3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own The Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatic If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Goverment and different Governours and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship and endeavour to draw away Members from each other they cannot be thought to be one Church And indeed we may as well say that several sorts of Goverment in the same Nation with distinct Governours distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as we may say that such Congregations are but one Church III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixt and by Occasional Communion By fixt Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt Members of it By occasional Communion they mean praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be Members as occasion serves that is either to gratify their own curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the imputation of Schism Now fixt Communion is the only true notion of Communion for occasional Communion do's not deserve the name of Communion For I have prov'd that he who is not a Member cannot perform an act of Communion and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion as of an Occasional Membership Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fix't and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church 'T is true in one sence we may be Members of a particular Church that is we may live under the Goverment of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church but yet every act of Communion perform'd in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church So that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same nature Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is may be call'd fix't Communion and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present may be call'd occasional Communion and all this may be done without Schism because all these Churches are Members of each other but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the establish'd Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation because the case is vastly different For the establish'd Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other but separate Churches Now 't is impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches of which we are no Members they are not properly acts of Communion Having thus explain'd the Three foregoing particulars I proceed to the main business which was to shew that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England This I shall do by shewing First That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty Secondly That constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is lawful is a necessary duty from whence I shall make it appear Thirdly That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England I. Then it is plain that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ and he that is a Member has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member and 't is certain that Communion in Prayers c. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity and that 't is the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices But to put the matter out of all doubt I shall offer Five things to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty 1. Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member is bound to visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Society of Christians For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices therefore some duties and offices must be perform'd by the Society of Christians especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers as Pastors c. Eph. 4.11 which are of no use if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution that is by the hands of the Ministry authoriz'd for that purpose Acts 2.42 and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable yet none but public Prayers offer'd up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of Church-Communion Nay the Lord's Supper which is the principal part of God's worship is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion 4. The exercise of Church-Authority which consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the external acts of Communion supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Joh. 2.19 Heb. 10.25 then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties Accordingly to have Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries 1 Cor. 10.20 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion before we have a right to Communicate yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion And a right to Communicate without actual Communion which is an exercise of that right is worth nothing because all the blessings of the Gospel are convey'd to us by actual Communion This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church when it may be had for when it can't be had we are not obliged to it But then the greater difficulty is whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all because the Church is divided into Parties Now a man may as well be of no Religion because there are different Opinions in Religion as Communicate with no Church because the Church is divided into Parties For 't is possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual
Communion with the Church then church-Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of lay-Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples 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 Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.
according to it Thirdly therefore for the untying this great difficulty I say That the great thing to be attended to in this case of a Man's following a Mistaken Judgment is the faultiness or innocence of the mistake upon which he acts for according as this is so will his guilt in acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all If the mistake be such as an honest minded Man might make if he did his best to understand his duty and wanted means to know it better then we think him innocent and not properly guilty of any sin tho' the action is contrary to God's Law For no Man is obliged to do more than what is in his power to do and whatever a Man is not obliged to do it is no sin in him if he do it not Since he cou'd not understand better his mistake and acting according to his mistake are not sinful The only point is this whether the Man be to be blam'd for his erroneous Conscience or no. If the errour be not his own fault he doth not sin in acting according to it but if he had power and opportunities of informing his Conscience better and yet neglected so to do tho' it was his duty then the Man sins while he acts contrary to God's Law under the mistake and his sin is greater or less in proportion to his negligence Thus you see that God enables all Men to do their duty and that none lie under a necessity of sinning but those who wilfully embracing false Principles fall into sin whether they act according to their Conscience or against it Having now done with the Five Principles of my Discourse I proceed to my first intended business that is to speak to the Case of those that separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it And that I may clear this point I shall do two things First I shall separate those who can plead Conscience for their Non-Conformity from those that cannot for a great many that pretend Conscience refuse Communion with us upon another Principle Secondly I shall enquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church First then that I may Distinguish the true Pretenders to Conscience from the false ones I shall lay down this proposition that no Man can justly plead Conscience for his separation from the Church of England or say that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it unless he is persuaded that he cannot Communicate with us without sinning against God in so doing For God's Law is the only Rule to judge whether an action be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent and Conscience is nothing else but a Man's judgment of an action whether it be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent by that Rule So that a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action unless he is persuaded that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore no Man can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity unless he is persuaded that God's Law has forbidden him to join with us If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion directly sinful may notwithstanding think it his duty to join constantly with others for his greater Edification or the like cause I answer that my proposition still holds because he thinks that he is bound by God's Law to join with others which Law he must not break by leaving them to join with us Again If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion unlawful but only doubts of the lawfulness of it may justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity so long as his doubts remain I answer that if he thinks it a sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience then he thinks that our Communion is forbidden by God so long as his doubts remain but if he do's not think it a sin to act with a doubting Conscience then it cannot go against his Conscience to join with us So that my proposition remains true that none can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity but those who think that they cannot join with us without sin Now since this proposition is so certainly true how many Men's pretences to Conscience for their separating from us are hereby cut off For First those that separate either because they have been disobliged by some Church-Man or to please a Relation or increase their Fortunes or procure or regain a Reputation or for any other worldly consideration cannot plead Conscience for separation Nor Secondly can those Lay-People who are resolv'd to hear their beloved Teachers in Conventicles since they cannot hear them in our Churches and who wou'd join with us if we wou'd suffer those Godly Men to Preach nor Thirdly those who dislike Forms of Prayer Ceremonies c. thinking them not convenient tho' they do not judge them to be sinful nor Fourthly those who separate upon the account of Edification or acquaintance with Persons of another persuasion or because many Godly Persons condemn our way all these I say cannot justly plead Conscience for their separation Because neither fancy nor example can be the Rule of any Man's Conscience but only the Law of God and therefore such Persons cannot justly plead Conscience because they do not think our Communion to be forbidden by God's Law Nor Fifthly can those plead Conscience for their separation who think that our Governours have encroach'd too much upon Christian Liberty and laid too much stress upon indifferent things for suppose the Governour 's be faulty in it yet the Conscience of the Subject is not concern'd so long as the things commanded do not interfere with any Law of God Nor Sixthly can those justly plead Conscience for their separation who can join with us sometimes both in Prayer and the Lord's Supper for if our Communion be sinful with what Conscience do they dare to join in it at all and if it be lawful once it is a duty alwaies But leaving these false pretenders I proceed to the case of those that can justly plead Conscience for their separation or who think it a sin to join with us for I shall consider the case of those that plead a doubting Conscience afterwards in a particular discourse Secondly therefore I shall inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church For there are many that say they wou'd join with us with all their hearts but they are really persuaded they cannot do it without sin For they think that it is against the command of Christ to use Forms of Prayer the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament and the like And surely say they you wou'd not have us join in these practices which we verily believe to be sins They are so well satisfy'd in
things perfectly indifferent is no indifferent thing and 't is infinite odds but if once they begin to change without necessity there will never be an end of changing But farther I desire you to consider that the most eminent even of your own Writers do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England For they acknowledge her to be a true Church and (b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gov. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-Câ—m Newcomen 's Iren. Epist to the Read â—all's Tryal c. 7. Jeâ—uâ—baâ—l p. 28.30 Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful of Hear p. ult hold that You are not to separate farther from a true Church than the things you separate for are unlawful or conceiv'd so to be that is they hold that you ought to go as far as you can and do what you lawfully may towards Communion with it They (c) See Tombes 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas p. 78. Owen 's Evangel Love p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist of John p. 156. Baxter's Cure dir 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaâ—l p. 12. hold also that You 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 or are not impos'd as necessary Terms of Communion Nay they (d) See Brownists Confess art 36. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen's Life p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer Serm. 4 14 16. Ball 's Tryal p. 74 c. 132 c. 159 c. 308. Platform of Discipl c. 14. sect 8. Hildersham on John Lect. 35 82. Brian 's Dwell with God p. 293 294. Bradshaw's Unreason of Sep. p. 103 104. Non-Conf no schismat p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep a great schism p. 192 195. Owen 's Evang. Love c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100. Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas p. 78 89. Davenport's Reply p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist of John p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark Epist Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion p. 122 127. Bâ—ins on Ephes 2.15 Contin Morn Exer. serm 16. Baxter's Cure dir 35. Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 47. part 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton 's Memorial p. 78 c. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes's Theodul answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy p. 12 13. Calamy's Door of Truth open'd p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful of Hear p. 19 23. Nye's Case of great pres Use p. 10 16 18. produce several arguments to prove that Defects in Worship if not essential are no just reason for withdrawing from it 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects wou'd be to look after a greater Perfection than this present state will admit of 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches and so ought we 4. To separate from such defective Churches wou'd destroy all Communion Nor 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture Nor 6. is it necessary because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions Nay 7. they urge that 't is a duty to join with a defective Worship where we can have no better And as for our Injunctions in particular they (e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwell with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68. Owen's Peace-Off p. 17. Misch of Impos Epist Ded. own them to be tolerable and what no Church is without more or less that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion and that they are but few Nay farther several of the old Non-Conformists zealously oppos'd Separation from the Church of England and join'd with it to their dying Day tho' they cou'd not conform as Ministers and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it and have in print (f) See Baxter's Sacril Desert p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life p. 111. Collins's Doctr. of Schism p. 64. Lye's Reas Account c. Hickman's Bonas Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. declar'd it to be their Duty and Practice But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers there is greater Authority to be urged against you For in those things wherein you differ from us you are condemn'd by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse but I shall only hint at a few Particulars 1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any setled Church that was without Episcopacy till Calvin's time The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant that it obtain'd in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age and we are sure we can carry it higher even to the Apostles themselves There are but two Passages and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority That of (g) In Epist ad Tit. cap. 1. St. Jerom when improv'd to the utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings that he often wrote in hast and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and overtop the Presbyters which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood For at other times when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ'd nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error merely thro' Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aim'd at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius who was his Cotemporary represents him as very little better than a Mad-man 2. We desire you to name any Church that did not constantly use Forms of
of the same Church and tho' the Universal Church for Man's conveniency be divided into several parts or Congregations yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches So that two Churches which are not Members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the divider forfeits his interest in it A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation those who separate from the Corporation forfeit their interest in the Charter Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church into which we are admitted by Baptism and therefore if we separate from this one Church we forfeit our interest in it God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva France or England but with the one Catholic Church and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church we have no right to the blessings promis'd to it II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it And this is call'd Communion because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members 'T is true this word Communion is commonly us'd to signify Praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament together but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion but an exercise of Communion Church-Communion is Church-Union for as a member must be united to the Body before it can perform the natural action of a member so a man must be in Communion with the Church before he has a right to Pray c. And therefore tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church shou'd perform those Offices yet the performance of them do's not make him a Member of the Church but an Intruder Such Offices are acts of Communion if perform'd by Church-Members but not otherwise So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promis'd to it and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society viz. obedience to the Churches authority joining in Prayers c. and he that acts otherwise renounces his Communion with it From what has been said I observe 1. That Church-Communion principally respects not a particular but the Universal Church which is but one all the World over For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World if the body whereof we are Members reach so far and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church because it admits us into the Covenant which God made with the Universal Church 2. That every act of Christian Communion such as praying c. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church tho' it must be perform'd in a particular Congregation because all Christians cannot meet in one place Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians for the same Common blessings for our selves and all other Christians Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper but the Common Feast of Christians and an act of Catholic Communion 3. That the only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it So that I have nothing else to do but to consider whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it and if it be I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other are separate Churches because the Catholic Church being but one all particular Churches ought to be Members of it To make this plain I shall lay down some few Rules whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies is to renounce its Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical separation Every particular Church must have its limits as every Member in the Body has its proper place but when there is one Church within the bowels of another it is a notorious Schism This is the case of our Dissenters who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they wou'd naturally unite So that all separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism 'T is true a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches to which they originally belong and that without any danger of Schism For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches while they live in Communion with each other Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her jurisdiction For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules is not to allow separate Communions but to leave them to the Goverment of that Church to which they belong So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho' they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are 2. Those are separate Churches which divide from the Communion of any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Goverment or Worship For in this case they leave the Church because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it Two Churches may be in Communion with each other and yet not actually Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but it is impossible that two Churches which renounce each others Communion or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profess'd dislike shou'd still continue in Communion with each other Because they are opposite Societies sounded upon contrary Principles and acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the ruin and subversion of each other
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
themselves own our Sermons to be really good And tho' some few may not be able to answer the true design of Preaching yet in general Men may Edify very well among us Nor has there been for these many hundred years a Clergy so Learned Pious Prudent and Industrious to Edify Mens Souls as now is in the English Church II. Because those who make this pretence do commonly mistake better Edification And surely to desert the plain and great duty of church-Church-Communion for disputable or mistaken Edification is to be guilty of the sin of Schism Now the mistakes of these Men are principally three 1. In taking nice notions for Edifying truths He that discourses about Angels separated Souls the situation of Paradise and Hell c. shall be thought a sounder Divine than he that teaches the way of Salvation plainly by Faith and a good Conversation Such things pass with too many for saving truths and many ignorant and corrupt Men that espouse Parties and Interests readily embrace them The Apostle speakes of some that have itching ears 2 Tim. 4.3 If the food tho' wholsom and good be not to their fancy they complain of starving Bring but an honest sincere and teachable mind and you may Edify in a worse Church than ours but otherwise the best Doctrine will be insipid to you Place Edification in the substantial things of Religion in a right Faith and a holy Conversation which our Church presses upon us under the penalty of eternal damnation for these things alone do truly Edify the souls of Men and to these all Religion tends The Kingdom of Christ consists in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy-Ghost Rom. 14.17 Now such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoin'd and zealously taught in our Church we need not complain for want of Edification and the desire of other nourishment is spiritual pride and wantonness Wherefore desire the sincere milk of the Word the food of your understanding and not of your fancy that you may grow thereby For if you had but such an increase of grace as to hear meekly God's Word and to receive it with pure affection you cou'd not easily fail to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit Therefore 't is dangerous and sinful to give Men a Liberty to run from any establish'd Church for better Edificaton which is so often and easily mistaken And may we not add that when a quarrel arises from an unjust denial of the Minister's Dues then he is call'd dull and a better must be sought elsewhere Thus one fault helps out another and defamation must excuse the Schism 2. In taking the Opinions of parties for essential truths This those Men do that are wedded to a Party and if we do not explain all things in their way they cry we destroy the Gospel truths and that instead of being Edify'd they are weaken'd in their faith The early and best Christians thought it sufficient to know Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent and it were well if Men were satisfy'd with this old way otherwise they break the Peace of the Church and Obedience to Governours which are the great things of Religion upon the score of better Edification 3. In taking sudden heats and warmth arising from melting tones and other arts for Edification whereas a bright or a lowring day or a Dose of Physic can do the same things and they have often happen'd in the worst of Men. According as these Heats and Bodily Passions are Stirr'd so in some Mens Opinion the Ministry is Edifying or Unprofitable But sound and solid Reasoning is the true way to Edification whereas the Silly and Weak who are most subject to these Heats and Colds are Inconstant and turn round in all Religions Such Persons being all sail are the more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine III. Because the pretence of better Edification will cause endless divisions in the Church For since every Man must judge and the Governour must not restrain him therefore People may run from Teacher to Teacher to find out Better Edification Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth 2 Tim. 3.7 And when once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces then envy detraction strife murmurings fierceness and numberless other mischiefs will come in and that which divided them from the Church will crumble them into Endless Parties to the joy of our Enemies But all this wou'd be avoided if Men were sensible of the heinous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in the blackest colours IV. Because this is a discouragement to an honest and truly Christian Ministry For if the Flock run from a Pastor that instructs them rightly upon pretence of better Edification will it not cool his zeal check his labours and affront his Person and Office And this may be done to the best Pastors as well as to others and the most judicious Dissenters have complain'd of it tho' upon this principle it cannot be remedy'd because the people must judge for themselves And ought the Ministers to be scorn'd and discountenanc'd and have their Ministry rendred useless for the fancies peevishness and humour of the People If it be said that the Pastor is idle or unsound in Doctrine I answer that our Governours upon a just and modest complaint will quicken the lazy and negligent and correct the Heretical Pastor and restore the Flock to true Edification I may add that the eminent Dissenters do declare that the pretence of Better Edification is not a sufficient excuse for Separation as those who have leisure may find in these Books of theirs which I have quoted (b) See Hildersh Lect. 28 29.54 58 66. Methermeneut p. 71 72 74. Baxter's Cure p. 359. his Defence part 1. p. 85. his Farewell-Sermon Continuat of Morn Exer. Serm. 4. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. Burroughs's Irenic c. 12 23. Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 48. Cawdry's Independ a Schism p. 50. Vines on the Sacrament p. 246. Tuckney's Serm. on Acts 9.31 Jus Div. Min. Evangel p. 11 12. Letter of the Minist in Old-Eng to the Brethren in New-Eng p. 13. Nye's Case of great use p. 3 25. Tombes's Theodul c. 9. §. 8. at the bottom But after all that has been said I know some Persons will object that our Ministers are unedifying Preachers for they cannot profit by their Sermons Therefore I shall endeavour to give these Men full satisfaction and I doubt not to demonstrate that they may profit by our Sermons if it be not their own fault We are all agreed that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation and therefore when they are rightly open'd and duly apply'd in a Sermon so that the hearers improve in Christian Knowledge or in Faith or in well-doing then they profit by that Sermon Now if any Man do not improve
are horribly and inexcusably guilty of Schism and those that separate thro' such mistakes as they might have avoided if they had been careful are very blameable and are bound as they love their souls to take more care of informing their Consciences that so they may leave their sin but when God who searches the hearts knows that a Man did his best and had not means or opportunities of understanding better then tho' the Man commit Schism yet he is innocent of it And God who judgeth of Men by their inward sincerity will impute it to his ignorance and forgive it at the last day especially if this innocently mistaken Man be careful in the following points First that he be not obstinate but ready to receive Conviction Secondly That he separate no more than he needs must but comply in all those instances where he is satisfy'd he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly That where he cannot comply he patiently submit to the penalty of the Law neither exclaiming at his Governours or the Magistrates nor using illegal means to get more liberty but living as a quiet and peaceable Subject Fourthly That he do not censure those of another persuasion but shew himself a good Neighbour and friendly to them Whoe're observes these things tho' he dissent from us I shall be loth to censure him as an ill Man ill Subject or ill Christian But then all that I have said do's no more justify or lessen the sin of Schism than the sin of Idolatry for the case is the same in both whether the Man be a deluded Dissenter or a deluded Papist And therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the innocence or excusableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To conclude I have shewn how absolutely necessary 'tis that every Man shou'd endeavour to inform himself aright before he disobey his Governours or separate from the Church and that tho' something in our worship be really against his Conscience yet separation may be a great sin if a Man shou'd prove to be mistaken in his Notions And therefore every Dissenter ought presently to set about the true informing of his judgment for fear he live in a grievous sin Let him not satisfy himself with frivolous pretences For tho' we agree in the rule of faith and manners yet Schism is a dreadful sin and a Man may be damn'd for that as certainly as for heresy or drunkenness Sure I am the ancient Fathers thought so What if the points of Conformity be matters of dispute Who made them so The Church of England wou'd have been well pleas'd if these Controversies had never been We think a Man may be a very good Christian and go to heaven that is not able to defend our Ceremonies c. but he that separates upon the account of them is bound at the peril of his own Salvation to use the best means he can to be satisfy'd about them To those that pretend that these are subtil points above their capacity I answer that since they have understanding enough to find fault and separate they ought to have honesty enough to seek satisfaction which is all that we desire of them otherwise they will never be able to answer to God or Man for the Mischiefs of Separation We are bound especially in this case to prove all things and hold fast that which is good For no Man can disobey his Superiours without sin unless after he has us'd his best endeavours he finds their commands inconsistent with his duty to God For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case I now speak of it is no less than the sin of Formal Criminal Schism CHAP. XII The pretence of a Doubting Conscience Answer'd I Come now to the Case of those who separate because they doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and who fear they shou'd sin in doing any thing with a doubting Conscience To this I might answer from the former Chapter that if Communion with our Church be a Duty no Man's doubts concerning the lawfulness of it will justify his separation from it For if a Man's setled Persuasion that an action is unlawful will not justify his omission of it supposing that God commands it much less will his bare doubt excuse him But because this answer seems rather to cut the knot than to unty it I shall particularly examine this Plea of a doubting Conscience by giving an account First Of the nature of a doubting Conscience Secondly Of the Rule of it Thirdly Of the Power that Human Laws have over it Fourthly Of its Authority i. e. whether at all or how far a Man is obliged by it I. In speaking of the Nature of a doubting Conscience I shall Treat 1. Of doubting in General 2. Of such doubts as affect the Conscience 3. Of the difference between the doubting and the scrupulous Conscience First Then A Man is said to doubt when he cannot determin whether the thing he is considering be so or be not so he thinks the question probable on both sides but cannot fix upon either So that his mind is like a ballance when by reason of equal weight in both Scales neither Scale comes to the bottom 'T is true a Man may lean more to one side of the question than the other and yet be doubtful still just as one Scale may have more Weight than the other while yet that Weight is not able to carry it perfectly down but when there is so much more evidence on one side that the mind can determin it self then the Man doubts no longer but is said to be Persuaded as the Ballance is said to be fixt when there is Weight enough to carry it down on either side 'T is true a Man has not alwaies the same degree of Persuasion Sometimes the evidence is so strong that he intirely assents without the least doubtfulness This is Assurance or full Persuasion At other times the evidence may gain an Assent but not such as excludes all doubts of the contrary This kind of Assent is call'd Opinion or probable Persuasion So a greater or less Weight carries down the Scale with greater or less force and briskness But still in both these Cases the Mind is determin'd the Ballance is turn'd and the doubt is ended tho' perhaps the Man is not perfectly free from all scruple about that thing Secondly then I shall Treat of such doubts as affect the Conscience A Man may doubt of any thing which he has to consider but every doubt do's not affect the Conscience As a Man's Conscience is affected with nothing but his own actions so his doubts do not affect his Conscience any farther than they concern his own actions And as his Conscience is not affected with his own actions any otherwise than as
Carth. 3. c. 12. Concil Milev c. 12. Justin Novel 137. Pref. 1 2 6. Nazian Orat. in Basil 20. saies St. Basil compos'd Orders and Forms of Prayer and St. Basil himself Epist 63. reciting the Manner of the public Service that was us'd in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution saies that nothing was done therein but what was consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God Nay the Council of Laodicea holden about the Year 364 expresly provides That the same Liturgy or Form of Prayers shou'd be alwaies us'd both Morning and Evening Can. 18. and this Canon is taken into the Collection of the Canons of the Catholic Church which Collection was establish'd in the General Council of Chalcedon in the Year 451 by which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies so far as the Authority of the General Council extends And then in the Year 541 these Canons were made Imperial Laws by Justinian Novel 131. c. 1. See Zonar and Balsam on can 18. See also Smectym Answ to the Remonst p. 7. Grand deb p. 11. and Concil Laod. c. 15 19. Thus for near 600 Years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the public use of Forms of Prayer And from henceforth or a little after down to Mr. Calvin's time all are agreed that no Prayers but establish'd Liturgies were us'd Nay Calvin who Pray'd Extempore after his Lecture alwaies us'd a Form before Pref. ad Calv. Prael in Min. Proph. and he compos'd a Form for the Sunday-Service which was afterwards establish'd at Geneva Nay he saies for as much as concerns the Forms of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites I highly approve that it be determin'd so as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administration to vary from it Ep. 87. Nor is there any one Reform'd Church but what has some public Form of Prayer nor was the lawfulness of Forms ever call'd in question before Nay Mr. Ball Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Norton and Mr. Tombes do (i) See Ball 's Trial Pref. c. 1 2 3 8. Baxter's Cure of Ch. Divis p. 175. Owen's Work of the Spirit in Prayer p. 220.222 235. Norton's Answer to Apollon c. 13. expresly own them to be lawful and this is said (k) Clark's Lives of 10 Divines p. 255. to be the tenent of all our Dissenting best and most judicious Divines It is very well known saies (l) Bradshaw's Life in Clark's Coll. in fol. p. 67. one that the flower of our own Divines went on in this way when they might have done otherwise if they had pleas'd in their Prayers before Sermons and we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon (m) See His Doctrine of Fasting and Prayer Anno 1633· Printed This was so universally and constantly practis'd that Mr. Clark (n) Collect. of 10 Lives 4 to p. 38. tells us that the first Man who brought conceiv'd Prayer into use in those parts where he liv'd was Mr. Sam. Cook who died but in the Year 1649. Nay the chief Dissenting writers do not only assert but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms (o) See Ball 's Tri l. c. 2. Rogers's Tr. 223. Bryan's Dwelling with God p. 307. Egerton's Practice of Christianity c. 11. p. 691. Edit 5. from the nature use and ends of Prayer and charge the contrary opinion with Enthusiasm (p) Grave Confut Epist to the Reader Contin Morn Exerc. p. 1006. and Novelty (q) Priest Serm. on Joh. 1.16 They grant also 1. That Forms are not only lawful but that there are Footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament as Mr. Tombes and others have shew'd (r) Theodulia p. 221. Baxt. Cure p. 176. Ball 's Tryal p. 128 129. Grave confut p. 12 13. and Mr. Ainsworth that did otherwise argue against them do's confess (ſ) Annot. on Ex. 12.8 2. That they are very ancient in the Christian Church The Christian Churches of ancient Times for the space of this 1400 Years at least if not from the Apostles Time had their stinted Liturgies saith Mr. Ball (t) Tryal p. 96 106 111 138. p. 80. and (u) Tombes's Theodulia p. 222. they answer Objections to the contrary 3. That in the best reform'd nay in all reform'd Churches they are not only us'd and tolerated but also (w) Ball 's Tryal p. 108 c. Rogers's Treatises p. 224. Tombes's Theod. p. 234. useful and expedient 4. That those amongst us to whom the use of the Common-Prayer has been most burthensome have from time to time profest their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy as Mr. Ball assures us (x) Tryal p. 96 106 12. That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from Churches for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies is not only frequently affirm'd by Mr. Ball (y) Resp ad Apol. c. 13. but little less even by Mr. Norton (z) Sacril desert p. 102. who saies It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in public Worship are in use neither do's 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 (a) Defence part 2. p. 65. See Ball 's Tryal p. 131 Rogers's Tr. p. 224. Is it not a high degree of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ 's Churches in the World for these 13 hundred Years at least to this day have offer'd such worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it And that almost all the Catholic 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 As for Praying Extempore 't was set up in England in opposition to our Liturgy For in the Ninth Year of Q. Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church and to serve the ends of Popery one Friar Comin began to Pray Extempore with such fervor that he deluded many and was amply rewarded for it by the Pope See Foxes and Firebrands p. 7 c. After him Tho. Heath did the same p. 17. See also Vnreason of sep pref p. 11 c. And I hope when the Dissenters have well consider'd whom they join with and whose cause they advance by decrying our Liturgy and extolling Extempore Prayers they will see cause to think better of Forms of Prayer Secondly I am now to answer the Dissenters Objections against Forms of Prayer 1. They pretend that the Use of public Forms do's deaden the Devotion of Prayer whereas I doubt not to make it appear that they do quicken Devotion much more then Extempore Prayers 'T is plain that Forms of Prayer do fix the Minister's attention more than Extempore Prayers For his matter and words being ready before him he has
also upon other occasions which proves that 't is not appropriated to Prayer 4. Since this gift of expressing our minds is not appropriated to Prayer it may be as lawfully omitted in Prayer as in any other purpose which 't is design'd for For if it be unlawful to omit the use of the gift of Elocution then he who has the gift may not lawfully use a Form in Petitioning his Prince or in a Court of Justice but if it be lawful to omit it in these cases as a Man sees occasion then it is equally lawful to omit it in Prayer In short if a Man has two gifts he may use which he pleases and since we have other means of Prayer none is obliged to use his ability to pray Extempore 5. Using a Form is as much a means of public Devotion as praying Extempore because the end of public Prayer is at least as effectually serv'd by a Form as by a conceiv'd Prayer Now since there are two means of Prayer and both cannot be us'd at the same time therefore one may be lawfully omitted and consequently the use of a Form which is one means is not a sinful neglect of the other 4. The last Objection is that the Common Cases and wants of Christians cannot be so well express'd in one constant Form as in conceiv'd Prayers because the circumstances of Men are infinitely variable and require sutable Petitions and Thanksgivings which the Minister cannot otherwise provide than by praying Extempore To this I answer 1. That the Common Cases and necessities of Christians are for the Main alwaies the same and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form than in an Extempore Prayer For public Prayers which are offer'd up in the Name of the whole Congregation ought not to descend to particular Cases but only to the Common Cases of all and what every one may truly and sincerely join with Now a Form will express them much better than an Extempore Prayer which is subject to many omissions 2. Forms can make as good provision for Extraordinary cases as Extempore Prayer For as for those that can be foreseen such as the want of rain fair weather c. there may be Forms compos'd for them afore-hand and as for others that cannot be fore-seen Forms may be provided when they happen and this has ever been done in our Church 3. If Forms must not be us'd because they do not alwaies reach Extraordinary Cases certainly Extempore Prayers ought not to be us'd because by reason of omissions they will not alwaies reach even Ordinary Cases In a word it appears that all Extraordinary Cases may be very well provided for by Forms but supposing it otherwise yet since it has been prov'd at large that the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the public Devotion 't is unreasonable to spoil the Church of them and leave her to the mercy of Extempore effusions only for the sake of a few contingencies which may happen but very rarely if at all in a whole Age. III. I am now to prove in the last place that the imposition of Forms may be lawfully comply'd with and for this a very few words will suffice For since the use of public Forms is lawful in it self therefore it may be lawfully comply'd with because I have shewn in the Second Chapter that a Man may lawfully do a lawful thing when 't is injoin'd by Authority And now I hope it is evident to all impartial Readers that Forms of Prayer are not only lawful but expedient also CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answer'd HAving justified Forms of Prayer in general my duty and method oblige me to justify that of the Church of England in particular I must confess I have alwaies thought the Liturgy of the Church of England to be such as wou'd rather have invited Protestants to our Communion than have kept them from it And I believe if the Dissenters wou'd seriously read over Dr. Beverege's Sermon concerning the Excellency and usefulness of the Common-Prayer they wou'd go near to be of the same mind But alas this very Liturgy is that which many persons are incens'd against It has been cry'd down as Idolatrous Popish Superstitious c. 'T is true we do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon Baal and Dagon for the Common-Prayer is not now esteem'd such an abominable thing as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it but yet some Objections are still insisted upon to which I hope to return a fair answer 1. Then 't is Objected that the Confessions of sin in our Liturgy are too general and that there are many particular sins which ought to have been distinctly confess'd of which there is no mention But I desire the Objectors to consider that there is hardly any thing in public worship which requires more caution and prudence in the ordering of it than that confession of sin which is to be made by the whole Congregation 'T is hard to prevent its being either too general or too particular The reason is because such different persons must join in it and the sins of some are more numerous and grievous than the sins of others so that all persons cannot possibly make the same particular confession But I think our confessions viz. the daily one and that in the Communion-Office are so judiciously fram'd as to avoid both extreams and I am persuaded all persons may profitably use them However the confession of sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments is as particular as can reasonably be desir'd and by this a Man may confess all his known offences in thought word or deed If a Man must not use a confession that is possible to be mended he must never confess at all and if a Form of confession were compos'd by the wisest Dissenters I suppose no more wou'd be pretended but that it might be profitably us'd Now this may be said of our Form and ought to end the dispute Indeed there are examples of Jeremiah Nehemiah c. confessing such sins as they were not guilty of but this was done upon solemn humiliation for those known and public Idolatries of the Nation which had brought God's heavy judgments upon them or for common and scandalous transgressions afterward They consider'd themselves as a part of the Community which had provok'd God and they bare a part in the Calamity and in the confession as if they had offended as greatly as their Country-men But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those confessions upon such public humiliations and those that are fit for the Ordinary Service of the Church I may add that particular confessions are more properly the matter of private Devotion and if we did seriously practise strict examination and secret contrition in our Closets we shou'd then find our affections prepar'd to comply with those
I design to shew 1. That Infants are capable of Baptism 2. That They are not excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. That 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infants to be baptized 4. That 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. That 't is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy I. Then I shall shew that Infants are capable of Baptism God commanded Infants to be Circumcis'd as well as adult Persons and surely if they were capable of Circumcision then they are also capable of Baptism For the Two Covenants of Circumcision and Baptism are for substance the same and the grace of those Covenants the very same and therefore if the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity it can be none now Nay if Infants were admitted into the Church when the entrance was more grievous and not without Blood how unreasonable is it to assert that they are now uncapable of admission into it when the entrance is made more easy and more agreeable to the weakness of a tender Child 'T is said indeed that Infants are uncapable of Baptism because they cannot Answer the Ends of it they cannot understand the Gospel or Profess their Faith and Repentance or submit to Baptism out of their own choice nor can they have their Faith and Hope further strengthen'd in the use of it But this way of arguing is very weak and fallacious and reflecting upon the Wisdom of God First It is weak and fallacious because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict Institution which is Instituted by God for one or a few ends and precisely for persons of one sort and an Institution of Latitude which is Instituted by him for several ends and for different sorts of Persons differently qualify'd for those several ends Of the first sort was the Jewish Ordinance of Fringes which cou'd only concern grown Persons because they only were capable of answering the End for which it was Instituted viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage which was appointed for several ends and for persons differently qualify'd for those several ends insomuch that persons who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage may yet honestly Marry because they are capable of the rest For this Reason those who are not capacitated for the Procreation of Children may Marry because they are capable of answering another end for which Marriage was Ordain'd Now our Adversaries cannot Prove that Baptism is a strict Institution because it succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was an Institution of Latitude and because our Saviour was Baptiz'd who was less capable of Baptism than Infants possibly can be For John Baptiz'd with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby Seal'd unto the People the Remission of their Sins Now our Saviour was without sin and yet he was Baptiz'd which shews that a Man who is capable of some ends of Baptism may be Baptiz'd tho' he is not capable of the rest Secondly 'T is reflecting upon the Wisdom of God because God Commanded young Babes to be Circumcis'd tho' all the ends of Circumcision cou'd not be answer'd by them For since there lies the same objection against Infant-circumcision as against Infant-baptism therefore those Men who argue thus against Infant-baptism do reproach the Divine Wisdom which injoin'd Infant-circumcision Children are capable of all the ends of Baptism as it is a Sign to assure us of God's favour and to consign to us the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace They may be made Members of a Church and adopted Heirs of Eternal Life as well as they may be made Members of a Family and adopted Heirs of a Temporal Estate And if they are capable of the Benefits and Privileges of Christianity why shou'd not the sign of those Benefits and Privileges be apply'd to them Suppose a Prince shou'd send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the presence of several Persons Assembled for that purpose shou'd say You know the blood of this Child is attainted by his Father's Treason by Law he has forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone tho' he be not sensible of his wretched condition My Bowels of compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which hence forward he shall have as much Right as if the Family had never been attainted I justify him freely and declare my self reconcil'd to him and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lie upon him I here before you all wash him with pure Water to signify that he is cleans'd from his original attainder and corruption of Blood and that he is as fully restor'd to his Birth-right as if he had never been attainted Suppose I say this were done for a poor attainted Infant cou'd any Man say the action was insignificant and invalid because that Child knew nothing of it Or that he was incapable of the sign when he was capable of being wash'd from the attainder which was the chief thing signify'd thereby Besides tho' Abraham believ'd and solemnly profess'd his Faith before he was Circumcis'd yet Isaac was Circumcis'd and enter'd into the Covenant with God before he was able to understand what the condition of the Covenant was And will any Man say he was Circumcis'd in vain or that God commanded a foolish thing tho' he was under the very same incapacity as to the ends of Circumcision that Infants now are as to the ends of Baptism If it be said that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism because it left a Mark in the Flesh to instruct them what was done in their infancy which Baptism does not I answer 1. That even the Mark of Circumcision was as insignificant during the non-age of the Child as Baptism is to Christian Infants neither afterwards cou'd he tell what the meaning of that Character was but by the instruction of others And therefore according to their way of reasoning against Infant-Baptism it ought to have been deferr'd till the full years of discretion when the Circumcis'd person might have understood the Spiritual signification thereof 2. Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism yet we must consider that the Jews knew very well that Baptism left no Mark upon the person And therefore those who argue against Infant-Baptism must condemn the Jewish Church which for many Ages Baptiz'd Infants and minor Proselytes into the Covenant as well as actual Believers and yet were never reprov'd for it by any Prophet which we may presume they wou'd have been had baptismal initiation of Infants into the Covenant been so absurd insignificant and abusive a practice as the Professors against Infant-Baptism pretend it is II. I am to shew that Infants are not excluded from Baptism by Christ That he never excluded them by any express prohibition the Anabaptists
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
Table-gâ—sture and expresses Fellowship with Christ c. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace and yet 't is not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper 4. And lastly Suppose that an Independent when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant shou'd signify his assent by holding up his hand or the like this is an outward and visible sign of no less then a new state of life that is of being made a Member of Christ's Church and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it and yet this was never charg'd upon them by the Presbyterians as introducing a New Sacrament Now from all these instances 't is evident how unreasonable a thing it is that our using the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he the Infant shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ crucify'd c. shou'd be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But 't is objected that our Convocation c. 30. declares That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated c. Now say they Baptism is it self a Seal of Dedication to God and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross is adding a New Sacrament To this I answer that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptiz'd Person and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration That this is the meaning of our Church is evident if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together Both the Rubric and Canon say that Baptism is compleat without the sign of the Cross It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock before 't is sign'd with the Cross Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism is acknowledg'd compleat without or before the sign of the Cross we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism that is the one is the sign of the Dedication and the other the Dedication it self So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptiz'd Person is admitted to and what engagement he lies under Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number We receive this Child c. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. whereas in Baptism the Minister alone as the immediate Agent of Christ pronounces in the singular number I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From what has been said I hope it appears that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it that may in the least justify a separation from us CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd THO' the Communion-Office for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferr'd by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet it has not past free from exception For I. 'T is objected against it that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body and our Souls wash'd by his most precious Blood implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleans'd by the Blood of Christ and only the Body by Christ's Body But I answer that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine the Priest saies The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was c. And therefore 't is plain that our Church teaches that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ Nor do's the mentioning of one alone exclude the other for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone 1 Cor. 10.17 and sometimes of the Wine alone 1 Cor. 12.13 and yet all Men must grant that he meant both II. 'T is said that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person 's hands with a Form of words recited to every one of them as we do But I answer 1. That this do's not appear from Christ's words for the Evangelists may well be suppos'd to give a short account of the Institution and then what might be particularly said or done to every one wou'd be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all 2. Suppose that our practice do's vary from this circumstance of the Institution it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinner-time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Man think that when great numbers are to be Baptiz'd together the Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. may not lawfully be express'd severally to every Person And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsutable to the Institution of Christ or the nature of the Sacrament and the alteration of it wou'd be for the worse and abate the Solemnity of its Administration See Falkner 's Libert Eccles p. 218 c. III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament and therefore I shall consider it largely and endeavour to shew 1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament 2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example 3. That 't is not unsutable for its being no Table-gesture 4. That 't is not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages 5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes First then Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other and if Authority did not restrain our Liberty we might either sit kneel or stand without the least violation of the Law of God The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament which the Scripture relates in several places (a) Matth. 26.26 c. Mark 14.22 c. Luke 22.19 c. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. were the Representatives
of the whole Church and are to be consider'd under a double capacity either as Governours and Ministers Intrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administring the Sacrament or as ordinary and Lay-communicants If we consider them as Governours and Stewards of the Mysteries their duty to which they are oblig'd by the express Command of their Lord is to take the Bread into their hands to Bless and Consecrate it to that Mysterious and Divine use to which he design'd it to break and distribute it and so in the like manner to take and bless the Cup and give it to their Fellow-Christians But if we consider them as Private Men and in common with all Believers their duty was to take and receive the Bread and Wine and to eat and drink in Commemoration of Christ's Love But what syllable or shadow of a Command is there in all the History for the use of any gesture in the act of receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter it 's silence is a full and clear demonstration that kneeling is not repugnant to any express command of our Lord because no gesture was ever commanded at all But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm that when our Lord Commanded his Disciples to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he us'd at that time as well as to take eat drink c. To this I answer 1. That if our Lord did sit at the Institution which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason to think that He intended by these words do this to oblige us to observe this Gesture only and not several other circumstances which he observ'd at the same time as well as this For Example if the words may be Interpreted thus Do this that is sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is Celebrate the Sacrament in an Upper-room in a Private-house late at night or in the evening after a full Supper in the Company of Twelve at most and they only Men with their Heads cover'd according to the Custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lies as great an obligation upon us to observe all those circumstances in imitation of our Lord as there do's to sit 2. Even the two last of those circumstances are generally allow'd but all the rest are mention'd in Scripture and were most certainly observ'd by Christ whereas the gesture us'd by them is not mention'd and what it was is very disputable as I shall afterwards prove How then can any Man think himself oblig'd in Conscience to do what Christ is not expreslly said to do and not oblig'd to do what the Scripture expresly saies he did 3. 'T is clear from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. that do this respects only the Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Blood of Christ and actions that are specify'd by him which are essential to the right and due Celebration of that Holy Feast For when 't is said Do this in remembrance of me and this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me and as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 't is plain that do this must be restrain'd to the Sacramental actions there mention'd and not extended to the gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it and consequently do this is a general Command obliging us only to such particular actions and rites as he had instituted and made necessary to be us'd in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that bloody Sacrifice which he offer'd upon the Cross for us miserable Sinners Nay the Practice of our Dissenters proves that no particular gesture is commanded For there are many serious and sincere Persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty they cou'd use kneeling as well as any other gesture but they think that an indifferent thing becomes unlawful when 't is injoin'd by Authority I have already confuted this opinion but 't is certain that by granting they cou'd use the posture of kneeling were it not injoin'd and consequently that 't is in it's own nature indifferent they do thereby grant that there is no Command for any particular posture I must add that the Reform'd Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia stand the Dutch generally sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they stand The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustane Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden thro' Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuania and Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were Reform'd by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffer'd Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time and those of the Ausbourg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reform'd by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so call'd But these Churches so early reform'd and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church injoins at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetic Confession did in three (b) 1. At Cracow Anno Dom. 1573. 2. Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3. Wiadislaw 1583. general Synods unanimously condemn the sitting Gesture tho' they esteem'd it in it self lawful as being scandalous for this remarkable Reason viz. because it was us'd by the Arians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change sitting into kneeling or standing both which Ceremonies we indifferently leave free according as the custom of any Church has obtain'd and we approve of their use without scandal and blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which uses Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemn'd Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French (c) Harmon 4. Synods of Holl. do and at last conclude thus These Articles are so setled by mutual consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be chang'd augmented or diminish'd What now shou'd be the ground and reason of this Variety
Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 1 Kings 11.7 Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can But what reason is there for this For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill and not in things wherein they do well No Man can shew a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chriâ—â— suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and saâ—vation But it may â—e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinousâ—y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconveâ—ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' tâ—s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their
Better Edification amongst the Dissenters and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England But First what Purer Ordinances wou'd Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Vertue and Efficacy The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is not any such defect or addition as alters their nature and destroys their Vertue but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which he likes best is guilty of gross Superstition and attributes the Vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution Secondly the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation For this Edification must be understood either of the whole Church or of particular Christians Now Edification is building up and is apply'd to the whole Church consider'd as God's House and Temple This is the true Scripture Notion of it as appears by many Texts 1 Cor. 3.9 10. and 8.1 and 14.5 12. Eph. 2.21 and 4.12 13 15 16. Matth. 21.42 Acts 4.11 2 Cor. 10.8 12 19. and 13.10 Now it 's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other As for the Edification of particular Persons which is also spoken of in Scripture 1 Thess 5.11 it is therefore call'd Edification because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church so that every Christian is Edify'd as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And indeed if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit than to the external administrations as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 3.6 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church there being but one Body and one Spirit Eph. 4.4 then it do's not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christ's Body St. Jude v. 19. seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most Holy Faith and Pray'd in the Holy Ghost and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God if he continue in the Church than if he separate But I shall examine this pretence at large and shew that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings than in our Churches as will appear if we consider First how fit our constitution is to Edify Mens Souls Secondly that this constitution is well manag'd for Edification First then That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls will appear if we consider Four things 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith that are necessary to Salvation but we have no nice and obscure matters in them We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful that is all that Christ and his Apostles taught and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church laies upon a good Life and Works The Articles of her Creed when firmly believ'd do plainly tend to make Men good She declares that without preparatory Vertues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God and that it is but show unless obedience follow Such a Faith she laies down as Fundamental to Salvation as produces excellent Vertues and determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God Her Festivals commemorate the Vertues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent her Prayers are for Holiness her Discipline is to force and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety which her whole constitution aims at She tells Sinners plainly that unless they repent they must perish and saies that plain Vertues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edify'd by such a Church as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion because she gives us true Notions of God and our selves by describing his attributes and our wants Her Prayers are grave and of a due length and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience The Offices of the Lord's Supper Baptism and Burial are extremely good in their kind Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion and they will make the Church a Choire of Angels 4. Her Order and Discipline are such that she makes Religion neither slovenly nor too gay Wise and good Men have judg'd all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful and they are of great Antiquity and fit to make our Services comely And truly whilst we have Bodies these outward helps are very convenient if not necessary Her Goverment is so well temper'd that her Members may not be dissolute nor her Rulers insolent And if all Vices are not chastiz'd the reason is because unnecessary divisions have stopp'd her Discipline upon offenders Her Goverment is Apostolical Primitive and Universal None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her but considering all things she is the best constituted Church in the World If therefore (a) Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 15.2 1 Cor. 14.3 Edification be going on to perfection or growing in grace if it is doing good to the Souls of Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men then it is to be found in this Church Secondly that our Constitution is well manag'd for Edification will appear if we consider 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edify Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these commands are obey'd by our Pastors For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion who have honesty and judgment enough to confess that they have found it true and to say that they are prejudiced and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is uncharitable Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Goverment condemn'd the Separation Magnify'd our Pastors and wish'd they were under such a Discipline and Translated many of our Mens Works to Edify their People Dissenters
whether they may lawfully separate from us As to the First of these sorts tho' in a single doubt it is more safe to chuse that side on which a Man has no doubt than that on which he doubts yet this Rule holds only in such cases where a Man may forbear the action without danger of sinning tho' he cannot do it without danger of sinning But in our case 't is evident that as there may be sinning in Conforming so there is certainly danger of sinning in not Conforming Nor is it more safe to separate in case of a single doubt than of a double one For the Man who is satisfy'd in his mind that he may lawfully cut himself off from the Communion of the Church and live in constant disobedience to his Superiours which things are directly contrary to God's Laws must needs be grosly and criminally ignorant of his duty and therefore his being satisfy'd about such sins will not excuse him because he was able and it was his duty to know better Nay further tho' God had left it indifferent whether we keep the Unity of the Church and obey our Superiours or no tho' the case were really that of a single doubt tho' there was no danger in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them yet I say it is more reasonable to Conform than to Separate notwithstanding For tho' in a single doubt a Man is to chuse that side on which he has no doubt rather than that on which he doubts yet this Rule as I said before do's not hold unless all other considerations be equal And therefore if a great good may be obtain'd or a great evil avoided by acting on the doubtful side that consideration ought to turn the Ballance and over-rule the doubt as I shew'd in the Case of going to Law And certainly if weighty considerations ought to over-ballance a single doubt in any case then the considerations of the Peace of the Kingdom the Security of Religion and those many Public and Private Mischiefs that attend Separation ought to prevail in this of ours and oblige Men to Conform And I wish this were well consider'd by our doubting Dissenters As to the Second sort who doubt both of the lawfulness of Conforming and also of the lawfulness of separating from us I say First if the probabilities appear pretty equal on both sides then it is their duty to obey Authority as I prov'd in the Third general Head of this Discourse Secondly if they think it more probable that they ought not to Conform than that they ought then tho' the Authority of Superiours alone have not weight enough to turn the Ballance yet the consideration of the great sin and the more dreadful consequences of separation are sufficient and ought to oblige them to Conform as appears from the Third prop. about a double doubt p. 256 257. Now let any indifferent Man judge between us and our Dissenters 'T is plain that the things they doubt of are not directly forbidden by God And if they are forbidden by consequences those consequences are so obscure that tho' such usages have ever been in the Christian Church yet they were never condemn'd as sinful till our daies And even now these consequences are not discover'd by our superiours no not by as great and good Divines of all persuasions as any in the World Nay the far greater number and those as Pious and Able as any do plainly own our injunctions to be innocent at least if not Apostolical So that if they are all mistaken it can at most be but a sin of ignorance in an ordinary person where so many of the best guides are mistaken if he shou'd transgress But now on the other hand if our Governours be in the right and our Communion lawful then how great a sin are they guilty of in breaking the Laws of Church-Vnity which are as plain as any in the Bible and that in such instances where the whole Catholic Church of Old and the greatest and best part of the present Church are of a different persuasion from them The consequences also of their separation are most dreadful for by it they deprive themselves of the ordinary means of Salvation and keep up those discords and animosities in the Church which have torn the bowels of it and caused Atheism and Prophaness to overspread it they affront their Governours give scandal to all peaceable persons and offer a very fair pretence to factious Men to practise against the best of Goverments So they take the Most effectual course to ruin the best Church in the World and with it the reform'd Religion in this Kingdom And now let any Man judge whether any doubt about the lawfulness of our Communion and all the probabilities of the doubt have weight enough to Ballance against such a sin and such consequences Certainly an unconcern'd Person will pronounce that in such a case a Man is bound to Conform rather than to Separate and that is all I contend for CHAP. XIII The pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience Answer'd I Proceed now to the pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience in Treating of which I shall 1. Shew what I mean by it 2. Observe some few things concerning it 3. Offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First then Conscience is a Man's judgment concerning the Goodness or Evil or his Actions and a Scrupulous Conscience is a Scrupulous judgment concerning things in their own nature indifferent and consists either 1. in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God has no where commanded as the Pharisees made great Conscience of washing before meat c. and observ'd such usages as Religiously as the most indisputable commands of God or 2. in a conscientious abstaining from some things which are no waies unlawful doubting and fearing where no fear is thinking that God is as much offended by our eating some kind of Meats or wearing some Garments as by Adultery or Murder and being more precise about little matters than other Good Christians are or our selves ought to be Secondly Concerning this Scrupulous Conscience we may observe 1. that it is a sickly temper of Mind and a state of Infirmity arising from a Want of right understanding our Religion from Timerousness Melancholy and Prejudice Now this is no more a Vertue or commendable Quality in us than 't is to be sickly and often indispos'd A good Conscience is firm and steady well setled and resolv'd but such needless scruples are at the best a sign of an ungovern'd fancy and a weak judgment just as the Niceness and Squeamishness of a Man's stomach that distasts Wholsom Food is a symptom of an unsound and unhealthy Body 2. 'T is often a sign of Hypocrisy as 't was in the Scribes and Pharisees who strain'd at a Gnat and swallow'd a Camel and hoped to make amends for their gross Transgressions in other cases of far greater Weight and Moment
to this Principle no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho' a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great Evil or general Mischief They are not fit to be put in the ballance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devis'd that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we cou'd invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no Man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration till it comes to be try'd yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determin'd some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere express'd like knocking a Man on the Head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion CHAP. XIV The pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd BUT there are some who tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is injoin'd by the Church of England but then there are many other godly but weaker Christians of another persuasion with whom they have long been join'd And shou'd they now totally forsake them and Conform they shou'd thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinc'd of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church Which sin say they is so very great that our Saviour tells us Matth. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a mill-stone were hang'd about his neck and that he were drown'd in the depth of the sea and in St. Paul's account 't is no less than spiritual murther a destroying him for whom Christ dy'd Rom. 14.15 These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter by shewing that No private Christian as the case now stands amongst us is obliged to absent himself from his Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his Weak Brethren And this I shall do by inquiring 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother 2. What it is to Offend such an one 3. How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother I. Then a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3.1 Conversion to Christianity is call'd our New-birth and the Converts were for a while reckon'd as in an infant State and accordingly were to be most gently us'd till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age Heb. 5.14 They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines and great Prudence and Caution was to be us'd toward them lest they shou'd suddenly fly back and repent of their change For they having been Jews and Gentiles retain'd still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old Man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable The stronger and wiser Christians wou'd not stand rigidly on any little Matters but Tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now labour'd under Hence I observe 1. That the Rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suted to the Infant-state of the Church till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World The Apostle's design in all his complyances was to win many to Christ 1 Cor. 9.19 Now to do as St. Paul did wou'd alwaies be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times wherein Christianity is the National Religion than the same Cloaths which we did wear in our Infancy wou'd serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of Childrens way lest they stumble and fall but 't is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions but every one learns Christianity as he do's his Mother-Tongue St. Paul wou'd not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself labour'd hard night and day because he wou'd not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2.9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where public maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers and those who call them Hirelings and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre In short there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provides or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concern'd 2. The Dissenters according to their weak opinion of themselves are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only sober and godly Party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or Regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers or
we must not omit our duty for it I shall only add that this very Rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent ought to have some restrictions but I think there are no unalterable Rules to be laid down in this affair For it being an exercise of Charity must be determin'd by the measure of Prudence according to Circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain Rules for Men's 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 This whole matter saies Dr. Hammond disc of Scand is to be referr'd to the Christian's 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 Secondly 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 And if this matter were rightly consider'd we shou'd soon fâ—â—d our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal to join with our Church than to sâ—parate from it For 1. Our separation hardens other Dissenters in their persuasion of the unlawfulness of Conformity For they will think we separate upon the same reason with themselves and this is true Scandalizing them or Confirming them in an evil cause 2. Whatever Sect we join with we Offend all the other Parties who sometimes speak as hardly of one another as of the Conformists 3. Hereby great Offence is given to the Conformists For this separation is a public condemning of the Church and is apt to breed Scruples distast and prejudices in the well-meaning but least-knowing Members of it 4. Scandal is thereby given to Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt And if it be so sinful to Offend a little one what shall we think of Offending a Prince a Parliament c No Scandal taken at an indifferent thing can be so great as both the sin and Scandal of confusion and contempt of Authority 5. Hereby Scandal is given to the Papists who are harden'd in their own way because they only have Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists The Papists alwaies hit us in the Teeth with our Divisions whereas by our hearty Uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest this Weapon out of their hands 6. Separation is a Scandal to Religion in general It prejudices Men against it as an uncertain thing and matter of endless dispute when they see what dangerous Quarrels commence from our Religious differences and all the disorders they have caus'd shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless separations open a wide door to Atheism and all kind of Profaness and Irreligion The CONCLUSION Containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England AND now having shewn the Necessity of Maintaining constant Communion with the Church of England and answer'd those pleas by which the Dissenters endeavour to excuse their Separation from her nothing remains but that I add an earnest Persuasive to the practice of that which I have prov'd to be a Christian Duty I beseech you therefore with all the Earnestness that becomes a Matter of so great Importance and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian to suffer the Word of Exhortation duly consider what I offer to you I have shewn you in the first Chap. of this Discourse that Nothing but sinful Terms of Communion can justify a Separation and therefore you must charge our Church with sinful terms of Communion or else you cannot possibly defend your practice Suppose that there were some things in our Constitution that might be contriv'd better yet every defect or suppos'd Corruption in a Church is not warrant enough to tear the Church in pieces The question is not Whether there be any thing in our Constitution which a Man cou'd wish to be alter'd but whether any thing unlawful be appointed which will make an alteration not only desirable but necessary Whether you are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made We separate from the Church of Rome because She has corrupted the Main Principles of Religion and requires her Members to join in these Corruptions but this Charge cannot be fasten'd upon the Church of England and therefore Separation from her must be unlawful Mr. Caâ—â—â—â— (a) Institut lib. 4. sect 10 11 12. saies that Wherever the Word of God is duly preach'd 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 it's Admonitions or resist it's Counsels or set at nought it's Discipline much less separate from it and violate it's Vnity 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 denyal 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 Vse of the Word and Sacraments This is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly design'd it against your own practice Nay the Ministers of New-England tell you that To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceiv'd or indeed in the Church which might and shou'd be tolerated and heal'd with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced tho' perhaps your self be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from public Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful If you say that the Governours may as well come down to you by forbearing what you dislike as you come up to the law by doing what it requires I beseech you to consider Whether our Case will bear this Wantonness and Whether such Expressions be consistent with your Duty I do not think it hard I confess to make out the prudence of their Determinations but I think it hard that a Public Rule shou'd not be thought Reason enough to justify things of this sort and to oblige the People to Complyance without more ado Certainly there is no prospect of Union till Men learn Humility and Modesty and are contented to be Govern'd What is the Duty of Superiours in our Case I cannot determine but sure I am that a Change tho' in
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near 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 engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament
lawful and since Conformity is injoin'd and since nothing is more plain from Scripture than that we must obey our Superiours in all lawful things therefore 't is evident that we must not omit the duty of Conforming for fear of giving Offence But 't is Objected that those Precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which concern the welfare of their Souls so that when both together cannot be observ'd we must break the former to observe the latter God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now if sacrifices prescrib'd by God himself must give place to Acts of Mercy much more must Human Inventions yeild to them To this I answer that the commands of our Superiours do not bind us either in a case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder any moral duty to God or our Neighbour but this is only when the necessity is urgent and extreme and the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time We may be absent from Church to save the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his house but 't wou'd be a pitiful pretence for the constant neglect of our public Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours house may be fired or his life invaded and so he may stand in need of our help Tho' this argument may serve to excuse the omission of something commanded by lawful Authority in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen yet to be sure it will not help those who live in open disobedience to the Laws only because they are loth to offend those who are not satisfy'd with what is appointed But say they Scandal is Spiritual Murther and if we must obey Authority tho' Scandal follow then when Authority commands we may murther the Soul of our Brother and destroy him by our meats for whom Christ dy'd But I answer that wearing a Surplice Kneeling at the Sacrament c. will not make Men forsake Christianity which I have prov'd is the only proper Scandalizing our Brother which St. Paul charges with the guilt of Soul-murther Nay this argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other command of God if a Brother be offended at it as it do's against submission to Superiours in things lawful For 't is not only the Law of Man but the Law of God also that is broken by disobedience to Superiours We cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God for fear of some evil that may chance to happen to some others thro' their own fault because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than of others Salvation and consequently to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren Nay as Bishop Sanderson saies To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the Sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Men or other either did or might take offence thereat If it be here asked whether any Human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such command had been Scandalous I answer that no Authority can secure that others shall not be offended by what I do out of obedience to it but then it frees me from blame by making that my duty which if I had otherwise done might have been uncharitable If it be said that avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity and that if Superiours may appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brother's Soul then an earthly Court may cross the determinations of the Court of heaven I answer that here is no crossing the Determinations of God since it is his express Will that in all lawful things we shou'd obey our Governours and he who has made this our Duty will not lay to our charge the Mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault thro' the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it And certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours shou'd appoint how far we shall exercise our Charity towards our Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians shou'd set Bounds to their Power and Authority or that every ignorant and froward Brother shou'd determine how far we shall be obedient to those whom God has set over us But farther duties of justice are of stricter obligation than duties of Charity Now obedience to Superiours is a debt and we injure them if we do not pay it but avoiding Scandal is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged to as far as we can but not till we have given to every one his due It is therefore saies Bishop Sanderson no more lawful for me to disobey the lawful command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the Offence of one or a few Brethren than it is lawful for me to do one Man wrong to do another Man a courtesy withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to Relieve an Hospital If it be reply'd that tho' the care of not giving Offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of Charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and do's require it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him I grant indeed that we are requir'd both to be obedient to Superiours and to be Charitable to our Brother but then I say this is not the Charity which God requires when I give what is none of my own A servant must be Charitable to the Poor according to his ability but he must not rob his Master to Relieve them Our Superiours only must consider the danger of Scandal but we must consider the duty we owe them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours Thus then it is plain that they are things merely indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the Weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho' Scandal follow it but in matters wherein our practice is not determin'd by any command we ought so to exercise our Liberty as to avoid if possible giving any Offence 'T is an undoubted part of Christian Charity to endeavour by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things lawful at which we foresee our Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandaliz'd to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to gain Dissenters to the Church but