most ignorant of all and as blamable as any in their ordinary Conversation I wish we had not too many examples of the truth of this For besides that it is great odds but that they make an unwise choice in the Teacher they set up to themselves at last they likewise provoke God to leave them to the vanity of their own Minds when they depend rather on the supposed abilities of a man than the blessed influences of the holy Spirit and look more at Paul that plants and Apollos that waters then at God that gives the increase 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 Edified when we had no incouragement at all to hope it as long as we continued in the state of Separation upon this pretence For it is the blessing of God alone and not any mans skill in dispensing them that can make the Word and Ordinances any way beneficial unto us With the help of his Grace those means of instruction which we sometimes undervalue the most may be profitable to our Salvation Without it our Ears may be tickled and our Fancies pleasantly entertained for the time but we cannot be truly Edified by the most fluent and popular Tongue nor the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World I have briefly examined the chief Objections that are brought against the established Order and Constitution of our Church and do not find that any or all of them together are of force enough to move an unprejudiced Person to forsake her Communion It may not be done upon the account of Liturgy Ceremonies Scandal mixt Communion or out of hopes of greater Edification I might have easily inlarged upon all these particulars but the compass of my present Design would not allow it And I have some hopes that these and other points in difference may be handled by others to better advantage and to the satisfaction of those that are not yet convinced and to the happy settlement of a lasting Peace and Vnion among all the Members of this divided Church God grant that all our indeavours may tend this way and that the Divine Goodness may make them Successful If these Papers should chance to fall into the hands of any one of those that have Separated from us I would intreat him not to be Offended at them but to look upon the Author as a well-meaning Man that was willing to throw a little Water upon the common flame that is like to consume us They were not written I am sure with any bitterness of Mind or Expression but out of meer pitty to see a poor lamentable distressed Church languishing away and ready to perish by desperate Wounds and Convulsions within her own Bowels Such sad and Melancholy thoughts as these apprehensions must needs occasion could scarce be vented in angry and provoking Language But some are so tender of the Opinions they have taken up that whether true or false they cannot endure to have them touched They are impatient of the calmest Opposition and when you offer any thing to perswade them though it should be to brotherly Love and Peace among Christians they suspect you for an Enemy and think that you come to set traps in their way to insnare their Consciences But I hope this short Discourse will not be incountered by any such Prejudice but that it may be perused with the same Impartiality that it was written On this presumption I shall be bold to exhort all those that now Dissent to a Brotherly Vnion upon such motives and arguments as the Gospel suggests and make for the Credit and Safety of the Protestant Religion It will be readily acknowledged by every sober and intelligent man that Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary that the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions does mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling Block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hinderance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errours that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and imboldened to an open and professed Atheism These are some of the most usual Fruits which the unhappy Differences in the Church are wont to produce over and above the particular Unkindnesses and Uncharitable Feuds which they commonly beget among Christians of the same Perswasion as to all substantial and weighty matters of Belief And it were a thing very desirable in all respects that these at least should be all firmly United in the same holy Communion They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven through the Merits of the same Lord should not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which we have unto this our Saviour Died Joh. 11. 52. that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scattered abroad And should we not then contradict this end of his Death if we should set those at Strife and Variance which he intended to Vnite Nay might we not be said in some sort to Crucifie the Son of God afresh if we should Mangle and Divide any sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require us to make profession of any false and erroneous Opinions if in the external Order and Worship we were injoined to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command we are bound in such Instances to withdraw from her But if her Doctrine be highly approved by most of our Dissenting Brethren and her Discipline and Service such as is not any way inconsistent with any
Law of God then we are indispensably ingaged to join in Communion with her For as has been intimated several times and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Unlawfulness of Communicating can make a Separation Lawful But if it be resolved that the Church of England must be forsaken notwithstanding that neither her Doctrine nor Discipline can be justly condemned it would yet convenient to bethink our selves what might be the most advisable to be done after we had left it Whether we should set up another way of Administration in the room of it Or whether every one should have the Liberty of following that which he fancied the best If we are for the setting up another way it must be either Presbytery or Independency For if there should be any other new Forms of Government they are not yet of Reputation enough to be put in Competition with these two great Pretenders to Divine Right And Presbytery which had once the fairest hopes of establishing it self is now grown weak and inconsiderable in comparison of what it was and those few which would still be thought of that Perswasion are manifestly departed from their own Principles and are fain to support themselves by Gathered Assemblies which they were not wont to allow Independency therefore seems at this time to be the prevailing way but their manner of Gathering Members and Associating themselves into particular Congregations their holy Band special Agreement or Covenant which they make essential to the Constituting of a Church are things which have not the least foundation in the holy Scriptures neither were they ever Countenanced by the practice of any Orthodox Christians in former Ages But put the case we should admit of either of these Forms of Discipline and Government we should be as far if not farther from being Vnited than we are now For they have both been known to have been very rigorous Imposers wherever they have had the Power of Commanding and as they have sometimes been so they would soon again become more odious to the several Subdivisions of Dissenters than Episcopacy it self And this being a thing so easily foreseen we are not now urged with the necessity of setting up either of these The great expedient that has been proposed of late is to indulge a Liberty of choosing what Church and what way of Worship any man pleases that is to grant a publick Toleration of divers Religions But this though it might gratifie the present humor of some part of the Nation and serve some mens Occasions better than any Establishment would be quickly disliked by most of those that now contend so Zealously for it For there must needs be a constant Emulation and Strugling betwixt the several Tolerated Parties which would give a continual Disturbance and as soon as any of them began to grow Numerous and Powerful and had any Hopes of succeeding they would presently imagine it very necessary to impose their own Discipline upon all the rest and this probably might soon put an end to the so much desired and magnified way of Toleration Or if we could suppose them contented to allow the same Freedom to others which they injoyed themselves yet it could not possibly be avoided but that this Indulgence must strangely multiply our Divisions while some Members of their Separate Churches would take Offence and withdraw and make choice of a new Pastor and incorporate themselves into another new Church and that after a while upon the like Pretences might be split into another and another and so on without any stop And then this would certainly set open the Gate to a Flood of Heresies and such monstrous and extravagant Opinions as must be confessed by the most prejudiced Dissenter to be of far more dangerous consequence to the cause of Religion than that sober and pious Liturgy and those few indifferent Rites which are now injoined This the experience of the Late Times found to be true The Church of England was no sooner overthrown but some of those that had been the most forward and busie to pull her down when they saw how suddenly the swarms of other Sectaries increased upon them were forced to acknowledge that the Constitution which they had destroyed was a great check and restraint to those Errors which grew Bold and Licencious under the Liberty they had procured The Bishops then who just before had been the common Theme of Popular Obloquy had some good Words unwillingly dropt upon them and their Diligence and Success in suppressing Absurd Heretical and many times Blasphemous Doctrines was allowed some just Commendation That Government which they had traduced and rendered as odious as was possible by all the arts of Defamation that could be used was found upon Trial to be far more desirable by some of its greatest Enemies than that Anarchy and Confusion they had contended for with so much Violence But if we cannot be made sufficiently Apprehensive of the dismal Effects that will almost Naturally follow upon a Publick Toleration yet methinks we should now be a little Suspitious of it since we know it is the main Engine the Papists have been working with these many years If there be no Remedy but that our Church must fall let us not throw it down our selves by methods of their Prescribing let us not act as if we were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if we were governed by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair We may be ashamed to look so like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when we suffer our selves to be guided by those measures which they had taken and talk and do as they would have us as if we were immediately inspired from Rome For we cannot be ignorant that Toleration has been a Device of theirs and it would not be any part of our Wisdom to grow unreasonably fond of the Invention of our Enemies and think to strengthen the Protestant Interest by those very means which their Subtilty and Malice had contrived to destroy it But if this Consideration should be laid aside What need can there be otherwise that we should desire to be Indulged in our departure from a Church where we may Communicate with a safe Conscience As we may certainly do in ours whose greatest Adversaries have not been able after the most curious Search they could make to find out one thing in the whole Constitution which they could positively affirm to be Forbidden and till that can be made appear we must still say that it cannot be Unlawful If the Imposition of some Indifferent things be thought a sufficient ground for a Separation as it is now generally urged since the proof of their Unlawfulness is despaired of then we must have Separated from the Apostolical Churches who had some such Usages as the Holy Kiss and others whose Indifferency is acknowledged by their being wholly disused We must have Separated from the first Churches that succeeded them which had all some Indifferent
any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Government or Worship for in this case it is plain they leave the Church and form themselves into a new Church out of the Communion of the Church from whence they went because they did not think it safe to continue one Body with it This has often made me wonder what those Men mean who take all occasions to quarrel at our Constitution and assign a great many reasons why they cannot Communicate with us and yet at the same time will not own that they have made any Separation from us What middle state now shall we find for these Men who will neither continue in the Church nor allow themselves to be out of it It is possible for two particular Churches to be in Communion with each other and yet not Actually to Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but for two Churches to renounce each others Communion or at least to withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a professed dislike and yet still to continue in a state of Communion with one another is a down right contradiction To be in Communion is to be members of the same Body and Society and he that can prove and he that can believe two opposite Societies founded upon contrary principles and Acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the Ruin and Subversion of each other to be the same Body and the same Society are very wonderful Men to me 3. Those are Separate Churches who do not own each others members as their own Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place must be confined to that particular Church in which we live if it be a sound part of the Christian Church but Church-membership is not confined to any particular Church I am no otherwise a member of any particular Church then I am of the Universal Church which gives me a right of Membership and Communion in all the particular Churches of the World Now I would ask whether every Baptized Christian who by Baptism is made a member of the Catholick Church and has not forfeited this right by a Scandalous life be ipso facto a member of an Independent Church if he be not as it is plain by the constitution of Independency he is not for Independent Church-membership is not founded on Baptism but on a particular Church-Covenant then Independency is a Separate Communion from the Catholick Church for the members of the Catholick Church are not by being so made the members of an Independent Church and therefore an Independent Church is a distinct and separate Body from the Catholick-Church Nay I would know whether a member of one Independent Church by being so becomes a member of another Independent Church if he does not as it is plain he don't for every Independent Church is founded upon a particular Church-Covenant between such a particular Pastor and particular members then every Independent Church is a distinct and Separate Body from all other Independent Churches and so they are all Schismaticks to each other as not preserving the Unity of the Body And tho Independent Churches should be so civil to each other as to admit each others members to some Acts of Communion yet this is matter of courtesie not of right and therefore their constitution is Schismatical It is like two Neighbour Families which hold good correspondence with each other and often visit one another and Eat and Drink together but yet remain very distinct Families and have all their concerns apart and separate But the Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatick Thus let me ask whether the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in the same Christian Kingdom be one Church and members of each other and own each others members as such to be members of their own Body and Church If they do not as it is evident they don't from their holding distinct and separate Assemblies under a distinct kind and species of Government which both of them assert to be instituted by Christ and to be essential to the constitution of the Church from their forming themselves into distinct Bodies under different Governors which have no Communion as such with each other which yet is essential to the Communion of particular Churches that their Governors should be in Communion with each other from their Condemning each others constitution and particular modes of Worship and their great endeavours to draw away members from each other which necessarily supposes that they do not look upon each others members as their own I say if from these considerations it appears that they are not and do not think themselves to be one Body nor members of each other then they are two separate Churches and the Church which makes the separation is the Schismatick And indeed we may as well say that a Monarchy and Aristocracy and Democracy in the same Nation with their distinct Governours and distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as to assert that the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in England are but one Church 3. The last thing to be explained is what is meant by fixt or constant and by occasional Communion Now this is a question which would grievously have puzl'd St. Cyprian and St. Austin and other Ancient Fathers who never heard but of one sort of Communion For indeed there is no place for this distinction of constant and occasional Communion according to the Principles of Catholick Communion To be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and I take it for granted that a member signifies a fixt and constant not an occasional member not a member which is one day a member and the next day upon his own voluntary choice is no member which is a member or no member just as occasion serves And if Church-membership be a fixt and constant relation in it self considered then the Duties of this relation are fixt and constant also And therefore for the understanding of these Terms which were unknown to Antiquity we must consult the meaning of our Modern Authors who were the first Inventors of them Now by fixt Communion they mean an Actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt members of it occasional Communion is to Pray and Hear and receive the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be members as occasion serves that is either to gratifie their own Curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the Imputation of Schism Now this distinction is owing to such Principles as I have evidently proved to be very great mistakes For if to be in Communion with the Church signifie to be a member of it and that not of any particular Church as distinguisht from the whole Catholick Church but to be a member of the one Body of Christ
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
this Church But your way of arguing is as if a Man should say It is a Divine Law to obey Civil Magistrates but there is no Divine Law that all the World should obey the King of England France or Spain therefore French or English Subjects are not bound to obey their own Prince Oh what comfortable Doctrine is this to some Men You proceed But you will say which I think is not much to the question that he ought to Communicate if Communion may be had Yes I do say this and I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that it is much to the question But then Query whether the Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to Communicate if the Communion be not clog'd with some things which are no part of the Divine Covenant Yes they may replie so if they please or Anonymus for them but whoever does it the replie is very weak and impertinent It is weak because Obedience to Authority in all lawful things is in a large notion part of the Divine Covenant And it is very impertinent because the Supposition of Communicating where Communion may be had supersedes that Query For Communion cannot be had where there are any sinful Terms of Communion and though I assert that the Church must be founded on a Divine Covenant I never said that nothing must be enjoyned by the Church but what is express'd in that Covenant A Corporation which is founded upon a Royal Charter you know may have Authoritie to make By-Laws which shall oblige all the Members of it and so are Terms of Communion with it and yet it is the Charter not these By-Laws whereon the Corporation is founded I was not concerned to Examine the Terms of Communion that is and will be done by other hands but supposing nothing Sinful in our Communion whether all Christians that live in this Church are not bound to live in Communion with it Q. 3. Your next Query concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself without any immediate Derivation from other Church-Governours which does not at all concern my Doctrine of Church-Communion for whether it be so or so still we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound parts of the Catholick Church so Church-Authoritie be Derived from Christ any way it is well enough but then we must be sure that it is so and if Christ have appointed no ordinarie way for this but by the hands of Men who received their Authoritie immediately from himself I know not who can appoint any other way But may not a Lay-man preach the Gospel and gather a Church in a Heathen Country where there is none of the Clergy to do it I suppose he may and if you please to consult the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleets Unreasonableness of Separation p. 331 c. you will finde this case largely debated But it seems it doth not satisfie you that this be allowed onely in case of Necessity for then up start two other Queries 1. Whether this will not put the being of our Church upon a very hazardous issue and oblige your self to prove that it was a true Church before the Reformation Ans This is no hazard at all for the Church of England was certainly a true though a corrupt Church before the Reformation as the Church of Rome is at this day A true Church is that which has every thing Essential to the being of a Church though mixt with such other Corruptions as make its Communion dangerous and sinful as a Diseased Man is a true Man and remove these Corruptions and then it is not onely a true but a sound Church as the Church of England is at this day And if you will not allow this I doubt Sir all private Christians will be at as great a loss for their Baptism as the Church will be for Orders But the case of a True Vindicat. p. 64. c. and Sound and Catholick Church if you please you may see Stated in the same Book to which I referred you before And thus your second Query is answered that though this Church was Antichristian before the Reformation yet there was not the same Necessity for private Christians to usurp the Ministerial Office without a regular Authoritie as there is for a Lay-man in a Heathen Nation because an Antichristian that is the most corrupt Church retains the Power of Orders as well as of Sacraments As for that Independent Principle that Christ has instituted a Power in the Church to ordain her own Officers you may see it Examined in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Sep. p. 306 c. But what now is all this to me I don't charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders but for their causeless and sinful Separation Let us suppose that they have no need of any Orders or that such Orders as they have are good or that they had Episcopal Orders and were Governed by Bishops of their own as the Donatists were yet they would be never the less Schismaticks for that while they separate from the Church of England and from each other If Orders be necessary and they have no Orders then they are no Churches at all if they have true Orders and are true Churches but yet divide Christian Communion by Separating from any Sound part of the Christian Church they are Schismaticks 4. Q Whether from the Supposition that there ought to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one true Church within another and that the Nature of Catholick-Communion is such that one ought to be ready to Communicate with any Sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the Distance of Place it do's not follow Ans Fair and Softly let us first consider the Suppositions before we consider what follows from them for you have so mis-represented so curtailed these Propositions and so mixt and blended things of a different Nature that it is necessarie to restore them to their true Sense and proper Place again before we can tell what follows I asserted that the Christian Church is founded upon a Divine Covenant and since God hath made but one Covenant with mankind in Christ Jesus therefore there can be but one Christian Church throughout the World Resol of Cases p. 8. founded on this one Covenant Having explained the general notion of Church Communion which signifies no more than Church-Fellowship and p. 10. Society that to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of the Church I came to enquire what made a Separate Church For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches p. 19. are or ought to be Members then those Churches which are not Members of each other are Separate Churches And for a fuller explication of this I observed several p. 20. things 1. That there must be but
something essential to a Church But if the Church have all things essential to it it is a true Church and not to be separated from When the V. Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17. Church of Rome is called a true Church it 's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence as a Thief is a true Man and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies is a true Spirit But withal she is a false Church as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall an Heretical Arraignment of Schism p. 26. Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue And so to separate from her is a Duty But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church or the Parochial Churches true Churches it 's in a moral Sence as they are sound Churches which may safely be communicated with Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 289 291. Opposition The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians so far as they profess Christianity and acknowledg Christ their Head but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Vsurpers so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon God's People are bound to separate c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome as the reformed Protestant Churches in France and these of Great Britain have done in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine a lawful Ministry and a People professing the true Religion submitting to and joyning together in the true Worship of God Such a Separation would as has been said unchurch it This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion contrary to a Principle that is I think universally maintained The Error of these Men saith Mr. Brightman * * * On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis second part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government p. 130. Cotton on John p. 156. i◠full of Evil who do in such a manner make a Departure from this Church by total Separation as if Christ were quite banished from hence and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there Let these Men consider that Christ is here feasting with his Members will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there where Christ is not ashamed to sit Further this would be a notorious Schism so the old Non-conformists conclude * * * Grave Consut p. 57. Cawdrey's Independency further proved p. 136. Because we have a true Church consisting of a lawful Ministry and a faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism for what is that saith another †††Brinsly's Arraigment p. 15 24 44. but a total Separation from a true Church This lastly would not diminish but much increase the Fault of the Separation As another saith | | | Baily's Disswasive c. 6. p. 104. For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church which I profess to be true and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be false and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God nor any Blessing from his Hand This therefore is their avow'd Principle That total Separation from the Church is unlawful And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists * * * Ames 's Puritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence p. 55. and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part †††Apologet. Nar. p. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with Defilements or in the greatest Danger thereof c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And amongst the present Non-conformists several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice So Mr. Baxter | | | Sacril desert p. 75. I constantly joyn i◠my parish-Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament It 's said of Mr. Joseph Allen * * * The Life of Mr. J. Allen p. 111. That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship as his Opportunities and Strength permitted †††The Doctrine of Schism p. 64. Of Mr. Brinsley that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship Dr. Collins saith as much of himself | | | Reasonable Account c. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God to hear the best they could and not to separate but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Worship of God Mr. Hickman freely declares I profess Bonasus vapulans p. 113. where-ever I come I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England so saith * * * Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists p. 26. That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick †††Discourse of the Religion c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case p. 15. Assemblies It 's evident then that it is their Principle and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it * * * Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion p. 1. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself I own Parish-Churches having a competent Minister and a number of credible Professors of Christianity for true Churches and the Worship therein performed as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word to be in the main sound and good for the Substance or Matter thereof And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant And if these two Judgment and Practice be not concordant it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest or that they do believe themselves while they declare against Separation and yet do not keep it up Those good Men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider saith Mr. Baxter Non-conformists Plea fo◠Peace § 17◠p 240. whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament and much more if it was total might not tend to deceive Men and make them believe that we were for Separation from them and took their Communion to be
this Head we may observe That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons according to the Principles they espouse they agree not in the Constitution of Churches c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be as I have observed before true Churches of Christ that Communion with such Churches is lawful and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing as whether it be an Act of Communion and about the Call of those they hear yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches are equally condemned by all 3. They hold that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church and affect the Vitals of Religion or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion 1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church or affect the vital Parts of Religion So saith Mr. Tombs Not every nor many Corruptions Theodulia Answer to Preface § 23. p. 47 48. of some kind do unchurch there being many in Faith Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia Aid Blake 's Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 229 c who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of Errors in Faith as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith to wit Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man and Salvation by him Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in Life by evil Manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched For till then the Corruptions are tolerable and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church or to depart from it So Mr. Brinsly Arraignment of Schism p. 50. Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us yet are they tolerable If so then is Separation on this ground intolerable unwarrantable in as much as it ought not to be but upon a very great and weighty Cause and that when there is no Remedy So Mr. Noyes Private Brethren may not Temple measured p. 78. separate from Churches or Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners Heresy or Prophaneness To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen and Mr. Cotton The former asserts That many Errors in Evangelical Love p. 76. Doctrine disorders in sacred Administrations irregular walking in Conversation with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers may fall out in some Churches and yet not evacuate their Church-state or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion and separate from them The latter saith Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 156. Unless you find in the Church Blasphemy or Idolatry or Persecution i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion there is no just Ground of Separation This is universally own'd But if any one should yet continue unconvinced let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture collected by Mr. Baxter and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable Observe saith he that no Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 5. p. 40 c. one Member is in all these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful And therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were 2. They are not to separate if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these On the Sacrament p. 239. The Church may be corrupted many ways in Doctrine Ordinances Worship c. And there are degrees of this Corruption the Doctrine in some remote Points the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom How many Churches do we find thus corrupted and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth c. to separate I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption hold the Communion But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed the Worship is become idolatrous and what is above all if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful in that Case Come out of Babylon The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature nor thus strictly required then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful and may be a Duty So saith Mr. Corbet in the name of the present Nonconformists We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33. true Church as no Church for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof while our personal Profession of some Error or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more for he saith Irenicum c. 23. p. 162 163. Where these Causes are not viz. the being constrained to profess believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith or being deprived of Means altogether necessary or most expedient to Salvation but Men may communicate without Sin professing the Truth and enjoy all Ordinances as the Free-men of Christ Men must not separate from a Church tho there be Corruption in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion yet if not actually imposed upon us our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue So Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 103. though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation as it is also own'd for saith one When the Corruptions of a Church are such as Jerubbaal p. 12. that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably that seems to me to be a just Ground though not of a Positive yet of a Negative though not of a total yet of a partial Separation i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser but is not so for the greater Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion
That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g) (g) (g) Trial p. 121 129 140 156. but little less even by Mr. Norton (h) (h) (h) Resp ad Apol c. 13. who saith It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter c. Is it not a high degree Sacril desert p. 102. Defence Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224. of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ's Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day have offered such Worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms and that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the old Non-conformists were unworthy your Communion I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer but I know also that these are answered by them But since the most common is that of quenching and stinting the Spirit I shall briefly give their sence of it They say 1. To say that Persons should use no set Form but Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal c. 5. p. 83. pray as moved by the Spirit is a fond Error 2. They say that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask not in what phrase of speech It stirreth up in us holy Desires but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad c. 3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Ibid. p. 91. Words and Forms but in fervent Sighs and Groans 4. That there is nothing letteth but that in such Rogers Ibid. Forms the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble to quicken and to comfort And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may Disc of Prayer p 222 231 232. be for edification and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God 5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case are grounded upon Mistakes and are misapplied as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested Theodulia p. 164 238. Fourthly I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common-Prayer both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it As to the Liturgy it self it 's acknowledged 1. That the Matter for the most part is good sound Bryan's dwelling with God Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29 59. Crofton Refor no Separ p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal p 35. and divine and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers that may not bear a good construction and so Amen may be said to it as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain 2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms so ours is the best So the old Non-conformists Compare the Doctrines Leâ—ter of the Minist in Old-Engl p. 12. Prayers Rites at those Times throughout in use in the Churches with ours and in all these blessed be the Name of the Lord we are more pure than they And it 's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter in the name of Second Plea for Peace p. 101. the present Non-conformists 3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable and hinders not but that it 's acceptable to God and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons Tolerable So Mr. Corbet The Worship contained Plea for Lay-Communion p. 2. V. Ball 's Tryal c. 9. p. 58. in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in it being sound for substance in the main and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders and passable in the most though in some offensive inconvenient or less perfect Acceptable to God So the old Non-conformists Letter of the Minist in Old-England p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers according to Christ's Command and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed notwithstanding the Corruptions we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God c. Edifying to well-disposed Persons To this purpose Mr. Hildersham Mr. Rogers c. Treat 3. c. 4. p. 224l And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience (a) (a) (a) Corbet Plea p. 3. Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal and spiritually by those that are Spiritual It is my part to make the best of it being the established Form As to Communion in the Liturgy it is granted 1. That there is no cause to renounce it or the Communion of the Church for it and that so to do is a Sin (b) (b) (b) Gifford's plain Declaâ—ation Ball 's Trial c. 7. p. 121. Sacril desert p. 105. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come among us where it is used (c) (c) (c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure p. 68. 3. It 's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d) (d) (d) Ball 's Tryal p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it (e) (e) (e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl p. 14. And for the present it 's declared We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer but read it our selves (f) (f) (f) Mr. Mead's Case p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp 4. of Church-Gov p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life p. 157. I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists but shall content my self with that which it seems was much Trial. c. 8. p. 152. insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball and their Reply to it The Liturgy in the whole Matter and Form thereof is Object too like unto the Mass-Book If the Liturgy be Antichristian it is so either in Answ respect of the Matter or of the Form Not of the Matter for that which properly belonged to Antichrist the foul and gross Errors is purged out Not of the Form for Order and Phrase of
and the same Acts 2. 41. day were added to the Church about 3000 souls It 's true St. Peter exhorted them all to repent in order to it but whether they did so or no he stay'd not for proof from their bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance but presently upon their profest willing reception of the Word they were baptiz'd and added to the Church One might have been apt to suspect that amongst so great a number all would not prove sincere Converts and so it fell out Ananias and Saphira Acts 4. 34. Acts 5. 1 2 3. were two of the number in whom ye know that glad reception of the Gospel was found to be but gross hypocrisie By the same rule St. Philip proceeded in planting the Church at Samaria when the People seeing the miracles he did gave heed to the doctrine he Acts 8. 12. taught concerning the Kingdom of Heaven and the Name of Jesus and declar'd their belief of it without any farther examination they were Baptized both Men and Women And amongst them was Simon Magus wose former notorious Crimes of Sorcery Witchcraft and Blasphemy might have given just grounds of fear to the holy Deacon that his Faith was but hypocritical and his Heart not right in the sight of God as appear'd afterwards yet upon his believing Acts 8. 20. he was Baptiz'd such other Members of Christ's Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander they ver 13. had nothing it seems but a bare outward profession of the Faith to entitle them to that Priviledg since afterwards as we read the one embrac'd this present World and the other two made shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience 3. This appears from the representation Christ hath 2 Tim. 4. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 19. made of his Church in the Gospel fore-instructing his Disciples by many Parables that it should consist of a mixture of good and bad It is a Field wherein Wheat and Tares grow up together A Net wherein are Fishes of all sorts A Flour in which is laid up solid Corn and Mat. 13. 24 25. vers 47. light Chaff A Vine on which are fruitful and barren Branches A great House wherein are Vessels of Gold Mat. 3. 12. and Silver and Vessels of lesser value Wood and Earth John 15. 1. A Marriage feast where are wise and foolish Virgins 2 Tim. 2. 20. some with wedding garments and some without some Mat. 25. had Oyl and some but empty Lamps St. Hierome compares it to Noah's Ark wherein were preserv'd Beasts clean and unclean when the Apostle said They are St. Hier. dial con Lucifer Arca Noae Ecclesiae typus not all Israel that are of Israel his meaning was that in the Jewish Church many more were Circumcis'd in the Flesh than what were Circumcis'd in Heart and when our Saviour said many are call'd Rom. 9. 6. but few chosen he declar'd the same thing that in his Church many more were call'd and admitted into it by Baptism than what were sanctified by his Spirit or should be admitted into his Heaven 4. The many corrupt and vicious Members in the Churches which the Apostle themselves had planted is another proof of this The number whereof in all likelihood could not have been so great had they been so cautious and scrupulous as to admit none into them but whom in their judgments they thought to be really holy In the Church of Corinth there were 1 Cor. 15. 34. ver 12. 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. 1 Cor. 7. many that had not the knowledg of God that denied the Resurrection of the Dead that came Drunk to the Lords Table that were Fornicators Unclean and Contentious Persons In the Church of Galatia there were many that Nauseated the Bread of Life and made it their Choice to pick and eat the rubbish of the partition wall which Christ had demolisht The Rites of the Law which expired at the death of Christ they attempted to pull out of their Graves and to give a Resurrection to them They were so much gone off from the Doctrine of Christianity to weak and beggarly Rudiments observing Days and Months and Gal. 3. 7 10 11. Times and Years that by reason of this their Superstition St. Paul signifi'd his fears of quite losing them and that his labour was bestowed upon them in vain Amongst all the Seven Churches in Asia there was not one but what had receiv'd such Members into it that were either very Cold Lukewarm in their Religion or by their Vicious Lives proved a Reproach and Scandal to it The Church of Sardis so swarm'd with these that St. John tells us that there were but a few Rev. 3. 1 4. names in Sardis that had not defil'd their garments Now if the Apostles of our Lord who had the extraordinary assistances of the Holy Ghost for the discerning of Spirits at that time and were thereby enabl'd far beyond what any of their Successors can pretend to to distinguish betwixt the good and the bad did notwistanding admit many meer formal Professors into the Church of Christ we may conclude that they apprehended that 't was the will of Christ it should be so 5. No other rule in admitting persons into the Church is practicable Whether Persons are really holy and truly regenerate or no the Officers of Christ who know not the hearts of Men cannot make a certain judgment of they may through want of judgment be deceiv'd through the subtilty of hypocrites be impos'd upon through humane frailty passion or prejudice be misguided and by this means many times the door may be open'd to the bad and shut against the good Now that cannot be suppos'd to be a rule of Christ's appointment which is either impossible to be observ'd or in observing which the Governours of his Church cannot be secur'd from acting wrongfully and injuriously to Men. In sum Christ hath entrusted the power of the Keys into the hands of an Order of Men whom he hath set over his Church and who under him are to manage the Affairs of it but these being but Earthen vessels of short and fallible understandings he has 2. Cor. 4 7. not left the execution of their Office to be manag'd solely by their own prudence and discretion but hath given them a certain publick Rule to go by both in admitting persons into his Church and in excluding them out of it for the one the Rule is open and solemn profession of the Christian Faith for the other open and scandalous Offences prov'd by witnesses 2. The second Proposition is That every such Member has a right to all the external Priviledges of the Church till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he forfeits that right and by the just censures of the Church for such behaviour he be actually excluded from those Priviledges For the explanation and proof of this Proposition these three particulars are to be done 1. What 's
the Body by being denied all communications with it Should a Man be admitted a Member of any City or Corporation and yet at the same time be denied the priviledg of his Freedom and not be permitted to set up a Trade to give a Vote or to Act in any other case as other Members do what would be the difference betwixt him and a Foreigner unless it be that his condition is the worse by being mock'd and abus'd and cheated with the Name whilst he has nothing of the Priviledges of a Freeman 3. We have the Practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament for this The whole Nation of the Jews were not only permitted but commanded by God except in cases of legal uncleanness and those notorious Crimes for which they were to be cast out of the Congregation to observe his Ordinances and to joyn in the celebration of his publick Worship and we know they were not all Israel that were of Israel Three times a year were all their Males to appear before the Exod. 23. 14 17. Lord to keep Three solemn appointed Feasts unto him many of which it is to be fear'd had no other qualification than what they were beholden to their birth and the loss of their fore-skin for Again All the Congregation of Israel were too keep the Passover none Exod. 12. 44. were denied it but foreigners and hired servants and they too no longer but till they were Circumcis'd and thereby admitted into covenant with God which shews that meer Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in its most solemn and sacred Mysteries 4. This was also the Practice of the Christian Church in the Apostolick Age as is plainly intimated unto us from many Scriptures St. Paul tells us By one Spirit we are all Baptiz'd into one Body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made 1 Cor. 12. 13. to drink into one Spirit To drink into one Spirit particularly relates to the Cup in the Lord's Supper and by a figure of the part for the whole it 's put to signifie the whole Communion but the thing here especially to be taken notice of is that the Apostle makes the number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as comprehensive and universal as that of those that were receiv'd into the Church by Baptism As by one Spirit all were baptized into one body so all were made to drink into one spirit The Apostles speaks the same thing again in another place alluding to the other part of the Sacrament We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread all the 1 Cor. 10. 17. members that conspired to make up the one body did partake of the one bread But if any thing yet can be clearer 't is that account St. Luke gives us of the practice of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem where it 's said of the three thousand that gladly receiv'd St. Peter's words and were by Baptism added to the Church they all the three thousand Ananias and Saphira being of the number continued in the Apostles doctrine and in breaking of bread and in prayers 5. From the end of Church-membership which is not only for the more solemn Worship of God and the publick profession of Religion but also for the more effectual edification and salvation of mens souls By Baptism we were admitted into the Church incorporated into that Divine Society and entitled to all the Priviledges of the Gospel to the end that in the unity of the faith and the knowledg of the Son of God Eph. 4. 13. we might come to a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ But how this is to be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Communion with the Church to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and the Word and all other Priviledges and Duties is not easily to be understood hence we may observe that edification in Scripture is usually applied to the Church and tho the edification of the Church consists in the edification of the particular Members of it yet because that is not to be had but in the Unity and Communion of the Church 't is usually stiled the edifying of the Eph. 4. 12. Church and the edifying the body of Christ hence Faith is said to come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Hence we are said to be born again not of corruptable Rom. 10. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 23. seed but of incorruptable by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same is exprest in those words of our Saviour's Prayer for his Disciples Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is John 17. 17. truth God's Church is his Family which he especially takes care of and provides for he that is of it is under the Schechina the wing of the Divine Majesty and his special grace and providence It cannot but be of mighty advantage towards our growth and improvement in all Christian graces and virtues to have therein dispens't to us the lively Oracles of God and provision made for a constant succession of dispensers of the Bread of Life to fit it to allneeds and all capacities Not to be left to the deceits and whispers of a private spirit to personal conjectures or secret insinuations but to have the publick Doctrine of the Church to be our Guide and Leader to have our Devotions mingled with the concurrent Prayers of all God's people and so by their joynt forces after an Coimus incaetum ad Deum quasimanu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes Tertul. humble but powerful manner to besiege and belaguer Heaven to have before our eyes all the great Examples in God's Church to have our Faith strengthen'd our Repentance heighten'd our Love inflam'd our Hopes and our Comforts rais'd by the Holy Communion Will not the flame of others kindle our zeal and assections and will it not put us into a transpoâ—t of devotion to see therein Christ Crucified before our Eyes pouring out his Blood for us bowing his Head as it were to kiss and stretching out his Arms as it were to embrace all that are penitent and return to him These are some of the great Blessings and advantages that cannot be had but in Church-Communion To which if we shall add that our improvement in Holiness and Vertue is more to be ascrib'd to the internal operations of God's spirit than any virtue or efficacy there can be in those external administrations and that God is pleas'd to promise his spirit to believers only as they are Members of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and ministry of his Word and Sacraments we shall farther see the necessity of Mens holding actual Communion with the Church in order to their Sanctification and Salvation We are not now discoursing what God
do ye Transgress the Command of God by your tradition For God Commanded saying Honour thy Father Matth. 15. 3. c. but ye say whosoever shall say to his Father it is a gift c. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition And this we condemn in the Church of Rome who do defeat the Commands of God by their Doctrines of Attrition and Purgatory c. 4. If they mean by adding the making of that which is not the Word of God to be of equal Authority with it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they Taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and esteem'd them as necessary to be obeyed and to be of equal force with what was Authorized by him nay it seems they had more regard to the Tradition of the Elders than the Commandment of God as our Saviour Insinuates vers 2 3. and has been observed from their own Authors This we also condemn in the Church of Rome which decrees that the Apocrypha and Traditions should be received with the like Pious Con. Trid Sess 4. Decr. 1. regard as the Sacred Writ 5. If by adding they mean the giving the same Efficacy to humane Institutions as God doth to his by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed and by diminishing that the Service is not complete without it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they maintained that to eat with unwashen Hands defiled a Man verse 20. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome in their use of Holy-Water and Reliques and Ceremonies Thus far we agree but if they proceed and will conclude that the doing any thing not Commanded in the Worship of God is a Sin though it have none of the ingredients in it before spoken of we therein differ from them and upon very good reason For therein they differ from our Saviour and his Apostles and all Churches as I have shewed Therein also they depart from the notion and reason of the thing For adding is adding to the substance and making the thing added of the Nature of the thing it s added to and diminishing is diminishing from the substance and taking away from the Nature of it but when the substance remains intire as much after this humane appointment as it was before it without Loss and Prejudice without Debasement or Corruption it cannot be called an addition to it in the sence that the Scripture takes that Word in Nay so far are we from admitting this charge that we return it upon them and do bring them in Criminals upon it For those that do Forbid what the Gospel Forbids not do as much add to it as those that Command what the Gospel doth not Command And if it be a Crime to Command what that Commands not it must be so to Forbid what it Forbids not And this is what they are Guilty of that do hold that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed for if that be not a Scripture Proposition and Truth as certain it is not then what an addition is this A greater surely than what they charge upon us for all that is Commanded amongst us is look'd upon not as necessary but expedient but what is Forbid by them is Forbid as absolutely unlawful the latter of which alters the Nature whereas the other only affects the Circumstances of things The second Commandment Thou shalt not make unto Object III thee any Graven Image c. is frequently made use of to prove that we must apply nothing to a Religious Use but what is Commanded and we are told that the sence of it is that We must Worship God in no other way and by no other means or Religious Rites than what he hath prescribed The best way to answer this is 1. To consider Answer what is Forbidden in this Commandment and 2. To shew that we are not concern'd in the Prohibition As to the former 1. In this Command it is provided that there be no act of Adoration given to any besides God By this the Heathens are condemned in their Plurality of Gods and the Church of Rome in the Veneration they give to Saints and Angels 2. That the Honour we give to God be sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will Sutable to his Nature and so we are not to Worship him by Creatures as the Sun c. for that is to consider him as Finite nor by Images and Eternal Representations for that is to consider him as Corporeal Agreeable to his Will and so we are Forbidden all other Worship of him than what he hath appointed It s in the last of these we are concerned for I believe there will be no attempt to prove that there is any thing in our Worship that doth derogate from the perfections of God and is unsutable to his Nature further than the defects that must arise from all Worship given by Creatures to a Creator And if we come to consider it as to what he hath revealed there can be nothing deduced thence to prove Rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's service to be Forbidden and which for ought I see is not attempted to be proved from this Commandment or from Scripture else where but by crowding such Rites into and representing them as a part of Divine Worship This way goes one of the most industrious in this cause Ceremonies saith he are External Rites of Religious Worship as used to further Devotion and therefore being Ames Fresh Suit part 2. sect 2. command p. 228. invented by Man are of the same Nature with Images by which and at which God is Worshipped In which are no less than three mistakes As 1. He makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship 2. He makes it a fault in External Rites in Religious Worship that they are used to further Devotion 3. He makes External Rites taken up by Men and used for that end to be of the same Nature with Images If I shew that these are really mistakes I think that in doing so the whole argument taken from 2d Commandment falls with it 1 He mistakes in that he makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship The error of which will appear from this consideration that all things relating to Divine Worship are either Parts or Adjuncts of it Parts as Prayer and the Lord's Supper Adjuncts as Form and Posture Now Adjuncts are not Parts because the Worship is intire and invariable in all the Parts of it and remains the same though the Adjuncts vary Prayer is VVorship whether with a Form or without and the Lord's Supper is VVorship whether Persons Kneel Sit or Stand in the receiving of it And yet though the Adjuncts are no part of VVorship they further Devotion in it This those that are for conceived Prayer plead for Their Practice and this also is pleaded by those that
upon that as sufficient to put an end to all Contentions and Debates that whatever might be Plausibly urged against it from the Jewish Practice and the Representation even of Angels adoring after that manner and from the reason of the thing as a signification of Shame and Reverence or from the Practice of Idolators that dâ—d many of them Worship Uncovered yet he peremptorily 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 the Peace of the Church depending upon the Observation of its Coustoms that is infinitely to be preferred before Scrupulosity and Niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary Practice For in publick cases a Man is not to go his own way or to have his own mind for that would bring in Confusion one Man having as much a right as another There must be somewhat Established some Common Order and Bond of Union and if Confusion is before such Establishment then to break that Establishment would bring in Confusion and where that is likely to ensue it is not worth the while for the Tryal of a new Experiment to decry and throw down what is already Established or Used in a Church because we think better of another for saith a Grave Author and well Skill'd in these matters The very change of a Custom though it may Aug. Epist 118. happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty Publick Peace is worth all new Offers if the Church is Disquieted and its Peace Endangered by them though in themselves better and it is better to labour under the infirmity of publick Order than the mischief of being without it or what is next to that the Trial of some Form seemingly of a better Cast and Mould that hath not yet been experimented I say it again Infirmity in a Church is better than Confusion or Destruction which is the Consequent of it And I had rather choose that as I would a House to have one with some Faults rather then to have none at all And if I cannot have them mended when tolerable I think my self bound not only to bear with them but to do all I can for its preservation though with them and to observe all things that are lawful for its support and encouragement In doing thus I serve God and his Church my own Soul and the Souls of others promote Religion and Charity in the World For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace in all the 1 Cor. 14. 33. Churches of the Saints In things which neither we nor the Worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order is far to be prefer'd before Niceties And certainly neither we nor the Service of God can be the worse for what God hath concluded nothing in What the Gospel looks as is the Main and Essential parts of Religion in Doctrine Worship and Practice And if these be Secured we are under no Obligation to contend for or against the modes and circumstances of things further than the Churches Order and Peace is concerned in them So the Apostle Let not your Good be Evil spoken of For the Kingdom of Rom. 14. 16. God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy-Ghost the promoting Love and Charity and substantial Righteousness He that in these things Serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men The Beauty of the Kings Daughter is within Aug. Epist 86. saith St. Austin and all its observations are but its vesture which though various in different Churches are no prejudice to the Common Faith nor to him that useth them And therefore what he and his mother received from St. Ambrose and looked upon as a Divine Oracle is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners Epist 118. 86. it becometh 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 And if the Custom and Practice of a Church should be thus taken into consideration by a Good Man then certainly much more ought it so to be when that is Established and is made a Law and is backed by Authority For then to stand in Opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront and to insist upon the Gratifying our own Inclination against publick Order is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern whether our Will or the publick Good and Order must take place And what can be the Issue of such a Temper but the distraction if not Dissolution of Government which as it cannot be without Governed as well as Governours so cannot be preserved without the submission of the Governed in all lawful things to the Gevernours and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet It s pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things Vndetermined in Scripture and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion as in Posture c. though Decency Would plead for Uniformity in those things also but there are other things which they must agree in or else there can be no publick Worship or Christian Communion which yet they differ in as much as the other As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening whether Prayers should be long or short c. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other or there be a Power in Superiours and Guides to determine for them and they are to submit to them in it there will be nothing but confusion And why Superiours may not then Command and why Inferiours are not to obey in all things of the like kind In Posture or Habit as well as the time above specified and Forms I understand not To conlude this if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church that is not Forbidden in Scripture or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church that is not required in Scripture we may and ought to Act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally Act or forbear or the Laws of that Communion require and in such things are to be determined by the publick Voice of the Communion that is Authority Custom or the Majority But to this it will be said If we are thus to be determined Object in our Practice then where is our Christian Liberty which being only in Indifferent things if we are restrained in the use of them we are also restrained in our Liberty which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in Gal. 5. 1. 1. This is no argument to those that say
not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it if indeed Gods Law hath made it a Duty So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do when they withdraw from our Communion Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin A Sin against which there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians as against any other Sin whatsoever And therefore let those that forsake our Communion and set up or joyn with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours I say let them look to it that they be not involved in the Guilt of this dreadful Sin They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds if they would free themselves from the imputation of it It is not always enough to excuse them that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw For unless the thing be so indeed their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many but yet it is true for all that and will appear a little more Evident if we put the Case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concerned Here is one of the Roman-Catholick perswasion as they call it that hath been trained up in Popery and heartily believes it to be true Religion and the Only one wherein Salvation is to be had and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church doth pay Religious Worship to Images doth pray to Saints and Angels doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ to which his Soul and Deity is personally United Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not He doth verily believe that he is not He would abhor these Practices if he did in the least believe that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbid that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the parish-Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
they would be more modest and humble not so forward to judge and condemn what they do not understand they would not encourage one another to hold out and persist in this their weakness nor breed up their Children in it nor so Zealously endeavour to instil the same prejudices and mistakes into all with whom they converse But the truth is they ordinarily look upon their opposition to the orders of our Church as the effect of an higher illumination greater knowledg than other Men have attained unto they rather count us the weak Christians if some of them will allow us so much for otherwise if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians Why do they separate from us Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations as being purer more select Christians than others Now tho such persons as these may be in truth very weak of little judgment or goodness notwithstanding this conceit of themselves and their party yet these are not by any means to plead for indulgence under that Character nor to expect we should forgo our just Liberty to please and humour them And that this is nothing but the plain truth is sufficiently evident from this one observation that many amongst them will grant our Reformation to have been very excellent and laudable for those days of Darkness and Ignorance wherein it was first made But we now say they see by a clearer light have greater knowledge and have arrived to higher perfection and so discover and cannot bear those faults and defects which before were tolerable Now who doth not see that these two pleas are utterly inconsistent and destructive of one another to desire abatement of the Ceremonies and abolition or alteration of the Liturgy in complyance with their weakness and to demand the same because of the greater knowledg and light they now enjoy above that Age wherein this present Constitution of our Church was established This shews they will be either weak or strong according as it best sutes with the Argument they are managing against us they are contented to be reckoned as weak only that on it they may ground a plausible objection against us 3 Those who are really weak that is Ignorant and injudicious are to be born withal only for a time till they have received better instruction We cannot be always Bahes in Christ without our own gross fault and neglect he is something worse than a weak man who is fond of and resolutely against all means of Conviction persists in his Ignorance and mistake The case of young beginners and Novices is very pittiable who have not been taught their lesson but the same condescension is not due to those who are ever learning and yet are never able to come to the knowledg of the truth not for want of capacity to understand but for want of humility and willingness to be instructed Such who are peevish and stubborn whose Ignorance and Error is Voluntary and affected who will not yield to the clearest reason if it be against their interest or their party can upon no account claim the priviledges of weak persons It is a great piece of inhumanity and cruelty to put a stumbling-block in the way of a blind man but he walks at his own peril who hath eyes and will not be persuaded to open them that he might see and choose his way Thus our Saviour answered his Disciples when they told him that the Pharisees were offended at his Doctrine Let them alone they be blind leaders of the blind And if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch St. Matt. 15. 14. They were resolved not to be satisfied with any thing our Saviour said or did they watched for an advantage and sought occasion against him It was their Malice not their Ignorance that made them so apt to be offended Of these therefore our Saviour had no regard who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition Not that I would be so uncharitable as to condemn all or the generality of our Nonconforming Brethren for malicious and wilful in their dissent from us God forbid that I should pass such an unmerciful sentence on so many as I believe well meaning tho miserably abused persons to their own Master they stand or fall But however 1. I would out of charity to them beg earnestly of them that they would thorowly examine whether they have Conscientiously used all due means in their power for information of their judgments concerning those things they doubt of whether they have sincerely endeavoured to satisfie themselves and have devoutly Pray'd to God to free their minds from all prejudices and corrupt affections and have patiently considered the grounds and reasons of their Separation from us for unless it be thus really with them their weakness is no more to be pitied than that mans Sickness who might be cured by an easie remedy if he would but vouchsafe to apply it or would submit to good Counsel 2. I must say that old and inveterate mistakes that have been a thousand times answered and protested against are not much to be heeded by us If people will by no means be prevailed upon having sufficient light and time allowed them to lay aside their Childish apprehensions and suspicions they can hardly be thought to deserve that compassion and tenderness St. Paul prescribes towards weak Brethren I shall give one plain instance Let us suppose that at the first Reformation of Religion amongst us some very weak and such they must be if honest were offended at the Church's requiring Kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as seeming to them to imply the adoration of the Bread and Wine and as likely to harden some Ignorant People in that monstrous conceit of Transubstantiation But now after so many publick Declarations made by our Church wherein she avows that no such thing is intended after the constant profession of so many that have used that decent Ceremony that they abhor the Doctrine of Christs bodily presence nay after the couragious sufferings even death it self of those that first Established this Reformation rather than they would worship the Host if after all this people shall still clamour against this gesture as Popish and be offended with those that use it as if thereby they gave divine honour to the Elements all that I shall say is this it is a great sign that it is not infirmity only to which condescension is due but something worse that raiseth and maintaineth such exceptions and offences This I suppose holds true even in things where the offence ariseth from their doubtful or suspicious nature that are capable of being misunderstood and abused and may be apt through mistake to provoke or tempt others to evil Yet if there be no moral evil in them and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence or advantage to me I am bound to forbear them no longer than till I
persons Now tho all this is generally true yet I think there are no certain unalterable rules to be laid down to direct our practise in this affair For it being an exercise of charity must be determined by the measures of prudence according to circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain rules for Mens charity in other cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his estate towards the relief of the poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own liberty for the sake of his Brother and so I end this head with those words of the learned Dr. Hammond in his little Treatise of Scandal This whole matter is to be referred to the Christians pious discretion or prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that piety and that prudence shall represent it to be most charitable and beneficial to other Mens Souls Thus I have done with the first proposition that nothing sinful is to be committed to avoid Scandalizing others 2. I proceed now to the Second that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons Not that such a case can ever happen wherein we must necessarily give just Offence to one side or other and so are uncharitable whether we do or forbear to do the same action for then we should be under a necessity of sinning which implies a contradiction but yet it may and often doth happen that some weak persons may take Offence at my doing and others be more Offended at my forbearing to do the same thing and thus whether I do it or not I shall give Offence tho not justly nor through my own fault to some one or other In such circumstances therefore we are to consider which way is given the greater and more dangerous Offence and it can never be either prudence or charity to abstain from that which may Scandalize our Brother when by forbearance a greater and more publick Scandal is ministred to others for in this case we have greater reason on the account of Scandal it self to do than to forbear that action as all that write on this subject do and must acknowledge and for which they usually quote that saying of Bernard Prudenter advertendum est scandalum scandalo non emendari c. We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another which kind of emendation we should practise if to take off offence from one party we give offence unto another This was the occasion of that famous Contest between the two great Apostles mentioned in the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians St. Peter had freely conversed with the Gentile Christians and had eat with them all kind of meats but afterwards when certain believing Jews from Jerusalem who were still Zealous for Moses's Law and the distinction of meats came to Antioch out of fear of Offending them and occasioning their falling off from the Faith of Christ he abstained from that liberty and withdrew from that conversation which before he had without any scruple used and all the believing Jews that were at Antioch followed his example and separated themselves from their Gentile Brethren Now St. Paul considering the greater Scandal and mischief that would follow this pretended tenderness of St. Peter and his complyance with the Jewish Christians and that it was a likely way not only to confirm them in their error but also wholly to exclude the Gentiles from the Faith of Christ and so to hinder Christian Religion being propagated in the World he withstood Peter to the face and chid him sharply for his imprudent behaviour who to avoid offending some of the weak Jews did give a far greater Offence and of much more dangerous consequence to the Gentile Converts of whom the Christian Church was chiefly to consist In this case therefore of Scandal we are not only to regard one side or party of Men but as the same St. Paul directs us 1 Cor. 10. 32. We must give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God It would swell this discourse much beyond my present design to set forth at large the many and great Scandals which are given by those who Separate from the Church of England and I doubt not but if this matter was rightly considered and we were but impartially careful to avoid giving all Offence to others we should soon find our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal peaceably to communicate with our Church than to continue divided from it I shall hint at some few of the most obvious considerations by which we may a little Judge which way the greater Scandal is given 1. By leaving the Parish-Churches and joyning to the Separate Assemblies we do mightily establish and harden as I have before observed those Dissenters with whom we associate in their sinful Separation and Erroneous persuasion of the unlawfulness of conformity for it is but reasonable with them to judge that we do the same things for the same reasons with themselves and this is the true Scandalizing of our weak Brethren leading them into o confirming them in an evil course Whereas by our forsaking them and returning to the Church we may possibly incline some that are sincere amongst them to consider and suspect their own way and enquire after the Arguments that prevail with us to conform and they may begin to think that there is not so much evil in it as they have all along supposed and thus our Authority or example may contribute something towards the gaining our Brethren 2. Which also I have just mentioned before whatever Sect or denomination of Dissenters we joyn with we Offend all the other Sects or Parties amongst them for they agree only in their opposition to the Church of England but in other things they have their distinct Forms and Models of Worship and Shibboleths and they think as ill and sometimes speak as hardly of one another as they do of Conformists Which would evidently appear if any one sort of them should get the upper hand the rest of them would all act as fiercely and complain as loudly of that Party that did prevail as they now do of the Church of England Till therefore they all agree in one way and speak the same Language there is no reason why any one Sect of them should challenge our condescension to them to the dissatisfaction and Offence of all the other Dissenters who have as good a right to this Plea of weakness as themselves 3. Hereby great Offence is given to all those who do conform for this Separation from the Church is a publick condemning of the Government Orders Discipline or Doctrine of our Church and
we be said to give offence to others in either of these sences by conforming to the Institutions and Rites of the Church of England 1. Not in the first sence for that can onely be in one or both of these two cases either first by doing that which is essentially and in its own nature evil and a sin Or secondly by doing that which is directly a temptation and a snare to induce another to do that which is a sin Now if it can be shewn that complying with the Rites and Service of the Church of England is giving offence in either of these sences then I here profess I will my self immediately turn their Proselyte and renounce Conformity and protest against it for ever 1. It hath scarce ever yet been so much as intimated that the Church of England requires any thing as a condition of Communion with her that is essentially evil None of our adversaries that I know of have yet dared to charge her Doctrine with falshood or her Discipline with any thing that is in it self evil And when any shall adventure to do it I doubt not but he will find enough to enter the lists with him Even our bitterest Enemies of the Romish Communion have dared to charge us no further in either of these but onely that we are defective in both and reject many things which the Church of Christ as they pretend hath believed and practised in the ancient and primitive ages of it They would rather chuse to call us Schismaticks than Hereticks or to prove us Hereticks not because we believe or teach any things for necessary Doctrines which are false but rather because we do not teach or believe all things that are Christian and true Neither do they charge our Liturgy and Service or Form of Worship with any thing that is materially evil no nor redundant but onely deficient in many Usages and Rites which they pretend to be Apostolical And if our own Brethren must be more spightful and bitter against us than our worst Adversaries let them look to it that even they become not their accusers at the great day But yet thanks be to God they have not adventured to do this and will be unsuccessful enough when they do it and therefore themselves free us from giving any offence in our Conformity in this sence of giving offence i. e. doing any thing which is formally a Sin our selves and thereby inducing others into the same evil by joyning with us 2. Neither secondly do I see any one sin that Conformity is directly introductive of or a temptation unto and I will believe it will puzzle the most curious and inquisitive to find out any such I have so much charity for my dear Mother the Church and so much duty I thank God yet left in me as to dare to justifie her from this imputation I am sure she intends no sin in what she doth nor knowns of any evil that her Communion will betray any man into All that she designs in her Doctrine is to teach the truth as it is in Jesus and to keep close to that Symbol of Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints And what she intends and aims at in her Liturgie and Discipline is by the one to keep men from innovating and corrupting that Faith or debauching it in their manners and deteining it in unrighteousness And by the other to direct them to worship God in such a way as is suitable to his own nature and to the Principles of such a holy Religion and thereby conciliate that grace that may enable them to live so as the Worship of such a God and the Belief of such a Religion require and oblige them to do I must confess in one thing the Church of England may be an occasion of a great deal of sin in the world but it is such as will as little advantage our Brethren to have it granted as it will be any disparagement or disadvantage to be caused by it I mean in being an occasion of all that in and guilt that all those bring upon themselves that rail and cry out so much upon it that separate and divide from it and studiously maintain and keep up an unreasonable and downright Schism against it But certainly all men will see that this is an offence onely taken and not given and ought no more to be objected against the Church than Murther and Adultery Theft and Robbery ought to be charged upon the Laws of God that declare the same to be sin Were there no such thing as the Constitution of a Church these men would not be guilty of Schism and unjust Separation from it But so if there were no Law there would be no transgression and Adulterers may as well accuse the Law for their sin in one case as Schismaticks can accuse the Constitution of the Church in the other They are both in this case equally culpable i. e. indeed not at all In a word and to conclude this Period if Piety and becoming expressions of Devotion in the publick Worship of God If Gravity Decency and Order in the Offices of Religion And if engaging men to a due respect and regard to the rules of the Gospel be sins or evils to be eschewed and dreaded by men then I will grant that Conformity to the Church of England may possibly give offence in this sence of giving of it but if not I do not see any reason to apprehend or fear any danger at all of it By these considerations it will appear we are free from giving offence by our Conformity to the Rules of our Church in this first sence of Scandal and giving Offence 2. I proceed therefore now to enquire if we cannot clear our selves sufficiently from it in the second notion of these things also And this I think will best and most plainly be determined by considering what can be thought just cause of sorrow and grief to a good man or a reasonable discouragement or hinderance to him in his way of Duty I mean still cause of these given to him by another Now these I think I may reduce pretty safely to these three Heads 1. Some dishonour offered to God and his Religion 2. The Wickedness and Profaneness of men 3. The making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome and difficult than otherwise it would be These are great and just causes of offence and grief to a good man It cannot but greatly afflict a good man to behold his God whom he adores and honours and loves above all things affronted and dishonoured his Laws violated his Authority contemned and trampled upon by daring and foolish men Rivers of waters saith the holy Psalmist run down mine eyes because men keep not thy law Psal 119. 136. And it cannot but be cause of the like sorrow to such a man to see other men for whom he hath a great and concerning charity and whom he loves as his own soul to live in sin
and a contempt of God to wound and destroy their precious Souls and to provide matter for eternal torments And any thing that discourageth a man in the way of his Duty or renders it more perplexed and troublesome to him may be justly called an offence or grief to him I do not easily understand how this kind of offence can properly be said to be given any other but by some of these ways Now let our debate be determined by these things and let the issue be Whether Conformity can be grieving others upon any of these accounts It cannot I am sure be said or at least nothing like a proof be offered that we offend men hereby because we either do any dishonour to God or to his holy Religion by it It is much truer that we bring honour and reputation to both by it To God by taking the best course we can pitch upon to secure the Solemnity and Decency of his Worship And to Religion by taking care that all the great Services of it be performed decently and to edification and not profaned by the ignorance or temerity of every bold and unskilful undertaker 2. Nor secondly can it be pretended that hereby we let men be spectators of our wickedness and profaneness and so grieve and make sad the hearts of good men while they see us without any fear of God before our eyes I have that charity for the modesty and integrity of our Dissenting Brethren that they will not call our Worship Idolatry and the service of Baal any longer though it cannot be dissembled that a great part of the less-discerning Rabble have been taught by them so to account and think of it But if any have been misled into such an Opinion I would beg them to come and behold our way of publick Worship for their better conviction 3. No nor thirdly do I see how it can be any offence upon its making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome or difficult to others than it would be It would be a hard matter for any to shew where he is hindred from being good by seeing others conformable to the Church or what obstruction that casts in his way of Duty I will at any time undertake to shew that it may be an help and advantage to him and a furtherance to him in the way of Religion and Salvation but let or hinderance it can be none If it be pretended that by this we make Religion cumbersome and clog that with Rites and Ceremonies that is a plain and easie thing I grant the Objection were reasonable and the Charge of giving offence undeniable were it either so as it began to be of old in St. Augustin's time or is at present in the Roman-Church clogged with so many antick and garish Ceremonies that it requires a great deal of study to be an exact Ritualist and is a thousand times harder to remember and observe all the Rites and Modes of any Service and Office in Religion than to do the thing a hundred times over But let me beg men to consider whether this Charge can be just against a Church and its Liturgy which enjoyn but three Ceremonies against which the Dissenters themselves can object and these too not in the same but so many distinct Services and which are little more than barely determining those circumstances of Habit and Gesture which are natural and necessary to all our actions If these things can be thought to make the Practice and Services of Religion burthensome then any of the Postures in which our Brethren perform their Worship will make that so too and then the Directory will be as chargeable and faulty in this as the Liturgy These things will be sufficient upon this first way that I proposed to shew that conforming to the Institutions of the Church is not concerned in any thing the Apostle speaks in this place nor can come under his notion of giving offence to any which he speaks against in it I will not deny but that some may be offended and troubled at it It is too visible how much some men are troubled to see a Church constituted among us to behold it protected by Law and Power and to see so great a deference and respect payd unto it and its way of Worship as blessed be God is at present by multitudes both of great and good men I do not doubt but it is greatly maligned and envyed by men and it is little less than a continual trouble and grief to them It is contrary to their private Interest and so long as it is so their designs and aims will never be effected But so ill men are troubled at a good Government and Thieves and Robbers may be vexed that Honest men are secured from them and these may as well cry out that the Laws and the Government are an offence to them as others may that they are offended at the Church and Conformity Sure we know things better than to call every thing a Scandal that any man is vexed or troubled at If we must acknowledge that an offence or forbear doing every thing for fear of Scandal that every ill designing man is pleased to take exceptions against it is more than probable we must do nothing at all nor venture to undertake any thing till we see whether all persons will be pleased with it or not We must not call every thing an offence that pleaseth not the humour of every man for then nothing can avoid that character But this is not enough to say in this matter for it will serve us much further not onely to justifie our selves from this imputation but to reflect it back upon those that charge us For when we have well considered things we shall find that the Scandal will fall upon our Accusers and not Conformity but Separation will be found to be the giving Offence and that in both the notions of giving it that have been named Separation is indeed the Scandal as being both an evil in it self and that which betrays others into many evils If ever there were such a thing as Schism in the world or if the Separation of the Donatists or any that were ever made from the Communion of a National Church were a Schism I think it hath been sufficiently proved on our behalf that the present Separation from our Church is really a Schism And if Schism be a damnable sin and so it is if we will judge either by the Doctrines of the Apostles or their best Successors yea and few sins greater then we shall need no other argument to prove Separation to be indeed the Scandal and that in the greatest notion of Scandal too And we sadly see what great mischiefs it is introductive of what uncharitableness and railing what pride and censoriousness it betrays men into Schism was scarce ever content to be alone Men think it not enough to separate from the Communion of the Church unless they go to justifie their Separation by
severe against The Gentiles might be encouraged and confirmed in their Idolatry by feeing men of the most holy Religion as they called themselves consent with them in it And the Church might be offended too by seeing her Members have so little a regard to her Constitutions and the plain Canons of her great Founders And therefore they ought to be extreamly careful and cautious what they did in this nice point and so ought we always to be in such cases 2. But secondly it may so happen that what we do may onely offend some These different Parties may have different apprehensions of the same thing Some may think it lawful or a Duty others may scruple it or condemn it as a sin Now in this case it will concern us to consider how we ought to govern our selves and our actions and what difference to make in our respects to men And the Apostles Rule in this Text will be a safe measure and direction to us especially it Ecumenius his Note be true as it commonly is in all places where a Climax or Gradation is used as it seems plainly to be in this place His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. consider what the Apostle saith how he puts the chief thing last and makes giving offence to the Church of God that which especially we ought to have a care of and he gives this reason for the equity of this Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it concerns us to endeavour to win others unto the Faith but by no means to offend and grieve those that already profess it And certainly nothing can be more just and reasonable than this is So that the sum of this advice is plainly this You ought as near as you can to do nothing to offend any but however take care not to offend the Church You ough to have a charitable respect to all particular persons of what denomination soever whether Jews or Gentiles but especially to the Church and never to give offence to that by any thing that you do Now this will be a clear guide to us in our present case and not onely acquit Conformity from all guilt of Scandal but cast it wholly upon Separation and refusing to comply with the present Constitutions of the Church since that is a direct giving offence to those which the Apostle chiefly respects in this prohibition i. e. the Church of God I stay not now to give the notion of the Church I doubt not but all contending Parties understand that competently well Nor to prove the present national Church of England to be justly called the Church of God this God be thanked is fully done against both the opposite Factions against her those that call her Heretical or Schismatical on one hand and those that reproach her as Popish and Antichristian on the other Were her present Constitutions to be tried by Apostolical and Primitive practice her Faith to be judged by that of the first Centuries and four most truly General-Councils or her Liturgy and Discipline her Rites Ceremonies and way of publick Worship to be compared with what we can collect and judge of those purest times Or were she to stand or fall by the judgement and suffrages of the most able and learned of Protestant Divines abroad since the Reformation she would not onely be justified but commended not onely pass for a true and sound part of Christs Church but the most sound and Orthodox the most truly Primitive and Apostolical of any at this day on the face of the earth But I wave all this and proceed to apply this Advice and Rule of St. Paul to our own Case as it is at this day with respect to Scandal and the danger of it by conforming to the Church which is plainly this The Church of England having reformed it self from those Corruptions that had sullied the truth and beauty of Christian Doctrine and Worship not by Noise and Tumult and popular Faction which too much influenced some forein Reformations but upon grave and sober advice with the concurrence of the lawful Civil Power digested her Doctrinals into such a number of Articles as she judged most consonant to the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles and first Councils established such a Form of Worship as upon most diligent enquiry and search she found most agreeable to the practice of pure and Primitive Ages and retained onely such Rites and Usages as she found most ancient and freest from any just and reasonable Exceptions and Abuses All these thus constituted and framed she imposeth as Conditions of her Communion and requires Conformity unto of all her Members She will be grievously offended if any of her Children reject and comply not with this Constitution as knowing her Knowledge and Integirty questioned her Authority despised and that Power that hath confirmed all this contemned by so doing On the other hand there are some particular men some Hereticks some Schismaticks some either designing or less instructed persons that declare themselves offended by conforming to this Constitution The question now is how we shall govern our selves and which of these Considerations we will permit to sway us Whether respect to the Church and just Authority and fear of giving offence thereto shall engage us to conform or whether respect to some private persons and fear of offending and angring them shall cause us to cast off all regard to those Laws and Constitutions and all care to comply with them This is the plain Case and were there no other Considerations to determine us when yet there are many I would desire nothing plainer than the direction of the Apostle in this Text where he tells us that the persons we ought chiefly to have a care not to give offence unto are the Church of God If some private persons and the Church come in competition and we must needs offend some we ought to have a greater respect to the Church than unto them And were it truly giving them offence which yet it is not yet were it so I say we ought not to attend so to that Consideration as to cast off all regard and care to the Church of Christ This I think is a Rule so very reasonable at the very hearing of and so fair upon its own reasons that I do not know whether it be really worth while to go to adde any strength to it We might venture it to its own strength to stand or fall and may challenge any one to assault or undertake it Yet however I shall proceed to enlarge a little more upon it and to adde some Considerations which may make it something more popularly plain and convincing 1. And first I desire to have it fairly considered whether we ought not to have at least as fair a respect to the Church of God as to any private persons of what character or denomination soever I do not see upon what reasons any person can deny this to me especially in a case where we
cannot charge the Church with any plain degeneracy or open Apostacy from the Doctrine or Practice of the Scriptures When any particular Church degenerates plainly either in Doctrine or Worship there I am not concerned to determine how far she forfeits all that respect that she might otherwise claim from men nor how much the Credit of a single person may vie with her Perhaps when the Church was degenerated into Arrianism the judgement of Athanasius and some few other Bishops was more to be regarded than that of a whole Synod and in the horrid Apostacy of the Roman Church perhaps the single Doctrine of John Huss was preferable to that of the whole Council of Constance But still in both these Cases or any other parallel ones that respect derived it self not from their persons but was wholly owing to truth and the holy Scriptures that stood with them But blessed be God this is not our case our Church doth challenge and triumph over all charges of any such Apostacy and all the disputes and contests with her by any of these men are about things confessedly doubtful and such as are in their own nature indifferent things about which to say the least it is as possible that single persons may erre and mistake as it is for the Church unless in this also as in many other instances men fall in with the grossest Tenet in Popery that single persons may more reasonably pretend to Infallibility than the whole Church Every man derides and thinks he can baffle all the pretences of the Bishop of Rome to Infallibility and therefore should blush and be ashamed of his own either arrogating it to himself or ascribing it to another For the truth is I do not see but his pretences are as just as another man's i. e. indeed they are both monstrously unreasonable And yet alas this is not the least source of the unhappiness of this Age nor need I be condemned for staying a little while to drop a tear upon it Men turn Dictators in Religion and impose their own Dreams as magisterially upon their Followers as if they were oracular and I am perswaded their Disciples hang as much upon their single authority and confidence and yield as absolute and implicite Faith to all their Doctrines as ever any poor Papists against whom they exclaim so tragically for blind Obedience and Faith They are kept in as absolute subjection to their placits and dare no more read and consult Books that are written to inform them than a poor Papist dare let a prohibited Book be seen in his House by a Father of the Inquisition If ever people followed their leaders blindfold these men do they will not hear any thing against them They have their persons in admiration and I wish I could not say of some for filthy lucres sake or at least some mean reasons equivalent thereto They will not so much as submit to means of Information they commonly say they are satisfied already and the single blustering of one of their own Rabbies shall signifie more with them than all the Arguments of the most Learned and sober men living beside But I am insensibly drawn aside from my chief Subject which is not to treat so much of a respect of Credit and Faith as of Tenderness and Charity which is certainly as justly due from us to the Church as to any private persons whatsoever and it cannot but be as unreasonable to fail in the one as in the other It is every whit as unjust for men to be more regardless of grieving and troubling the Church of Christ as it is foolish and unreasonable to set up one single man's opinion against that of many others that are in the same circumstances and advantages of Knowledge and every way both as knowing and as upright as himself Whatever considerations there are to determine our Charity to single persons there are the same at least to make it necessary towards the Church and as strong reasons to restrain us from offending the one as the other Whatever becomes an Argument in one case is equally so also in the other and if it be not as effectual with us we are partial in the Law and distinguish without any reasons but those of our own partial and unjust respects Let men be pleased to look into the Scriptures and consult the practices of our Lord himself or his Apostles after him and their thoughts will soon be resolved in this matter they will find the one calling for as much deference and respect to the Church as to private persons and the other upon all occasions as careful to pay it and in all cases extreamly careful not to give offence to it in any thing whatsoever as were easie to shew in Instances enough that are plain and obvious to all that read and can scarce pass unobserved by any This is the first Consideration and I appeal to all if it be not a very easie Postulatum a very modest and reasonable intimation and yet I assure you it were a good point gained and a very good step towards our peace were men hearty in their concessions of it Would men pay but the same deference to the Church of Christ and her Constitutions as they readily do to their own single Opinions or the confident suggestions of some admired Leader we might quickly hope to see some end of our Questions and Disputes And would they be but as tender of giving any offence to the Publick as they are of doing so to every little person of their own party we might begin to hope that the Constitutions of our Church might gain some respect and some measure of peaceableness and modesty bless the Inhabitants of this Nation once more 2. But this is too little to suggest and the lesser part of what I would propose to consideration upon this Subject and therefore in the second place I desire it may be considered whether we ought not to have a greater respect to the Church of God than to any single or private persons whatsoever And truly I think this is as reasonable a Postulatum as the other and that which will be as soon granted true by all that duly consider things In all things whatsoever the Publick requires more respect from us than any private person and the welfare of the one is to be preferred by us before that of the other If the Church of Christ and any private Party of men come in competition and it so happen that we probably may give offence to one we ought to let our regard to the Church sway and determine us and think it a less evil that some particular persons be offended than that trouble or offence be given to the whole Church That saying of Caiaphas recorded Joh. 11. 50. though spoken with an unjust and barbarous design yet is a certain and rational truth It is expedient that one man suffer and not the whole Nation perish And it is certainly a less evil
which is likely to be so indeed Particular persons and Parties of men may mistake and it is notorious often do call that an Offence and Scandal which is not so But the whole Church is not so like to take cognizance of and be offended publickly with any thing which doth not deserve that name To which we may cast in this consideration to add weight to the other Every offence to a single private person or persons is not the sin of Scandal but no man can offend the Church of God but he sins grievously and is directly guilty of a great Scandal To conclude the sum of all that I would have considered on this Subject is this 1. That the fear of giving offence to weak and uninstructed persons by Conformity to our Church and returning to the Communion of it is causeless and wholly without any just reason Conformity being neither a sin nor causal of any nor any just cause of offence to any persons whatsoever 2. That it is now matter of plain and indispensible duty tied on us by the Commands and Laws both of God and man and therefore carefully to be done whatever may be the consequences of it to others That no snares or possibilities of offence to some men by it ought to supersede our care or can atone the sin of neglecting of it That we cannot forbear it now for fear of offending others without grievously offending our selves and our own Consciences 3. That our refusing to Conform will greatly offend the Church of God and indeed it doth so Not onely our own National Church of England but even all the Reformed Churches abroad too as may be seen in some Declarations of the Great men among them of late who cannot but grieve to see their great Bulwark and the whole Reformation so battered and weakned by this means and such great advantage thereby given to the great Enemy against it And therefore that this consideration ought to preponderate all the scruples and fears and fancied possibilities of giving offence to private persons of our own party by it And lastly that the effect of all this discover it self in a speedy conscientious care and honest endeavour to put a period to our causeless Separations and Divisions which are the onely true Scandal and giving Offence that I know of in this Case That we no longer go on madly to contrive our own Ruine in pulling down those Walls and making those Breaches in our Churches Banks at which the Enemy may and without Gods immediate interposition will suddenly break in as a mighty resistless torrent That we may all of us return to the Communion of the Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox and Government Apostolical and whose terms of Communion none of us dare term sinful In which we may acceptably serve our God and happily save our own Souls live happily and die comfortably and pass into the Communion of that Church Triumphant above which sings incessant Hallelujahs to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost To whom let us also give all possible praise and Thanksgiving both now and for evermore Amen FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasoâ—ableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to â—he late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling c. The Second Part. 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England By some Divines of the City of London THE SECOND VOLUME LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1685. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine 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 c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
full of Comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification As to the Doctrine of Supererogation this is confuted Article 14. Voluntary Works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without Arrogance and Impiety For by them Men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are Commanded to you say We are unprofitable Servants As to making simple Fornication a meer Venial sin Our Church will endure no such Doctrine For as in the Litany she calls Fornication expresly a deadly sin so hath it ever been accounted in Our Church one of the most deadly even considered as distinct from Adultery As to the Church of Romes Damning all that are not of her Communion the Church of England is guilty of no uncharitableness like it and never pronounced so sad a sentence against those in Communion with the Church of Rome as great a detestation as she expresseth in the Homilies especially of her Idolatrous and Wicked Principles and Practices She is satisfied to Condemn the gross Corruptions of that Apostate Church and leaves her Members to stand or fall to their own Master nor takes upon her to Vnchurch her And as to the remaining most Immoral Principles and Practices of the Romish Church which are all as contrary to Natural as to revealed Religion the greatest Enemies Our Church hath cannot surely have the forehead to charge her with giving the least countenance to any such There being no Church in Christendom that more severely Condemns all instances of Unrighteousness and Immorality Thirdly The Church of England is at a mighty distance from the Church of Rome in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Whereas our Liturgy hath been by many Condemned as greatly resembling the Mass-Book all that have compared them do know the contrary and that there is a vast difference between them both as to matter and form Although some few of the same Prayers are found in both and three or four of the same Rites of which more hereafter To shew this throughout in the particulars would be a very long and tedious task I will therefore single out the Order of Administration of Infant-Baptism as we have it in the Roman Ritual and desire the Reader to compare it with that in our Liturgy and by this take a measure of the likeness between our Liturgy and the Mass-Book c. there being no greater agreement between the Morning and Evening Services and the other Offices of each than is between these two excepting that besides the Lords Prayer there is no Prayer belonging to the Popish Office of Baptism to be met with in ours For the sake of the Readers who understand no more of the Language that the Popish Prayers and Offices are expressed in than the generality of those that make use of them take the following account of the Popish Admonistration of Infant-Baptism in our own Tongue To pass by the long Bedroul of Preparatory Prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and Purple Robe calls the Infant to be Baptized by his Name and saith What askest thou of the Church of God the God-Father answers Faith The Priest saith again What shalt thou get by Faith The God-Father replies Eternal Life Then adds the Priest If therefore thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self Next the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infants face and saith as if we come all into the World possessed by the Devil Go out of him O unclean Spirit and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter Then with his Thumb he makes the Sign of the Cross on the Infants Forehead and Breast saying Receive the Sign of the Cross both in thy Forehead and in thy heart Take the Faith of the Heavenly Precepts and be thy manners such as that thou maist now become the Temple of God After this follows a Prayer that God would always protect this his Elect one calling him by his Name that is Signed with the Sign of the Cross c. And after a longer Prayer the Priest laying his hand on the Infants head comes the Benediction of Salt of which this is the Form I exorcize or conjure thee O Creature of Salt in the Name of God the Father Almighty ✚ and in the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ ✚ and in the Power of the Holy Ghost ✚ I conjure thee by the Living God ✚ by the true God ✚ by the Holy God ✚ by the God ✚ which Created thee for the safeguard of Mankind and hath ordained that thou shouldest be consecrated by his Servants to the People entring into the Faith that in the Name of the Holy Trinity thou shouldest be made a wholesome Sacrament for the driving away of the Enemy Moreover we Pray thee O Lord our God that in Sanctifying thou wouldest Sanctifie ✚ this Creature of Salt and in Blessing thou wouldest Bless it ✚ that it may be to all that receive it a perfect Medicine remaining in their Bowels in the Name of the same Jesus Christ our Lord who is about to come to judge the quick and dead and the World by fire Amen This Idle and prophane Form being recited the Priest proceeds in his Work with the poor Infant and next putting a little of this Holy Salt into his mouth he calls him by his Name and saith Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy propitiation unto Eternal Life Amen This ended with the Pax tecum God Almighty is next mockt with a Prayer That this Infant who hath tasted this first food of Salt may not be suffered any more to hunger but may be filled with Celestial Food c. Now follows another Exorcising of the Devil wherein he is conjured as before and most wofully becalled And next the Priest Signs the Infant again with his Thumb on the Forehead saying And this Sign of the Holy Cross ✚ which we give to his Forehead thou Cursed Devil never dare thou to Violate By the same Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And now after all this tedious expectation we see some Sign of Baptism approaching for the Priest puts his hand again on the Infants head and puts up a very good Prayer for him in order to his Baptism The Prayer being ended he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church for he hath been without all this while saying calling him by his Name Enter thou into the Temple of God that thou mayest partake with Christ in Eternal Life Amen Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Pater Noster But after all this here 's more exercise for our Patience for the Priest falls to his fooling
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione c. as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly the Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2. each City one to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Praesul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reverenced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-bishops The Ancient Church did
the Primitive Church in reading them for Example of Life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine Which in that Article is shewed from St. Hierom to have been the Practice of that Church And besides they are not now appointed to be ordinarily on Sundays read in Our Churches These I take to be the chief of those instances of our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in the Composure of the Liturgy that Our Dissenters are offended at And as for their other Objections of this kind they are as easily answered And I most sincerely profess that 't is not to me imaginable that any thing better than Extreme prejudice can make any Man a Separatist from Our Communion upon such accounts as these As also that I cannot understand how any devout and pious Souls that come to our Publick Prayers without prejudice can find themselves in the least tempted not to joyn in them heartily with the Congregation Absolute perfection is not to be expected in any thing of a human make but if all would read Our Liturgy with that Candour they use in reading the Books of those they have a good opinion of as I am sure they could think nothing intolerable therein so am I as sure they would freely acknowledge it to be exceedingly well adapted to the design of it viz. the exciting of Devotion and that good temper of mind that is necessary to Our Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth I am certain the experience of very many as excellent Christians as this Age can boast of do bear me witness that this is no lavish commendation of Our Prayers Dr. Tayler that blessed Martyr gave this Testimony to Our Liturgy There was set Acts and Monuments p. 1696. forth by the most Innocent King Edward for whom God be Praised everlastingly the whole Church-Service with great deliberation and advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorised by the whole Parliament and received and Publisht gladly by the whole Realm which Book was never reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was as fully perfected according to the Rules of Our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be Offended with any thing therein contained I mean of that Book Reformed What then would he have thought of it had he lived to see it twice more Reformed as it hath been since Lastly I proceed to the fore-named Rites and Ceremonies of Our Church in which Our Symbolizing with Popery is so much Condemned and made a pretence for Separation But before I come to particulars I will observe in the general that the distance Our Church keeps from that of Rome in the imposition of Ceremonies is infinitely greater than her Agreement therein with her For as those imposed by our Church as hath been already said are exceeding few not the hundredth part scarcely of those imposed by the Roman Church so doth not our Church impose them as the other doth on the Consciences of her Members as things of necessity as parts of Religion or meritorious Services as hath been proved out of the Articles Now then 1. As to the Surplice our Church requires not the wearing of this Garment as an Holy Vestment like the Priestly Garments under the Old Law but meerly for the sake of Order and Uniformity whereas in the Church of Rome a Surplice may not be worn till 't is hallowed in a solemn manner by the Bishop or some one by his Allowance as may be seen in the Missal with divers Prayers that it may defend him who wears it from the Assaults of the Devil the Prayers being accompanied with a number of Crossings and in fine the Surplice besprinkled with Holy Water in the Name of the Blessed Trinity But I say in our Church 't is used only as a Garment of distinction no more holiness is placed in it than in the Hoods worn over it meerly for distinction of degrees And the White is preferred before any other Colour because it was a very antient Custom in the Primitive Church for the Ministers to Officiate in White Garments Beza saith of the Surplice These linnen Garments Contra Westphalum vol. 1. p. 255. we do not so stick at that we would have the progress of the Word of God hindred in the least for them And we might shew that Mr. Calvin much blamed contending with Authority about the wearing this Garment Particularly in his Epistle to Bullinger And since all the Popish abuse of this Garment is perfectly removed I know not why all Ministers should not be of their mind and much less can I imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it should be affrighted from our Churches by the meer sight of so Innocent a thing 2. As to the Cross in Baptism Our Church holds so little Conformity with the Papists herein that in no one thing of an Indifferent nature can our Symbolizing with them be less scandalous Dr. Burges in his defence of Dr. Morton Sheweth that we hold no Conformity with the Papists in the use thereof either in the P. 416. c. time when or place where or manner how or end whereto The Minister with us as he there sheweth may not Cross Himself or the People or Font Water Communion-Table or Cups or the Bread and Wine or any other of Gods Ordinances All which in Popery the Priest is bound to do for their Consecration or blessing of himself or them as without which nothing is Consecrated The Child to be Baptized with us may not be Crossed before Baptism on the Forehead Breast or any part which in Popery the Priest must do to drive away the Devil and make the Efficacy of that Sacrament more easy and strong as they teach After Baptism the Minister may not with us Cross the Children with Oyl or Chrism or without on the Crown of the Head as in Popery is required to give them their full Christendom lest they should die before Confirmation Yea at Confirmation the Minister is not to make the sign of the Cross on the Forehead with Chrism or without which is enjoyned in Popery as an Essential part of the Sacrament as they call it of Confirmation Nay as he proceeds if the Child be in danger of present death and not like to live to make profession of Christ Crucified the Minister is directed not to use the sign of the Cross that all may know that we hold it not to be either Operative upon the Child or at all necessary to the Efficacy of the Lord's Sacrament but do onely retain it according to the first and best intention as an outward badg of the Constant profession of Christ Crucified And whereas 't is said in the 30 Canon that by this lawful Ceremony and honorable badg this Child is dedicated to the service of Christ the Doctor declareth that he hath good warrant to assure those who are offended at that Explication
and I perceive you mean that it pleaseth you to find it not written in a heat and that there is nothing of a Censorious or Peevish humour or of a haughty contempt of those he deals with therein exprest And he hopes that upon the same accounts you are no less pleased with the other Resolutions of Cases which bear this company But he thinks it no mighty Attainment to be able in writing to manage a Controversie Coolly and Sedately without bitter or provoking Reflexions or contemptuous Expressions Though men of warm Tempers may find it somewhat difficult to govern their Spirits and Passions as it becomes them in the heat of disputing by word of mouth one would think that a small measure of Humility or Good nature or of Discretion and Prudence should make it no hard matter to acquire that other Attainment And much more that no one who is a Christian in Spirit and Temper as well as in Notion and Profession can find it a difficult thing to arrive at it But enough of this In your Second Paragraph you seem to intimate that our Author might have spared his pains in dwelling so long upon the Distance between our Church and the Church of Rome in points of Doctrine But he is not satisfied with the reasons you give for the needlesness of so doing Your reasons are two First because he argued chiefly for Communion in Worship And Secondly you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish nor our Church reflected on as symbolizing with that Idolatrous Church in Points of Doctrine But these reasons have not convinced our Author that he is over long upon this Argument for it was not his design to shew that our Church doth not symbolize in Points of Doctrine with that of Rome but that She stands at greatest defyance with that Church Not that She doth not teach her Corrupt Doctrine in her Articles but that she designedly confutes them and exposeth the falsity and corruption of them And this surely was worth the shewing in so many instances for their sakes who never read or considered those Articles as I fear very few of the Dissenters have done And whereas you say you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish and it would be strange if you had I say there is too great cause to suspect that very few of our Dissenting Brethren do understand how Anti-popish they are though they do not charge them as Popish And I doubt you have met with many I am sure very many are to be met with who have reflected upon our Church as an Idolatrous Church though you never heard her accused as symbolizing with the Idolatrous Church of Rome in Points of Doctrine But they will find it somewhat hard to understand how a Church can be Idolatrous in matters of Practice and yet be pure in her Doctrine from any tang of Idolatry Surely her Practices must be grounded upon her Doctrines or they would be strange Practices indeed And it would be wonderfull if she should Practise Idola try and yet Believe nothing that tends to the encouragement of that foul Sin nay believe and teach all those Doctrines that are as Opposite to Idolatry as Light to Darkness So that I conceive nothing could be more to our Author's purpose than to endeavour to remove that prejudice of many against the Constitution of our Church which is grounded upon an Opinion of its being near of kin to Popery And what could signifie more to their Conviction that there is not any ground for such an Opinion than the shewing how abhorrent to Popery our Church is in her Doctrine and what a testimony she beareth in her Articles against the Idolatrous and Superstitious Doctrines of the Romish Church and the Practices which she foundeth upon those Doctrines As to the several Additions you say may be made to the * * * pag. 4. Anti-popish Doctrines contained in the 39 Articles our Author conceives he was not guilty of any Oversight in not preventing you because some of them are not properly Anti-popish but contrary to the Doctrine of other Sects which are to be found among Abhorrers of Popery as well as Papists and others of them our Author hath not omitted but if you 'll look again you may find them in their proper places Viz. those Doctrines contained in Artic. VI. and Artic. XI This under the head of Doctrines flatly contradicting the Holy Scriptures pag. 9. That under the head of the Authority on which each of the two Churches founds its whole Religion pag. 18. Now I hope by this time you understand very well what our Author would have you conclude from this first part of his Performance which you say * * * pag. 4. you do not well understand And whereas you ask whether it be that the 39 Articles have in them nothing of kin to Popery as to matters of Faith And add that you dare say there is not a judicious Dissenter in England will say they have I answer if there be any injudicious Dissenters in England that will say they have I hope these poor people ought not to be so despised as that we should use no means for the undeceiving of them But our Author would have you conclude that he hath done what he designed which is as hath been already said not to shew that the 39 Articles have nothing of kin to Popery but that they are most abhorrent from it and that our Church is at the widest and vastest distance from Popery in her Doctrinals and consequently one would think too in matters of Practice But our Author does not satisfie himself to prove this by this consequence but goes on to shew it in the particular instances of matters of Practice after he had done it in Points of Doctrine To return now to your Second Page You say that it is mightily Satisfactory to you to hear our Author assuring you that our Church alloweth her Members the judgment of Discretion c. But Sir you needed no Authors to assure you of this since our Church hath done it as fully as it can be done by words and our Author no otherwise assures you of it than by citing our Churches Articles But whereas you add that this you cannot but think implieth a Liberty not onely to Believe and Judge but to Doe also according to what a man believes and judgeth surely you will find your self able to think otherwise when you have considered what is the necessary and immediate consequence of such a thought viz. that all such things as Laws are utterly inconsistent with allowing to men the Judgment of Discretion according to this large notion And that therefore our Church doth faultily Symbolize with the Church of Rome in having any such things as Government and Discipline You next say that our Author speaketh very true as to the Popish Rites and Ceremonies and that those in our Church are
comparatively few but you much doubt whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world unless he means Popery at its full growth for that Mystery of Iniquity as to Rituals began to work very early To this I answer that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Fathers and Christians were for the most part Papists though not fully grown Papists And as to those words of St. Paul The Mystery of iniquity doth already work if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity which began to work in his days the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church I will engage for our Author that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist You say in your Third Page that you cannot well understand how our Author saith that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary you found he did if you read the whole Sentence which runs thus pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome does her's as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article c. And why Sir did you conceal this part of the Sentence and thus stop at a Comma You thus proceed Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of them is made sinfull and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church c. And I assure you that I do as little understand if this be good arguing how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects or a Master of his Servants is not made by them necessary to Salvation since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each is acknowledged to be sinfull by all that believe these Precepts binding viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake c. And Servants obey in all things your Masters c. And as to the Penalty you mention of being cast out of the Church and cut off from the Body of Christ which is the same thing it amounts to thus much That those who will by no means be prevailed with to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members shall be cast out of it which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever have ever thought fit to have inflicted upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws in order to the preservation of themselves and the upholding of Government amongst them And our Author I am certain will readily grant that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed oughâ— to be cast out of the Church and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them but as the last Remedy As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender as well as for example to others never his Destruction But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority and when this Penalty is never according to the Rules of our Church to be inflicted but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity who are humble and modest and peaceable and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons not of our Constitution But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page wherein our Author is concerned hath been replied to And there you thus speak As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles but this is but Ecclesia Muta How many have we that will tell us We are Ecclesia Loquens the Living Church of England and we tell you c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens contradictory to the 39 Articles But 1. You have given us we thank you the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens But why do you expect unless we knew you better that we should take your bare word for it Nay we have hardly that for you do not in express terms affirm but ask this Question How many have we that will tell us we are Ecclesia Loquens And therefore it might suffice to give you onely this short answer Do you tell us how many or whether there are any if you know Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church or if not none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it But the truth of it is 't is a mere Figment and the very Dream of a Shadow But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question you cannot well be otherwise understood than as asserting that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies as Articles of Faith and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church except you will separate from and bid adieu to the Old And in good earnest if this be so Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England as by Law Established and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may
absolve by commission from God more than declaratively I mean I know no one that maketh the Priest's Absolution to be other in Effect than declarative though it signifies more than if pronounced by a Layman Nor your Fourth That the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ is in the Elements of Bread and Wine really Our Church-Catechism saith that The Body and Bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithfull in the Lord's Supper And I know no Divine of ours that explaineth this otherwise than thus That Believers feed on the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Lord's Supper as truly and really as they do on the Elements but not after a corporal and carnal manner but after a spiritual viz. by applying to themselves the Benefits of Christ's death by faith And I presume you will neither assert this to be Popish Doctrine nor deny that 't is true Doctrine Nor do I know any one of our Divines that holds your Fifth Proposition for it may not be called a Doctrine viz. That our Conformable Congregations are no better than Conventicles where the Minister reads not the Communion Service at the Altar Which you assert to be tantamount to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue because in multitudes of Congregations the People cannot hear a line from him I say I know of no Divine of our Church that ever asserted that such Congregations as the forementioned are no better than Conventicles There was indeed lately a foolish Book published to Prove them Conventicles but it is strongly conjectured that this Book was written by a certain Layman And what Church he is of I cannot say nor is it a pins matter to know But I may as much suspect him to be a Protestant Dissenter as a Popish upon the score of that his Position it being nothing of kin to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown tongue For as there is not One of your Multitudes of Congregations wherein the People cannot hear a line from him that reads at the Communion Table except you mean wherein every one of the People cannot for I doubt not the Major part can in all where the Minister hath a voice to be well heard from the Pulpit so all that is read is known before to those who are not Strangers to our Prayers or at least they may have Books to enable them to go along with the Minister whether they can or cannot hear distinctly one sentence from him Nor do I know any one of our Divines that hath ever taught your 6th Doctrine That whole Christ is under each Element which you intimate is the onely foundation on which the Sacrilegious Romish Practice stands But if I could believe that Doctrine to be true I should notwithstanding judge it an intolerable thing to refuse the Cup to the Laity against the express Institution of our Lord. Nor know I any Divine of ou Church guilty of the 7th particular of your Charge viz. That there are those who interpret the Ten Commandments so as that he who will ever be saved must do a great many works of supererogation And if I did know any one that so interpreted the Commandments as to make any one such work necessary to Salvation I would not call him a Papist for it but an Ignoramus who understands not the word Supererogation Nor know I any one that teacheth Original Sin thereby understanding Corruption of Nature to be rather our Misfortune than our Fault which is your 8th Doctrine Nor consequently that Concupiscence is no sin which is your 9th Nor your 10th That man hath a power in his own will to chuse and doe what is spiritually good i. e. without the Assistence of Divine Grace And with this Assistence I hope you Dissenters do all hold it Nor know I any one of our Divines who teacheth That we are not accounted righteous before God or Justified onely for the Merits of Christ that is that there is any other Meritorious cause of our Justification besides the Active and Passive obedience of Christ Nor your 11th That we are not Justified by Faith alone Understanding by Faith not a dead but a living Faith that purefies the heart and works by love Nor your 12th That good works must go before justification and are not the fruits of Faith but Faith it self For I know no one of our Church that asserts more than this that a sincere Resolution to obey all God's Commandments must in order of nature go before Justification Nor your 13th That there is no Eternal Predestination of persons to life and the means tending thereunto I know of none of our Church that have ever taught this Doctrine as you have expressed it nor any worse than this That Eternal Predestination to life is not Irrespective or Absolute which no Article of our Church saith it is And Abundance of you Dissenters hold this Doctrine as well as Church of England men And thus have I gone over all the Doctrines contradictory to the 39 Articles taught by your Ecclesia Loquens yours I say for she is not ours and I declare again that I know of no Divine of our Church that teacheth or holdeth such Doctrines If you know any as one would think you do very many I pray name them You say we spare any names in these cases but be you entreated not to spare them But if you won't be prevailed with we shall very shrewdly guess at the reason Sir to deal freely with you I cannot but wonder at your adventuring into the World this other Celeusma since the Author of the former had so ill success and must needs have repented him heartily of that Undertaking All that have consideratively read his Answerer I am confident are convinced that after a Great Cry Little Wooll appeared or rather none at all Nor can such be ignorant what foul play was used to make our Divines of the Church of England broach Heresie And I doubt not but you your self have blushed at it if you have ever read the Parallela imparia sive Specimen fidei Celeusmaticae Could you catch us thus dealing with the Books of your Authors as ours have been dealt with by that Author and some others that might be named we should at another kind of rate have been exposed than they have been But Sir for God's sake let us make as much Conscience of vile Calumny than which there is not a more express Transgression of the Law of God nor of the very Light of Nature as of Obedience to Authority in such things as no Divine Law can be produced against and nothing but strained and far-fetcht Consequences And for God's sake also let us at length be perswaded to have so great a concern for our common Religion as to give over exposing it by such unchristian doings to the Scorn and Derision of our Common Enemy But I cannot take my leave of this heavy Charge of yours till I have asked you what you inferr
from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge * * * p. 7. That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say †††p. 9. That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divâ—nes is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas some things that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the mere Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this * * * p. 10. Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God as it is an humane Act. It being so too to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship It being a contradiction again to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent things that are so in Divine Worship for otherwise you trifle egregiously in putting this Question or make your Nonconformists so to doe for whom you put it But you abuse them if you do so for that which divers of them do
never saith that in this place the things forbidden are morally evil but the contrary But as to those things forbidden in Deut. 14. 1. he sheweth that they are morally evil nor is your bare saying that that place is not capable of such a sense a confutation of him And now we come to the Text which you desire your Author to consider in these words * * * p. 12. But because our Author tells us he can find no other Texts that make more if so much for this purpose I shall desire you Sir but to consider Hos 2. 16 17. And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembred by their name Now upon this Text you say That Baali was a very good name if we consider it in its self what doth it signifie more than my Lord Adonai is of the same signification by which name it was never unlawfull to call God But because the Idol was called Baal God abhorred it though he allowed himself to be called by another name of the same significancy Nor will I believe our Author himself owns that it was lawfull for the Jews to apply themselves to God under the name of Baali Now because you lay so much weight upon this Text you shall have the fuller Answer And 1. I say that God doth not in the former verse give the Jews a Prohibition no more to call him Baali but makes them a gratious Promise that they shall not 'T is plain by what goes before that the words are a Promise viz. by the two foregoing verses wherein God promiseth them to cease from plaguing them for their Idolatry that is upon their true Repentance and to give them again happy days And then he saith Thou shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me no more Baali That is thou shalt call me no more by a name of Fear as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but by a name of Love as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this signifying Sponsus Benignus but that Durus imperiosus Maritus or Dominus such as Baal was to his Worshippers as the Criticks will tell you Which is as much as to say there shall no more be an occasion given you from my severe usage of you to call me by a name that signifies a harsh Lord or he would not be to them like such a Lord as Baal was but he would shew them the kindness of a tenderly loving Husband for the time to come 2. It is manifest that God's meaning was not that they should never use that word Baal because Idolaters used it and an Idol was called by that name for then they might not use the name Jah neither because the Heathens used the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor would God have called himself by the name of Baal as you will find he does Isa 54. 5. if you consult your Hebrew Bible as that word signifies no more than Husband 3. Whereas it follows in the next verse For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembred by their name The following Criticks do give such a sense of them as will not in the least favour your purpose This is Liveleius's In the renovation of the Church Idolatry shall be abolished Calvin's is I will cause my people to cast away all their Lies and to be content with the pure Doctrine of my Law The Exposition of Vatablus is this By Baalim God understands the various Images of Baal which had various names according to the places wherein they were erected as there were many Jupiters among the Heathens And whereas you say because the Idol was called Baal God abhorred that name I must needs tell you that to think God can abhor a good name merely because of its having been given to an Idol speaks a childish notion and opinion of that Infinitely perfect Being But after all this let us suppose that God here forbad the Jews to call himself for the future by the name of Baal this will not in the least affect our Author for if it were so it could be onely upon the account of their vehement inclination to the worship of the Idol Baal and therefore they might not take his name into their mouths that so they might not be tempted by using it to worship him again But our Author hath said enough to convince you that there is not the least appearance of an Argument to be fetched from hence against the lawfulness of our Ceremonies or to prove that since they were used without any Idolatry or Superstition by the Ancient Fathers before they were abused by the Apostate Church of Rome they may not return to their first use the Idolatry and Superstition being perfectly removed and moreover no danger arising from the using of them to the Members of our Church of returning to Popery But in your * * * p. 13. next Page you find fault with our Author for asserting as he doth in his 28th Page That there is no such inclination in the Members of our Church to go over to that of Rome nor hath any such inclination been observed ever since the Reformation as was in the Jews to the Superstitious and Idolatrous practices of the Heathens But need I shew you the impertinency of your Answer to this passage which is this that the people now are more devoutly inclined I very much doubt I am sure they had much more reason then than now to be averse to it having more miraculous Operations and extraordinary appearances of God to them than we can pretend to And I am sure the hearts of all are by nature now as bad as then But 1. Doth it argue that our people are more devoutly inclined than the Jews were because they are not so inclined to Idolatry Men that have nothing of Devotion in their tempers may have no inclination at all to some certain Vices But I need onely to ask you whether the Turks be a devouter sort of people than the Jews then were or whether the Jews be more devout now than they were then because as every body knows they both have at present not onely no inclination but the greatest abhorrence to Idolatry and so have had for many ages 2. What if the Jews had more miraculous Operations among them c. doth it thence follow that we must therefore be necessarily as much inclined to Idolatry as they were why then are not the Turks as much inclined or the present Jews who have no more Miraculous Operations among them than we have among us 3. What though our hearts be as bad by nature as the hearts of the Ancient Jews were must we needs be therefore as much inclined to Idolatry as they were Why then I ask again are not the hearts of the
all of them as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them The Second instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof you reply not one word to any of them But you think you have balanced as your word is those five with five of your own 1. You say These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship But we say they do and our yea is as good as your nay 2. You say many read false oftentimes And whose fault is it if they do But it appears from what is coming that you cannot prove it 3. You say Many Children and Girls understand not what they doe And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons 4. Those that cannot read you say are not edified in a confused noise not being able to understand what is read And then I hope you might have spared your second particular for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to doe in this confused noise 5. You say Many leud and profane persons are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Publique Worship c. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Publique Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister and then we will grant that not onely no profane men but no Lay-men neither be they never so good may have their part therein 6. You say There is no such practice in the Churches of God in New England Scotland France Holland c. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant that you urge such an Argument as this to him If you do you are much mistaken Sir But Mr. Baxter tells you in his fifth particular That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses And therefore those Churches you mention should doe well to imitate ours in this particular I am constrained Sir to tell you again that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this The Third instance is The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal You say you wish our Author had told us how many But I say 't is not worth the knowing if it were I could soon tell you if those that are taken thence are all good ones And considering what hath been said this is a sufficient Answer Remember our Author hath told you that our Departure from the Church of Rome was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty and those that were innocent occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's which I have heretofore somewhere met with viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23 d. Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfie you that you might have spared it Onely let me once for all tell you that whereas both here and elsewhere you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things wherein we symbolize with the Church of Rome you ought to know that while they are Enjoyned we who are under Government are not at liberty as the Christians in the Apostles days were as to the Eating of Meats c. And whereas you touch here upon the topick of Scandal I can not hope to satisfie you about this Point if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it To which I refer you and ought so to doe it not falling within our Author's Undertaking The Fourth instance is The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books And what you say under this head amounts to thus much that you think it were better if they were not appointed And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation and Consequently you can have no controversie with our Author about it Whether it were better or not that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on Holy-days and ordinary Week-days merely for Example of life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine let it be left to our Superiors to judge But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters as to this matter yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits nor made to doe what they cannot as well as you apprehend lawfull No God forbid that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him for not being at Church on a Week-day Holy-day But I must take notice of one more passage before I proceed viz. Holy-days are the same with Sabbath-days with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either Here is a good Wipe for our Author But I pray Sir did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath He said that indeed pag. 40th from whence it may be inferred that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholick Church and is that such a small matter to found it upon When 't is the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures But who are they that tell you that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other Holy-days Name any one if you are able that so saith or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church in which our Author saith pag. 45. Our symbolizing with Popery is so much condemned And you say pag. 24th that he observeth in the general 1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part you should have added scarcely of those used by the Papists And this you grant but you add that we may as well Symbolize in thirty as in three But I must make bold to tell you you never uttered a more inconsiderative saying It seems then 't is no matter how many Ceremonies are used in Divine Worship so they be all innocent I am sure St. Augustin was not of this mind But it may be you 'll say there are none innocent But if so you cannot say that we may as well use thirty as three Because the thirty must necessarily be a great hindrance to that attention of mind that Divine Worship calls for but he must have a Weak head indeed whose mind must needs be diverted by three 2. Our Author saith that our
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles that these Men do now then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ But since it is so universal and ancient a practice that no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And accordlng to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water and * Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeâ—s l. 2. c. 39. the Spirit equally necessary for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless one be born again c. From the * * * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a a a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b b b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22. 28. the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c c c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro â—exu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d d d Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. Joh. 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * * * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken from the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâ—her rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †††Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
the Figure of a Man's Face by the placing of the Nose betwixt the two Eyes and much more in the Position of the whole Body of the Man with his Arms extended They can discern it in the Sword in Paradise See the notes of Laur. le bar upon Tertul. advers Marcion l. 3. p. 178 179. and in the Cross stick that Noah's Dove brought back into the Ark c. And indeed some of the Fathers bend their Imaginations somthing that way and would fancy the Figure of the Cross in Moses his stretching out his Arms whiles the Israelites were fighting with Amalek in the Paschal Lamb when the Spit went through it c. which however they were conceipts too much suiting that way of allegorizing that some of them were fond of yet doth it at least confirm what I am now upon I mean the ancient Reception of this Sign into the Primitive Church Nay I may further add that in some of the passages they have of this kind the hint they take may not deserve perhaps to be absolutely exploded as if there were no weight or moment at all in it I will crave leave to instance particularly in one thing which some of the Fathers do a little insist upon and that is that Mark in Ezek. 9. 4. that was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh c. This Mark in several of the ancient Versions is suppos'd to be the Hebrew Tau which St. Hierom tells us was in the Samaritan Character like our T and so made the figure of the Cross from whence he Collects that this was signum crucis quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur a token of that Cross that is imprinted upon the Forehead of the Christian If St. Hierom be not mistaken in the Samaritan Character his conjecture in the Application of it is not very unjustifiable because as all the promises are in Christ Jesus yea and in him Amen So 2 Cor. 1. 20. all the Prophesies of old where they concern'd any signal advantages or deliverances to the Jewish Church had the assurance of them frequently confirm'd by some hint or Remembrance of the Messiah that was afterward to be reveal'd Thus in that Confirmation that Isaiah was to give to Ahaz of his present deliverance from the Invasions of Ephraim and Syria he gives him this Sign behold Isai 7. 4. a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son How could that great Event that was not to come to pass of so many Ages after Ahaz his Death affect him who stood in need of so immediate Deliverance but that it was brought in as an instance not only that as God could bring about such a wonder as the Birth of a Child from a Virgin could as easily relieve Judah in its present streights but further he that had so gracious a design toward them as to send the Messiah amongst them would in the Prospect he had to that show now his particular regards for the Church at this time In Analogy to this might this passage in Ezekiel look toward that mark which Christians in after Ages should wear upon their Foreheads as a present Symbol of the escape of those that should be found sighing for the Abominations that were then done in Israel And to this probably may that Seal of the living God have some Reference which was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Servants of God Revel 7. 2 3. For as they are there reckon'd up by the number of twelve times twelve to signifie that they are the true and genuine off-spring of the twelve Apostles so the Seal Vid. Med. in loc of the Living God upon their Foreheads may point at the Figure of the Cross to betoken them though under the Prophetick Denomination of the Jewish Tribes to be of the Christian Church This I would not be suppos'd to lay any great stress of Argument upon only offer the Conjecture to the Candor of the Reader And thus having shewen the Antiquity of this Sign as it was receiv'd into the Church long before the Corruptions of Popery appear'd in the World I know but of one thing can be urg'd to take off the strength of what hath been hitherto said and that is that the Primitive Christians might probably take up this Custom of thus signing themselves because they liv'd wholly amongst the Enemies of the Cross of Christ the Jews making the Cross a Stumbling-block and the Greeks Foolishness So that their design of doing it was only to bear their Testimony to the Faces of both that is tho the Cross was scandal to the one and scorn and laughter to the other yet they would not be ashamed of this Cross but made it the Badg of their Profession Whereas we live in an Age and Nation where thanks be to God there seems no such occasion because Christianity is the Religion we openly and universally profess To this I answer that this Objection being thus made doth at least suppose the usage of the Cross not to be a thing that is in it self evil because if so no good end or design in using it could hallow the Action so that the Ceremony is not Evil in its self but that upon some weighty reasons it might be brought into the Church if so then we might reasonably think that the injunction of Authority in this Case might Justifie the Practice of it But much more if the reason now alledg'd might be a just occasion for the Church in its first Ages to take the usage up God knows the occasion may be as urgent still upon an Equally sad account and that is the Prophane and Atheistical Contempt that is thrown not so much upon the Sign as the Doctrine of the Cross by the pretended Wits of our Age. He hath a very slender concernment for the interests of Religion that is not sensibly toucht with those Blasphemous Railleries he may every where meet with upon the whole Scheme of Christianity especially that which we make the great Foundation of our hopes and trust viz. the Merits of our Saviours Cross and Passion That the use of this Sign if ever it was reasonable upon such a score as this it is so now And St. Cyprians Caution is strong and pertinent enough at this time of the day against all the Wit and Pride of the daring and haughty Atheist Muniatur frons c. Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept Epist 56. ad Thiberitanos safe q. d. Remember the Badg you took upon you in Baptism and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads never be asham'd or laught out of Countenance as to the Memory of your Saviours Love and the Foundation of your hopes lay'd in his Death and Passion And now since it is so evident how Ancient a practice this hath been in the Christian Church I would not have this part of the Argument pretended further than it was first design'd which was only to
and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations and gave it no Entertainment for the space of 1200 years That Kneeling to receive the Sacrament was not used at the Institution of the Lords Supper nor after in any Age of the Church before the time of Honorius the Third about the year 1220. So also another great Champion for sitting writes Didoclavius maintaineth saith he that which none of our opposites Gillesp Disp against Eng. Pop. Cer. p. 191. Altar Damascen 784. lib. 1. c. 1. are able to infringe viz. That no Testimony can be produced which may evince that ever Kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the Third He further observes from the History of the Waldenses That bowing of the Knees before the Host was then onely enjoyned when the opinion of Transubstantiation got place By the Practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages I conceive they mean thus much That from the Age wherein the holy Apostles lived down to that wherein Transubstantiation was set on foot or that wherein Honorius the Third enjoyned the Adoration of the Host Kneeling in the act of Receiving the Lords Supper was never heard of nor used or as one Author expresly asserts it till the year 1220. Howsoever for sureness sake and in order to the clearing of this matter under our present Consideration I think it will be requisite to fix the time wherein Transubstantiation was first broacht as well as when it was establisht or imposed as an Article of Faith and so too wherein the Adoration of the Host was enjoyned whereby the just bounds and limits will be known beyond which we are not to pass to fetch in Evidence and consequently all extravagancy will be prevented on our part and all cavilling if possible on theirs As for the Time then which we enquire after I think we may safely relie on the judgment of a very Learned Prelate of our own which he delivers after this manner The word Transubstantiation Histori Transub Papal Josian Ep. Dunelm Edit 1675. p. 53 54. is so far from being found in the sacred Scriptures or the Writings of the ancient Fathers that the great Patrons of it do themselves acknowledge it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century Nay that the Thing it self without the Word that the Doctrine without the Expression cannot be proved from Scripture is ingenuously acknowledged by the most Learned Schoolmen who endeavour by other Arguments Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracen Cajetan c. therefore to defend it and allow it to be brought in by the Authority of the Pope and not received in the Church of Rome till 1200 years after Christ The first Authors who mention this new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third about the year 1159 and Stephanus Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful The Pope who first establisht this An. Dom. 1215. An. Dom. 1217 or thereabouts monstrous Doctrine by his own Arbitrary power as an Article of Faith was Innocent the Third And his Successor Honorius was the man who decreed Adoration to the Host The first Council which took notice and approved of the Papal Decree for Transubstantiation was that assembled at Constance which condemned A D. 1415. Wiclif for an Heretick because among other truths he had asserted this That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread an t Wine remain without a Substance and for this Opinion they ordered his Body to be taken out of his Grave and burnt to ashes Thus things stood till the year 1551. when the Council of Trent publisht it to the world for an infallible Truth and imposed the belief of it upon all under the pain of an Anathema As for the Doctrine of Consubstantiation and the Corporal presence of Christ at with and in the Sacrament it was started long before that of Transubstantiation and was much disputed among learned men He who first broacht it in the East was John Damascen in the days of Gregory the Third And about About the year 740. an hundred years afterwards it was set a-foot in the West by the means of Paschasius Radbertus a Monk of Corbie and one Amalarius a Who wrote de Ecclesias Officiis de ord Antiphon c. contemporary with Amalarius Fortunatus Ar. bp of Triers who wrote de Sac. Baptis ad Carol. M. Deacon of Metz. The former taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather enclosed in the Bread and Corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread The latter gives Amalar. de Ecclesi Offic. lib. 3. c. 24. vid. lib. 3. c. 35. it as part of his Belief That the simple nature of the Bread and Wine mixed is turned into a reasonable nature viz. of the Body and Bloud of Christ Moreover he in another place confesseth that it was past his skill to determine what became of his Body after it was eaten When the Body of Christ is taken with a good intention it is not for me to dispute saith he whether it Amalar. Epist ad Guitardum MS in Biblioth Coll. S. Benedic Cantabri Cod. 55. cited by A. Bp. Vsher Ans Jesuits Chall p. 75. Rabanus Maurus John Erigena Wala Strabo Ratramus or Bertramus be invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept in our Body until the day of our burial or exhaled into the Air or whether it go out of the Body with the Bloud or be sent out by the mouth c. For this and another Foolery of the three parts or kinds of Christs Body he was censured by a Synod held at Cressy wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France That the Bread and Wine are spiritually made the Body of Christ which being a meat of the Mind and not of the Belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life From whence we may learn as also from the Writings of several Learned men of that Age who opposed these Dotages of the Corporal presence that the Western Church had not then adulterated the Doctrine of the Sacrament but followed the pure and sound sence of the Ancient Fathers and condemned these Whimseys and gross conceits of the carnal or Oral eating of Christ in the Sacrament Nay in the year 1079. when Hildebrand called Gregory the 7th came to the Papal Chair the Bishops and Doctors were divided in their Opinions concerning the Corporal Presence some maintaining Berengarius his opinion who denied it and some following that of Paschasius as appears from the Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction which was called on purpose to condemn Berengarius Moreover it 's recorded that Hildebrand himself doubted whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion For three
against the Law of the Land and the common practice of the Church Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or kneels afterwards but somewhat previous to both for we generally rise before we do either But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes Hist Eccles l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425 of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly reformed this that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them And partly from Sozomens History wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us Eccles Hist l. 7. c. 19. p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440 by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people he cites a passage out of the Psalms and applies it home to him after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him Psal 49. in our Transl 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp not in 4 lib. Oâ—tat who fits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you says he are more particularly pointed at in this Text For the people are not licensed to sit in the Church This Text chiefly respects the Bishops and Presbyters who had onely a right and priviledge to sit in the Publick and Religious Assemblies but doth not concern the people who stood all the time Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times as well Heretical as Orthodox to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus as being weak and concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he Again that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit Collon Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam c. of God will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father this was one That they were wont some of them to fit at Prayer A little further in the same Chapter Tertullian hath these words Adde hereunto the sin of Eo apponitur irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi Angelo adhuc orationis adstante factum illud irreligiosissimum est nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit Tertull. de Oratione c. 12. Irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did would take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for How much more irreligious is this Gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us Adde to all this that saying of Constantine the great Euseb de vit Const mag lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612. recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperour with which I will conclude this point It was upon occasion of a Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour delivered by Eusebius not in the Church but in the Palace of the Emperour and the Historian observes to the praise of this excellent Prince that though it was a long and tedious Oration and though the Emperour was earnestly sollicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by yet he refused and stood attentively all the time as the rest of the Auditory did affirming it to be unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be used in time of Divine Service except at the reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was onely practised in some places for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observed in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people Now upon what hath been said I shall onely make this brief Reflection and so proceed If the Apostles of our Lord had in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations in their Travels throughout the World every where taught and established sitting or discumbing which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries not onely as convenient but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be 1 Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles and then 2 Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles the first founders of their Faith and for all that passed under their names it seems to me not onely highly improbable but morally impossible that so many Churches together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries not biass'd by Faction nor swayed by a superiour Authority being perfectly free and independent one upon another should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order and not onely so but 3 to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the
the fourth Query is void of all sence and falls to the ground viz. That Kneeling is contrary to the general practice of pure Antiquity If they were clear from Idolatry then the present Objection comes to nothing viz. That Kneeling is unlawful as being first introduced by Idolaters But secondly to come close to the Question let us try if we can find the time when and the idolatrous persons by whom Kneeling was first brought into practice And surely there are none so likely to inform us as they who raise the Objection for if they do not make out these particulars they talk at random and say nothing to the purpose And what are the clear and undeniable Proofs for such I am sure they ought to be in this case which they produce to make good this Charge against Kneeling No other than these that I can find by my best search into the Writings of the most learned Advocates for Sitting Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Eucharist was not known to the Altar Damascen p. 542. c. 9. de Adiaph Church for a thousand years c. It was never known to the Church and Fathers before that monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation sprung up and grew strong in the world It was instituted by Antichrist and that in honour of the Breaden God and to confirm the Id. c. 10. p. 780. 782. Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the carnal presence Nay the same Author affirms that this Gesture was never used before the time of Honorius and challenges all the world to produce one Testimony before that Age for the use of it and withal acknowledges at the same time that Honorius did not institute Kneeling in the Act of Receiving 784. This is Didoclave alias Calderwood his Account which is so blind and confused and inconsistent with it self that it proves nothing but that the Author had a great mind to say somewhat to the purpose but knew not what or how It was unknown he saith to the Church for a thousand years and again not known till Transubstantiation sprung up and grew to Maturity and again never used till the time of Pope Honorius who lived about the beginning of the Thirteenth Century and came to the Papacy in the year 1216. Now it 's strange to me how Kneeling at the Sacrament should be known about a thousand years after Christ and yet never used till the year 1216 or thereabouts This is all one with saying Playing upon Organs was never heard of nor known till the Reign of King Henry the Seventh but then Organs were never play'd upon till King James came to the Crown And then again though Kneeling was brought in by Antichrist it was not brought in by Honorius but in his time onely All the light therefore that this Author who hath taken as much pains and shewed as much Learning as any man whatsoever in defence of Sitting affords us is onely this That Kneeling was brought in at some time or other but he could not well tell when and by somebody or other what do ye call him but it 's uncivil to name names The other Adversaries of Kneeling are very bold in their general Charge as any men can be but very shie of coming Disp against Kneel p. 99. Abridg. p. 30 31. Disp p. 99. to Particulars The man of sin was the Author and to make all sure the Mother of it says one It grew first from the perswasion of the real presence and this when Antichrist was at his full height says another And in the grossest time of Idolatry that p. 94. the eye of the Christian World hath seen If when Honorius as the Disputer proceeds made his Decree for Adoring the Sacrament Kneeling were not in use what follows from hence Why then in all probability Kneeling at the Communion was not received into practice in any Age preceding the days of Honorius But when Honorius made his Decree for Adoring the Sacrament Keeling was not in use that is If Kneeling were not in use when Honorius made his Decree then it never was in use before What shifts are men put to when they undertake to defend an ill Cause Who is there so ignorant as not to know that things may grow out of fashion and use What for some ages was a general and prevailing Custom may in tract of time wear off and dwindle to nothing I need say no more to expose the weakness of this Argument than to put it thus Sitting was not in use in the time of Honorius therefore in all probability it was never in use in any preceding Age. After all too it 's strange that Kneeling at the Sacrament should spring as these Writers affirm from that monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation and a Conceit of the corporal presence of Christ and not be in use in the days of Honorius when he made the Decree of Adoration Because that Doctrine had been disputed many years before among learned men and was established by Papal authority in the year 1215 before Honorius was elected Pope But to pass by this it appears from the Writings of these men that they unanimously agree in this Kneeling was brought in by the man of sin by Antichrist after Transubstantiation sprung up and in the time of Honorius the Third They all agree too in talking confidently and at large concerning this matter without all Reason or Proof to make out their Assertion but It is so and It must needs be so right or wrong and the common People swallow all for Gospel and have got Honorius his name by the end and so the matter is determined However thus much I think is gained in favour of Kneeling from what these our great Adversaries say against it That it was not introduced by any Pope of Rome For when they say the man of sin was the Mother of Kneeling and Antichrist brought it in if they mean by those Phrases as they generally in their other Writings do the Pope or the Bishop of Rome then the matter is out of doubt they themselves being Judges Because they expresly affirm that Kneeling was never practised before Pope Honorius Disp p. 81. his time and even then it was not instituted by him but by somebody else But if by the man of sin and Antichrist they mean any number or Society of men as the Conclave of Cardinals Altar Dam. p. 784. c. 10. suppose or some prevailing Faction in a Provincial or General Council spurr'd on by Avarice and Ambition to enlarge and support the Popes Authority then it 's very strange and unaccountable that their Constitutions and Decrees for Kneeling should no-where be found nor the least mention made in any Records or Histories concerning such a matter That there are none such to be met with any where I will appeal to Mr. Prynne as good a Terrier as ever lived and no Friend to Kneeling There is not one Canon to be found says he made by any General National Provincial
Sense of them to the mind of the Hearers Neither of which I am confident can be truly charged upon them For never did men more indeavour orderly discourse and aim at plain unaffected Speech than they do now in the Church of England where good Sense in the most easie and familiar Words is now lookt upon as the principal Commendation of Sermons Some indeed I have heard find fault with our Sermons for not keeping the old method as they call it of Doctrine Reason and Vse which is altogether unjust as well as frivolous For there is no man that baulks that Method when it is natural but rather chuses it because it hath been common and is easie and useful As for example if any man among us were to preach upon this text Corinth XIII 13. And now abideth Faith Hope and Charity these three but the greatest of these is Charity He would without doubt not only observe among other Doctrines the preheminence of Charity but also give the best Reasons he could think of why it ought to be highest in our Esteem and our Affections too because it is the very end of Faith and Hope and because it makes us like unto God which Faith and Hope do not And after such like things he would likewise make that Use of this Doctrine which the Apostle himself doth Immediately in the very next words Verse 1. Chapter XIV pressing every one to follow after the Love of God and of their Neighbour to follow it earnestly and vigorously and never cease their pursuit till they feel their Hearts possessed with it not contenting themselves meerly with believing but being so affected with it that they attain the end of their Faith which ought to work by Love Nay he would wish them to examine and prove their Faith by this whether it be likely to save them or no. For if it leave them short of this Charity it will leave them short of Heaven for it is Charity alone that hath any place there And who would forbear most pathetical intreaties here to be very serious in this search there being so much Pretence to Faith in the World and so little Charity to be found there To one sort of Faith especially which is the apprehension of Christs Merits and application of them to themselves which every Body makes bold withal whilst very few have any thing of that Charity which St. Paul describes in the Chapter before named of that long suffering and kind Charity which envieth not which vaunteth not it self or is not rash is not puffed up doth not behave it self unseemly seeketh not her own is not easily provoked thinketh no Evil but takes things in the best Sense and puts the fairest Construction upon them in one Word makes a Man inoffensive not only towards God but towards Men of all sorts high and low rich and poor that is to the whole Church of God The like I might say of all other Subjects of the same nature which lead him that handles them into this Method But sometime the matter to be treated of is such that there is no other Reason to be given of it but only the divine Revelation upon whose Testimony we receive it as we do that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds The Vses of which I never heard any Preacher amougst us fail to make both for the begetting Reverence towards him Faith in him and Obedience unto him But what need is there of so many Words about this method of Sermons when the ancient Doctors of Religion it is manifest did not mind it nor any other But spake to the Business before them without observing any constant Rule at all in their Discourses and then it is apparent People profited by Sermons much more than they do now when they are most artificially contrived And it would be an inexcusable Sin in those that should leave our Church did the Ministers of it only open the Sense of the Epistle or the Gospel for the day or any other portion of Holy Scripture as St. Chrysostom was wont to do without making particular Observations or concluding all with distinct Uses as the manner now is but only with a general Application pressing what they thought most material or what the necessities of their People most required By which way of preaching if Men can receive no profit they must lay the Blame somewhere else than upon the Composition of the Sermon or the manner of its Delivery either which is the next thing to be considered 2. Now here two things are found fault withal first That our Preachers are not vehement enough in the Delivery of their Sermons secondly That they read them For the former of these it is not true where the matter in hand is of great concernment and requâ—res more than ordinary earnestness Which ought in reason to be reserved for some certain Occasions and not be spent upon all things alike for then it loses its effect at that time when it would be most seasonably and usefully employed But there is a great mistake in that which men call vehemence which oft-times consists only in the strength of the voice which neither all your Preachers nor all ours are indowed withal And if they were would be but noise without good Sense which will move attentive minds as much as a loud sound affects Mens Ears Add to this that there is a natural heat also in some Mens tempers which makes them speak vehemently with such a warmth as hath the appearance of much Zeal when they are nothing near so deeply affected with what they say as some Men of more sedate and cool tempers are whose Judgment operates more strongly than their Passions And these Men surely may be very serviceable for Illumination of the Mind with such force of Argument as will certainly move the affections vehemently by the help of serious Consideration without which if any affections be raised they are little worth and will not last but vanish as soon as that blast is over which stirred them up And this difference of temper is observable in your Men as well as in ours and therefore this can be no hindrance to Edification among us no more than among you As for reading of Sermons it is not universally used but there are those among us whom God hath blessed with such strength of Memory or readiness of Conception that they need not the help of any Notes at all in the Pulpit And others do not tye themselves to them so as never to look off the Book but only assist their Memory by them sometimes Whereby the Auditory is assured that they hear nothing but what hath been beforehand considered and digested and the Preacher himself also is secured that he shall not forget any thing of Moment which he hath prepared that no Expression slip from him on a sudden which may prove indecent or imprudent As for those whose weakness of Memory
of Antient Friends * * * See Spirit of the Hart. p. 12 13 c. George Fox declar'd he had Power to bind and loose whom he pleased †††p â—7 and said in a great Assembly * * * p. 41. that he never lik'd the Word Liberty of Conscience and would have no Liberty given to Presbyterians Papists Independents and Baptists From the Subordinate End of the Dissenters I pass The Principal End of the Dissenters the first part of it to the Principal and begin with the first part of it the removal of Popery A very good and commendable end And I heartily pray to God to prosper all Christians who persue it by fit and lawful ways But the Methods of Dissenters do not so well lead to it as those of the established Church Bare Reason maketh this manifest It may be also proved to us by Historical Inference This likewise is the Judgment of the Papists themselves who take their measures from this Principle that they shall enter in through the Breaches of the Church of England First Common Reason sheweth that the Interruption which may by Dissension be given to this Church will rather weaken than improve the Protestants Interest both at home and abroad Abroad the Protestant Interest will suffer much in the overthrow of this Church For by such means a principal Wheel is taken out of the Frame of the Reformation Nay Signior Diodati * * * Florentissima Anâ—lia Ocellus ille Ecclesiarum Peculium Christi singulare c. was wont to praise it in a more excellent Metaphor and to call it the Eye of the Reformed Churches and it is plain to considering Men that the Church of England which had greater regard to the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation can give a more full and unperplexed answer to all the Objections of the Romanists than some other Churches who are cramped in a few points unwarily admitted If therefore Dissentions put out this eye of the Protestant Churches the dark Doctrines and Traditions of Popery will the sooner spread themselves over Reformed Christendom At Home the Dissettlement of the Church of England will sooner introduce than root out Popery I am constrain'd thus to judge by the following Considerations First the design of keeping out Popery by the Ruine of this Church is like the preposterous way of securing the Vineyard by pulling up of the Fence or of keeping out the Enemy by the removal of our Bullwark Under that name this Church is commonly spoken of and they do not flatter it who give it that Title â—ts Constitution is Christian and it is strong in its Nature and if such a Church hath not ability with God's assistance to resist the assaults of Romish Power much less have they who dissent from it And it is Fanaticism properly so called or Religious Frenzie to lay aside a more probable means and to trust that God will give to means which are much less probable supernatural aid and success God supporteth a good Cause by weak means if they are the only means he hath put into our power against a bad Cause though externally potent But he who in cases of emergence assisteth honest Impotence and Infirmity will never work Miracles in favour of Mens Presumptions and Indiscretions The Romanists are a mighty body of Men and though there are Intestine Fewds betwixt the Secular and Regular Clergy as likewise betwixt the several Orders yet they are all united into one common Politie and grafted into that one stock of the Papal Headship They are favoured in many places by great Men they have variety of Learning they pretend to great Antiquity to Miracles to Martyrs without number to extraordinary Charity and Mortification they have the Nerves of worldly Power that is banks of Money and a large Revenue They have a Scheme of Policy always in readiness there are great numbers of Emissaries posted in all places for the conveying of Intelligence and the gaining of Proselytes they take upon them all shapes and are bred to all the wordly Arts of Insinuation There is given to their way in the Jargon of Mr. Coleman * * * Coll. of Lett. p. 8. c. a very fit name of Trade Traffick Merchandize Against all this Craft and Strength what under God can Protestants oppose which is equal to the Power of the Church of England A Church Primitive learned pure and nor embased with the mixtures of Enthusiasm or Superstition A Church which is able to detect the Forgeries and Impostures of Rome which hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extream which is a National Body already formed a Body both Christian and Legal a Body which commendeth it self to the Civil Powers by the Loyalty of its Constitution a body which hath in it great numbers of People judiciously devout and who are judged only to be few * * * See L. de Moulin's Advances c. p. 26. because they are not noysie but prudent though truly exemplary in their Religion And there is in the Church of England something more considerable than number for Union is stronger than Multitude Take the Character of this Church from Monsieur Daille * * * De Confess Advers H. Hammond c. 1. p. 97. 98. a Man whose Circumstances where not likely to lead him in this matter into any partiality of judgment and who at that time was engag'd in a learned Controversy with one of our Divines The Character is this As to the Church of England purged from Forein wicked Superstitious Worships and Errors either Impious or dangerous by the Rule of the Divine Scriptures approved by so many and such illustrious Martyrs abounding with Piety towards God and Charity towards Men and with most frequent examples of good works flourishing with an increase of most learned and wise men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time I have always had it in just esteem and till I die I shall continue in the same due Veneration of it And indeed it is to me a matter of astonishment that any men who have been beyond the Seas and made Observations upon other Churches and States should be displeased at Ours which so much excel them Now is it probable that such a Church as this is should have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery than an inferior number of divided Parties of which the most Sober and most Accomplish'd is neither so Primitive nor so learned nor so united nor so numerous nor so legal And against which it will be objected by the Romans that it is of Yesterday Amongst these Parties there are some who have not fully declared themselves And who knows whether they have not a Reserve for the Romish Religion against a favourable Opportunity though sometimes they speak of Rome as of Babylon I mean those People who are called Quakers who speak in general of their Light
the worldly increase with their Power And for illustration-sake when the House being garbell'd had much less right but more force the Army as yet agreeing with them and the good King being in their hands than they gave to the Declarations of their Pleasure the Title not as before of Ordinances but of Acts of Parliament * * * Whill Memoirs p. 363. Oliver likewise declared plainly That there was as much need to keep the Cause by Power as to get it And being potent he entred the House and mock'd at his Masters and commanded with insolent disdain that That Bawble * * * Speech at the Dissol of the House Jan. 22. 1654. p. 22 meaning the Mace of the Speaker should be taken away Men may intend well but using the help of the illegal secular Arm they can never secure * * * Id. ibid. â— 529. what they propose but frequently render that which was well settled much worse by their unhinging of it But such means it comes to pass that the Civil State is embroyl'd and Religion sensibly decays in stead of growing towards perfection where publick order is interrupted and Men gain a Liberty which they know not how to use Secondly It appeareth by the History of our late Revolutions which began with pretence of a more pure Religion that our Dissentions occasion'd great Corruptions both in Faith and manners Then the War was Preached up as the Christian Cause And one of the City-Soldiers mortally wounded at Newberry-fight was applauded in an Epistle * * * Hill 's Ser. called Temple work A. 1644. to the Houses as one whose Voice was more than humane when he cryed out O that I had another Life to lose for Jesus Christ Then this Doctrine so very immoral and unchristian was by some * * * D. Crisp in Ser. called Our sins are already laid on Christ p 274 275. Preached and by great numbers embrac'd The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect Person yet in the heighth of Iniquity and the excess of Riot and committing all the Abominations that can be committed than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint Triumphant in Glory Then certain Soldiers * * * H. of Indep part 2. p 152 153. enter'd a Church with five Lights as Emblems of five things thought fit to be extinguish'd viz. The Lord's-day Tythes Ministers Magistrates the Bible Then by a publick Intelligencer who called himself Mercurius Britanicus ** ** ** Merc. Brit. N 13. Nov. A. 43 p. 97. the Lord Primate Vsher himself was reproach'd as an Old Doting Apostating Bishop Instances are endless but what need have we of further Witnesses than the Lords and Commons and the Ministers of the Province of London whose Complaints and Acknowledgments are here subjoyned The Lords and Commons in one of their Ordinances * * * Die Jovâ—z Febr. 4 1646. use these words We have thought fit lest we partake in other Mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their Plagues to set forth this our deep sense of the great dishonour of God and perillous condition that this Kingdom is in through the abominable Blasphemies and damnable Heresies vented and spread abroad therein tending to the Subversion of the Faith contempt of the Ministry and Ordinance of Jesus Christ The Ministers made a like acknowledgment saying Instead ** ** ** Testim to Truth of J. Chr. p. 31. of extirpating Heresie Schism Profaness we have such an impudent and general inundation of all these evils that Multitudes are not asham'd to press and plead for publick formal and universal Toleration And again We the Ministers of Jesus Christ do hereby testify to all our Flocks to all the Kingdom and to all the Reformed Churches as our great dislike of Pilacy Erastianism Brownism and Independency so our utter abhorrence of Anti-Scripturism Popery Arianism Socinianism Arminianism Antimonianism Anabaptism Libertinism and Familism with all such like now too rife among us Thirdly some Dissenters by the Purity of Religion mean agreeableness of Doctrine Discipline and Life to the dispensation of the New Testament and a removal of humane Inventions and thus far the Notion is true but with reference to our Church it is an unwarrantable Reflexion For it hath but one Principal Rule and that is the Holy Scripture and Subordinate rules in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ are not to be called in our Church any more than in the pure and Primitive Christian Church whose Pattern it follows humane Imaginations but rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom and Discretion But there are others among the Dissenters who by the Purity of Religion mean a simplicity as oppos'd to composition and not to such mixtures as corrupt the Circumstances or parts of Worship which in themselves are pure Quakers and some others believe their way the purer because they have taken out of it Sacraments and External Forms of Worship and endeavoured as they phrase it * * * G. Fox in J. Perrot's Hidden things brought to light p. 11. to bring the Peoples minds out of all Visibles By equal reason the Papists may say their Eucharist is more pure than that of the Protestants because they have taken the Cup from it But that which maketh a pure Church is like that which maketh a pure Medicine not the fewness of the Ingredients but the good quality of them how many soever they be and the aptness of their Nature for the procuring of Health Men who have this false Notion of the purity of Religion distill it till it evaporates and all that is left is a dead and corrupt Sediment And here I have judged the following words of Sir Walter Rawleigh not unfit to be by me transcribed and considered by all * * * Hist of the World l. 2. 1. part c. 5. p. 249. The Reverend Care which Moses had in all that belong'd even to the outward and least parts of the Tabernacle Ark and Sanctury is now so forgotten and cast away in this Superfine Age by those of the Family by the Anabaptist Brownist and other Sectaries as all cost and care bestow'd and had of the Church wherein God is to be served and worshipped is accounted a kind of Popery and as proceeding from an Idolatrous Disposition Insomuch as time would soon bring to pass if it were not resisted that God would be turned out of Churches into Barns and from thence again into the Fields and Mountains and under the Hedges and the Officers of the Ministry robbed of all Dignity and Respect be as contemptible as these places all Order Discipline and Church-Government left to newness of Opinion and Men's Fancies Yea and soon after as many kinds of Religions would spring up as there are Parish Churches within England Every Contentious and ignorant person clothing his Fancy with the Spirit of God and his Imagination with the gift of
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
Order hereunto they have upon all occasions strenuously promoted the Separation mixed themselves with our Dissenters put on every shape that they might the better follow the Common outcry against our Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring on the people to call for a more pure and spiritual way of worship and to Clamour for liberty and Toleration as wherein they well knew they themselves were like to have the greatest share and that having subverted all Order and beaten people out of all sober Principles they foresaw they must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This was a Trade they began betimes almost in the very Infancy of the Reformation Witness the Story of Faithful Commin a Dominican Fryer who passed under the notion of a Zealous Puritan and was much admired and followed by the People for his seeming Piety spiritual Gifts and Zeal against Popery But being apprehended Anno 1567. and accused for an Impostor was examined at large before the Queen and her Council and put under Bail when finding the Climat was like to be too hot for him and having by a cheat brought off his Bail and told his deluded followers that he was acquitted by her Majesty and the Council and warned of God to go beyond the Seas to instruct the Protestants there and that he would come again and having assured them that Spiritual Prayer was the chief Testimony of a true Protestant and that the set Form of Prayer in England was but the Mass Translated and having with abundance of extempore-Prayers and Tears squeezed out of them a Collection of a Hundred and Thirty Pounds for his Journey besides private Gifts away he goes for Rome and acquaints Pope Pius Quintus with what he had done and by what Methods and how odious he had made the Church of England to the Puritans and that it would be a stumbling-block to that Church while it was a Church Upon which the Pope commended and rewarded him with Two Thousand Ducates for his good Service All which particulars are Foxes and Fire-brandâ— Print 1680. p. 7. c. more fully made out from Secretary Cecil's Papers whose Memorials were lately brought to light Witness also that other passage concerning Thomas Heath a Jesuite who much about the same time was sent over into England to Act the same Part which he did not only by Preaching but by crying up Spiritual Prayers and running down all set Forms as being without any warrant from Scripture by Labouring to refine the Protestants as he called it and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies that in the least tended to the Romish Faith For all which he was mightily flocked after and admired every day more and more But Anno. 1568. he was discovered by a Letter that casually dropt out of his Pocket as he was Preaching in the Pulpit at Rochester importing that the Council of their Fraternity had sent him Collections and Instructions for carrying on the Work and that this way of dividing Protestants was the only way for the recalling Men back again to the Mother Church Hereupon he was examined by the Bishop of Rochester and did not much deny the main of the charge and upon the searching of his Lodgings there were found several Books fitted for his purpose as against Infant Baptism c. and in one of his Boots a Licence from the Fraternity of the Jesuites and a Bull of Pius Quintus giving him leave to preach what Doctrine that Society pleased for the dividing of the English Protestants or as he called them Hereticks The issue was that Heath was close Imprisoned set in the Pillory at the High Cross his Ears cut off his Nose slit his Fore-head branded and he condemned to perpetual Imprisonment but soon after he dyed suddenly being suspected to have poysoned himself The whole account hereof being published from the Authentick Register of the Church of Rochester The same Course we need not doubt the Papists held on in the succeeding times these being some of the main Directions which Contzen the Jesuit gives Polit. l. 2. c. 18. Sect. 6. for the reducing Popery into a Country that it be done under pretence of ease to tender Consciences and that Liberty be granted to that end and that as much use be made of the division of Enemies as of the agreement of Friends What a stroak they had in fomenting the differences and distractions that brought on the late Civil Wars and how active they were both in the Counsels and Proceedings of the Parliament Party the World needs not to be told at this time of day great numbers of them both Commanders and others serving in their Armies great industry was used to corrupt the Loyalty and Affection of those of that Religion and private promises and undertakings were made to them that if they would assist them against the King all the Laws made in Octob. 23. 1642. vid. Collect. of the Kings Works Part. 2. fol. 213. L' Historie des troubles c. p. 165. see the short view of the late troubles in England c. 43. p. 564. their prejudice should be Repealed as the late King of blessed Memory tells the World in one of his publick Declarations after the Victory at Edgehil Adding that tho some few of Eminent Abilities for Command and Conduct and of moderate and unfactious dispositions were employed in his Service yet we are confident that a far greater number of that Religion is in the Army of the Rebels than in our own And the King it seems had good reason to say so For as de Salmonet a Secular Priest who wrote in French a History of our late Civil Wars informs us in that very Fight at Edge-hill besides two Companies of Walloons and other Roman-Catholicks that served there that says he which did most surprize every Body was that several Popish Priests were found amongst the Dead that were slain on the Parliament side So plain is it that they served in their Armies were present at their Councils and upon all occasions mix'd with their Parties that they might widen the Breach beyond all recovery Thus was it then And about the See Dr. Stilling-fleet's Preface to the unreasonableness of Separation p. 20. c. time of the King 's coming in a Letter of Advice was written by Seignior Ballarini concerning the best way of Managing the Popish Interest in England upon his Majestie 's Restauration wherein it was advised especially to obstruct the Settlement of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent its Doctrine and Worship as coming too near to the Church of Rome to second the Factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties And Mr. Coleman himself
in the Communion of the Church which it cannot be unless it be performed in the Communion of some particular Church And this is the only obligation I know of to Communion with any particular Church that as I am a Christian I am a member of the Body and Church of Christ and in a State of Communion and therefore am bound to maintain Actual Communion with the Christian Church where-ever I find it and by Communicating with the Church wherein I live if it be a Sound and Orthodox Member of the Christian Church I maintain Communion with the whole Catholick Church which is but one Body So that here is no choice what Church we will Communicate with for there is but one Church all the World over with which we must Communicate and therefore we have nothing else to do but to judge whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so Sound and Orthodox that we may Communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion and if it be we are bound to Communicate with it under Peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not 4. From hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a Separate Communion and Separate Church For some Men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of Schism and Separation but then they use great art so to confound the notion of Separation as that neither they themselves nor any one else shall ever be able to understand what it is whereas if they will allow that there is or ever can be any such thing as Separation from the Church it is as easie to understand what Separation is as what it is for a member to be divided from the Body For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches are or ought to be members then those Churches which are not members of each other are Separate Churches It is not enough indeed to prove a Separation that two Congregations meet in several places for Worship for this is done by all the Parish-Churches of England who are in the same Communion but yet hold distinct and Separate Assemblies as to Local Separation Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is no Separation because these differing Churches agree in all the Articles of Faith and essentials of worship For thus the Novatians and Donatists did who yet were Schismaticks from the Catholick Church But where there are two Churches which are not members of each other there is a Schism tho they agree in every thing else but in one Communion and where Churches own each others Communion as members of the same Body there is no Schism though they are as distant from each other in place as East and West And it is as easie to understand what it is for two Churches to be members of each other but to make this as plain as I can and as far as it is possible to prevent all Evasions and Subterfuges I shall lay down some few rules according to the Principles of Catholick Communion whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Separate and Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place according to that Ancient Rule of the Catholick Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City and this was observed in the Apostolical times that in the greatest and most Populous Cities and where there were the greatest number of Converts yet there was but one Church such as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus c. this is acknowledged by the Independents themselves who endeavour hence to prove that there were no more Christians in any of those Cities than could meet together in one place for Acts of Worship which is a mighty groundless Surmise and not much for the credit of the Christian Church as has been often shewn by learned Men both Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines And there is an evident reason why this should be so because there is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for private Christians but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live for to renounce the ordinary Communion of any Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into distinct and Separate Societies for Worship is to renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation So that distinct and particular Churches which are in Communion with each other must have their distinct bounds and limits as every member has its Natural and proper place and situation in the Body But when there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and Separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism These Churches cannot be members of each other because they ought to be but one Church and therefore to form and gather a new Church is to divide and Separate the members of the same Church from each other This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us they are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to Worship God in the same Assemblies and have bitter Envyings and Contentions for the Honour and Purity of their several Churches If all Christians are members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the great Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline and all holy Offices and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering of a Church out of a Christian Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Churches at a distance may be distinct Churches under their distinct Bishops but yet in the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they would Naturally Unite and Cement into one There must either be Antibishops or Schismatical Presbyters set up in opposition to their Bishops under different and opposite Rules of Worship and Discipline which makes them Rival and opposite Churches not members of each other From hence I think it plainly appears that all Separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism and we cannot justifie such distinct Churches within one another from the examples of other distinct Churches whose bounds and limits and jurisdiction also are distinct and separate 2. It is plain those are Separate Churches which divide from the Communion of
appoint Patriarchs and Primates in every Province that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together In short for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops and call it Antichristian can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together Secondly As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick Offices It is easie to shew that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church that 't is highly Commendable For as herein our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church than with that of Rome as she is now Constituted nothing being more certainly known than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing so nothing is more highly expedient for the due management of the publick Worship of God than the use of a Liturgy And indeed instead of Expedient I might say Necessary it being impossible to secure the performance of publick Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse to which I refer the Reader I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of Calvins Epistle Ad Protectorem Angliae saith he As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to depart in the exercise of their Function Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear And lastly to put a barr to the skipping Levity of others who Affect certain innovations And therefore as he proceeds Statum esse Catechismum oportet Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem publicam item precum Formulam there ought to be an Established Catechism an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Establisht and also a Publick Form of Prayers And he accordingly composed a Liturgy to be used by the Ministers in Geneva on Sundays and Holydays And the Exiles that resided at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary did by his advice draw up a Liturgy which was Printed in the English Tongue in the year 1556. Thirdly As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein is sufficient to shew that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church upon the account of the Symbolizing that is between these two Churches in this particular But we will perticularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Roman Service which are most offensive to our Brethren they are especially these four 1. Our many short Prayers which some have too lighly called short Cuts and Shreddings and rather Wishes than Prayers But there needs no other reply hereunto than that our Learned Hooker gives viz. That St. Augustin saith Epist 121. That the Brethren in Aegypt are reported to have many Prayers but every of them very short as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind which in Prayer is very necessary should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance if their Prayers were few and long But that which St. Austin alloweth they Condemn c. He might as well have said What that good Father Commendeth nay his words imply no small commendation And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls who without prejudice joyn with us in our Publick Prayers whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their Devotion I don't question but that such will readily acknowledge that they find it an help And therefore in my weak judgment our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in this particular is Symbolizing with her in that which is highly commendable as 't is so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches 2. Another instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness but the Fitness and Expediency also of Symbolizing herein with the Church of Rome Saith he 1. The Scripture no where forbids it 2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre there can be no reason given but they may Lawfully do it in Prose 3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ that they would have taken it for an injury or quenching of the Spirit to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church 4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the Mind and stirs up Gods graces in his Servants 5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that first shut out the Responses while they kept up the Ancient Zeal they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship Though I were under no obligation of brevity I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter 3. Another instance of this Nature is the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book But to this I give this I hope as satisfactory as short Answer viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad if they are bad ones they may not be used though they were not in the Mass-Book and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful not upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Roman Church But if they are all good ones as they are very good then from what hath been said 't is Evident that this Symbolizing cannot make them bad and 't is a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture because they use it Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation 4. The last instance is The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books But herein we Symbolize with the Primitive Church rather than with this of Rome For as hath been shewed out of the 6. Article of our Church they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture and we perfectly agree with