things injoined We must Separate at this time from all the Reformed Churches in the World for there is none of these which does not require the use of such things as we should judge cause enough to depart from them Nay when we have once Separated from the Church of England upon this account we must then Separate from one another and every man must be a Church by himself for it is impossible that any Society whether meerly Humane or Christian should subsist without the orderly determination of some Indifferent things And sure we can never hope to maintain our Separation upon such a Principle as would not only part us from all the Churches that are or ever were and tear Christendom into ten thousand pieces but scarce leaves us so much as the Notion of a Church and makes Christian Communion absolutely impracticable Let us not give those of Rome the pleasure of seeing that Church which has always opposed them with the greatest Vigor and been the constant mark of their Envy quite Ruined or extreamly Weakned by a pernicious Mistake that would Divide and Divide us again and again and never make any end of Dividing Let us shew at least that well are we inclined unto Peace by coming as far as we can and if there should be any thing that we may possibly suspect to be Unlawful let not this hinder us from joining in those other holy Offices in which we have not any pretence of a Doubt Let not our groundless Scrupling at a Ceremony or two fright us from the whole Worship of God against which we have not any Exceptions And for those that esteem our Communion in all particulars utterly Unlawful which I suppose are but very few and I know they have but very slight Arguments for the severe Judgment they pass upon us if they will meet let them do it in the most private manner that they can without any vain Ostentation of their Numbers which cannot be any Satisfaction to their Consciences but may make their Adherents over forward and bold and tend to the creating of Jealousies in the Government And while they are upon these terms they cannot reasonably expect any Connivance They might sooner hope for it from his Majesties wonted and often experienced Clemency when they shall make it appear that their Dissent is modest and humble and such as has no other but a Religious Design in it Than when they assume a high degree of Confidence and think to extort Indulgencies by Clamors and Discontents and resolve to Assemble openly in Opposition to a Royal Command as if it were a piece of Christian Fortitude to outbrave Authority These are but ill Methods of courting the Favour of a Prince But I hope for the future we shall all upon all Occasions behave our selves as becomes good Subjects and sober Christians and make no Disturbances neither on a Civil nor Ecclesiastical account Let it Pity us at last to see the Ghastly Wounds that are still renewed by the continuance of our Divisions Let us have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to Faint and in eminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that should Support and Defend her Why should we leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require our most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow we might forsake her that had forsaken him But since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no Forbidden thing of us Let us strengthen her Hands by our unanimous Agreement and since we do not Condemn her Doctrine let us not Despise her Worship since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably Defeat the subtle Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the losses she has suffered by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all Wicked Purposes unsuccessful and the blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the Charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen FINIS A RESOLUTION Of some CASES OF CONSCIENCE Which respect church-Church-Communion VIZ. I. Whether to Communicate with some Church especially in such a divided State of the Church be a necessary Duty Incumbent on all Christians II. Whether Constant Communion be a necessary Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful III. Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two Churches which are in a State of Separation from each other The Second Edition LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Jun. for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A RESOLUTION Of some CASES of CONSCIENCE Which respect church-Church-Communion IN order to state such cases as particularly relate to Church-Communion with all possible clearness it will be necessary to premise a brief explication of some words which must be used in questions of this nature but are not so commonly understood As 1. What is meant by a Church and a Christian Church 2. What Church Communion is 3. What is meant by Fix't Communion and by Occasional Communion First What is meant by a Church Now the plainest description I can give of a Church is this That the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World and Vnited to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant I shall briefly explain this description to fit it to the meanest understanding 1. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men for I speak only of the Church in this World and therefore shall not enter into that dispute in what sense Angels belong to the Church And when I call the Church a Body or Society of Men I oppose a Body to single Individuals or particular Men and to a confused Multitude without any order or Union among themselves For tho the Church consists of particular Men and when their Numbers are encreased of great Multitudes yet the Church consists of such particular Men not considered in a private and separate capacity but as United into a regular Society which is called a Body in allusion to the natural Body in which all the parts and members are United in an exact Order Eph. 4. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 15 16 c. For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace as in all the Churches of the Saints And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without Order wherein their strength and beauty and usefulness consist much less the Church of God which is a Society Instituted for the most spiritual and Supernatural Ends. And therefore we find that God ordained a most exact Order and Government in the Jewish Church which for the greater strength and Unity he formed into a
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper together they are said to be in Communion with one another and to live in Communion with that Church with which they joyn in all Acts of Worship Now we must acknowledge that Publick Acts of Worship performed in the Communion of the Church are an Exercise of Christian Communion but Church-Communion is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion For no Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion but he who is in a State of Communion with the Christian Church What natural Union is in natural Bodies that Communion is in Bodies Politick whether Civil or Religious Societies a member must be vitally united to the Body before it can perform any natural Action or Office of a member before the Eye can see or the Feet can walk or the Ears can hear and the union of the Eye or Foot to the Body does not consist in seeing or walking but seeing and walking are the effects of this Union Thus in a Body Politick when Men by any common Charter are United into one Society they become one common Body or one Communion and this gives them right to all the priviledges of that Body and obliges them to all the Duties and Offices which their Charter requires of them but should any Man who is not regularly admitted into this Society pretend to the same Priviledges or do such things as are required of those who are members of this Body this would be so far from being thought an Act of Communion with them that it would be censured as an unjust Usurpation Should a Man who is no Citizen of London open his Shop and drive a trade as other Citizens do or give his Vote at a Common-Hall and in all other cases Act like a Citizen this would not make him a Citizen but an Intruder He is a Foreigner still and his presuming to Act like a Citizen when he is none is no Act of Communion with that Body of which he is no member but justly exposes him to censure and punishment Thus it is in the Christian Church which is one Body and Society united by a Divine Covenant Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church which we are made by Baptism The exercise of this Communion consists in all those Offices and Duties which all the members of the Church are obliged to and which none have any right to perform but they such as praying and receiving the Lords Supper together c. Now should any Man who is no member of the Church nor owns himself to be so intrude into the Church and Communicate in all holy Offices this can be no more called an Act of Communion than it can be said to make him a member of the Church of which he is no member and resolved not to be Prayers and receiving the Sacraments c. are Acts of Communion when performed by Church-members in the Communion of the Church but they are no Acts of Communion when performed by those who are no Church-members tho to serve a turn they thrust themselves into the Society of the Church As for Instance suppose a member of a Presbyterian or Independant Conventicle should for reasons best known to himself at some critical time come to his Parish Church and there hear the Common-Prayer and Sermon and receive the Lords Supper according to the order of the Church of England does this make this Man a member of the Church of England with which he never Communicated before and it is likely will never do again If it does not all this is no Act of Communion which can be only between the members of the same Body So that to be in Church-Communion does not signifie meerly to perform some such Acts which are Acts of Communion in the members of the Church but since the decay of Church Discipline may sometimes be performed by those who are not members which is such an abuse as would not have been allowed in the Primitive Church who denyed their Communion to Schismaticks as well as to the Excommunicate upon other accounts but to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church to be Embodyed and Incorporated with it and I suppose what that means every one knows who understands what it is to be a member of any Society of a City or any Inferior Corporation which consists of Priviledge and Duty and requires all those who will enjoy the benefits of such a Society to discharge their respective trusts and obligations To be in Communion with or to be a member of the Church includes a Right and Title to all those Blessings which God hath promised to his Church and an obligation to all the Duties and Offices of Church Society as Subjection to the Authority Instructions Censures of the Church a Communion in Prayers and Sacraments and other Religious Offices and he who despises the Authority or destroys the Unity of the Church renounces his membership and Communion with it These things are extreamly plain and though Men may cavil for disputes sake yet must needs convince them that no Man is in Communion with a Church which he is not a member of tho through the defect of Discipline he should sometimes be admitted to some Act of Communion with it and I shall observe some few things from hence of great use 1. That Church-Communion primarily and principally respects the universal Church not any particular Church or Society of Christians For to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church or Body of Christ which is but one all the World over Church Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion which can be performed only among those who are present and Neighbours to each other but in membership now a member is a member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it how large soever the Body be All the Subjects of England those who live at St. Davids and those at Tarmouth who never saw nor converst with each other are all members of the same Kingdom and by the same reason this membership may extend to the remotest part of the World if the Body whereof we are members reach so far And therefore we may observe that Baptism which is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us members of any particular Church as such but of the Universal Church and I observed before that a Church-state which is the same thing with Church-Communion is founded only on a Divine Covenant and therefore since there is no other Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches as distinguisht from the Universal Church such particular Church-membership is at best but a human Invention and indeed nothing else but a Schism from the Universal Church which alone if well considered is a sufficient confutation of Independency which is a particular Church-State as distinguisht from all other
any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Government or Worship for in this case it is plain they leave the Church and form themselves into a new Church out of the Communion of the Church from whence they went because they did not think it safe to continue one Body with it This has often made me wonder what those Men mean who take all occasions to quarrel at our Constitution and assign a great many reasons why they cannot Communicate with us and yet at the same time will not own that they have made any Separation from us What middle state now shall we find for these Men who will neither continue in the Church nor allow themselves to be out of it It is possible for two particular Churches to be in Communion with each other and yet not Actually to Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but for two Churches to renounce each others Communion or at least to withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a professed dislike and yet still to continue in a state of Communion with one another is a down right contradiction To be in Communion is to be members of the same Body and Society and he that can prove and he that can believe two opposite Societies founded upon contrary principles and Acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the Ruin and Subversion of each other to be the same Body and the same Society are very wonderful Men to me 3. Those are Separate Churches who do not own each others members as their own Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place must be confined to that particular Church in which we live if it be a sound part of the Christian Church but Church-membership is not confined to any particular Church I am no otherwise a member of any particular Church then I am of the Universal Church which gives me a right of Membership and Communion in all the particular Churches of the World Now I would ask whether every Baptized Christian who by Baptism is made a member of the Catholick Church and has not forfeited this right by a Scandalous life be ipso facto a member of an Independent Church if he be not as it is plain by the constitution of Independency he is not for Independent Church-membership is not founded on Baptism but on a particular Church-Covenant then Independency is a Separate Communion from the Catholick Church for the members of the Catholick Church are not by being so made the members of an Independent Church and therefore an Independent Church is a distinct and separate Body from the Catholick-Church Nay I would know whether a member of one Independent Church by being so becomes a member of another Independent Church if he does not as it is plain he don't for every Independent Church is founded upon a particular Church-Covenant between such a particular Pastor and particular members then every Independent Church is a distinct and Separate Body from all other Independent Churches and so they are all Schismaticks to each other as not preserving the Unity of the Body And tho Independent Churches should be so civil to each other as to admit each others members to some Acts of Communion yet this is matter of courtesie not of right and therefore their constitution is Schismatical It is like two Neighbour Families which hold good correspondence with each other and often visit one another and Eat and Drink together but yet remain very distinct Families and have all their concerns apart and separate But the Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatick Thus let me ask whether the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in the same Christian Kingdom be one Church and members of each other and own each others members as such to be members of their own Body and Church If they do not as it is evident they don't from their holding distinct and separate Assemblies under a distinct kind and species of Government which both of them assert to be instituted by Christ and to be essential to the constitution of the Church from their forming themselves into distinct Bodies under different Governors which have no Communion as such with each other which yet is essential to the Communion of particular Churches that their Governors should be in Communion with each other from their Condemning each others constitution and particular modes of Worship and their great endeavours to draw away members from each other which necessarily supposes that they do not look upon each others members as their own I say if from these considerations it appears that they are not and do not think themselves to be one Body nor members of each other then they are two separate Churches and the Church which makes the separation is the Schismatick And indeed we may as well say that a Monarchy and Aristocracy and Democracy in the same Nation with their distinct Governours and distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as to assert that the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in England are but one Church 3. The last thing to be explained is what is meant by fixt or constant and by occasional Communion Now this is a question which would grievously have puzl'd St. Cyprian and St. Austin and other Ancient Fathers who never heard but of one sort of Communion For indeed there is no place for this distinction of constant and occasional Communion according to the Principles of Catholick Communion To be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and I take it for granted that a member signifies a fixt and constant not an occasional member not a member which is one day a member and the next day upon his own voluntary choice is no member which is a member or no member just as occasion serves And if Church-membership be a fixt and constant relation in it self considered then the Duties of this relation are fixt and constant also And therefore for the understanding of these Terms which were unknown to Antiquity we must consult the meaning of our Modern Authors who were the first Inventors of them Now by fixt Communion they mean an Actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt members of it occasional Communion is to Pray and Hear and receive the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be members as occasion serves that is either to gratifie their own Curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the Imputation of Schism Now this distinction is owing to such Principles as I have evidently proved to be very great mistakes For if to be in Communion with the Church signifie to be a member of it and that not of any particular Church as distinguisht from the whole Catholick Church but to be a member of the one Body of Christ
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by church-Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect church-Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of christian-Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had non-Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
with the Sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick Church which he finds in that place But this does not reach the case of those who are constant Inhabitants of the place where the Schism is for they must not live in a Sceptical suspension of Communion all their days And there is one plain Rule to direct all Men in this Inquiry That wherever there is a Church Establisht by publick Authority if there be nothing Sinful in its Constitution and Worship we are bound to Communicate with that Church and to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians For the advantage always lies on the side of Authority no publick establishment can justifie a Sinful Communion but if there be nothing Sinful in the Communion of the National Church which is Establisht by publick Authority to Separate from such a Church is both disobedience to the Supreme Authority in the State and a Schism from the Church But it will be convenient to consider what these Men mean by suspending Communion For is it Lawful for an English Man during these Church divisions among us never to Worship God in any Publick and Religious Assemblies Never to Pray nor Hear nor receive the Lords Supper together If this were so it were the most Effectual way in the World to thrust out all Religion But this they will not they dare not say and therefore by Suspending Communion they mean that in case of such divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and setled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already observed how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is For no Act of Religion is an Act of Communion not so much as of occasional Communion which is not performed in the Communion of the Church and no Man is in Communion with the Church who is not a Member of it and whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and whatever Church he Communicates with tho it may be it is but once in a Year or once in his life as he occasionally Travels that way yet he Communicates as a fixt Member of the Catholick Church and of every Sound part of the Catholick Church for a fixt Member does not signifie our fixt abode or constant Acts of Communion in any particular Church but our state of Communion and fixt and permanent relation to the whole Christian Church and every part of it and therefore tho a particular Act of Communion may be performed upon some particular occasion with such a particular Church yet it is not an Act of occasional but of fixt Communion because tho I Communicate but once and that occasionally yet I Communicate as a Member of the Church which is not an occasional but a fixt Relation So that when Men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or Communicate with all of them If they perform these Acts of Communion without owning their relation to them as Members then they are in Communion with none of them notwithstanding all these pretended Acts of occasional Communion and so they live in Communion with no Church which yet I hope I have made it appear to be the Duty of every Christian to do if they Communicate with all these divided Parties as Members then they are in Communion with many Separate Churches are Members of Separate and Opposite Bodies that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismaticks but this will appear further from considering the two following Cases Case 2. The Second Case is this Whether constant Case 2 Communion be a Duty where occasional Communion is Lawful I have already made it appear that the very notion of constant and occasional Communion is absurd and a Contradiction to all the principles of Catholick Communion and therefore there is no place for this distinction nor for this question every Christian as a Christian is a fixt Member of the whole Christian Church and of every Sound part of it and for Men to talk of being Members of any one particular Church in distinction from all other particular Churches of which they will not own themselves Members is a Schismatical notion of Church-Membership because it divides the Christian Church into distinct Memberships and therefore into distinct Bodies which makes the one Church and one Body of Christ not one but many Bodies for if every particular Church has such a number of Members which are Members only of that particular Church wherein they are fixt and are not Members of any other particular Church then every particular Church is a distinct and entire Body by it self which has particular Members of its own which belong to no other Body just as every particular Man has his own Body which consists of such a number of Members united to each other and distinct from all other Bodies The plain state of the Case in short is this Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church but he must perform the Acts of Communion in some particular Church and the only allowable difference between constant and occasional Communion is this that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church in which we constantly live and Communicate occasionally with that part of the Church in which we are occasionally present and therefore there never can be any Competition between constant and occasional Communion in the same place I cannot Communicate constantly with that Church in which I Communicate occasionally unless I remove my Habitation and turn an occasional presence into a constant and setled abode nor can I without sin Communicate only occcasionally with that Church with which I may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there for this is only to do that sometimes which I ought to do always This is like a Mans living occcasionally in his own House which signifies that for the most part he is a stranger at home There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for occasional and another for constant Communion without Schism For it is evident these are two distinct Communions and that our relation to them is as different as it is to a House we live in and to an Inn where we lodge for a Night So that there is no foundation for this Inquiry among Men who understand the true Principles of Catholick-Communion It never can be a Case of Conscience whether I should Communicate constantly or occasionally with such a Church unless it be a Case of Conscience whether I should live constantly or occasionally within the bounds and jurisdiction of such a Church for where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholick-Church
one Church in one Place Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Vnity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into p. 21. distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to Renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation And a little after I added If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but onely such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline And therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a Church out of a Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Now then let us consider what follows 1. You say either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not Communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that it is not the Duty of of every one though a licensed Stranger to Communicate with this Church Ans If any Foreign Church among us which by Royal Favour is allowed the Observation of their own Discipline and Rules of Worship Renounce Communion with the Church of England or Communicate with our Separatists she is Schismatical her self as the Protestant Churches in France Geneva or Holland would be should they do the like But if there be any reason to allow those Foreigners which are among us to Form and Model their Congregations according to the Rules of their own Churches to which they originally belong this is no more a Schism than there is between the Protestant Churches of France and England which own each others Communion A bare Variety of Rites and Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches our Church pretends not to give Laws to other Churches in such matters but leaves them to their Liberty as she takes her own and why an Ecclesiastical Colony may not for great reasons be Transplanted into another Church as well as a Civil Colony into another Kingdom while they live in Communion with each other I cannot tell It is a different thing to gather a Church out of a Church and to Transplant some Members of one Church into another maintaining the same Communion though with some peculiar and different usages with the consent of the Church to which they come The case of Strangers and Natives has always been accounted very different both upon a Religious and Civil account Every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to direct and Govern her own Communion and prescribe the Rules of Worship but as she does not Impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her Jurisdiction without breach of Communion for tho the Communion of the whole Christian Church is but one and all true Catholick Churches are Members of each other yet the Authority and Jurisdiction is different every Church challenging a peculiar Authority which it exerciseth in its own Communion and therefore for the Church of England to suffer Foreign Churches to observe their own Customs and Usages is not to allow of distinct and separate Communions in her own Bowels which were Schismatical but onely to exempt such Congregations of Strangers from her particular Jurisdiction and to leave them to the Government and Authority of the Church to which they belong There was no such thing indeed allowed in the Primitive Church as distinct Congregations of Foreigners under a different Rule and Government and it were very desirable that all Christians who have occasion to live in other Countries would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the Church where they sojourn which seems most agreeable to Catholick Communion but yet distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the Separate Conventicles of Dissenters are 2. But does it not follow from the obligation to communicate or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church Ans This is a great Mastery of Wit to turn my own Artillery upon me I prove the Dissenters to be Schismaticks because they set up a Church within a Church whereas there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place every Christian being bound to Communicate with the sound part of the Catholick Church in the place wherein he lives for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual Communion Hence you conclude that we must Communicate with Schismaticks if there be any among us or so near to us that distance does not hinder our Communion But you should consider that our obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks whether at home or abroad and tho we should allow them to be true Churches yet if Schismatical they are not Catholick Churches and therefore not the objects of Catholick-Communion But however we may lawfully Communicate with the French Church that is among us as occasion serves Yes no doubt we may because they are in Communion with us But then follows the Murdering consequence that a Member of the Church of England is not bound to a constant Communion with her I pray why so every Member as a Member is in constant Communion for to be in Communion with Resol of Cases p. 10. a Church is to be a Member of it as I proved at large but then Church-Communion does not primarily respect a Particular but the Universal p. 13. Church and therefore it is no interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to Communicate actually with any Church which is in Communion with her for as all Christians who are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church so they are in Communion with the Catholick Church and every sound part of it The State of Communion is constant with the whole Catholick Church the acts of Communion are performed sometimes in one part of it sometimes in another as our presence abode or occasions require and thus it is possible actually to Communicate with the French Church either in England or
out of England without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches which are in Communion with each other though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church then Constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful I suppose because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church though we may occasionally Communicate with it But certainly Sir Had you ever considered what I discourst about constant and occasional Communion you would not have made such an Objection as this For this is a Modern distinction which has no sence at the bottom as I plainly shewed But however by constant Communion our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion always or ordinarily in the same Church and by occasional Communion performing the Acts of Communion sometimes or as occasion serves in another Church now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion as it signifies the constant and ordinary or the Occasional Acts of Communion must that question be understood whether Constant Communion he a Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful the meaning of which question is this whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it and there being no other reason to justifie non-non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate but onely Sinful Terms of Communion and there being no Colour for such a Pretence where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful I hence conclude that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally or sometimes with it But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question as you now do not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition to say that constant Communion by that meaning presential and personal Communion is always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful For at this rate if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France Geneva Holland Germany be Lawful it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time which no man can do who can be present but in one place at a time But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin I am also bound to Communicate constantly with whenever such reasons as are necessarie to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Dutie to do so And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense But this you think cannot be my meaning For accorcording to me no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may Communicate with both It is wonderful to me Sir how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me and I would desire of you for the future if you have no regard to your own Reputation yet upon Principles of Common Honesty not to write so hastily but to take some time to understand a Book before you undertake to confute it Where do I say that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another I assert indeed that no Baptized Christian is a Member of any particular Church considered meerly as particular but is a Member of the universal Church and of all sound Orthodox Churches as parts of the Universal Church This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another The first supposes that every Christian whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in is a Member of the whole Christian Church and of all particular Sound Churches the second supposes the quite contrary that Christians are so Members of one Church as they are not of another that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate So that the question is not what Church I must be a Member of for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church not meerly of this or that particular Church but what particular Church I must Communicate in now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church results from the place wherein we live The Church in which we were Born and Baptized and have our Ordinary abode and Residence the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects if it be a true and sound Christian Church Challenges our Communion and Obedience Now in the same place there never can be any Competition between two Churches because there must be but one Church in the same place and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate which must be the Church in which we live But is there not a French and a Dutch as well as an English Church in London and since distance of place does not hinder may we not choose which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with I answer no we have onely the Church of England in England The French Church is in France and the Dutch Church is in Holland though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches and are under their Government and Censures but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England but only of the Church of England and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience one particular Church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate Communion which is Schismatical but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live can onely Challenge our Communion and I suppose
Catholick Unity or Communion in the Church under Independency Q. 2. If it may which I suppose you will not deny will you not then upon this account make the Church you live in more guilty than the Independents Baptism you own is the onely thing which admits into the Catholick Church but they require no new Covenant at Baptism Ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of humane Inventions Ans Pray what comparison is there between the Church of England and Independency Whatever fault the Church of England may be charged with as to its Rites and Ceremonies which I will not now dispute with you yet all this is capable of a Remedy she may give occasion to Schism if she imposes any unlawful and Sinful Terms of Communion but yet the Frame and Essential constitution of the Church is not Schismatical but Independency is Schism in the very notion of it and an Independent Conventicle is never capable of becoming a Member of the Catholick Church But you say I own that Baptism is the onely thing which admits into the Catholick Church i. e. which makes us Members of the Universal Church and all sound parts of it and that nothing else is necessary to make a Church-Member Very right I do own this but what is my owning this to the Independents For they do not and will not own it they admit into their Churches not by Baptism but by a Human and Voluntary Covenant and will own none for Church-Members but such Baptism at most gives Men onely a disposition to be Church-Members but does not make them Members of any Church But they require no new Covenant at Baptism ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of human Invention that is they admit to Baptism without any new Covenant because Baptism does not as they believe admit into the Church ergo they admit into the Church without any clog of human Invention And yet Sir I perceive you do not understand this matter neither for though what their practise is now I cannot tell yet according to their Principles and former Practise though they required no new Covenant of the Child to be Baptized yet they would Baptize no Children but of such Parents as were in Church-Covenant with them which is the same thing and a much greater clog to Baptism than the Sign of the Cross which when I know your exceptions against I will consider them And now Sir nothing remains of your First Letter but some few Queries relating to the meaning of my Text. Your Three first Queries come onely to this whether every particular Church may not be called the Body of Christ I answer no doubt but it may and yet Christ has but one Body and all the sound Churches in the World are but one Body and must be but one Communion As you may see proved at large in the Defence of Dr. Still and the Vindication of that Defence and thither I refer you But what you mean by Christs Metaphorical Body I confess I cannot tell and therefore cannot answer that Question Your Fourth Query concerns the nature of Schism which you would not have consist in dividing Communion through difference of Opinions but through want of Charity because the Apostle says that the Members have the same care one of another Now methinks in the natural Body should the Members divide from each other though they should pretend to love one another dearly they would not be thought to have such care of one another as the Members of the same Body ought to have The Application is easy and you may find this matter plainly stated in the Defence to which I have so often referred you Thus Sir I have honestly answered all your Queries which you sent me in your First Letter and which you challenge me and conjure me as a Protestant Divine to answer Categorically in your Second whether they were so very considerable as to deserve either to be Printed or Answered I leave the Reader to consider Your Second Letter though it be somewhat Peevish yet creates me but little trouble It has brought forth but one Query and half of that is already Answered Whether if the nature of Catholick Communion requires a readiness to Communicate with any sound Church and yet a Church obliges us to Communicate with that alone while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent Communion with others is not that Church guilty of Schism in such an Injunction contrary to the nature of Catholick Communion Ans No Church can be so supposed to forbid Communion with any Church which is in Communion with her and as for Schismatical Conventicles which you are pleased to call sound Churches it is the Duty of the Church to forbid all Communion with them how near soever they be For Catholick Communion obliges us only to Communicate in the Catholick Church from whence Schismaticks have withdrawn and separated themselves and whoever Communicates with Schismaticks is in so doing a Schismatick Or at least as you proceed is it not impossible that he who Communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another can be a Schismatick or any more than an Offender against a positive human Law Ans If such true Churches be Schismatical he that Communicates with a Schismatical Church is Guilty of a Schismatical Act and how is it possible it should be otherwise Should a Man sometimes joyn with his Princes Forces and sometimes with his Enemies and Fight sometimes on the one side and sometimes on the other were he a Rebel or not To be sure he is a Rebel when he Fights against his Prince though sometimes he Fight for him We may and ought as occasion serves to Communicate with any Church which is in Catholick Communion but where there are two opposite and separate Communions to Communicate with both is like taking part on both sides and if one be in the right and the other in the wrong such a man cannot be in the right always Well but however he is no Schismatick but only an Offender against a positive human Law Yes certainly he is a Schismatick and an Offender not meerly against human positive Laws but against the Unity of the Church and the Evangelical Laws of Catholick Communion But this mention of Law puts me in mind of a passage or two at the beginning of your Preface You say perhaps it 's no absurdity to suppose that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws made for the outward management and ordering of it though not Fundamental and necessary to its being as he who incurs the penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil affairs may however be a sound Member of the State if he keep from Treason and other Capital Crimes Very right Sir While Men continue in the Communion of the Church they are Church-Members though they may be irregular and guilty of some Acts of
Disobedience but methinks it is a little absurd to say that those continue Members of the Church who separate from it Schism and Separation from the Church is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members You add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Ans Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient But Mr. Humphry's project which I perceive you are nibling at of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament which should declare Presbyterians Independants c. to be Parts of the National Church is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism that ever was thought on but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play Letters 3. p. 16. with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague p. 12. between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick p. 17. Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular p. 18. Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholick Church and bound to Communicate with that part of it in which he lives In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not p. 19. to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated p. 21. the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty
unlawful And upon the Reasons given in they agreed such Communion to be lawful and meet when it would not do more Harm than Good that is they agreed that it was lawful in it self 2. They hold that they are not to separate further from such a true Church than the things that they separate for are unlawful or are conceived so to be that is that they ought to go as far as they can and do what lawfully they may towards Communion with it For they declare * * * Burrough's Irenic p. 182. That to joyn in nothing because they cannot joyn in all things is a dividing Practice and not to do what they can do in that case is Schism for then the Separation is rash and unjust †††Vindication of Presbyter Governm Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 32. Therefore if the Ministerial Communion be thought unlawful and the Lay-Communion lawful the Unlawfulness of the former doth not bar a Person from joyning in the latter The denying of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer doth not gainsay the Lawfulness of partaking in that Worship it being sound for the substance in the main c. * * * Corbet's Plea for Lay-Communion c. p. 2. as a judicious Person hath observed This was the Case generally of the old Non-conformists who notwithstanding their Exclusion from their Publick Ministry held full Communion with the Church of England We are told by a good Hand That as Irenicum by Discipulus de tempore Junior alias M. Newcomen Epist to the Reader Friendly Tryal c. 7. p. 121. heretofore Mr. Parker Mr. Knewstubs Mr. Vdal c. and the many Scores suspended in Queen Elizabeth and King James's Reign So also of later times Mr. Dod Mr. Cleaver c. were utterly against even Semi-Separation i. e. against absenting themselves from the Prayers and the Lord's Supper So it 's affirmed of them by Mr. Ball They have evermore condemned voluntary Separation from the Congregations and Assemblies or negligent frequenting of those Publick Prayers And * * * Hildersham Lect on John R. Rogers's 7 Treatises Tr. 7. c. 4. p. 224. some of them earnestly press the People to prefer the publick Service before the private and to come to the beginning of the Prayers as an help to stir up God's Graces c. And others did both receive the Sacrament and exhort others so to do as I shall afterwards shew 2. Again if in Lay-Communion any thing is thought to be unlawful that is no reason against the things that are lawful This was the Case of many of the godly and learned Non-conformists in the last Age as we are told that Vindicat. of the Presbyt Govern p. 135. were perswaded in their Consciences that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England in receiving the Sacrament kneeling without Sin yet did they not separate from her Indeed in that particular Act they withdrew but yet so as they held Communion with her in the rest And thus much is owned by those of the present Age as one declares The Church of England Jerubbaal p. 28 30. being a true Church so that a total Separation from her is unwarrantable therefore Communion with her in all parts of real solemn Worship wherein I may joyn with her without either Let or Sin is a Duty So another saith of them Throughton's Apol. p. 107. They are ready and desirous to return to a full Vnion with the Parishes when ever the Obstacles shall be removed And again They hold Communion with the Parishes not only in Faith and Doctrine but also in Acts of Worship where they think they can lawfully do it This those of the Congregational-Way do also accord to that they ought in all lawful things to communicate with the Churches of England not only in Obedience to the Magistrate in which case they also acknowledg it to be their Duty as well as others but Mr. Nye's Case of great and present use p. 4 and 5. Mr. Read's Case p. 14. also as they are true Churches and therefore plead for the Lawfulness of hearing the established Ministry and undertake to answer the Objections brought against it whether taken from the Ministers Ordination * * * Burrough's Irenic p. 183. Lawfulness of hearing the publick Ministers of the Church of England Nye's Case p. 24 25. or Lives or the Church in which they are Ministers c. as you may find them in Mr. Robinson's Plea for it of old and Mr. Nye's of late as they are printed together Upon the Consideration of which the latter of these thus concludes In most of the Misperswasions of these latter Times by which Mens Minds have been corrupted I find in whatsoever they differ one from another yet in this they agree That it 's unlawful to hear in publick which I am perswaded is one constant Design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on Foot by Jesuits amongst us Let us therefore be the more aware of whatsoever tends that way Of this Opinion also is Mr. Tombs though he continued Theodulia Or a just Defence of Hearing c. c. 10. § 15. p. 369. c. 9. § 8. p. 319. an Anabaptist who has writ a whole Book to defend the hearing of the present Ministers of England and towards the close of the Work hath given forty additional Reasons for it and in opposition to those he writes against doth affirm Sure if the Church be called Mount Sion from the preaching of the Gospel the Assemblies of England may be called Sion Christ's Candlesticks and Garden as well as any Christians in the World I shall conclude this with what Mr. Robinson saith in this Case viz. For my self thus Treatise of the Lawfulness of Hearing c. p. ult I believe with my Heart before God and profess with my Tongue and have before the World that I have one and the same Faith Spirit Baptism and Lord which I had in the Church of England and none other that I esteem so many in that Church of what State or Order soever as are truly Partakers of that Faith as I account thousands to be for my Christian Brethren and my self a Fellow-Member with them of that one Mystical Body of Christ scattered far and wide throughout the World that I have always in Spirit and Affection all Christian Fellowship and Communion with them and am most ready in all outward Actions and Exercises of Religion lawful and lawfully done to express the same And withal that I am perswaded the hearing of the Word of God there preached in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned both lawful and upon occasion necessary for me and all true Christians withdrawing from that Hierarchical Order of Church-Government and Ministry and the uniting in the Order and Ordinances instituted by Christ Thus far he From what hath been said upon
Member may be reclaim'd or by its just Censures be cut off from the Communion If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Matth. 18. 17. Rubr. before the Commun Our Church hath given every Minister of a Parish power to refuse all scandalous and notorius sinners from the Lord's Supper and as slack and as much disus'd as Discipline is amongst us were such persons more generally inform'd against and complain'd of they would not find it so easie a matter to continue in their Offences and the Church together You see by what means the Church may either be clear'd in some measure of publick Offenders or the Members of it together with the Ordinances of God secur'd from infection by their fellowship By this did the Primitive Christians shew their Zeal for their Religion as well as by suffering for it They were infinitely careful to keep the honour of their Religion â—nspotted and the Communion of the Church as much out of danger as they could from the malignant influence of bad examples for this reason they watch'd over one another told them privately of their faults and when that would not do brought them before the cognizance of the Church and tho' lapsing into Idolatry in times of presecution was the common sin that for some Ages chiefly exerciz'd the Discipline of the Church yet all Offences against the Christian Law all Vices and Immoralities that were either publick in themselves or made known and prov'd to the Church came also under the Ecclesiastical Rod and were put to open Shame and Pennance this was that Discipline that preserv'd their Manners so Uncorrupt and made their Religion so Renown'd and Triumphant in the World and how happy would it be for us in this loose and degenerate Age as our own Church expresses Preface to the Comminat her wishes and desires were it again in its due Force and Vigour restored and resetled amongst us But if after all imaginable care and endeavour by private Christians some scandalous Members through the defects of Power in the Discipline or of Care and Watchfulness in Governours should remain in the Church whatever pollution those whose Office it is to rebuke with all Authority may draw on themselves Tit. 3. last by suffering it private Members that are no way neither by consent nor councel nor excuse accessary to their Sin can receive none for sin no otherwise pollutes than as it is in the will not as it is in the understanding as it 's chose and embrac'd not as it 's known I may know Adultery and yet be Chast see Strife and Debate in the City and yet be Peaceable hear Oaths and Curses and yet tremble at God's Name Noah was a good Man in an evil World Lot a righteous person amongst the conversation of the wicked neither is there any more fear of pollution from wicked Men in Sacred than in Civil Society Our Saviour and his Apostles were not the least defil'd by that Society they had with Scribes and Pharisees nor by that Familiarity they had with the accursed Judas tho' he eat the Passover with them and they kept him company after they knew him to be a Traytor What pollution did Abel receive from Cain when they Sacrific'd together Or Elkanah and Hannah from Eli's Debauch'd Sons when at Shilo they Worshipt together The good and bad indeed Communicate together but in what not in sin but in their common duty and tho' to Communicate with sin is sin yet to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sin can be none Communion is a common union many partaking of one thing wherein they do agree now the common union of the good and bad in the Church is not in evil but in hearing of the Word in receiving of the Sacrament and in other holy Ordinances and Exercises when therefore some do evil the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted because evil is no part of the union in common one with another but the error of Man by himself out of the Communion which he himself and they only that have been partakers with him in it shall answer for Obj. But does not the Apostle say A little leaven 1 Cor. 5. 6. leaveneth the whole lump Ans This is a proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading and diffusive nature not that it actually defiles where it is not admmitted A People in one Assembly are as a lump and a wicked person amongst them is as leaven but now altho' the leaven is apt to conveigh it self through the whole lump yet only are those parts actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven so it is with the Church the sinner by his bad example is apt to spread the infection through the whole body but only such as allow or any way communicate with him in his sin are actually infected such as Chloe that reprove the offender 1 Cor. 1. 11. and present him doing their utmost endeavour in their place ro reform him remain in spight of its malignity unpolluted Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees says our Saviour he adviseth not his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them shewing thereby that a good Man that stands upon his gaurd may be where leaven is and yet not be leaven'd The incestuous person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle says at least of some of them ye are unleaven'd ver 7. And why may not the joynt Prayers of the Church and the Examples of Pious and Devout Men in the Communion be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Why should not the holy Ordinances of God and the presence of holy Men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctifie the whole body as the impurities of the bad are to stain and pollute it especially considering that the sins of the 2 Cor. 30. 18. wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked Obj. But were not the pollutions of sin typified by Numb 19 13 20. the legal uncleannesses And was not every thing that the unclean person touch'd made unclean Ans Those legal and ceremonial pollutions concern not us under the Gospel we may touch a grave a dead person a leper and not at all be the less clean it 's not any outward uncleanness but the corruption and depravity of the inner man that incapacitates men for the Worship of God and Communion with him 2. Those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those particular persons 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 many times reproved the Priests
that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâ—th all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it if indeed Gods Law hath made it a Duty So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do when they withdraw from our Communion Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin A Sin against which there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians as against any other Sin whatsoever And therefore let those that forsake our Communion and set up or joyn with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours I say let them look to it that they be not involved in the Guilt of this dreadful Sin They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds if they would free themselves from the imputation of it It is not always enough to excuse them that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw For unless the thing be so indeed their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many but yet it is true for all that and will appear a little more Evident if we put the Case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concerned Here is one of the Roman-Catholick perswasion as they call it that hath been trained up in Popery and heartily believes it to be true Religion and the Only one wherein Salvation is to be had and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church doth pay Religious Worship to Images doth pray to Saints and Angels doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ to which his Soul and Deity is personally United Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not He doth verily believe that he is not He would abhor these Practices if he did in the least believe that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbid that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by Church-Communion Now Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
Churches and Societies of Christians 2. I observe further that tho the exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular Duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation for we cannot Actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments c. but with some particular Church yet every Act of Christian Communion though performed in some particular Church is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church Praying and Hearing and receiving the Lords Supper together does not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church tho in the Remotest parts of the World The exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the necessity of affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly Unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church When we pray together to God we Pray to him as the Common Father of all Christians and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him as members of such a particular Church but as members of the whole Body of Christ when we Pray in the Name of Christ we consider him as the great High Priest and Saviour of the Body who powerfully interceeds for the whole Church and for us as members of the Universal Church And we Offer up our Prayers and Thanksgiving not only for our selves and those who are present but for all Christians all the World over as our Fellow-members and Praying for one another is the truest notion of Communion of Prayers for Praying with one another is only in order to Praying for one another And thus our Prayers are an exercise of Christian Communion when we Pray to the same common Father through the Merits and Mediation of the same common Saviour and Redeemer for the same common Blessings for our selves and the whole Christian Church Thus when we meet together to Celebrate the Supper of our Lord we do not meet as at a private Supper but as at the common Feast of Christians and therefore it is not an Act of particular Church Fellowship but of Catholick Communion The Supper of our Lord does not signifie any other kind of Union and confederation between those Neighbour Christians who receive together in the same Church than with the whole Body of Christ The Sacramental Bread signifies and represents all those for whom Christ died that one Mystical Body for which he Offered his Natural Body which is the Universal Church and our eating of this Bread signifies our Union to this Body of Christ and therefore is considered as an Act of true Catholick not of a particular Church-Communion And the Sacramental Cup is the Blood of the New Testament and therefore represents our Communion in all the Blessings of the Covenant and with all those who are thus in Covenant with God So that there is nothing particular in this Feast to make it a private Feast or an Act of Communion with a particular Church considered as particular but it is the common Feast of Christians and an Act of Catholick Communion Which by the way plainly shews how groundless that scruple is against mixt Communions that Men think themselves defiled by receiving the Lords Supper with Men who are vicious For tho it is a great defect in Discipline and a great reproach to the Christian Profession when wicked Men are not censured and removed from Christian Communion yet they may as well pretend that their Communion is defiled by bad Men who Communicate in any other part of the Church or any other Congregation as in that in which they live and Communicate For this holy Feast signifies no other Communion between them who receive at the same time and in the same Company than it does with all sincere parts of the Christian Church It is not a Communion with any Persons considered as present but it is a Communion with the Body of Christ and all true members of it whether present or absent Those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt professors though they could form a Society as pure and holy as they seem to desire yet are Schismaticks in it because they confine their Communion to their own select Company and Exclude the whole Body of Christians all the World over out of it their Communion is no larger than their gathered Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt members as all visible Churches on Earth have unless we will except Independents because they have the confidence to except themselves and then their Separation does not Answer its end which is to avoid such corrupt Communions and yet if they do confine their Communion to their own gathered Churches they are Schismaticks in dividing themselves from the Body of Christians and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion but a Schismatical Combination This does not prove indeed that particular Churches are not bound to reform themselves and to preserve their own Communion pure from corrupt members unless all the Churches in the World will do so too because every particular Church whether Diocesan or National has power to reform its own members and is accountable to God for such neglects of Discipline but it does prove that no Church without the guilt of Schism can renounce Communion with other Christian Churches or set up a distinct and separate Communion of its own for the sake of such corrupt members which was the pretence of the Novatian and Donatist Schism of Old and is so of the Independent Schism at this day 3. I observe further that our obligation to maintain Communion with a particular Church wholly results from our obligation to Catholick Communion The only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a member of the whole Christian Church which is the Body of Christ and therefore must live in Communion with the Christian Church and yet it is Impossible to live in Communion with the whole Christian Church without Actual Communion with some part of it when I am in such a place where there is a visible Christian Church as no member can be United to the Natural Body without its being United to some part of the Body for the Union and Communion of the whole Body consists in the Union of all its parts to each other Every Act of Christian Communion though performed in a particular Church or Congregation is not properly an Act of particular Church-Communion but is the exercise of Communion with the whole Church and Body of Christ as I have already proved but it can be no Act of Communion at all if it be not performed
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary church-Church-Duty and Essential to church-Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
no Man will say that in this sence we live in the French or Dutch Church because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us 5. Your next Query is Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the Means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1. Peter 2. 21. Ans What this concerns me I cannot tell I speak onely of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members you put a question whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism when it can't be had may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God I hope in some cases it may though I do not hope this from what St. Peter saies who onely speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience which is made at Baptism not of that which is made without it But what God will accept of in this case is not my business to determie unbaptized Persons are no Visible Members of the Church and therefore not capable of Visible Communion and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute 6. Query Why a profest Atheist who has been Baptized and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church is more a Member of the Catholick Church than such as are above described Ans Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit Resol of Cases p. 8. c. their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every man in his respective station and capacity as well as the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their duty according to the Divine Covenant Ans It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion
before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED And the Lawfulness of it shew'd from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Perswasions Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlesly expose themselves to The Second Edition corrected by the Author LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M. DC LXXXIV TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England Dear Brethren YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it It 's both your Duty and Interest to enquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws Communion with the Church of God and thereby expose our Religion to danger and your selves to suffering In which unless the Cause be good the Call clear and Mr. Mede 's Farewel Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3. the End right it cannot bring Peace to your selves or be acceptable to God Not bring Peace to your selves For we cannot suffer joyfully the Mr. Read 's Case p. 4. spoiling of our Goods the confinement of our Persons the ruin of our Families unless Conscience be able truly to say I would have done any thing but sin against God that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God to whom all are accountable Continuat of Morn Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92. for what Portion he hath intrusted them with of the things of this Life and are not to throw away without sufficient reason and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us as you are told by some Read Ibid. in the same condition with your selves To assist Persons in this Enquiry I have observed that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question and have handled them with that Candor and Calmness which becomes their Profession and the gravity of the Arguments and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied to peruse and consider them But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons to remove as much as may be that Obstruction I have in this Treatise shewed that these Authors are not alone but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them who do generally grant that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it The sence of many of these I have here collected and for one hundred I could easily have produced two if the Cause were to go by the Poll So that if Reason or Authority will prevail I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church is not to be despaired of Which God of his infinite Mercy grant for your own and the Churches sake Amen THE CONTENTS THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1 The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church p. 4 That they are not totally to separate from it p. 12 That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can p. 16 That Defects in Worship if not Essential are no just reason for Separation p. 23 That the expectation of better Edification is no sufficient reason to with-hold Communion p. 39 The badness of Ministers will not justify Separation p. 48 The neglect or want of Discipline no sufficient reason to separate p. 59 The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England which its Lay-Members are concerned in p. 64 That Forms of Prayer are lawful and do not stint the Spirit ibid. That publick prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with p. 66 That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is for its Matter sound and good and for its Form tolerable if not useful p. 69 That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous nor unlawful and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance p. 71 72 That standing up at the Creed and Gospel is lawful p. 73 The Conclusion ibid. THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks Ecclesiastical and Civil usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity Ministers and People The Clergy besides the things essentially belonging to their Office are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions or both to own and maintain the Doctrine Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted Thus in the Church of England they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Christians which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers But the Laity are under no such Obligations there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them nor any thing more than to attend upon and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church Thus it is in the Church of England as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to whom when it Defence of the Cure part 2. pag. 29. was objected that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion he replies What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches but your actual Communion it self In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all It 's observed by one That the Original of all Our Mischiefs A Book licensed by Mr. Cranford sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God tho performed by the Liturgy than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths c. Certainly if this Difference were but observ'd and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood the People would not be far more
Assemblies and the Corruptions there though great yet are not such as make the Worship cease to be God's Worship nor of necessity to be swallowed down if one would communicate in that Worship while any Christian that is watchful over his own Heart and Carriage as all ought ever to be may partake in the one without being active in or approving the other there God is yet present there he may be spiritually worshipped served acceptably and really enjoyed 3. They grant that the being present at Divine Worship is no consent to the Corruptions in it Thus Mr. Robinson He that partakes Lawfulness of Heaâ—ing c. p. 19 23. with the Church in the upholding any Evil hath his part in the Evil also But I deny as a most vain Imagination that every one that partakes with a Church in things lawful joyns with it in upholding the things unlawful to be found in it Christ our Lord joyned with the Jewish Church in things lawful and yet upheld nothing unlawful in it So Mr. Nye Case of great and present Use p. 16 18. Cure dir 35. p 196 c. Defence p. 96. Approbation is an act of the Mind it is not shewed until it be expressed outwardly by my Words and Gestures This Mr. Baxter undertakes to prove by several Arguments as that no Man can in Reason and Justice take that for my Profession which I never made by Word or Deed. That the Profession made by Church-Communion is totally distinct from this That this Opinion would make it unlawful to joyn with any Pastor or Church on Earth since every one mixeth Sin with their Prayers 4. They say that Corruptions though foreknown do not yet make those that are present guilty of them Thus the old Non-conformists declare It is all one to the People Letter of Ministers in Old-England to the Brethren in New-England p. 12 13 16. whether the Fault be personal as some distinguish or otherwise known before-hand or not known For if simple Presence defile whether it was known before-hand or not all Presence is faulty And if simple Presence defile not our Presence is not condemned by reason of the Corruptions known whereof we stand not guilty If the Error be such as may be tolerated and I am called to be present by such Fault I am not defiled though known before Mr. Baxter replies to those of a Curâ— p. 200. contrary Opinion after this manner Take heed that thus by affirming that fore-knowing Faults in Worship makes them ours you make not God the greatest Sinner and the worst Being in all the World For God fore-knoweth all Mens Sins and is present when they commit them and he hath Communion with all the Prayers of the Faithful in the World what Faults soever be in the Words or Forms he doth not reject them for any such Failings Will you say therefore that God approveth or consenteth to all these Sins I know before-hand that every Man will sin that prayeth by defect of Desire c. But how doth all this make it mine c. And he otherwhere adds It is another Man's Christian Diâ—ect p. 748 Fault or Error that you fore-know and not your own 5. It 's granted that the Fault of another in the Ministration of Divine Worship is none of ours nor a sufficient Reason to absent from it or to deprive our selves of it Thus Mr. Baxter The Cure p. 197. V. Jerubbaal justified p 16 c. 22 34. wording of the publick Prayers is the Pastors Work and none of mine c. And why should any hold me guilty of another Mans Fault which I neither can help nor belongeth to any Office of mine to help any farther than to admonish him And that the Faults of him that ministers are no sufficient Reasons to debar our selves of Communion in the Worship Mr. Nye affirms and proves by this Argument Case of great and present use p. 10. If I may not omit a Duty in respect to the Evil mixed with it which is my own much less may I thus leave an Ordinance for the Evil that is another Mans no way mine or to be charged upon me this were to make another Mans Sins or Infirmities more mine than my own Thus is the Case resolved Of Scandal a Discours p. 65. with respect to the Cross in Baptism I may not only saith one do that which I judg to be inconvenient but suffer another to do that which I judg to be unlawful rather than be deprived of a necessary Ordinance e. g. If either I must have my Child baptized with the sign of the Cross or not baptized at all I must suffer it to be done in that way though I judg it an unlawful Addition because the manner concerns him that doth it not me at least not so much so long as there is all the Essence He must be responsible for every Irregularity not I. Thus Jacob took Laban's Oath though by his Idols c. V. Crofton's Reformat no Separat p. 24. After the same manner doth Mr. Baxter resolâ—â— the Case in his Christian Directory pag. 49. Seventhly They grant That it is a Duty to joyn Arg. 7 with a defective and faulty Worship where we can have no better Thus the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy * * * Confer at the Savoy p. 3 12 13. An inconvenient mode of Worship is a Sin in the Imposer and in the Chuser and voluntary User that may offer God better and will not And yet it may not only be lawful but a Duty to him that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none This is acknowledged by an Author that is far from being favourable to Communion with the Church If the Word of God could be no Separat yet no Schism p. 64. where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be lawful yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without Sin Accordingly Mr. Baxter declares That Def. of Cure part 1. p. 78. it is a Duty to hold Communion constantly with any of the Parish Churches amongst us that have honest competent Pastors when we can have no better and professeth for his own part Were I saith he in Armenia Part 2. p. 176. and Cure p. 265. q. 6. Abassia or among the Greeks I would joyn in a much more defective Form than our Liturgy rather than none And he adds That this is the Judgment of many New-England Ministers to joyn with the English Liturgy rather than have no Church-Worship I have reason to conjecture from the Defence of the Synod c. Defence of Synod Pref. p. 4 5. Def. of Cure part 1. p. 78. n. 6. p. 96. n. 5. Now in what Cases this is to be presumed that we can have no better he shews 1. When it is so by a necessity arising
the Body by being denied all communications with it Should a Man be admitted a Member of any City or Corporation and yet at the same time be denied the priviledg of his Freedom and not be permitted to set up a Trade to give a Vote or to Act in any other case as other Members do what would be the difference betwixt him and a Foreigner unless it be that his condition is the worse by being mock'd and abus'd and cheated with the Name whilst he has nothing of the Priviledges of a Freeman 3. We have the Practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament for this The whole Nation of the Jews were not only permitted but commanded by God except in cases of legal uncleanness and those notorious Crimes for which they were to be cast out of the Congregation to observe his Ordinances and to joyn in the celebration of his publick Worship and we know they were not all Israel that were of Israel Three times a year were all their Males to appear before the Exod. 23. 14 17. Lord to keep Three solemn appointed Feasts unto him many of which it is to be fear'd had no other qualification than what they were beholden to their birth and the loss of their fore-skin for Again All the Congregation of Israel were too keep the Passover none Exod. 12. 44. were denied it but foreigners and hired servants and they too no longer but till they were Circumcis'd and thereby admitted into covenant with God which shews that meer Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in its most solemn and sacred Mysteries 4. This was also the Practice of the Christian Church in the Apostolick Age as is plainly intimated unto us from many Scriptures St. Paul tells us By one Spirit we are all Baptiz'd into one Body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made 1 Cor. 12. 13. to drink into one Spirit To drink into one Spirit particularly relates to the Cup in the Lord's Supper and by a figure of the part for the whole it 's put to signifie the whole Communion but the thing here especially to be taken notice of is that the Apostle makes the number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as comprehensive and universal as that of those that were receiv'd into the Church by Baptism As by one Spirit all were baptized into one body so all were made to drink into one spirit The Apostles speaks the same thing again in another place alluding to the other part of the Sacrament We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread all the 1 Cor. 10. 17. members that conspired to make up the one body did partake of the one bread But if any thing yet can be clearer 't is that account St. Luke gives us of the practice of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem where it 's said of the three thousand that gladly receiv'd St. Peter's words and were by Baptism added to the Church they all the three thousand Ananias and Saphira being of the number continued in the Apostles doctrine and in breaking of bread and in prayers 5. From the end of Church-membership which is not only for the more solemn Worship of God and the publick profession of Religion but also for the more effectual edification and salvation of mens souls By Baptism we were admitted into the Church incorporated into that Divine Society and entitled to all the Priviledges of the Gospel to the end that in the unity of the faith and the knowledg of the Son of God Eph. 4. 13. we might come to a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ But how this is to be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Communion with the Church to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and the Word and all other Priviledges and Duties is not easily to be understood hence we may observe that edification in Scripture is usually applied to the Church and tho the edification of the Church consists in the edification of the particular Members of it yet because that is not to be had but in the Unity and Communion of the Church 't is usually stiled the edifying of the Eph. 4. 12. Church and the edifying the body of Christ hence Faith is said to come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Hence we are said to be born again not of corruptable Rom. 10. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 23. seed but of incorruptable by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same is exprest in those words of our Saviour's Prayer for his Disciples Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is John 17. 17. truth God's Church is his Family which he especially takes care of and provides for he that is of it is under the Schechina the wing of the Divine Majesty and his special grace and providence It cannot but be of mighty advantage towards our growth and improvement in all Christian graces and virtues to have therein dispens't to us the lively Oracles of God and provision made for a constant succession of dispensers of the Bread of Life to fit it to allneeds and all capacities Not to be left to the deceits and whispers of a private spirit to personal conjectures or secret insinuations but to have the publick Doctrine of the Church to be our Guide and Leader to have our Devotions mingled with the concurrent Prayers of all God's people and so by their joynt forces after an Coimus incaetum ad Deum quasimanu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes Tertul. humble but powerful manner to besiege and belaguer Heaven to have before our eyes all the great Examples in God's Church to have our Faith strengthen'd our Repentance heighten'd our Love inflam'd our Hopes and our Comforts rais'd by the Holy Communion Will not the flame of others kindle our zeal and assections and will it not put us into a transpoâ—t of devotion to see therein Christ Crucified before our Eyes pouring out his Blood for us bowing his Head as it were to kiss and stretching out his Arms as it were to embrace all that are penitent and return to him These are some of the great Blessings and advantages that cannot be had but in Church-Communion To which if we shall add that our improvement in Holiness and Vertue is more to be ascrib'd to the internal operations of God's spirit than any virtue or efficacy there can be in those external administrations and that God is pleas'd to promise his spirit to believers only as they are Members of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and ministry of his Word and Sacraments we shall farther see the necessity of Mens holding actual Communion with the Church in order to their Sanctification and Salvation We are not now discoursing what God
there is nothing Answer Indifferent in the Worship of God for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it All Persons grant this in the latter and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong ought to bear with the Weak and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty and yet is bound so to do in the case of Scandal and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed why may it not be also little infringed when restrained by others How can it be supposed that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced and yet he that is restrained By anothers Conscience 1 Cor. 10. 29. as the Apostle saith should keep intire And if it should be said this is Occasional but the other is perpetuated by the Order perhaps of a Church I answer that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary and are only intended to bond so long as they are for the good of the Community And if they are for continuance that alters not the case For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it yet he did not suppose that could be damnified though for his whole life it was restrain'd For thus he resolves If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the World standeth which certainly he would not have condescended to if such a Practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had before it was restrain'd by particular institution and which is call'd Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law but were restrain'd from the Practice and use of things otherwise and in themselves Lawful by severe Prohibitions Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied was call'd Christian because by the coming of Christ all these former restraints were taken off and all the World both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it it was as the Scope of the Epistle doth shew to warn them against returning to that Jewish State and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind or had the same tendency or were alike necessarily impos'd as those of the Mosaical Law then Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation but where these reasons are not our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them As long I say as they are neither peccant in their Nature nor End nor Number they are not unlawful to us nor is our Liberty injur'd in the use of them And so I am brought to the last General which is V. That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in it self and so necessary to all Christians or else what is indifferent and so may be lawfully used by them By things required I mean such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church and imposed upon the Lay-members of it for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it if the foundation I have laid be good and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things by for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worship as the Church of Rome is in its Half-Communion nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue and in the multitudes of its Ceremonies I think it will be acknowledged that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached the Sacraments intirely and truly Administred the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship and the manner of its performance and I think the things of that kind Objected against refer either to Time or Forms or Gesture To Times such are Festivals or Days set apart for Divine Service to Forms such are our Prayers and the Administration of our Sacraments to Gestures as Standing up at the Creed or Gospels and Kneeling at the Lord's Supper But now all these are either Natural or Moral Circumstances of Action and which as I have shewed are inseparable from it Of the former kind are Days and Gestures of the latter are Forms of Administration and so upon the reasons before given may be lawfully determined and used Again these are not forbidden by any Law either expresly or consequentially and have nothing that is indecent disorderly or unedifying in them and which if any should engage his own opinion and experience in he would be answered in the like kind and have the opinions and experience of Thousands that live in the practice of these to contradict him And if there be nothing of this kind apparent or what can be plainly prov'd as I am apt to beleive there cannot then the Proposition I have laid down needs no further proof But if at last it must issue in things inexpedient to Christians or an unlawfulness in the imposure are either of these fit to be insisted upon when the peace of one of the best Churches in the World is broken by it a lamentable Schism kept up and our Religion brought into imminent hazard by both Alas how near have we been to ruin and I wish I had no reason to say how near are we to it considering the indefatigable industry the united endeavours the matchless policy of those that contrive and desire it Can we think that we are safe as long as there is such an abiding reason to make us suspect it and that our divisions are both fomented and made use of by them to destroy us And if this be our danger and Union as necessary as desirable shall we yet make the breach wider or irreparable by an obstinate contention God forbid O pray for the Peace of Jerusalem they shall prosper that love thee Let Peace be within thy Walls and Prosperity within thy
Perswasion of the Vnlawfulness of our Communion will justifie any Mans Separation from us Or how far it will do it And what is to be done by such Persons in order either to their Communicating or not Communicating with us with a safe Conscience This is our second Point and I apply my self to it There are a great many among us that would with all their Hearts as they say Obey the Laws of the Church and joyn in our Worship and Sacraments but they are really perswaded that they cannot do it without Sin For there are some things required of them as Conditions of Communicating with us which are Forbidden by the Laws of God As for Instance it is against the Commands of Christ to appoint or to use any thing in the Worship of God which God himself hath not appointed For this is to add to the word of God and to Teach for Doctrines the Commandments and Traditions of Men. It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to Stint the Spirit in Prayer which all those that use a Form of Prayer must necessarily do It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to use any Significant Ceremony in Religion As for Instance the Cross in Baptism for that is to make new Sacraments It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to kneel at the Lords Supper for that is directly to contradict our Saviours Example in his Institution of that Sacrament and Savours besides of Popish Idolatry Since therefore there are these Sinful things in our Worship and those too imposed as Terms of Communion how can we blame them if they withdraw themselves from us Would we have them joyn with us in these Practices which they verily believe to be Sins Where then was their Conscience They might perhaps by this means shew how much they were the Servants of Men But what would become of their Fidelity to Jesus Christ What now shall we say to this They themselves are so well satisfi'd with their own doings in these matters that they do not think they are in the least to be blamed for refusing us their Communion so long as things stand thus with them They are sure they herein follow their own Conscience and therefore they cannot doubt but they are in a safe Condition and may justifie their Proceedings to God and to all the World let us say what we please This is the Case Now in Answer to it we must grant them these two things First of all that if indeed they be right in their Judgment and those things which they except against in our Communion be really Unlawful and Forbidden by Jesus Christ then they are not at all to be blamed for their not Communicating with us For in that Case Separation is not a Sin but a Duty We being for ever bound to Obey God rather than Men. And Secondly supposing they be mistaken in their Judgment and think that to be unlawful and Forbidden by God which is not really so Yet so long as this perswasion continues though it be a false one we think they cannot without Sin joyn in our Communion For even an Erroneous Conscience as we have shewed binds thus far that a Man cannot without Sin Act in Contradiction to it These two things I say we grant them and let them make the best advantage of them But then this is the point we stand upon and which if it be true will render this whole Plea for Nonconformity upon account of Conscience as I have now opened it wholly insufficient viz. If it should prove that our Dissenters are mistaken in their Judgment and that our Governours do indeed require nothing of them in the matter of Church Communion but what they may comply with without breach of Gods Law Then I say it will not acquit them from being Guilty of Sin before God in withdrawing from our Communion to say that they really believed our Communion to be unlawful and upon that Account they durst not joyn with us It is not my Province here to Answer all their Objections against our Forms of Prayer our Ceremonies our Orders and Rules in Administring Sacraments and other things that concern our Communion This hath been done several times and of late by several Persons which have treated of all these particular matters and who have shewed with great clearness and strength that there is nothing required in our Church Appointments which is in the least inconsistent with or Forbidden by any Law of Jesus Christ But on the contrary the Establishments of our Church are for Gravity Decency Purity and agreeableness with the Primitive Christianity the most approvable and the least Exceptionable of any Church Constitutions at this day in the World These things therefore I meddle not with but this is the point I am concerned in Whether supposing it be every Mans Duty to joyn in Communion with the Established Church and there be nothing required in that Communion but what may be Lawfully Practised I say supposing these two things whether it will be sufficient to acquit any Man from Sin that withdraws from that Communion upon this Account that through his mistake he believes he cannot joyn with us without Sin Or thus whether will any mans perswasion that there are Sinful Terms required in our Communion when yet there are not any justifie his Separation from us This is the general Question truly put And this I give as the Answer to it That in general speaking a Mans Erroneous Perswasion doth not dissolve the Obligation of Gods Law or justifie any Mans Transgression of his Duty So that if Gods Law doth Command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it And I have no just cause to break it in this particular Case but only I think I have My misperswasion in this matter doth not discharge me from my Obligation to keep the Communion of the Church or acquit me from Sin before God if I break it The Truth and Reason of this I have fully shewed before in what I have said about the Authority of Conscience I shall now only by way of further Confirmation ask this Question Was St. Paul guilty of Sin or no when he Persecuted the Christians being verily perswaded in his own mind that he ought so to do and that he Sinned if he did not If any will say that St. Paul did not Sin in this because he did but Act according to his Conscience they contradict his own express words For he acknowledgeth himself to be the greatest of Sinners and that for this very reason because he persecuted the Church of Christ If they say that he did Sin in doing this Then they must at the same time acknowledg that a Mans perswasion that a thing is a Duty will not excuse him from guilt in practising it if really and indeed it be against Gods Law And on the other side by the same reason that a Mans perswasion that a thing is unlawful will
be his Duty And for the matters in question most earnestly imploring the Assistance of Gods Spirit to guide and direct him Well but supposing a Man has endeavoured to inform his Judgment as well as he can and hath used all those Prudent means that were in his Power to satisfie himself of the Lawfulness of our Communion But yet after all he is of the same perswasion that he was viz. That he cannot joyn in our Worship without Sin what will we say to such a Man as this Will we still say that this Man must either Conform though against his Conscience or he is a Schismatick before God This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it In the first place we do heartily wish that this was the Case of all or of the most of our Dissenters viz. that they had done what they can to satisfie themselves about our Communion For if it was I do verily perswade my self that there would presently be an end of all those much to be lamented Schisms and Divisions which do now give so much Scandal to all good Men and threaten the Ruin of our Reformed Religion And this poor Church of England which hath so long Laboured and Groaned under the furious Attacques that have been made upon her by Enemies without and Enemies within her own Bowels would in a little time be perfectly set free from all apprehension of Danger at the least from the one sort of her Adversaries If all our Brethren of the Separation would most seriously follow after the things that make for Peace and walk by the same Rule as far as they were able and in things where they were otherwise minded would Religiously apply themselves to God for direction and to the use of Prudent means for Satisfaction I doubt not but the Face of things would presently be changed among us and we should near no more of any Division or Schism in our Nation that was either dangerous to the Church or to the Salvation of the Men that were concerned in it But alas we fear we have too great reason to say that the generality of our Dissenting Brethren even those of them that Plead Conscience for their Separation have not done their Duty in this matter have not heartily endeavoured to satisfie their Minds about the Lawfulness of Conformity in those Points which they stick at If they had one would think that after all their endeavours they should before they pronounced Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text of Scripture for the proving it so either in the whole or in any part of it but this they are not able to do They do indeed produce some Texts of Scripture which they think do make for them But really they are such that if they had not supinely taken up their meaning upon trust but would have been at the pains of carefully examining them and using such helps as they have every where at hand for the understanding them It would have been somewhat difficult for them to have expounded those Texts in such a sense as would infer the unlawfulness of our Communion But further I say it is not probable that the generality of our Dissenters who condemn our Communion as unlawful have ever anxiously applied themselves to the considering the Point or gaining Satisfaction about it because they do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair and much less those of our way If they had they would have been disposed to think better of our Communion than they do For not to mention what the Churchmen do teach press in this matter the most Eminent of their own Ministers are ready thus far to give their Testimony to our Communion That there is nothing required in it but what a Lay-Person may Honestly and Lawfully comply with though there may be some things incovenient and which they wish were amended Nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to afford us their Company in all the instances of Lay-Communion But I desire not to enlarge upon this Argument because it is an Invidious one All that I say is that we wish it was not too apparent by many Evidences that most of those who separate from us are so far from having done all they can to bring themselves to a complyance with our Church Constitutions that they have done little or nothing at all towards it But have taken up their Opinions hand over head without much thinking or enquiring and having once taken up an Opinion they adhere to it without scarce so much as once thinking that it is possible for them to be in the wrong If you speak of a Man that may with reason be said to have done his endeavour to satisfie himself about the Points of his Duty in this matter Give us such a one as hath no end no interest to serve by his Religion but only to Please God and to go to Heaven and who in the choice of the way that leads thither hath the Indifference of a Traveller to whom it is all one whether his way light on the right Hand or on the left being only concerned that it be the way which leads to his Journeys end Give us a Man that concerns himself as little as you please in the Speculative Disputes and Controversies of Religion But yet is wonderfully Solicitous about the Practice of his Duty and therefore will refuse no pains or trouble that may give him a right understanding of that Give us a Man that in the midst of the great Heats and Divisions and different Communions of the Church is yet modest and humble and docible That believes he may be mistaken and that his private Friends may be mistaken too and hath such an Esteem and Reverence for the Wisdom of his Governours in Church or State as to admit that it is probable they may see farther into matters of State and Religion than he doth And that therefore every Tenent and Opinion that was inbibed in his Education that was infused by private Men of his acquaintance or that was espoused upon a very few thoughts and little Consideration ought not to be so stifly maintained as to control or to be set in Opposition to the Publick Establishments of Authority Lastly give us a Man that where the Publick Laws do run counter to his private Sentiments and he is at a loss to reconcile his Duty to Men with his Duty to God Yet doth not presently upon this set up a Flag of Defiance to Authority but rather applies himself with all the Indifference and Honesty he can to get a true Information of these matters And to that end he Prays to God continually for his assistance he calls in the best helps and consults the best guides he can his Ears are open to what both sides can say for themselves and he is as willing to read a Book which is writ against his Opinion as one that defends
endeavour to inform his Judgment aright in the matters that offend his Conscience before he withdraw his Obedience from his Lawful Governours and his Communion from those that Worship God in Publick under them It appears likewise that it is not enough to justifie a Mans Separation that this or the other thing in our Worship is really against his Conscience for he may be a great Sinner notwithstanding that for leaving our Assemblies if it should prove at last that he is mistaken in his Notions What therefore should every Dissenter among us do that hath any regard to his Duty and would preserve a good Conscience I say what is there that more concerns him to do than presently to set about the true informing of his Judgment in the points where he is now dissatisfi'd for â—ear he be found to live in a grievous Sin all the time he Separates from us And therefore let no Man that Lives out of our Communion satisfie himself with such frivolous pretences as these That as for all the Substantials of Religion the matters of Faith and Good Life they do agree with us and that as for the other matters which concern Ceremonies and Discipline these are Nice Controverted Points Points disputed pro and contra amongst the Divines And therefore why should they trouble their Heads about them nay perhaps if they should they have neither Abilities nor Opportunities to understand them It must be confessed that something of this is true But yet it is nothing to their purpose It is very well that we all agree in the Rule of Faith and Manners and it would be happy if all the Christian World did so too But still Schism is a dreadful Sin And a Man may as certainly without Repentance be damned for that as for being an Heretick in his Opinion or a Drunkard for instance in his Manners Sure I am the Ancient Christian Fathers thought so It is true likewise that the business of Church Government and Discipline and other Points of Ecclesiastical Conformity is a matter of Dispute and Controversy among us But who is it that made it so The Church of England without doubt would have been very well pleased if there had been no dust raised no dispute or contentions moved in these matters but that every Member would have done his Duty peaceably and quietly in his Station Or that if any Controversy had arose it should have been debated among Learned Men and never have proceeded to Separation from the Communion We do not pretend to lay any stress upon Skill and Knowledg about these matters in Order to a Mans Salvation We believe and teach that a Man may be a very good Christian and go to Heaven that never understood how to justifie the Cross in Baptism or to defend the Common Prayer Book against all the Exceptions that are made against it All that we say is that if any Man will scruple and except against the use of these things it lyes upon him nay he is bound as he would keep a good Conscience to use the best means he possibly can to get Satisfaction about them Or if he do not at his own Peril be it nay even at the Peril of his Salvation if he breaks the Churches Peace and Communion upon that Account And as for those that pretend that these are Subtil Points and above their Reach and Capacity and they have not understanding and Wit enough to dive into them Why in Gods Name who desires them We say that they might Innocently enough and with a good Conscience comply with their Governours in these Points as they do in a hundred others without ever diving into them But since it seems they have Wit and Vnderstanding enough to cavil and find fault with these things and upon that Account to deny their Obedience to those Lawful Powers which God hath set over them One would think they should at the same time have so much Honesty as seriously to endeavour to give themselves Satisfaction as to those things they find fault with And this is all we desire of them And it is for their own sakes too as well as ours that we desire it For otherwise they will never be able to answer either to God or Man for the horrible Inconveniences and mischiefs that arise to the Church of Christ by the Division and Separation which they are engaged in To conclude if in any Instance that Famous Precept of the Apostle of proving all things and holding fast that which is good do Oblige Christians it doth especially in this If ever it be a Mans Duty to satisfie himself about the goodness and Lawfulness of a thing that he is apt to doubt of it is certainly in the Case where his Superiours have laid their Commands upon him For there he cannot disobey without Sin unless he can assure himself that he hath done all that he can to reconcile their Commands with his Duty to God but upon the best means he hath used he finds them irreconcileable For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case that I now speak of it is no less than the Sin of Formal Criminal Schism FINIS A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE THE SECOND PART Concerning a Doubting Conscience LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF A Doubting Conscience I Have in a former Discourse spoken to the Case of those Dissenters who separate from the Established Church for this Reason That they are Perswaded that they cannot Lawfully joyn in our Communion I now come to speak to the Case of those who separate from us for a less Reason viz. Because they Doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and so long as they thus Doubt they dare not come near us because they fear they should sin against God if they should do any Action with a doubting Conscience To this indeed a short Answer might be given from the former Discourse and that is this That let the Obligation of a doubting Conscience be as great as we can reasonably suppose it yet if Communion with our Church as it is Established be really a Duty then a Mans Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of it will not make it cease to be so or justifie his Separation from it For if a Manssetled Perswasion that an Action is unlawful will not ordinarily acquit him from Sin if he omit that Action supposing Gods Law hath commanded it as I there shew'd much less will a mans bare Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action justifie his Omission of it in such a Case But because this Answer seems rather to cut the Knot than to unty it it is my meaning in the following Discourse particularly to examine and discuss this Plea of a Doubting Conscience and to shew what little force there is in it to keep any man from Conformity that would otherwise Conform Hoping that some Reader whose Case this
hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Ballance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes clothed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Vsury and Law Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it was to any purpose If this now be admitted for Truth we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us and that is this There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom and to a mans self to be obtained by Worshiping God in the way of the Church and likewise so many both Publick and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Over-ballance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case And that man who is not swayed by them doth not Act so reasonably as he might do For my part I should think it very foolishly done of any man that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong as every one that Doubteth is should be so confident of his Point as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives and the Security of the Religion Established and withal his own Ease and Liberty and lastly the Fortunes also of his Posterity And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfuless of the things enjoyned in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this was well considered by our Doubting Dissenters They are wise enough as to the World in other matters it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this And if they were I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run to have it said of them that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Publick Peace and Vnity they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruine by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about But this will appear much clearer when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt as indeed it is in its own Nature Which I come now to do In the Second place There are other Dissenters who as they have good reason do Doubt on both sides of this Question As they Doubt on one hand whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful So on the other hand they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it because the Laws of the Church and of the Land do require them so to do And of these as I said there are likewise two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally That is to say of the Two it appears more probable to them that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty Now as to the first of these Cases The Answer is very short and it is this We have before proved by many Arguments that in a Case of a Pure Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Ballance on its own side so as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth but it is his Duty to do it he sins if he do not For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case where the Doubt is unequal And here the Case is this As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church and obey the Laws So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do Because it doth appear more probable to him that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty And a greater Probobility caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this where the Ballance is so far inclined one way the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side Yet in this Particular Case of Church Communion there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them as will with any Impartial Conscientious Man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a Perswasion and make it reasonable for him rather to Conform how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity so long as it is but a Doubt than to continue in Separation Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt pag. 27. This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us and I refuse no indifferent Man that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say to be Vmpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren as to this Controversie In the first place let us suppose and admit that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship doth really Doubt on the true side and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God if he should Conform to it But then it must be admitted likewise that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute is wonderfully obscurely declared There are no direct Prohibitions either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences And those Consequences likewise are so obscure that the Catholick Church from Christs time till our Reformation was wholly ignorant of them For though it doth appear that either these or the like Usages have always been in the Church Yet it doth not appear in all that compass of Time either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful Or indeed that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them And even at this Day these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
faces at our Devotions and when they observe these and other the like rules they may then with a better grace tho with little reason find fault with our Conformity as Offensive to them I would be loth to say any thing that should exasperate or provoke any of the Dissenters whose satisfaction I design I very well know their weakness that they cannot endure to be told of their faults However I must tell them that there are no sort of persons in the Christian World professing Religion and Godliness that have done such Scandalous things as some of those who call themselves Protestant Dissenters I forbear to name particulars 2. As for those who are satisfied concerning the lawfulness of Conformity I would desire them so to order their return to the Church as not to give any just Offence to those whom they forsake that is to say that they would do it heartily and sincerely that all may see they Conformed with a willing mind being persuaded that it is their duty so to do and not meerly to satisfie the Law or to save their Purses or to get into an Office or to capacitate them to Vote or the like For such a kind of Conformity as some practise and call Occasional Communion which is coming to Church and Sacrament to serve a turn is truly Scandalous to all good Men of what persuasion soever FINIS Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixâ— Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The First Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union c. 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE Charge of Scandal And giving OFFENCE BY CONFORMITY Refelled And Reflected back upon SEPARATION And that place of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 32. that hath been so usually urged by Dissenters in this Case asserted to its true Sence and vindicated from favouring the end for which it hath beed quoted by them Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. To the Christian-Reader THou art not ignorant I suppose that this Argument hath been handled by a far better Pen an Author that doth every thing he undertakes with that accuracy of Judgement and strength of Reason that becomes a person of his Character and therefore mayest wonder what so mean a Scribe hath to do after him I have but this Answer onely to give thee that it is neither affectation nor conceit of this Paper that is the cause This Discourse was shewed to some persons both friends to the world and the Author who was wholly ignorant that the Subject was undertaken by another and was thought fit to be stay'd till it was seen what that Discourse expected then would be with a design to suppress it wholly had the Method or the Management been near alike which because it was not and because the same thing that hits one fancy may not do so to another or not to all it was determined to venture this to the Publick also Which the Author doth with Prayer for and true Charity unto all that need such Discourses beseeching God that they may honestly and impartially consider what hath been offered to them of late to satisfie all their most material Scruples and Objections and that they may find a suitable effect upon their own minds THE Charge of Scandal And giving OFFENCE by CONFORMITY REFELLED THere are very few things within the Sphere of Christian Religion that more trouble and distract the thoughts of men than how to govern themselves and order their actions with respect to things that are called Indifferent In things that are essentially good or evil or are made so by some plain Command or Prohibition of our great Law giver all Parties are soon agreed and there needs not any question or dispute between them in these The Rule is plain and supposing men honest there cannot be any great mistake about them But in things that are left wholly undetermined by God and neither directly nor by just and natural consequence either enjoyned or prohibited by any Law of his there men sail not by so plain a Compass but have a larger Scope and may more easily mistake their Course It cannot therefore be less than a good service to men to direct them safely in this Unbeaten track and to prescribe to them such Rules to which if they carefully attend they can never fall into any dangerous errour This is our Apostles charitable design in this Chapter to which I shall have a respect in managing this present Argument viz. 1 Cor. 10. and by governing our selves by the measures of his discourse in it we may be able to hit those great Rules of our actions in these things The Apostles discourse is indeed but of one particular instance of these i e. the eating or not eating things that had
we be said to give offence to others in either of these sences by conforming to the Institutions and Rites of the Church of England 1. Not in the first sence for that can onely be in one or both of these two cases either first by doing that which is essentially and in its own nature evil and a sin Or secondly by doing that which is directly a temptation and a snare to induce another to do that which is a sin Now if it can be shewn that complying with the Rites and Service of the Church of England is giving offence in either of these sences then I here profess I will my self immediately turn their Proselyte and renounce Conformity and protest against it for ever 1. It hath scarce ever yet been so much as intimated that the Church of England requires any thing as a condition of Communion with her that is essentially evil None of our adversaries that I know of have yet dared to charge her Doctrine with falshood or her Discipline with any thing that is in it self evil And when any shall adventure to do it I doubt not but he will find enough to enter the lists with him Even our bitterest Enemies of the Romish Communion have dared to charge us no further in either of these but onely that we are defective in both and reject many things which the Church of Christ as they pretend hath believed and practised in the ancient and primitive ages of it They would rather chuse to call us Schismaticks than Hereticks or to prove us Hereticks not because we believe or teach any things for necessary Doctrines which are false but rather because we do not teach or believe all things that are Christian and true Neither do they charge our Liturgy and Service or Form of Worship with any thing that is materially evil no nor redundant but onely deficient in many Usages and Rites which they pretend to be Apostolical And if our own Brethren must be more spightful and bitter against us than our worst Adversaries let them look to it that even they become not their accusers at the great day But yet thanks be to God they have not adventured to do this and will be unsuccessful enough when they do it and therefore themselves free us from giving any offence in our Conformity in this sence of giving offence i. e. doing any thing which is formally a Sin our selves and thereby inducing others into the same evil by joyning with us 2. Neither secondly do I see any one sin that Conformity is directly introductive of or a temptation unto and I will believe it will puzzle the most curious and inquisitive to find out any such I have so much charity for my dear Mother the Church and so much duty I thank God yet left in me as to dare to justifie her from this imputation I am sure she intends no sin in what she doth nor knowns of any evil that her Communion will betray any man into All that she designs in her Doctrine is to teach the truth as it is in Jesus and to keep close to that Symbol of Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints And what she intends and aims at in her Liturgie and Discipline is by the one to keep men from innovating and corrupting that Faith or debauching it in their manners and deteining it in unrighteousness And by the other to direct them to worship God in such a way as is suitable to his own nature and to the Principles of such a holy Religion and thereby conciliate that grace that may enable them to live so as the Worship of such a God and the Belief of such a Religion require and oblige them to do I must confess in one thing the Church of England may be an occasion of a great deal of sin in the world but it is such as will as little advantage our Brethren to have it granted as it will be any disparagement or disadvantage to be caused by it I mean in being an occasion of all that in and guilt that all those bring upon themselves that rail and cry out so much upon it that separate and divide from it and studiously maintain and keep up an unreasonable and downright Schism against it But certainly all men will see that this is an offence onely taken and not given and ought no more to be objected against the Church than Murther and Adultery Theft and Robbery ought to be charged upon the Laws of God that declare the same to be sin Were there no such thing as the Constitution of a Church these men would not be guilty of Schism and unjust Separation from it But so if there were no Law there would be no transgression and Adulterers may as well accuse the Law for their sin in one case as Schismaticks can accuse the Constitution of the Church in the other They are both in this case equally culpable i. e. indeed not at all In a word and to conclude this Period if Piety and becoming expressions of Devotion in the publick Worship of God If Gravity Decency and Order in the Offices of Religion And if engaging men to a due respect and regard to the rules of the Gospel be sins or evils to be eschewed and dreaded by men then I will grant that Conformity to the Church of England may possibly give offence in this sence of giving of it but if not I do not see any reason to apprehend or fear any danger at all of it By these considerations it will appear we are free from giving offence by our Conformity to the Rules of our Church in this first sence of Scandal and giving Offence 2. I proceed therefore now to enquire if we cannot clear our selves sufficiently from it in the second notion of these things also And this I think will best and most plainly be determined by considering what can be thought just cause of sorrow and grief to a good man or a reasonable discouragement or hinderance to him in his way of Duty I mean still cause of these given to him by another Now these I think I may reduce pretty safely to these three Heads 1. Some dishonour offered to God and his Religion 2. The Wickedness and Profaneness of men 3. The making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome and difficult than otherwise it would be These are great and just causes of offence and grief to a good man It cannot but greatly afflict a good man to behold his God whom he adores and honours and loves above all things affronted and dishonoured his Laws violated his Authority contemned and trampled upon by daring and foolish men Rivers of waters saith the holy Psalmist run down mine eyes because men keep not thy law Psal 119. 136. And it cannot but be cause of the like sorrow to such a man to see other men for whom he hath a great and concerning charity and whom he loves as his own soul to live in sin
plain account in these words Let the Bishop give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice by which name the Holy Sacrament was called in Primitive times saying The Body of Christ and let him that receives say Amen Then let the Deacon take the Cup and at the delivery say The Bloud of Christ the Cup of Life and let him that drinketh say Amen Now although it cannot be denied but that these Constitutions are in many things adulterated yet it is allowed on the other hand that in many things they are very sincere and convey to us the pure Practice of the most ancient times That they give a true and sound account in this matter relating to the Sacrament we may rest fully satisfied from the concuring Evidence of other ancient Writers who lived in the fourth Century For both St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Jerusalem Ambr. de Sacr. lib 4. c. 5. p. 440. To. 4. St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Mystag 5. Universa Ecclesia accepto Christi Sanguine dicit Amen Resp ad Orosi quest 49. To. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. make express mention of the peoples saying Amen when the Minister said The Body of Christ So also St. Austin speaks of it as universally practised by the Church of Christ when the Cup was delivered And there is a very remarkable passage recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History which being very apposite to our purpose I will set down for the close of all Novatius a Presbyter of the Church of Rome having renounced the Communion of the Church and the Authority of his rightful Bishop Cornelius set up for himself and became the head Epist Cornel. ad Fab. apud Euseb Eccles Hist lib. 6. c. 35. de Novato of an unreasonable and unnatural Schism and the better to secure to him the Proselytes he had gained he altered the usual form of Prayer at the Sacrament and in the room thereof substituted a new-fangled Oath which he obliged every Communicant to take at the time of their receiving which among other wicked actions is particulary taken notice of and charged upon him by Cornelius as the worst of all and the most villanous Innovation When he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came says he to offer Sacrafices i. e. to celebrate the Lords Supper and to distribute to every one his part at the delivery of it he constrained those persons who unhappily sided with him to take an Oath instead of offering up Prayers and Praises according to custom and instead of saying Amen he forced every Communicant when he received the Bread to say I will never return to Cornelius as long as I live From these plain instances we may see how closely our Church follows the steps of pure antiquity in the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by the Minister at the giving of the Bread and the Cup to the people which runs thus The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life c. which last Clause was added by latter times by way of explication to that short Form which the Primitive Church used and surely it 's every Christians interest as well as his duty to joyn with the Minister in such a Prayer and return a hearty Amen to it I will now briefly sum up the Evidence that hath been produced out of Antiquity in justification of Kneeling at the Holy Communion according to the custom and practice of our Church and observe where it directs us to fix and what to resolve upon And in this order it lies Sitting was adjudged by the ancient Catholick Church a very unfit and irreverent posture to be used in time of Divine Service when they were solemnly engaged in the Worship of God the Holy Sacrament was esteemed the most solemn Act or Branch of Christian Worship The Primitive Christians generally used standing at their publick Devotions onely on the Lords days and all that space of time that falls between Easter and Whitsunday At all other times in their religious Assemblies Kneeling was their Worshipping posture and they were wont to meet and receive the Lords Supper every day and particularly on their stated Weekly Fasts which they kept every Wednesday and Friday when to stand was thought as great an irregularity as to kneel was on the Lords day And lastly the Holy Sacrament was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer and that on those days when they constantly prayed Kneeling All these things therefore being considered I think the least that can be concluded from them is what I asserted and designed viz. that in all likelihood the Primitive Christians did kneel at the Holy Communion as the Custom is in the Church of England For sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent Gesture by the Primitive Church and no man in his wits will say that prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever used in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so it must be therefore one of these two either Standing or Kneeling As for Standing all the time of publick Worship which was used onely on the Lords day and in Pentecost the reason thereof was drawn not from the Sacrament but from the day and festival season when they did more particularly Communicate the Resurrection of our blessed Saviour openly testified their belief of that great Article at such times therefore they chose standing as being a gesture sutable to the present occasion and as an Emblem and sign of the Resurrection And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary days when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to stand at the Sacrament in all likelyhood they used Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They used one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lords day and for fifty days after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then should any man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and received in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may howsoever promise my self thus much success That whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church used at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never used nor heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World 2. But secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they received the Lords Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justifie the present
Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men or whatever the import of it is in relation to Faith or Virtue which is the condition of our Salvation it is to be found in this Church whose Constitution is apt and fit to do all this And St. Jude seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Vers 19. Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most holy Faith and pray'd in the Holy Ghost And the honest Christian with greater assurance may expect the Grace and Blessings of Christ and the Divine Spirit whose Promises are made to them who continue in the Communion of the Church and not to them who divide from the Body and have greater hopes of Edification from their Teacher than the Grace of God from Apollos that waters than from Christ the chief Husbandman who gives the encrease 2. This Constitution is us'd and manag'd in the best way by the Pastours of our Church to Edifie the Souls of Men. This will appear if we consider these two things 1. That there are strict Commands under great Penalties laid upon the Pastours of our Church to do this who are not left to their own freedom and private judgment or the force onely of common Christianity upon them thus to improve Mens Souls committed to their charge but have Temporal Mulcts and Ecclesiastical Censures held over them to keep them to their Duty That when they do inform or direct their Flocks about their Belief they should keep to the Analogy of Faith or Form of sound Words Or when they perswade to practice their Rules and Propositions must be according to Godliness That whenever they Exhort or Rebuke Preach or Pray whenever they Direct or Answer the Scruples of Mens Minds in the whole Exercise and Compass of their Ministry they are to have an Eye to the Creed to regard Mercy and Justice the Standard of good Manners in short to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edifie Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these Commands are obey'd by the Pastours of our Church and they do all things in it to Edification For the truth of this we appeal to good Men and wise Men in the Communion of our Church who have Honesty and Judgment to confess this truth and with gratitude acknowledge that the Pastours of the Church of England have led them into the ways of Truth and Righteousness cured their Ignorance and reform'd their Lives and upon good grounds given them an assurance of Heaven To say such as these are prejudic'd and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is onely to prove what we justly suspect that they want true Edification among themselves and should be better taught the Doctrine of Charity Our Protestant Neighbours impartial Judges will give their Testimony to this Truth who have own'd and commended the Government of this Church condemn'd the Separation magnifi'd the Prudence Piety and Works of her Governours and Pastours and wish'd that they and their charge were under such a Discipline and translated many of their Pious and Learned Works to Edifie and Save their People Our The Unreasonableness of Separation p. 117. dissenting Brethren themselves at least in the good Mood and out of the heat of Dispute give their consent to this that the Instructions and Discourses of our Pastours from their Pulpits are Solid Learned Affectionate and Pious and their only Crime was that sometimes they were too well studied and too good If in the great number of the English Clergy some few may be lazy one particular person may clothe his Doctrine in too gay a dress another talks Scholastically above the capacity of his hearers a third too dully a fourth too nicely and opinionatively and here and there a Pastour answers not the true design of Preaching to inform mens Minds to guide their Consciences and move their Affections what is this to the general Charge That no Edification so good is to be had as in the separate Meetings the pretended Cause of their Separation For 't is no more a true Cause than want of Accommodation or Room in Churches for some to separate where good Edification and Conveniency too may be easily had And since they compel our Pastours to speak well of themselves by their detraction and speaking ill of them they must gladly suffer them as fools boldly to say 2 Cor. 11. 19. That since the Reformation and many hundred years before there hath not been a Clergy so Learned and Pious so Prudent and Painful and every way industrious to Edifie and save the Souls of Men as now is in the English Church The Second Argument to confirm the Answer is That those that usually make this pretence for Separation do commonly mistake better Edification We have prov'd already that good and sufficient Edification to save the Souls of Men is to be had in the English Church For if teaching plainly the Articles of Faith and laying down clearly Rules of Manners using well-composed Prayers and proper Administration of Sacraments be not good and sufficient Edification I know not what Edification means it may be heating of fancy stirring up of humours this or that and Men may as well define the thing they call Wit as what Edification means And therefore to desert the plain and great Duty of our church-Church-Communion for disputable doubtful or truly mistaken Edification is to be guilty of the sin of Schism In most cases to judge what is better or best is very hard and requires a sincere and considering head and so it is in the business of better Edification which is so easily mistaken especially by the generality of the People who are usually ignorant of such nice things and prejudic'd by their Parties and Affections and are mutable and various according to their fancies For better Edification purer Administrations and Churches and things that are more excellent absolute Perfection and a less defective Way of Worship are hard to understand perplex mens minds and fill them with innumerable doubts and scruples and put them upon refining and purging so long till they weaken and destroy the Spirit of Religion And so they run themselves into a known sin for dark and dispâ—â—able advantages which indeed are only mistakes and principally are these three that follow 1. In taking nice and speculative Notions for great and Edifying Truths When Doctrines have been rais'd only to please the temper of the curious and inquisitive yet have made many think their hearts were warm'd when their heads and fancies were gratifi'd And dark and obscure Discourses about Angels the state of separated Souls and things of the like nature have made Colos 2. 18 some call the Preacher high and mysterious while others teaching the way of Salvation plainly by Faith and a good Conversation
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
of Schism or to discover on which side the Schism lies or to avoid it without renouncing all Communion with the Church which course soever they take I leave all such Cases to God who knows when it is fit to dispence with his own Laws and will take care of my own Duty according to Scripture-Rules and not hope to justifie the ordinary breach of known Laws by some extraordinary Cases And yet the Case which you propose is not so unanswerable a difficulty as you imagine Several Councils in Palestine in Rome in Pontus and other places Euseb b. 5. cap. 23. Determine the Celebration of Easter on the day of the Resurrection not on the Fourteenth Day of the Month which was the Jewish Passover which dispute you call a Mistake in Arithmetick but for what reason I know not the Bishops of Asia at the same time decree the observation of Easter on the Fourteenth Day whatever Day of the week it fell on according to the Ancient Observation of the Asian Churches Pope Victor upon this writes to several Bishops very bitterly against them and was very desirous to have them Excommunicated and did as much as in him lay denounce the Sentence against them cap. 24. But this was ill resented by other Bishops in Communion with him and particularly Ireneus wrote a Letter to him about it and earnestly disswades him from it and did prevent it from taking effect if we will believe Eusebius So far is it from being true as you assert that Pope Victor in a Council Excommunicated the poor Asians what he did was only his own Act which was displeasing to other Bishops and which he was forc't to undo So that here was a great deal of Heat and Warmth and tendency towards a Schism but no Schism followed upon it among the Catholick Churches But suppose Pope Victor had Excommunicated the Asian Churches and this Excommunication had taken effect this could not make the Asian Churches Schismaticks for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the Communion of a Church and forsaking the Communion of a Church The first is matter of censure the second is our own choice the First is an Ecclesiastical Punishment the Second when it is causeless is Schism So that had the Church of Rome Excommunicated the Asian Churches unless the Asian Churches upon this had made a Separation from the Church of Rome this Excommunication could not make them Schismaticks and therefore any one might safely Communicate with them without partaking in a Schism Nor was it a just reason for the Asian Churches to have renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome though they had been Excommunicated by Victor for this had been to do as ill a thing as Victor had done for no other reason but because Pope Victor had set them an example And therefore we find Saint Cyprian of another temper when he and the African Bishops were threatned in the same manner by Pope Stephen upon occasion of that warm Dispute about rebaptizing Hereticks At that very time in his Epistle to Jubaianus he declares his resolution not to break Communion with any Church or Bishops upon that account and therefore not with Pope Stephen himself notwithstanding his rash and furious Censures And concludes that Patience and Forbearance was the best Remedy in such Cases and therefore upon this occasion he says he wrote his Book de bono Patientiae Well but if the Asiatick Churches were not Schismaticks yet Pope Victor had been a Schismatick had he Excommunicated the Churches of Asia or withdrawn Communion from them And this had made the case of the Roman Christians very hard for they must either have suspended Communion with both these divided Churches and lived without the comfort and advantages of Christian Communion or they must have rejected the Communion of their own Bishop and Churches or have rejected the Communion of the Churches of Asia or have maintained Communion with them both that is with two Separate Churches which according to my Principles is to Communicate in a Schism If they Communicate with their own Schismatical Bishop this is to Communicate in a Schism by Communicating with a Schismatick if they Renounce his Communion when he imposes no new unlawful Terms of Communion upon them this is to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church for the sake of a Schismatical Bishop If they Communicate with the Churches of Asia this is to break Communion with their own Bishop who has Excommunicated them if they separate from the Churches of Asia for no other reason but because they are unjustly Excommunicated this is to Separate for an unjust cause which is a Schism if they communicate with both they Communicate with two Separate Churches and therefore must be Schismaticks on one side or other If you can find any more difficulties in this matter you may And yet after all this I do believe the Christians of Rome might have Communicated both with the Roman and Asian Churches without Schism and this I believe upon these Principles which I shall briefly explain and confirm 1. That the Personal miscarriage of the Bishop in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures cannot involve his whole Church in the guilt of Schism though it may make him a Schismatick and certainly since Bishops are but Men and Subject to the like passions and infirmities that other men are it would be a very hard case if his personal Schism should be imputed to the whole Church Though the Bishop have the chief Authority in the Church yet it is hard to say that every abuse of his Authority is the Act of the whole Church and therefore the Church may not be Schismatical when the Bishop is and it is possible to Communicate with a Church whose Bishop is a Schismatick without Communicating in the Schism And therefore though Victor had Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches the Christians of Rome at that time might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without partaking in Victors Schism For tho a particular Church-Society consists in that Relation which is between the Bishop and his Clergy and People yet it is possible that the Bishop in the exercise of his Authority may violate the Fundamental Laws of Communion on which the Christians of such a Church unite into one Body and Society and when he does so it being an abuse of his Episcopal Authority it is his personal fault which cannot affect the whole Church The case is very plain where there is an Established constitution in a Church as it is in the Church of England which obliges the Bishops as well as People For should any English Bishop require any thing of his Clergy or People which is contrary to the Establish't Laws and Canons of the Church or should exercise any Authority in Censures and Excommunications which is not allowed him by those Canons this can in no sense be called the Act of the Church nor is any one bound
saies nothing that the divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Vnity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many Thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other Terms That the Divine Spirit confines his influences ordinarily to the Unity of the Church I do assert but that this is in Conformity to the Church of England I do not assert For Conformity to the Church of England is not Essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church for every Church has authority to prescribe its own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship in Conformity to the general Rules of the Gospel And therefore though the Unity of the Church is necessary to intitle Men to the ordinary influences of Gods Grace and consequently is necessary to Salvation yet Conformity to the Church of England is not necessary to the Unity of the Church because Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Unity of the Church without conformity to the Church of England Obedience indeed and Subjection to Church-Authority in all Lawful things is necessary to the Unity of the Church and necessary to Salvation and consequently it is a necessary Duty to conform to all the Lawful and Innocent Customs of the Church wherein we live but this does not make the particular Laws of Conformity which are different in different Churches to be necessary to Salvation unless you will say the Church has no Authority but only in things absolutely necessary to Salvation which destroys all the external Order and Discipline of the Church and charges all the Churches in the World with destroying Mens Souls if any persons be so Humorsom and Peevish as to break Communion with them for such Reasons But such kind of Cavils as these you may find answered at large in the Vindication of the Defence and thither I refer you if you desire to see any more of it Thus Sir I have with great patience answered your Questions not that they needed or deserved any Answer but that you might not think your self too much despised nor other weak People think your Questions unanswered And now I have given you an Answer I shall take the Confidence to give you a little Ghostly Counsel too which you need a great deal more than an Answer I have not troubled my Head to inquire Scrupulously who you are nor do I use to trust Common Fame in such matters but though I know not you yet I perceive you know me and if as you say you have often p. 1. heard me with great Satisfaction and as you hope not without edifying thereby I think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more Civility than you have done if it be in your Nature to be Civil to a Clergy-Man And I wish more for your own sake than for mine you had done so for I thank God I have learnt not only by the precepts and example of my great Master but by frequent Tryals to go through good Report and evil Report and to bear the most invidious and Spightful Reflections with an equal mind But as contemptible as a Clergy-Man is now these things will be accounted for another day For it is very evident that you have a great Spight at the whole Order whatever personal kindness you may have for some Men they are but a Herd of Clergy-men and you know no other use of a Bishop but to oversee admonish and Censure those who are apt to Preface go beyond their due Bounds I confess this way of Railery is grown very fashionable and I perceive you are resolved to be in the Mode and to be an accomplisht Gentleman but I never knew a man that was seriously religious who durst affront the Servants for their Masters sake But you Sir are in the very height of the fashion and think their Office as contemptible as their Persons generally are thought to be you hope to be saved without understanding the Notion of Church-Government as 't is intreagued by Clergy-men of all sides And I hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides Church-Government or else I doubt your Salvation may be hazardous But this is too plain a contempt of all Church-Authority for though the Church of Rome has usurpt an unlimited and Tyrannical Power under the Notion of Church-Government yet what has the Sound Church of England as you own it done What occasion did I give for this Censure who have expresly confined the Exercise of Church-Authority to Church-Communion to receiving in and putting out of the Church And if Resol of Cases p. 39. the Church be no Society I would desire to know what it is and if be a Society how can any Society subsist without Authority in some Persons to receive in and to shut out of the Society But the truth is tho you pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England you make the Church it self a very needless and insignificant thing for you know no necessity of Communicating with any Church you will not allow it to be Schism to Separate from the Church you think it a pretty indifferent thing whether Men be Baptized or not or by whom they are Baptized what your Opinion is about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I do not know though if you are consistent with your self I doubt that is a very indifferent Ceremony too Truly to deal plainly with you I think you have more need to be taught your Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books and let me in time warn you what the consequence of this way you are in is likely to be which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and institute Religion and consequently of Christianity Natural Religion may subsist without any positive Institutions but revealed Religion never did and never can for when God Transacts with Mankind in the way of a Visible Covenant there must be some Visible Ministers and Visible Sacraments of this Covenant And when the Evangelical Ministers and Sacraments fall into contempt Men must think meanly of Christianity and return to what they call natural Religion which is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice which cannot save a Sinner but by uncovenanted Grace and Mercy which no Man can be sure of and which no Man shall find who rejects a Priest and Sacrifice of Gods providing And to convince you of this you may observe that the contempt of the Notion of a Church of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments is originally owing to Deists and Socinians to those who profess to believe in God and to worship him according to the Laws of natural Religion but believe nothing at all of Christ or to those who profess to believe in Christ but believe him only to be a meer Man and a great Reformer of Natural
averse to Communion Baxter's Cure p. 311. with the Parish-Churches than the Nonconforming Ministers are as one complains and whatsoever they might think of the Conformity of Ministers because of the previous Terms required of them they would judg what is required of the People to be lawful as some Continuat Morning Exercise Serm. 4. p. 89. of them do And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the People's may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private Capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the the Ministers but widely different from it would be induced to hold Communion with the Church and to joyn with those of their Ministers that think it their Duty so to do and are therein of the opinion of the old Non-Conformists that did not act * * * Rathband's Epistle to the Reader prefixed to the grave and modest Confutation c. as if there were no middle between Separation from the Church and true Worship thereof and Subscription unto or Practice or Approbation of all the Corruptions of the same For †††Nichol's plea for the Puritans though they would not subscribe to the Ceremonies yet they were against Separation from God's publick Worship as one of them in the name of the rest doth declare So that as great a Difference as there is betwixt Presence and Consent betwixt bare Communion and Approbation betwixt the Office of the Minister and the Attendance of a private Person so much is there betwixt the Case of Ministerial and Lay-Communion And therefore when we consider the Case of Lay-Communion we are only to respect what is required of the People what part they are to have and exercise in Communion with the Church Now what they are concerned in are either the Forms that are imposed the Gestures they are to use and the Times they are to observe for the Celebration of Divine Worship or the Ministration which they may be remotely suppos'd also to be concerned in The lawfulness of all which and of all things required in Lay-Communion amongst us I shall not undertake to prove and maintain by Arguments taken from those that already are in full Communion with the Church of England and so are obliged to justify it but from those that in some things do differ from it who may therefore be supposed to be impartial and whose Reasons may be the more heeded as coming from themselves and from such that are forward in other respects to own the Miscarriages of the Church as those that wholly separate from it For the better understanding of the Case and of their Judgment in it I shall consider 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England 2. What Opinion they have had of Communion with that Church 3. What Opinion they have had of such Practices and Usages in that Church as Lay-men are concerned in 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England And that will appear in these two things First That they owne her to be a true Church Secondly To be a Church in the main very valuable First They own her to be a true Church Thus Mr. Baily saith of the old Non-Conformists They Disswasive â— 2. p. 21. did always plead against the Corruptions of the Church of England but never against the Truth of her Being or the Comfort of her Communion And as much is affirmed of the present by a grave and sober Person amongst them The Presbyterians generally hold the Church of Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. England to be a true Church though defective in its Order and Discipline Thus it 's acknowledged in the name of the rest by one that undertakes their Defence and would defend them in their Separation We acknowledg the Church of England to be a true Church Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 13. and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them This they do not only barely assert but also undertake to prove This is done by the old Non-Conformists in their Confutation of the Brownists who thus begin That the Church of England is a true A grave and sober Confut. p. 1. c. p. 57. Church of Christ and such an one as from which whosoever wittingly and willingly separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ we doubt not but the indifferent Reader may be perswaded by these Reasons following 1. We enjoy and joyn together in the use of those outward means which God hath ordained in his Word for the gathering of a visible Church and have been effectual to the unfeigned Conversion of many as may appear both by the other Fruits of Faith and by the Martyrdom which sundry have endured that were Members of our Church c. 2. Our whole Church maketh Profession of the true Faith The Confession of our Church together with the Apology thereof and those Articles of Religion which were agreed upon in the Convocation-House Anno 1562. whereunto every Minister of the Land is bound to subscribe so far forth as they contain the Confession of Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments do prove this evidently c. So Mr. Ball Wheresoever we see the Word of God Friendly Tryal of the Gâ—ounds of Separat c. 13â— p 306. truly taught and professed in Points fundamental and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred there is the true Church of Christ though the Health and Soundness of it may be crazed by many Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in the Life and Manners of Men. As much as this is also affirmed in the Letters passed betwixt the Ministers of Old-England A. Letter of many Ministers in Old-England to others in New England p. 24. and New-England It is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it be laid upon Christ the Foundation which being done the remaining of what is forbidden or the want of what is commanded cannot put the Society from the Title or Right of a true Church And if we enquire into the Judgment of the present Non-Conformists we shall find them likewise arguing for it Thus the Author to Jerubbaal The Jerubbaal or the Pleader impleaded p. 18 27. Essentials constitutive of a true Church are 1. The Head 2. The Body 3. The Union that is between them Which three concurring in the Church of England Christ being the professed Head she being Christ's professed Body and the Catholick Faith being the Union-band whereby they are coupled together she cannot in justice be denied a true though God knows far from a pure Church If we should proceed in this Argument and consider the Particulars I might fill a Volume with Testimonies of this kind 1. The Doctrine of the Church is universally held to be true and sound even the Brownists owned it of
something essential to a Church But if the Church have all things essential to it it is a true Church and not to be separated from When the V. Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17. Church of Rome is called a true Church it 's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence as a Thief is a true Man and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies is a true Spirit But withal she is a false Church as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall an Heretical Arraignment of Schism p. 26. Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue And so to separate from her is a Duty But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church or the Parochial Churches true Churches it 's in a moral Sence as they are sound Churches which may safely be communicated with Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 289 291. Opposition The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians so far as they profess Christianity and acknowledg Christ their Head but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Vsurpers so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon God's People are bound to separate c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome as the reformed Protestant Churches in France and these of Great Britain have done in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine a lawful Ministry and a People professing the true Religion submitting to and joyning together in the true Worship of God Such a Separation would as has been said unchurch it This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion contrary to a Principle that is I think universally maintained The Error of these Men saith Mr. Brightman * * * On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis second part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government p. 130. Cotton on John p. 156. i◠full of Evil who do in such a manner make a Departure from this Church by total Separation as if Christ were quite banished from hence and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there Let these Men consider that Christ is here feasting with his Members will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there where Christ is not ashamed to sit Further this would be a notorious Schism so the old Non-conformists conclude * * * Grave Consut p. 57. Cawdrey's Independency further proved p. 136. Because we have a true Church consisting of a lawful Ministry and a faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism for what is that saith another †††Brinsly's Arraigment p. 15 24 44. but a total Separation from a true Church This lastly would not diminish but much increase the Fault of the Separation As another saith | | | Baily's Disswasive c. 6. p. 104. For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church which I profess to be true and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be false and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God nor any Blessing from his Hand This therefore is their avow'd Principle That total Separation from the Church is unlawful And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists * * * Ames 's Puritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence p. 55. and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part †††Apologet. Nar. p. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with Defilements or in the greatest Danger thereof c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And amongst the present Non-conformists several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice So Mr. Baxter | | | Sacril desert p. 75. I constantly joyn i◠my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament It 's said of Mr. Joseph Allen * * * The Life of Mr. J. Allen p. 111. That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship as his Opportunities and Strength permitted †††The Doctrine of Schism p. 64. Of Mr. Brinsley that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship Dr. Collins saith as much of himself | | | Reasonable Account c. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God to hear the best they could and not to separate but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Worship of God Mr. Hickman freely declares I profess Bonasus vapulans p. 113. where-ever I come I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England so saith * * * Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists p. 26. That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick †††Discourse of the Religion c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case p. 15. Assemblies It 's evident then that it is their Principle and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it * * * Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion p. 1. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself I own Parish-Churches having a competent Minister and a number of credible Professors of Christianity for true Churches and the Worship therein performed as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word to be in the main sound and good for the Substance or Matter thereof And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant And if these two Judgment and Practice be not concordant it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest or that they do believe themselves while they declare against Separation and yet do not keep it up Those good Men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider saith Mr. Baxter Non-conformists Plea fo◠Peace § 17◠p 240. whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament and much more if it was total might not tend to deceive Men and make them believe that we were for Separation from them and took their Communion to be
this Head we may observe That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons according to the Principles they espouse they agree not in the Constitution of Churches c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be as I have observed before true Churches of Christ that Communion with such Churches is lawful and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing as whether it be an Act of Communion and about the Call of those they hear yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches are equally condemned by all 3. They hold that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church and affect the Vitals of Religion or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion 1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church or affect the vital Parts of Religion So saith Mr. Tombs Not every nor many Corruptions Theodulia Answer to Preface § 23. p. 47 48. of some kind do unchurch there being many in Faith Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia Aid Blake 's Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 229 c who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of Errors in Faith as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith to wit Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man and Salvation by him Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in Life by evil Manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched For till then the Corruptions are tolerable and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church or to depart from it So Mr. Brinsly Arraignment of Schism p. 50. Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us yet are they tolerable If so then is Separation on this ground intolerable unwarrantable in as much as it ought not to be but upon a very great and weighty Cause and that when there is no Remedy So Mr. Noyes Private Brethren may not Temple measured p. 78. separate from Churches or Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners Heresy or Prophaneness To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen and Mr. Cotton The former asserts That many Errors in Evangelical Love p. 76. Doctrine disorders in sacred Administrations irregular walking in Conversation with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers may fall out in some Churches and yet not evacuate their Church-state or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion and separate from them The latter saith Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 156. Unless you find in the Church Blasphemy or Idolatry or Persecution i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion there is no just Ground of Separation This is universally own'd But if any one should yet continue unconvinced let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture collected by Mr. Baxter and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable Observe saith he that no Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 5. p. 40 c. one Member is in all these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful And therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were 2. They are not to separate if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these On the Sacrament p. 239. The Church may be corrupted many ways in Doctrine Ordinances Worship c. And there are degrees of this Corruption the Doctrine in some remote Points the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom How many Churches do we find thus corrupted and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth c. to separate I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption hold the Communion But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed the Worship is become idolatrous and what is above all if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful in that Case Come out of Babylon The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature nor thus strictly required then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful and may be a Duty So saith Mr. Corbet in the name of the present Nonconformists We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33. true Church as no Church for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof while our personal Profession of some Error or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more for he saith Irenicum c. 23. p. 162 163. Where these Causes are not viz. the being constrained to profess believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith or being deprived of Means altogether necessary or most expedient to Salvation but Men may communicate without Sin professing the Truth and enjoy all Ordinances as the Free-men of Christ Men must not separate from a Church tho there be Corruption in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion yet if not actually imposed upon us our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue So Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 103. though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation as it is also own'd for saith one When the Corruptions of a Church are such as Jerubbaal p. 12. that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably that seems to me to be a just Ground though not of a Positive yet of a Negative though not of a total yet of a partial Separation i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser but is not so for the greater Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion
from Divine Providence 2. A necessity proceeding from humane Laws which forbid it 3. A necessity from the Injury done to the Publick And 4. When it is to our own greater hinderance than help as when we must use none or do worse In these and the like Cases it becomes a Duty and what is otherwise lawful is thereby made necessary And he that cannot joyn with a purer Worship than what is publickly established without the breach of Humane Laws or the disturbance of the Publick Peace or dividing the Church of God or the bringing Danger upon himself is as much where any of these or the like Reasons are restrained from so doing as if it did proceed from natural or providential Necessity that is the one he cannot do physically and naturally the other he cannot do morally honestly and prudently Having thus far stated the Case and shew'd that it 's universally owned by those that dissent from the Church of England that Communion in a Worship not essentially defective and corrupted is lawful and that it 's a received Opinion that where better is not to be had it 's a Duty and that better is not to had where it is not to be had lawfully I might freely pass on but because there is a common Objection against what has been said taken from Malac. 1. 14. Cursed be the Deceiver c. that voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing I shall briefly return their Answer to it and proceed To this the old Non-conformists reply 1. No Argument can be Letter of the the Minist of Old-England to those in New-Engl p. 14. brought from this place to the purpose but by Analogy which is a kind of arguing of all other most ready at hand but liable to most Exceptions and apt to draw aside if Care be not had which in this Case we find not to take the Proportion in every material Point just and true 2. The corrupt Ball 's Trial of the Grounds p. 74. Sacrifice is that which the Deceiver bringeth voluntarily and out of neglect having a Male in his Flock but the Faithful bringeth himself and his goodly Desires according to the Will of God and as for Corruptions whether respecting Matter or Form they are none of his they cleave not to his Sacrifice to stain or pollute it c. 3. He offers not a corrupt thing who offers the best he hath 4. It is to be considered saith Mr. Ball that what is Trial of the Grounds c. c. 4. p. 78. simply best is not best in Relation to this or that Circumstance or End what is best in a time free is not best in a time not free It is granted saith Mr. Baxter that Def. of Cure p. 85. we must offer God the best that we can do but not the best which we cannot do And many things must concur and especially a respect to the Publick Good to know which is the best So that before this Text can be V. Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 86. opposed to what has been said it must be proved 1. That the things in question are Corruptions as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law 2. That they are such as a Person doth chuse and it is in his Power to help and offers it when he hath a Male in his Flock 3. That such a Corruption as affects not the substance of Worship doth yet alter the Nature of it and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing and abominable to God If these things are not the Objection reacheth not the Case and there is no ground from that place for this Objection I shall conclude this Head with a remarkable Saying Platform of Discipline c. 13. § 5. of the Ministers of New-England To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceived or indeed in the Church which might and should be tolerated and healed with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced though perhaps himself be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from Publick Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful But supposing it may be unlawful to separate from a Church for a defective and faulty Worship yet it may be supposed that it may be lawful when it is for better Edification and that we may chuse what is for our Edification before what is not and what is more for our Edification before what is less For the Decision of which Case I shall shew from them P. 2. That as Defects and Faults in Worship so neither is the pretence of better Edification a sufficient Reason against Communion with a Church Sometimes they say it is no better than a meer Pretence and Imaginary a seeming Contentment of Mind as one Methermenent p. 71. On John 4. Lect. 58. calls it This Mr. Hildersham takes notice of Some prefer others before their own Pastor only because they shew more Zeal in their Voice and Gesture and Phrase of Speech and Manner of Delivery though haply the Doctrine it self be nothing so wholesome or powerful or fit to edifie their Consciences as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is of such he saith we may wish them more Knowledg and Judgment Mr. Baxter observes the Cure of Diâ—is p. 359. same One thinks that this is the best way and another that the other is best And commonly appearance and a taking Tone and Voice do more with them than solid Evidence of Truth Therefore it 's fit to have a right Notion of Edification which saith a Reverend Person of late lies more in Conâ—inuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 4 p. 95. the informing of our Judgments and confirming our Resolutions than in the Gusts and Relishes of Affection These as he saith are indeed of great use to the other but without them are far from making a Person better and leaving him truly edified Again it may be and 't is no better than a meer Pretence when the Fault is in themselves that complain they do not edify Mr. Hildersham charges it upon such Thou Lect. 28. p 129. and Lect. 58. mightest receive Profit if the Fault be not in thy self by the meanest of us that preach And he thus freely again declares himself I am perswaded there is never a Minister that is of the most excellent Gifts if he have a godly Heart but he can truly say he never heard any faithful Minister in his Life that was so mean but he could discern some Gift in him that was wanting in himself and could receive some Profit by him And therefore they advise to cure the Fault before they make use of this Plea So the pious Person above-said argues How shouldest thou profit by his Ministry if thou come with Prejudice without any Reverence or Delight unto it nor dost scarce acknowledg God's Ordinance in it So Mr. Jenkin directs Labour for Comment on Jude v. 19. experimental Benefit by the Ordinances Men
is P. 4. The Case of Mixed Communion This is a On the Sacrament p. 235. Plea saith Mr. Vines that is plausible to easy Capacities because it pretends to set up Holiness of Ordinances and People but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical and others as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Brinsley's Arraignment p. 37 38. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacril desert p. 97. Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismaticks in defence of their separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter doth advise And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those that separate upon this account do it very unjustly (a) (a) (a) Cawâ—rey's Reformation promoted p. 131. that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of separation (b) (b) (b) Manton on Jude p. 496. that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate Sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church though such be not cast out (c) (c) (c) Vines on Sacrament p. 242 Platform c. 14. § 8. V. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. That the suffering of prophane and scanlous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great Sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saith Mr. Burroughs (d) (d) (d) Gospel-Worship Serm 11. p. 242. an error on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they should be suffered to come that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents so far agree in and for this their Opinion they urge several Arguments First It 's no where commanded but is a vain Arg. 1 pretending to Holiness above Rule and Example saith On Sacrament p. 246. p. 31. Mr. Vines It 's no Duty as he elsewhere saith because there is no Command it 's no Duty and therefore we read not this word come forth in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches against which Christ saith he hath such and such things They that lived in the Impurer are not called forth into the Purer but there are Promises made to them that keep themselves pure and Duties injoined them toward the impurer part For we may not make every Disease the Plague Shall the Sons of God the Angels forsake the Lord's Presence because Satan came also amongst them c. The Provincial Assembly of London doth affirm In the Vindicat. of Presbyt Govern p. 134. Brinsly's Arraign p. 47. Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament as we believe few if any of our Congregations can be charged withal And yet the Apostle doth not perswade the Godly Party to Separate much less to gather V. Firmin's Separat examined p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 71. a Church out of a Church From which Consideration Mr. Tombs concludes * * * Theodulia p. 74. Sure it can be no sin in any Person to join in the True Worship and Service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that Service because of their Presence nor Power to exclude them and yet is bound to the Duties there performed Nay they do not only plead that it 's not commanded but that it 's forbidden and unlawful So Mr. Hooker To separate from a Church because of the Survey of Discipline Pres A. 3. Platform c. 14. §. 9. Sin of some Worshippers is unlawful So the New-England Ministers do declare As separation from a Church wherein prophane and scandalous Livers are tolerated is not presently necessary So for the Members thereof otherwise worthy hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church in the participation of the Sacraments is unlawful Secondly They plead that the communicating in Arg. 2 God's Service with open Sinners whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to communicate with is not sufficient to make such prophane Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53. or to pollute to them the Holy Things of God So the old Non-Conformists So Mr. Vines The presence On the Sacrament p. 242. p. 31 32. of wicked Men at God's Ordinances pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their Sin nor yet to their presence there This Mr. Burroughs disclaims Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 236 237. You are not defiled by the meer presence of wicked Men in the Sacrament for that is a meer deceit and gull that some would put upon them that differ from them but thus are you defiled if you do not your Duty and the uttermost you are able to purge them out But if this be done according to the Power and Capacity Persons are in it 's universally granted that the Innocent shall not suffer for the Nocent So Mr. Ball The Precept of debarring scandalous Offenders Tryal c. 10. p. 191 205. bindeth them to whom God hath given this Power and them only so far as God hath put it in V. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's right of Presbyt their Power But God regularly doth not leave that Power in the hand of one single Steward or some few private Christians And if the Steward or one or few private Christians cannot debar the unworthy from the Lord's Table it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the Wicked whom they desire to reform or expel but cannot because Power is not in their hand to do it lawfully This they confirm 1. From the Examples of the Prophets and good Men who of old joined with Grave confut Part 3. p. 53 55. Ball 's Tryal p. 211. Platform c 14. § 8. Blake Vindic. p. 235. many that were notoriously stained with gross Sins from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the publick Service of God from the practice of Christians in Apostolical Times all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon This is also pleaded by those of New-England and others This would make all the Sins of the Congregation Christian Directory p. 747. V. Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. to be ours So Mr. Baxter If you be wanting in your Duty to reform it it is your Sin but if bare presence made their Sin to be ours it would also make all the Sins of the Assembly ours From all which it appears that their sense is that scandalous Members are no sufficient Reason for Separation for that must be either because it 's commanded in Scripture or that those that do communicate with such are in so doing corrupted also but if neither of these be then we may
That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g) (g) (g) Trial p. 121 129 140 156. but little less even by Mr. Norton (h) (h) (h) Resp ad Apol c. 13. who saith It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter c. Is it not a high degree Sacril desert p. 102. Defence Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224. of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ's Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day have offered such Worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms and that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the old Non-conformists were unworthy your Communion I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer but I know also that these are answered by them But since the most common is that of quenching and stinting the Spirit I shall briefly give their sence of it They say 1. To say that Persons should use no set Form but Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal c. 5. p. 83. pray as moved by the Spirit is a fond Error 2. They say that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask not in what phrase of speech It stirreth up in us holy Desires but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad c. 3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Ibid. p. 91. Words and Forms but in fervent Sighs and Groans 4. That there is nothing letteth but that in such Rogers Ibid. Forms the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble to quicken and to comfort And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may Disc of Prayer p 222 231 232. be for edification and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God 5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case are grounded upon Mistakes and are misapplied as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested Theodulia p. 164 238. Fourthly I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common-Prayer both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it As to the Liturgy it self it 's acknowledged 1. That the Matter for the most part is good sound Bryan's dwelling with God Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29 59. Crofton Refor no Separ p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal p 35. and divine and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers that may not bear a good construction and so Amen may be said to it as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain 2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms so ours is the best So the old Non-conformists Compare the Doctrines Leâ—ter of the Minist in Old-Engl p. 12. Prayers Rites at those Times throughout in use in the Churches with ours and in all these blessed be the Name of the Lord we are more pure than they And it 's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter in the name of Second Plea for Peace p. 101. the present Non-conformists 3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable and hinders not but that it 's acceptable to God and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons Tolerable So Mr. Corbet The Worship contained Plea for Lay-Communion p. 2. V. Ball 's Tryal c. 9. p. 58. in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in it being sound for substance in the main and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders and passable in the most though in some offensive inconvenient or less perfect Acceptable to God So the old Non-conformists Letter of the Minist in Old-England p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers according to Christ's Command and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed notwithstanding the Corruptions we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God c. Edifying to well-disposed Persons To this purpose Mr. Hildersham Mr. Rogers c. Treat 3. c. 4. p. 224l And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience (a) (a) (a) Corbet Plea p. 3. Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal and spiritually by those that are Spiritual It is my part to make the best of it being the established Form As to Communion in the Liturgy it is granted 1. That there is no cause to renounce it or the Communion of the Church for it and that so to do is a Sin (b) (b) (b) Gifford's plain Declaâ—ation Ball 's Trial c. 7. p. 121. Sacril desert p. 105. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come among us where it is used (c) (c) (c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure p. 68. 3. It 's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d) (d) (d) Ball 's Tryal p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it (e) (e) (e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl p. 14. And for the present it 's declared We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer but read it our selves (f) (f) (f) Mr. Mead's Case p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp 4. of Church-Gov p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life p. 157. I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists but shall content my self with that which it seems was much Trial. c. 8. p. 152. insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball and their Reply to it The Liturgy in the whole Matter and Form thereof is Object too like unto the Mass-Book If the Liturgy be Antichristian it is so either in Answ respect of the Matter or of the Form Not of the Matter for that which properly belonged to Antichrist the foul and gross Errors is purged out Not of the Form for Order and Phrase of
for not separating the clean from the unclean the precious from the vile the Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26. holy from the prophane yet did they never teach that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty the whole Communion was polluted by it but as many as touch'd the unclean person were unclean so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing 3. When it 's said that the unclean person that did not purifie himself defiled the Tabernacle and polluted the Sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' joyn'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good men go up as a sweet smelling savour and are accepted by him The person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepared may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving Tit. 1. 15. is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd The weakness of this suggestion that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Mans company at and among them being laid open The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinc'd from these particulars 1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons What higher aggravations could there be of sin Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinn'd being the High-Priests Sons or the publick scandal aed impudence of the sin Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle yet did not the People of God not Elkanab and Hannah by name refrain to come up to Shilo and to joyn with them in the publick Worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 1 Sam. 2. 17. 24. those Men They abhorr'd the sacrifices of the Lord ye make the Lord's people to transgress In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and held a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a Miraculous Sacrifice neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bowed their knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that publick Worship perform'd by the Prophet All the People fell on their faces saying the Lord he is God the Lord he is God 1 King 18. 39. All along the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their manners we do not find that the â—rophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continued in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and Exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament In the Apostolick Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members and that if they would be safe themselves they must withdraw from their Communion but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them and if neither private nor publick Admonitions and Reproofs would do then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church till by Repentance and Amendment they render'd themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation sends his Instructions to the Angels that is to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia whose Office it was to Preach Repentance to them and by their Authority to reform abuses but gives them no Command to cease the publick Administration or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest nay altho' those Candlesticks were very foul yet was our Lord pleas'd still to bear with them and to walk in the midst of them Rev. 2. 1. and certainly so song as Christ affords his presence in a Church none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs 3. From our Saviour's own example who notwithanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church and the Members of it very leud and vicious yet kept in Communion with it and commanded his Disciples so to do We read that the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time had perverted the law corrupted Mat. 15. 6 7 8. the worship of God were blind guides devoured widows houses were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion but was made under the Law freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it he was circumcis'd on the eighth day redeem'd by a certain price being a Son and a First-born Luke 2. 22. observ'd their Passover and other Feasts enjoin'd by their Law yea and that of the dedication too tho' Matth. 26. but of humane institution was baptiz'd amongst them preach'd in their Temples and Synagogues reason'd John 17. 37. with them about Religion exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine tho' not to follow their Practice John 10. 6 7. Mat. 6. 7. What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church than was here yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance it They fit in Moses 's chair hear them 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it There were Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1. and contentions amongst them strifes and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols table and coming not so soberly as became them to the table of our Lord yet does the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approves their meeting together and exhorts them to continue it But let 1 Cor. 5. 4.
1 Cor. 11. 18 a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup In which words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews wâ—at private Christians in whose power ir 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 seperate had been the way the Apostle would then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and Strifes in the Church there is an incestuous person not cast out many proud contemners of their Bretheren Men of strange opinions of untam'd appetites and unbridled 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 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 ye should be polluted by their 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 But as clear and satisfactory as this Proposition seems to be it yet suffers very much from the Exceptions of some weak Understandings who meeting often in Scripture with such Commands and Exhortations as these to separate to come out not to touch to have no fellowship with and the like presently without staying to examine the sense of the Texts conclude that it is the duty and character of good Men to be always separating and tho wherever those places of Scripture are found they are for the most part to be understood with relation to Idolaters and Idolatrous Practices either amongst Jews or Gentiles yet will they have them extended to every thing and person that either really is or they think fit to call a Corruption or a corrupt Member in the Church of God Many Texts of Scripture are misunderstood and misappli'd by them to this purpose I shall instance only in two as the chief and hope in rescuing them from the false glosses they labour under to give a deliverance to all the rest The first is Obj. 1. Those words of the Apostle Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord 2 Cor. 6. 17. and touch not the unclean thing Ans This being the main place to which they fly upon all occasions as their strongest hold I shall give it a more particular consideration and that by shewing these three things 1. The occasion of this Apostolical admonition 2. What were the persons the converted Corinthians were to separate from 3. What was the unclean thing they were not to touch 1. What was the occasion of this Apostolical Exhortation To this purpose you must know that the converted Corinthians liv'd in civil Society amongst the unbelieving Gentiles by whom many of them being their kinsfolk and friends after the flesh were often invited to their Idol-feasts to which some of them 1 Cor. 10. 27. did not scruple to go and eat of the things sacrific'd to Idols even in the Idol's Temple thinking it not unlawful 1 Cor. 8. 10. to do so so long as they knew that an Idol was nothing and did not intentionally go and eat in any honour to the Idol Now from this Practice the 1 Cor. 8. 4. Apostle dissuades them by these two Arguments 1. Upon the account of scandal to their weak brethren telling them that tho' they that were strong knew that an Idol was nothing in the World and that there was but one God and so could not be suppos'd to worship the Idol when they eat of the Idol's sacrifice yet some other weak Christians and new Converts might not know so much and consequently by their practice might be drawn into sin not only to go to those Feasts but to do it in honour to the Idol 2. As harmless an action as they esteem'd it that 't was 1 Cor. 8. 7. plain Idolatry Be not ye Idolaters as were some of 1 Cor. 10. 14. them as it is written they sate down to eat and to drink and rose up to play that is they eat of those Sacrifices that had been offered up to the golden Calf Exod. 32. 6 and that this Action was Idolatrous he proves by an Analogy it bears to a Rite of the same nature both amongst Jews and Christians for as the Jews when they feasted on the Sacrifices did it in honour to God to whom the Sacrifices were offer'd and 1 Cor. 10. 18. as the Christians when they partake of the Lord's Supper do it in honour to Christ whose Death and ver 16. Passion is therein commemorated so when they did eat of the Idols Sacrifices they must have been thought to do it in honour to the Idol because to the Idol was the Sacrifice offer'd But blessed be ver 20. God we have not the like occasion for such an Exhortation we live not in a civil society with Idolaters but under a Christian Prince and with a People professing the Christian Religion Here are no publick Idols set up nor any Feasts kept in honour of them had the Case been thus with us we had been as much concern'd in the Text as the Corinthians were but being far otherwise not the least aid can be fetcht from hence to defend Separation from our Publick Assemblies 2. Who were the persons the Christian Corinthians were requir'd to seperate from They were no better than Vnbelievers than Infidels than Idolaters What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness And what communion hath light with 2 Cor. 6. 14. ver 15. ver 16. darkness And what concord hath Christ with Belial Or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols And then it follows wherefore come out from amongst them c. But now because Christians ver 17. by the Apostles command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters does it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians afford their presence at them Is there no difference betwixt a Pagan and an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who yet outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God Betwixt a Church wholly made up of Heathens and Idolaters and a Church made up of a mixture of good and bad Christians together 3. What is the unclean thing they are not to
that which mankind would have been had there been no such particular Institution and was in before that Institution 'T was the nature of the Law and the injoining of it by divine Institution so as it became necessary to them that made it a Yoke and a Act. 15. 18. Yoke intolerable and it was a freedom from that Law that constitutes the Liberty which the Apostle treats of in that Epistle And if it be also to be taken as our Author would have it for a freedom in matters of Worship from any thing but what is of Divine Institution that is a secondary sense and which may be taken from some parity of reason betwixt Case and Case but is not the Apostles nor the primary sense of it But take it how we will in this or the other I there shewed that the Apostles exhortation was of no use to them that Case of Indifferent things Pag. 47. plead it against submission to Authority in Indifferent Things when imposed in or about Divine Worship I am now come to the last general head of the aforesaid §. 5. Tract which contained a short account of the things required in our Church as they were either Duty or Indifferent And for an inforcement of that and conclusion of the whole I shall briefly shew how far this Reverend Author consents to or by his concessions must be bound to acknowledge it Indeed he sometimes doth tell us that Nine parts of Ten of all Dissenters say they cannot comply with things required in the English Case Examin pag. 3. 36. 38. Liturgy because they believe the things sinful and unlawful And elsewhere Two hardly of an Hundred think them Indifferent But whether our Author be of that number or at least has reason so to be I shall leave to his own conscience as to himself and to his concessions as to others In which I shall observe the method taken in the aforesaid Tract where I said all things objected against might be refer'd to Posture Forms and Times and shew'd these to be Natural or Moral circumstances of Action and inseparable from it Now in general he grants what are such may be lawfully used And if we pag. 14. come to particulars he doth at last yield it As for postures what more scrupled and opposed than Kneeling at the Sacrament Yet of this he saith There pag. 22. is no command in it and it is Indifferent that in all probability our Saviour administred it Kneeling and sitting pag. 12. backward upon his Legs that no Dissenter refuseth it pag. 36. because it is not decent but because it is a posture of Adoration that our Church doth not intend it as an homage to the Body of Christ there really present but declares that to do it as to the bread were an Idolatry to pag. 12 13. be abhor'd And in conclusion tells us that those that hesitate in that point fear a posture of Adoration used by Idolatrous Papists which is a consideration of no moment as has been already shewed As to Forms of Prayer he saith God has lest us pag. 30. at liberty what words to use and further that for conceived Prayer we know no body saith no other must be used pag. 22. in Gods Worship and if so then Forms may be lawfully used in it But suppose any scruple the use of them Case of Indiff p. 18. he saith however We know no reason but people may hear them if any scruples the use of them he may yet Case Exam. p. 22. have Communion with the Church we hope though he doth not act in it as a Minister As to time he saith the Law of Nature directs and for Festivals such as Purim amongst the Jews he pag. 29. saith It was generally commanded under the precepts of pag. 26. giving thanks for publick mercies Lastly Are the things required unlawful because imposed He answers Some of us including surely himself are not of that mind nay he affirms that the most pag. 39. sober Dissenters will agree in these things that is Natural pag. 7. circumstances to obey the command of Superiours provided it be not such as by circumstances is made sinful But if imposition would make them sinful such a command must not have been obeyed So that in the conclusion I see no reason why our Reverend Brother and the Dissenters he defends and that in all things as he saith agree to the Doctrine professed in the Articles pag. 1. of the Church of England should dissent from the Liturgy and Ceremonies of it as far as Lay-Communion is concerned in them Nor why he should tell us so much of Goals and Sessions and Judicatures and of the Sufferings they endure when if these things be true pag. 41 44. it 's for not doing what they lawfully can It is no wonder when such with-hold communion from the Church and set up other Churches against it that some call them as he complains perverse and contumacious persons â—bid and others call them damnable Schismaticks and pag. 1. are so bold as to say that such a separation from that Church is a separation from Christ And it 's likely he will meet with such that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people and those who thus pursue pag. 41 44. them I am far from one God is my witness that is a smiter of his fellow-servants as he calls them nor pag. 41. would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can to hear readily and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it This I think every truly conscientious person will do and I should question his conscience that doth it not Certainly to return him his own words if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God for the good and ibid. peace of others Souls for the preserving the Protestant Religion for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries for any thing indeed that is good and lovely they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but righteousness and peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost FINIS ERRATA PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should p. 30. l. antepenult r. imply p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions p. 39. Marg. add to Lightfoot Hor. in Matth. and Mark p. 46. l. 17. 1. Government Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. A. A Perswasive 〈…〉 with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
the Established Worship I lay down this general Proposition That if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted then it is certainly true that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England or can say that it is against his Conscience to joyn in Communion with it but only such a one as is perswaded in his own mind that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing For since as we have said Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or Indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding them nor Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a Man can Judg what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty So neither can it go against a Mans Conscience to do any Action which he is not convinced that Gods Law hath some way or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore in our present Case That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is perswaded in his Judgment that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God Or which is the same thing No Man can say it is against his Conscience to joyn in our Communion but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God if he do joyn with us If against this it be excepted that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to joyn with us in it As for instance in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation where he believes he can be more Edified or to which he is related by some Church Covenant To this I answer that in this Case I grant Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation though how justifiably I do not now Examine But then I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down For if the Man as is supposed in the Case be convinced that it is his Duty by Gods Law as there is no other measure of Duty to hold Communion with others and not with us then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of Gods Law that is without Sin joyn with us And that is the same Account which we give of its being against any Mans Conscience to hold Communion with us Further If it be urged against our Proposition that not only in the Case where a Man is perswaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity so long as those doubts remain And therefore it is not truly said of us that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity one must be perswaded in his own mind that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God I Answer that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity hath really entertain'd this Principle that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts But then this is but the same thing we are contending for for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us doubting as he doth because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should But if the Man we are speaking of do not think it a breach of Gods Law to Act with a doubting Conscience then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions which are all I can think of it will still remain true that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church but he that is perswaded that he cannot joyn with it without Sinning against God Now if this Proposition be true as certainly it is then how many Mens pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us are hereby cut off And indeed how few in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us will be left that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers and in our Sacraments In the first Place it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique because they have been disobliged or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church or by the Men that are favourers of it and therefore out of a Pet will joyn themselves to another Communion All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually by being of another way as for instance they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances they can better advance their Trade or increase their Fortunes they can better procure a Reputation or regain one that is Sunk In a word all those that to serve any ends of Pride or Interest or Passion or out of any other worldly Consideration do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God I say all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation In the second Place all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors and Teachers whom they most Love and Reverence are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us whose Pretence it is that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches they would come to our Congregations but so long as that is refused they will hear them where they can I say all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform there being other things required of them than of ordinary People yet it is not against their Conscience so to do for they know no ill in Conformity but only that so many good Men are silenced In the third Place all those that refuse our Communion upon a meer dislike of several things in our Church Offices They do not for instance like a Form of Prayer in general and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular they do not like our Ceremonies they do not like the Surplice or the Cross in Baptism and sundry other things they find fault with Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things but only they have an Aversion to them All these Men likewise are cut off from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For they do
it In a word if he be prejudiced or biassed any way it is on the side of Authority being rather deâ—â—rous to find himself mistaken and his Governours in the Right than himself in the Right and his Governours miâ—taken I say shew us such a Man as this and we readily grant you have produced a Person that doth sincerely use his endeavours to satisfie himself about the Lawfulness of our Communion But then we must say this also that as the Case stands between the Church of England and the Dissenters we can hardly believe that such a Man will long continue in Separation from the Church but will in a little time gain the Satisfaction of seeing not only that he may Lawfully joyn with us but also that it is his Duty so to do But let us admit that a Man may have endeavoured to Inform his Judgment as well as he can and yet be so far from being convinced that it is his Duty to joyn with us in our Worship that he is still of Opinion that it is his Duty to Separate from us What will we say of such a Man Will we still brand him for a Schismatick notwithstanding he hath done all he can to bring himself over to us but cannot To this I answer in the second Place according to the Principles I have before laid down that if such a Case do ever happen though the Man cannot be excused from Schism as to the matter of it because wherever there is an Actual Separation from a Church with which we ought and with which we may Lawfully Communicate there is an Actual Schism Commenced let the pretence for the Separation be what it will yet I trust he shall not be charged before God with the Formal guilt of the Schism any farther than the Error that led him into it was contracted by his own fault Though Schism in it self as we have said be a great Sin yet we do not say that all those who are engaged in the same Schism are equally Guilty before God In the first place those that separate from the Church to serve any private secular turn these are most horribly guilty of Schism and there is nothing to be said in their excuse In the second Place those who separate from the Church through misperswasions and mistakes of Judgment which they groundlessly and foolishly took up and might have avoided and would yet still certainly correct in themselves if they were but so Careful and Conscientious about their Duty as they ought to be These Men have indeed far more to say for themselves than the former but yet they are very blameable and are bound as they Love their Souls to take more Care of Informing their Conscience aright that so they may leave that Sin they are engaged in But Thirdly those that separate from the Church of God because they know no better nor never had means to know better Or those that have sincerely endeavoured to understand their Duty as much as could be expected from one in their Circumstances yet through weakness of understanding or want of Opportunity light into wrong Paths In a word those that are unhappily engaged in a Schism but God Almighty who searcheth the Hearts knoweth that it is not through the Fault of their Wills but the misfortune of their Circumstances I say if there be any Man among us that is in this Condition though he be a Schismatick Materially yet he is Innocently at least Pittiably so And if he be as free from blame in the other parts of his Life be may be a good Christian for all that And God Almighty we hope who Judgeth of Men by their inward Sincerity and not by their outward Circumstances will impute that Schism which in others perhaps is a wilful Crime to this Man no otherwise then as a pure Sin of Ignorance which shall not upon a general Repentance for all Sins known and unknown be accounted for at the last day Especially if this Innocently mistaken Man we speak of do to the other Regularities of his Life add a diligent Care in these four following Points First that he be not Obstinate and Pertinacious in his way but that he keep his mind readily prepared and disposed to receive any Conviction which God by any Means or Instruments shall offer to him Secondly That he Separate no farther from the Church of which he ought to be a Member than he needs must but do chearfully comply with the Publick Laws and Establishments in all those Instances where he is Satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly that where he cannot give Active Obedience to the Laws he do in those Instances Patiently and Christianly submit to the Penalties which those Laws inflict Neither exclaiming against his Governours or the Magistrates as Persecutors for enacting or Executing those Laws Nor using any undue Illegal means to get himself more ease and Liberty But in all things behaving himself as a quiet and peaceable Subject to the Government he lives under And Fourthly and lastly that he shew himself a good Neighbour as well as a good Subject in avoiding all peevish and bitter Censures of those that differ in Opinion and perswasion from him and Exercising Humanity and Friendliness and Charity to all his Fellow Christians Whosoever I say of our Brethren of the Separation make good these Points That is to say are in the first place very sincere in their endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in the matter of our Communion And in the next place when they cannot Satisfie their Conscience about our way do yet in their Dissent from us Observe the four Particulars I have now named I should be loth for my part to Censure them either as ill Men or ill Subjects or ill Christians But then all that I have said in this matter doth no more justifie the Sin of Schism or Extenuate the hainousness of it in its own Nature Than it would serve to justifie or Extenuate the Sin of Idolatry if all that I have now said was applied to the Case of an Ignorant well meaning devout Papist For I do verily believe that what I have now represented by way of Apology for an innocent mistaken Separatist will hold true mutatis mutandis in the Case of a deluded Romanist who is invincibly and without any fault of his intangled in the Practice of their Idolatries But I believe for all that the Sin of Idolatry is in it self a most grievous Sin and so I believe is the Sin of Schism and therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the Innocence or Excuseableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To come to a conclusion that which I would most seriously press from what hath been said is this It appears from the foregoing Discourse how absolutely necessary it is that every Man should
Duty that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him of doing Honour to our Lord by partaking in his Supper though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation But so it happens that since his last Communicating he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be He hath lived more loosly and carelesly than he was wont or perhaps he hath been very lately guilty of some grievous sin that lies heavy upon his Conscience So that when his next usual time of Receiving comes he cannot but apprehend himself in a very unfit condition to Communicate in so sacred a Mystery Upon this he is in a great perplexity what to do For on the one side he thinks he hath more reason to believe that he offends God if he comes to the Sacrament in these Circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that there is a Law of God that forbids him to come unworthily than he is certain that there is a Law of God that commands him to receive every time that he hath opportunity But now on the other hand if it should prove that he is really bound by Gods Law to Commemorate the Death of Christ in the Sacrament every time that an opportunity is offered He is sensible in that Case it is a greater sin to neglect this Duty than to perform it unworthily so long still as he performs it out of Conscience What now is the Man to do in these Circumstances This is an exact Instance of the Case I spoke to in my third Proposition where on one side the Man runs a greater danger of sinning but on the other side if he should prove mistaken he sins in a greater degree Now for a Resolution of this Case I say That if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself only once or twice from the Communion in order to the exercise of Repentance and the putting himself into a better frame of mind against another opportunity The Answer according to our Third Proposition must be this That it is very reasonable thus to do And there is good ground for this Answer For certainly a Man is more in danger of sinning if he receive unworthily than if he do not receive every time that there is a Communion There being an express Law against the one but no express Law obliging to the other For Christ hath no more appointed that we should receive the Sacrament so many times in a year than he hath appointed that we should Pray so many times in a day or that we should give such a determinate proportion of our Annual Income to Charitable Uses As to these things he hath bound us in the General but as to the Particulars the Circumstances of our Condition and the Laws of our Superiors are to determine us Only this we are to remember that the oftner we perform these Duties it is the better and we can hardly be said to be Christians if we do not perform them frequently This now being so Though it be true that a Man would be guilty of a greater sin if he should at any time though but once abstain from the Communion than if he should come to it with such unworthiness as we are here speaking of supposing that Christs Law had precisely tied him up to communicate every time that a Communion is appointed Yet since there is so little appearance of Reason to conclude that Christ has thus tied him up and withal on the other hand he runs so certain a danger of sinning if he should Communicate at this time apprehending himself to be so unworthy as he doth This Consideration of the certain danger must needs in this Case overballance the other of the greater sin and make it appear more Reasonable to the Man to suspend his receiving to another Opportunity against which time he hopes to be better prepared than to adventure upon it in his present Circumstances But then if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself Customarily and Habitually from the Lords Table upon this account of unworthiness that which I have now said will not hold For in this Case the Man is in as much danger of sinning by not receiving at all as by receiving unworthily nay and a great deal more as I shewed in my first particular about this Case And withal he is guilty of a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing from the Sacrament than in coming to it though with never so great Apprehensions of his own unworthiness as I shewed in my second And therefore since the danger is at least equal on both sides he must chuse that side on which the least sin lies That is to say he must Communicate frequently at least so often as the Laws of the Church do enjoin him which is three times a year though he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not Communicate at all Having thus gone through Three of our Propositions concerning a Double Doubt All that remains is to put our Case about the Sacrament so as that it may serve for an Instance or Illustration of our fourth and last Here therefore we are to suppose our Doubting Man to be in such a Condition that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament or receives it not And withall so unskilful a Judge is he of the morality of Actions that he apprehends no great difference in the degree of the sin whether he do the one or the other In this Case now all the Man can do is to consider what Inducements he has in Point of Prudence or Interest to do or to forbear the Action he doubts about for since all other Considerations in the Case are equal those of this kind are to turn the Ballance according to our Fourth Proposition But if the Case turn upon this Point I dare say no man will be long doubtful whether he should frequent the Sacrament in obedience to the Laws or forbear it For it is plain that he Acts more Prudently and more consults his own Advantage both Temporal and Spiritual As for the Temporal Advantages which a Man receives by obeying the Laws in this matter I will not now insist on them though they are neither few nor inconsiderable That which I desire chiefly to be here considered is this That in point of Spiritual Advantages it is much more advisable for our Doubtting Person to come to the Sacrament than to abstain from it For by frequenting this Ordinance he takes the best method both to grow more worthy if he be now unworthy and likewise to cure the Doubts and Scruples he is now troubled with But if he neglect this means of Grace he not only takes an effectual course to increase and perpetuate his Fears and Doubts it being very probable that the longer he defers his receiving the Sacrament still the more doubtful will he be of his being qualified for it But also is
of Time came by the appearance of the Son of God in the World he was in a great measure dethroned his Kingdom overthrown and the last and most effectual means were used for the recovery of Men out of his Snare and Power When therefore he perceived that by all the grievous Persecutions he raised against the Church it spread only so much the faster that at last the whole Heathen Idolatry fell down before the Cross of Christ when he was shamefully expelled out of his Temples and from his Altars his Oracles silenced and the Religion of Jesus prevailed every where he then betook himself to his old Serpentine Arts of dissimulation Since he could no longer oppose Christ's Kingdom by open War he resolved to turn Christian and to set up for Christ's Deputy and substitute here on Earth to fight against Christians under Christ's Banner and by adulterating and corrupting the Christian Doctrine to spoil it of all its Efficacy to introduce his old Heathen Rites and Idolatrous Ceremonies as unwritten Traditions from Christ himself or his Apostles and so under his Name and pretended Authority to exercise all that cruelty oppression and fraud which is so pleasing to his own infernal Nature hoping to burn destroy root out all true Christians from the face of the Earth under colour of propagating the Catholick Faith and enlarging Christ's Kingdom in the World When Christendom had long groaned under this miserable Tyranny it pleased God in many places of Europe but especially here in England to set on foot a Reformation of Religion which was happily and peaceably accomplished among us by the favour and countenance of publick Authority and the wise Counsel and Advice of our Reverend Bishops and other Ministers To nip this in the Bud the Devil raised that sharp Persecution in Qu. Mary's days in which our first Reformers gloriously sealed what they had done with their Blood but this proving ineffectual that he might the better frustrate the ends of our Reformation himself would turn Reformer too A great Cry was soon raised against our Church as not sufficiently purged from Popery our Bishops our Prayers our Ceremonies were all Antichristian and it was not long before all Ministers Tythes Temples and the Universities too were condemned as such and God knows they had well nigh reformed away all Learning true Religion and Worship of God and under the specious Pretence of paring off all Superfluities had grievously shaken the Foundations of Christianity it self insomuch that it came to pass as some of those who now dissent from us did then complain That Professors of Religion did openly oppose and deride almost all that Service of God out of Conscience which other Men used to do out of Prophaneness And what infinite mischief this rash and intemperate Zeal for reforming Abuses and Corruptions hath done to our Church and Nation if the Experience of this last Age will not sufficiently convince men it is not to be hoped that any Discourse should We little consider whose Interest we thus serve and promote we do his work who is most delighted with Strife and Confusion and every one can tell who that is and where he reigns To be sure by these uncharitable Separations we highly gratifie the common Enemy whose great Design and Policy it hath all along been by the Follies and invincible Scruples of Protestant Dissenters to weaken and by degrees pull down the Church of England and then we all become an easie Prey to Rome If any now tell me that to prevent this great Mischief and Danger that ariseth from our Divisions it is not so necessary that the People should lay down their Scruples which they cannot well do since no one can at any time think or believe as he will as it is that the Impositions themselves the Matters scrupled at should be removed and taken away and then Peace and Unity may be better secured To this I only answer these two things 1. I now consider things as they at present stand amongst us We have a Church setled and established by Law in which nothing that is sinful is enjoyned What the Duty of our Governours and Superiours is how far they may or ought to condescend to the Weakness or Scruples of others I shall not take upon me to determine that is another Question which belongs not to us But I consider now only what private Members of such a Church are to do and then I say scrupling the Use of some things prescribed by the Church will not justifie our leaving it nay as I shall shew afterwards it is our best and safest course to submit and comply with such Orders notwithstanding our Scruples But I add 2. If this were a sufficient Reason why the Constitution of any Church should be altered because some things are scrupled in it there never could be a setled Church as long as the World stands for since there will be always a difference in Mens Understandings and Tempers some weak and injudicious others peevish and proud there will consequently be many that shall scruple and be offended at the best and most innocnt Constitutions And if the Ceremonies now in use amongst us had not been retained at our first Reformation those very Persons who are now so much dissatisfied with the Imposition of them would perhaps have been the first that should have then complained of the want of them Of which we have this notorious and undeniable Evidence in the late times when our Church was laid in the Dust when none of those Ceremonies or Forms which are now objected against were imposed or commonly used yet even then were men gathering Congregations out of Congregations purifying and reforming still further Scruples encreased Sects and Divisions upon them multiplied and never such Distractions and Confusions in Religion as in those days and without the gift of Prophecy one may foretell that if what is principally found fault with in our Church was now abolished yet those that are given to Scruples would at least in time find cavelling Objections against any Constitution that can be made They are like Men given to sue and go to Law They never want some Pretence to disturb themselves and their Neighbours Men may talk of reconciling our Differences and making up our Breaches to their Lives end and propound their several Projects and frame their Models and conceive fine designs of Union and Accommodation yet none of these will have any effect or do any good till Men learn Humility and Modesty and be contented to be governed by others in things indifferent till Self-conceit and Pride be in some measure rooted out and when this is effectually done there will then be found but little need of any Alteration in the present Constitution The foundation of our Peace and Agreement must be laid in the reforming our selves and our own Tempers The way to unite us lieth not so much in amending the present Establishment Government Liturgy endeavouring to add to it
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
have taken due care to inform others rightly of the matter and warn them of the danger till I have endeavoured to rectifie their judgments concerning the innocency of my action and intention and given them notice of the evil that might possibly by my action happen to them If I dig a pit or lay a block in the way whereby others not knowing any thing of it are hurt and wounded here I stand chargeable with it and am guilty in causing them to fall but if they are plainly and often told of it and being forewarned yet will run into the danger they are then only to thank themselves and it is purely their own fault Now if it be thus in cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation it holds much more in our Ceremonies and the orders of our Church where the offence that is taken at them ariseth not so much from the nature of the injunctions as from mens gross Ignorance misconceit or perverseness Thus men are no longer weak in Scripture sense than they are inculpably Ignorant or which is all one the Plea of weakness is gone after that sufficient instruction hath been given or offered to them and other allowances made according to mens different capacities of understanding This shall suffice for the first thing propounded to shew what is the true notion of a weak Brother 2 I proceed to give you an account what it is to offend such an one Because I write for the use of the Common people only I shall not trouble them with the several significations of the Greek word which is Translated Scandal or offence nor distinctly consider the several places of Scripture where it is used only so far as plainly to shew First that people are generally mistaken in the sense they have of it Secondly What it is truly to offend or give offence 1. That people are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another and making him angry with them and so consequently they think themselves in Conscience bound to forbear all those things which godly persons do not like or approve of or is contrary to their fancy and judgment It is notorious that most of the ordinary sort of Dissenters who assign this as the reason of their not conforming to the Established Laws of the Church because by doing so they shall offend their Brethren mean nothing else by it but that they shall fall into disgrace with incur the displeasure and provoke the anger of those with whom they have held Communion for a long time in religious exercises They good men will be mightily troubled and vexed to see or hear such a sad thing and this is taken by many amongst them for an heinous crime even the same which St. Paul calls Scandalizing a weak Brother to do any thing which may chance to put any of their Godly Brethren out of humour The occasion of this false apprehension is in all likelyhood the Ambiguity of our English word offend which is used in the Translation of our Bibles In our Language it signifies to displease or to do something which another dislikes but the Greek word which is so rendered signifies to lay a stumbling block in the way of another which causes him to fall or to ensnare and deceive him into something that is evil as I shall shew more largely presently We must not therefore interpret the places of Scripture where offend or offence are found by the common importance of the words amongst us but by the undoubted signification of the Original word which all learned men agree to have quite another sense It must not be concealed that there is one place in the famous fourteenth chapter of the Romans that seems to favour this popular conceit v. 15. If thy Brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably and it is the only one I know of that sounds this way but surely it is more reasonable that this one verse should be interpreted by all the other places of Scripture about this matter than all the rest explained agreeably to this single verse Nay it sufficiently appears that by grieving our Brother is not meant displeasing him or making him sorry or sad but wounding or hurting him and so it is used to denote that which causes grief or sorrow For in the very next words it follows destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died and what is here expressed by grieving is v. 13. called putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall and v. 21. it is good neither to eat Flesh nor drink Wine nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak all which signifie the same with being grieved To be offended or grieved is not to be troubled at what another hath done out of pity and concern for his Soul but to receive hurt our selves from it being by it drawn or deceived into some sin and our own fall occasioned by what our Brother hath done is that which creates the grief and trouble But because this mistake doth so generally prevail amongst many as I hope well disposed people who think that they must not do any thing at which good men are displeased or grieved I shall offer these few things to their consideration 1. That thus to censure and condemn the actions and to be displeased and angry with the persons of those that differ from them or refuse any longer to joyn with them in their Separate Congregations is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his weak believers against viz. that they should not rashly judge those who knew their duty and understood their Christian liberty better than themselves This seems to be the same with that Argument the Papists use to perswade men into or to keep them in their Communion as the safest way to Heaven since they so confidently damn all Men whom tho never so unjustly they thrust out of their Church Because some of our Dissenting Brethren are so froward and unmerciful in their censures and so fond of their own way as to brand all that return to the Church with the infamous names of Apostates Time-servers Men that have made Shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience and have forsaken Christ for fear of Persecution and the like therefore all those who are convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity yet ought still to continue with them in their Separation lest they provoke and irritate their anger and displeasure against them and thus any company of men that shall joyn together and resolve to quarrel with all that do not as they do or that shall leave their society must oblige all for ever to remain with them for fear of giving them offence If what I do is not evil in it self it cannot become such because another Man is causelesly angry with me for doing of it Let
prejudice them against his Person and Doctrine Thus our Saviours own Country-men who were acquainted with his Father and Mother and Kindred who knew the meanness of his Birth and Education Mark 6. 3. were Offended or Scandalized at him They were astonished at the great things he did and the greater things he spoke and would in all probability have believed on him had they not known his mean Original and employment Is not this the Carpenter the Son of Mary c. After the same manner when our Lord St. John 6. 61. had discoursed of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man they that heard him taking it in a gross carnal sense were Offended or Scandalized at him They began to doubt of his being a true Prophet or the Messiah who would teach his Disciples to turn Cannibals Thus again our Saviour before the night in which he was betrayed told his Disciples St. Matt. 26. 31. all of ye shall be Offended or Scandalized because of me this Night that is shall fly away and shamefully forsake me when you behold my hard usage and dismal sufferings So Christ Crucified 1 Cor. 1. 23. to the Jews was a Scandal or stumbling-block that is they had set their minds and hearts on a temporal earthly King and expected to be freed from the Roman Yoke and to be restored to their former Dominions and greatness as the effect of the coming of their Messiah and therefore could not be persuaded to own him for their Prince and Saviour and the Son of God who was put to such a Cursed and Ignominious death In the same sense they who heard the Word of God Mark 4. 17. and received it with gladness but having no root in themselves when Affliction or Persecution arose for the Words sake were presently offended or Scandalized that is were ready to leave and renounce that Profession that was likely to cost them so dear After the publishing of the Gospel by the Apostles that which most stumbled the Jewish Converts was the danger Moses's Law and their Temple Worship and the singular preeminences of the Seed of Abraham seemed to be in of being undermined by Christianity They were strangely wedded to their Legal observances fond of Circumcision and those peculiarities which distinguished their Nation from the rest of mankind they were jealous of any Doctrine that encroached upon their Priviledges or tended to bring them down to the same level with the Uncircumcised World This mightily Offended them and hardned them against Christianity whereas on the other side the Gentile Converts with as much reason were afraid of putting their Necks under so heavy a Yoke or being brought into subjection to the Jewish Law and there was no such effectual way to scare them from Christianity as when it came attended with the burden of the Mosaical Ceremonies which were an Offence to them that is did discourage them from believing in Christ or continuing in his Faith Now to prevent the mischiefs that might arise from these different apprehensions amongst the Christian Proselites was the occasion of the meeting of that first Council at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 15. and of those directions which St. Paul gives Rom. 14. concerning our behaviour towards weak Brethren Another case there was concerning eating of things offered to Idols of which St. Paul discourseth in his first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 8. and 10. the sum of which seems to be this that the stronger and wiser Christians ought to abstain from eating what had been offered to Idols tho as ordinary meat in the presence of any one who with Conscience of the Idol did eat it as a thing offered to an Idol For such there were in the Church of Corinth so weak as not yet to have quite left off their Idolatrous Worship and a Christians eating what had been Offered in Sacrifice before such an one might serve to harden and confirm him in his Error whose Conscience being weak is defiled Of whose Soul St. Paul professed himself to have so great regard that he would eat no such meat as long as the World lasted rather than lay such a stumbling-block before or wound their weak Consciences In all these places and many more that might be named for the fuller explication of which I refer you to interpreters and those that have written largely on this subject no less than Apostacy from the Christian Faith was the sin into which these weak Christians were so apt to fall and by an undue use of our Liberty to give occasion to anothers forsaking the Christian Religion whereby our Saviour loseth a Disciple and the Soul of our Brother perisheth is the proper sin of Offending or giving Scandal I shall mention but one place more which is Revel 2. 14. where Balaam is said to have taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block or Scandal before the Children of Israel which relates othis inticing them by the Daughters of Moab to Fornication and Idolatry and by that means provoking God against them So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the meer sound of words Hence I shall conclude these few things 1. The better Men are the harder it is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly persons as they would be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended for how can they be reckon'd to excel others in knowledg or goodness who are so easily upon every occasion drawn or tempted to sin Thus Mr. Baxter himself tells the Separatists in his Cure of Church Divisions Vsually saith he men talk most against Scandalizing those whom they account to be the best and the best are least in danger of sinning and so they accuse them to be the worst or else they know not what they say for suppose a Separatist should say if you hold Communion with any Parish Minister or Church in England it will be a Scandal to many good people I would ask such an one Why call you those good people that are easily drawn to sin against God Nay that will sin because I do my duty Therefore if you know what you say you make the Separatists almost the worst of men that will sin against God because another will not sin The great thing our Nonconformists pretend unto above other men is tenderness of Conscience by which they must mean if they mean any Vertue by it a great fear of doing any thing that is evil and this where it is in truth is the best security that can be devised against being Scandalized or Offended by what other Men do that is against being drawn into sin by it So that they do really disparage and severely reflect upon the Dissenters who are thus afraid of giving them Offence as I have explained it 2. No man can with sense say of himself that he
shall be Scandalized at what another man does for it is as much as to say that by such a person and action he shall be led into sin ignorantly and his saying this confutes his ignorance If he knows it to be a sin he is not betrayed into it nor doth he fall into it through ignorance and mistake which is the case of those that are Scandalized but wilfully commits it This a great Bishop compares with the peevishness of a little Child who when he is commanded to pronounce the word he hath no mind to tells you he cannot pronounce that word at the same time naming the word he pretends he cannot speak Such Nonsense it is for a man to forbid me doing any thing upon pretence it will be a Scandal to him or make him through mistake fall into some sin when by this it is plain that he knows of it beforehand and so may and ought to avoid the stumbling-block that is laid before him and the danger that he is exposed unto Surely saith Solomon Prov. 1. 17. in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird. If to Offend or Scandalize any one is to tempt and draw him into some sin whereby his Conscience is wounded there then can be no fear of giving Offence by our Conformity to the orders and usages of our Church because there is nothing appointed by or used in it but what may be complyed withal without sin For this as I before observed is supposed in the Question I at first propounded to discourse of that he who absented from his Parish Church for fear of Offending his weak Brethren was convinced in his own mind of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyn'd and therefore by his own Conformity he can only engage others to do as he hath done which as long as he is perswaded to be lawful I do not see how he can be afraid of Scandalizing others by it or making them to sin by his Example unless he will imagine his Brethren not so weak but so wicked as to Worship the Host because he Kneels at receiving of the Sacrament and to adore the Cross because he bows at the Name of Jesus or that they will renounce all Religion because he hath forsaken their ways of Separation This cannot but prove a vain excuse for me to forbear doing that in which there is really no evil lest by the Authority of my example I make others sin in doing the same innocent action which in this case is so far from being to be feared that if by my example I prevail with others to return into the Communion of our Church they are not thereby at all Scandalized but I have done them a most signal kindness and benefit If it be said that tho what I do is in it self lawful yet it may minister occasion or provocation to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I become truly guilty of giving Offence I Answer that we are accountable only for the natural tendencies or probable effects of our actions which may be easily foreseen and prevented Remote probabilites and contingencies and bare possibilities come not into reckoning nor are they at all to be weighed If in every action I am bound to consider what advantage a wicked sensual Man or a weak silly man might take and what Arguments he might possibly thence draw to encourage himself in sin and folly or excuse himself from the care of his Soul and Religion this would open the door to infinite Scrupulosity and trouble and I should hardly be able to do or speak any thing without the incurring the guilt of giving Scandal Now this being supposed I dare boldly challenge any Man to name any one sin either against God our Neighbour or our selves that our Conformity doth give any real probable occasion unto and it is very uncharitable to conceit that our Nonconforming Brethren will out of meer perverseness or spite and revenge run into sin on purpose to make our leaving them criminal and vicious which if any should be so wicked as to do yet they would lose the design of their malice and prove the only guilty persons themselves The only thing I imagine can be further said in this case is that tho I am well satisfied my self yet by my Conformity I may tempt and provoke others that are not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it nay those who judge it absolutely sinful yet rather than stand out or being moved by the opin on they have of my goodness and Wisdom to follow my example with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience Suppose a Master of Family that used to frequent the private Meetings and his Wife and Children and Servants used to follow him thither but afterwards by reading of such good Books as have been lately written is himself satisfied concerning the lawfulness of going to Church and at last thinks it his duty so to do only he is afraid that the rest of his Family to please and humour him will be apt also to forsake the private Meetings and go along with him to Church tho it be altogether against their judgment and Conscience Or suppose him a man of eminency amongst his Neighbours on whose favour many do depend of great interest and reputation by whose example many are sway'd and led Tho himself doth conform upon good reasons and principles yet his example may invite many others to it tho they have received no satisfaction concerning the lawfulness of it Now here I desire these three things may be considered 1. It is certain that it is as unlawful to go to the Separate Meetings against ones Conscience as it is to go to the publick Church against ones Conscience Why then ought not this man to be as afraid when he leaves his Parish-Church and frequents the private Congregation lest he should draw some to follow him thither with a doubting Conscience as well as he fears if he leaves the Meetings and resorts to his Parish-Church some not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it should come after him thither The influence of his Example interest reputation is the same in both instances the danger of giving this Scandal is equal that therefore whâ—ch ought to determine his practice must be his own Judgment and persuasion 2. Such an one who hath been a Separatist but is now himself satisfied of the lawfulness of Conformity ought to take great care and pains in endeavouring to satisfie others also especially those whom he hath any cause to think to have been led into the ways of Separation by his example He must not be ashamed to own his former mistake to set before them the reasons on which his change is grounded and must do this publickly and frequently persuading others to use the same helps and means which were so effectual for his own conviction And thus he doth all that lieth in his power to prevent this ill effect and shall not be further answerable for the consequences
one in this Question a lawful command of our Superiours for fear of some evil that may by chance happen to some others through their own fault and we prove it by this reason which our Dissenting Brethren must own for true and good because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others Salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren If it be here asked as it is by some whether any human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such Command had been criminal upon the account of the Scandal that followed it I Answer that no Authority whether divine or human can secure that others shall not be Offended by what I do out of obedience to their Commands but then it doth free me from all guilt and blame by making that to become my duty to do which if I had done needlesly without any great reason and my Brother had been hurt and his Conscience wounded by it might have been justly charged with uncharitableness greater or less according as the Scandal was more or less probable to follow This must be granted that the Laws of God or Man otherwise obligatory do not lose their binding force because of some Scandal that may possibly happen from our Complyance with them or else all Authority is utterly void and insignificant and every Man is at liberty to do all things as himself pleaseth for to borrow the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson 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 Man or other either did or might take offence thereat Whether such a Constitution or Command of our Superiours be Scandalous or no every one must judge for himself and so according to his own private opinion of the goodness or hurtfulness of what is required he is free to obey it or not which is directly to dissolve all Government and to bring in certain disorder and everlasting confusion every one doing what is good in his own Eyes 3. It is said that Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity May Superiours therefore at their pleasure appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brothers Soul then surely an inferiour Earthly Court may cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven This Mr. Jeans urgeth also out of Amesius but it is easily replyed That here is no Crossing the determinations of God since it is his express will that in all lawful things we should obey our Governours and he who hath made this our duty will not lay to our charge the mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault through the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it and certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours should appoint how far I shall exercise my charity towards my Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set bounds to their Power and Authority Cancel the publick Laws or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determin how far we shall be obedient to those whom God hath set over us either in Church or State But to give a more full Answer to this we must know that tho charity be the great duty especially of the Christian Religion yet duties of justice as they are commonly called are of stricter obligation than duties of charity and we are bound to pay our debts before we give an alms Now obedience to Superiours is a debt we owe to them which they have right to exact of us so that they may accuse us of injury if we perform it not But a great care to hinder sin in others or not to Scandalize them is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged unto as far as we can but not till after we have given to every one what is his due and right It is therefore no more Lawful for me saith the forenamed most Judicious Bishop Sanderson to disobey the lawful Command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few Brethren then it is lawful for me to do one man wrong to do another man a courtesie withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to relieve an Hospital According to that known saying of St. Austin Quis est qui dicat ut habeamus quod demus pauperibus faciamus furta divitibus Who is it that saith it is lawful to steal from the rich what we may bestow on the poor or to refuse to pay Taxes on pretence that you know those who have more need of your money To this Mr. Jeans replies Suppose saith he 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 doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Here I grant indeed that both are required by God at our hands that we should be obedient to our Superiours and that we should be always ready to shew charity to our Brethren but then I say this is not the charity which God requires when I give to those in want what is none of mine own This is not an instance or expression of that love and kindness which by the Law of God we owe to our Brother to do him good by wronging our Superiours God hath obliged Servants to be merciful to the poor to their power as well as to be true and faithful to their Masters but that is no part of the mercy which God requires from them to give away their Masters goods without his leave tho it were to those who stand in great need of relief God hath Commanded all Christians to have a great care of being any occasion of their Brothers sin or fall but then this must necessarily be understood only of things subject to our own ordering and management In all cases wherein we are at our own disposal we are bound charitably to regard our Brother But in instances where our practice is determined by Authority our Superiours only are to consider the danger of Scandal we must consider the duty we owe to them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours It remains then in the words of another great Bishop in what case soever we are bound to obey God or Man in that case and in that conjunction of circumstances we have nothing permitted to our choice and consequently there is no place for any act of charity and have no Authority to remit of the right of God or our Superiour and to comply with our Neighbour in such
and a contempt of God to wound and destroy their precious Souls and to provide matter for eternal torments And any thing that discourageth a man in the way of his Duty or renders it more perplexed and troublesome to him may be justly called an offence or grief to him I do not easily understand how this kind of offence can properly be said to be given any other but by some of these ways Now let our debate be determined by these things and let the issue be Whether Conformity can be grieving others upon any of these accounts It cannot I am sure be said or at least nothing like a proof be offered that we offend men hereby because we either do any dishonour to God or to his holy Religion by it It is much truer that we bring honour and reputation to both by it To God by taking the best course we can pitch upon to secure the Solemnity and Decency of his Worship And to Religion by taking care that all the great Services of it be performed decently and to edification and not profaned by the ignorance or temerity of every bold and unskilful undertaker 2. Nor secondly can it be pretended that hereby we let men be spectators of our wickedness and profaneness and so grieve and make sad the hearts of good men while they see us without any fear of God before our eyes I have that charity for the modesty and integrity of our Dissenting Brethren that they will not call our Worship Idolatry and the service of Baal any longer though it cannot be dissembled that a great part of the less-discerning Rabble have been taught by them so to account and think of it But if any have been misled into such an Opinion I would beg them to come and behold our way of publick Worship for their better conviction 3. No nor thirdly do I see how it can be any offence upon its making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome or difficult to others than it would be It would be a hard matter for any to shew where he is hindred from being good by seeing others conformable to the Church or what obstruction that casts in his way of Duty I will at any time undertake to shew that it may be an help and advantage to him and a furtherance to him in the way of Religion and Salvation but let or hinderance it can be none If it be pretended that by this we make Religion cumbersome and clog that with Rites and Ceremonies that is a plain and easie thing I grant the Objection were reasonable and the Charge of giving offence undeniable were it either so as it began to be of old in St. Augustin's time or is at present in the Roman-Church clogged with so many antick and garish Ceremonies that it requires a great deal of study to be an exact Ritualist and is a thousand times harder to remember and observe all the Rites and Modes of any Service and Office in Religion than to do the thing a hundred times over But let me beg men to consider whether this Charge can be just against a Church and its Liturgy which enjoyn but three Ceremonies against which the Dissenters themselves can object and these too not in the same but so many distinct Services and which are little more than barely determining those circumstances of Habit and Gesture which are natural and necessary to all our actions If these things can be thought to make the Practice and Services of Religion burthensome then any of the Postures in which our Brethren perform their Worship will make that so too and then the Directory will be as chargeable and faulty in this as the Liturgy These things will be sufficient upon this first way that I proposed to shew that conforming to the Institutions of the Church is not concerned in any thing the Apostle speaks in this place nor can come under his notion of giving offence to any which he speaks against in it I will not deny but that some may be offended and troubled at it It is too visible how much some men are troubled to see a Church constituted among us to behold it protected by Law and Power and to see so great a deference and respect payd unto it and its way of Worship as blessed be God is at present by multitudes both of great and good men I do not doubt but it is greatly maligned and envyed by men and it is little less than a continual trouble and grief to them It is contrary to their private Interest and so long as it is so their designs and aims will never be effected But so ill men are troubled at a good Government and Thieves and Robbers may be vexed that Honest men are secured from them and these may as well cry out that the Laws and the Government are an offence to them as others may that they are offended at the Church and Conformity Sure we know things better than to call every thing a Scandal that any man is vexed or troubled at If we must acknowledge that an offence or forbear doing every thing for fear of Scandal that every ill designing man is pleased to take exceptions against it is more than probable we must do nothing at all nor venture to undertake any thing till we see whether all persons will be pleased with it or not We must not call every thing an offence that pleaseth not the humour of every man for then nothing can avoid that character But this is not enough to say in this matter for it will serve us much further not onely to justifie our selves from this imputation but to reflect it back upon those that charge us For when we have well considered things we shall find that the Scandal will fall upon our Accusers and not Conformity but Separation will be found to be the giving Offence and that in both the notions of giving it that have been named Separation is indeed the Scandal as being both an evil in it self and that which betrays others into many evils If ever there were such a thing as Schism in the world or if the Separation of the Donatists or any that were ever made from the Communion of a National Church were a Schism I think it hath been sufficiently proved on our behalf that the present Separation from our Church is really a Schism And if Schism be a damnable sin and so it is if we will judge either by the Doctrines of the Apostles or their best Successors yea and few sins greater then we shall need no other argument to prove Separation to be indeed the Scandal and that in the greatest notion of Scandal too And we sadly see what great mischiefs it is introductive of what uncharitableness and railing what pride and censoriousness it betrays men into Schism was scarce ever content to be alone Men think it not enough to separate from the Communion of the Church unless they go to justifie their Separation by
the Jews and St. Paul enlargeth their reason in this Chapter because it was a confederating with Devils and being partakers at the table of Devils which he condemns as hugely unbecoming them that eat at the Lords Table vers 20 21. Grotius is so exact in this matter as to tell us there were two ways by which men might eat of things sacrificed to Idols in the sence that the Apostles mean 1. Vel aliquid a Tabulâ c i. e. when at their publick Feasts they sent some part off the Table to be offered solemnly to the Idol and to entitle him to the whole Feast 2. Vel ab Aris ad Mensam defertis or when they took some considerable portion from the Altar and fed upon it at the Table as part of the Idols portion as was hinted before Now for the Christians to be present at and to partake of these things was that which the Apostles forbid in that Canon and which St. Paul also is so sharp upon from 14 to 24 of this Chapter But that which he speaks of afterwards is vastly different from it and plainly means either that part of the Offering which they afterwards spent in their ordinary meals or which was publickly sold afterwards in the Shambles The first of these is easily understood and was common among them to offer some part of the Sacrifice to their Idols and to reserve the rest for their own common use not looking upon it as sacred and the Idols portion as in some great and solemn Sacrifices they did but that which was truly their own and at their own disposal especially having given a part of it to their Gods The other i. e. what was sold in the Shamble◠Criticks give two accounts of 1. It was either that which the Butcher sold part of which he himself had offered to the Idol before he brought the rest to the Shambles Vel à Mà cellario qui ante quam ad marcellum carnes ferret aliquid de Aram in dedisset 2. Or that part which belonged to the Priests and which they often sold having it's probable either more than they could spend themselves or perhaps having a mind to exchange it for other meat which they might purchase with the money they sold it for Vel à Sacerdotibus qui partes quae ipsis cederent venderent saith the same Author Now these were the meats about which the Apostles had made no order at all So that men were at their liberty to buy and eat them if they pleased without asking any questions or troubling themselves with any scruples of Conscience about them And which the Apostle commands them to abstain then onely from when knowing what they were their eating them might wound the Conscience of another and they might give offence thereby either to the Jews or to the Gentiles or to the Church of God To the Jews by seeing them make so little a matter of Idolatry to the Gentiles by encouraging and confirming them in that Idolatry which they ought by all means to seek to wean them from and to the Church of God by seeing them so careless and regardless of the good and benefit of others and without all charity to them By all which I hope it is sufficiently clear that these things to which this Speech relates were not onely indifferent in their nature but undetermined also as to their use no Law having passed one way or other upon them Now this makes them vastly different from the things scrupled among us and by conformity to which Offence is pretended to be given For the use of these is already determined and several Laws both of the Church and State both of the Spiritual and Temporal power have passed upon them So that how indifferent soever they may be in themselves yet it is not indifferent to us whether we observe them or not but it is now matter of Obedience and plain Duty and these things are tied upon the Conscience as strongly as any matter of humane command is or can be And therefore in these we cannot shew favour and indulgence to others if we would for we our selves are under Authority and bound up by the Laws of those above us We have not the power of doing or forbearing nor can we now abstain for fear of offending another man's Conscience without grievously wounding and worse offending of our own and whatever may be the consequence of our Conformity as to another man yet we certainly Know the neglect of it will be a downright sin and a grievous guilt unto our selves So that in this matter the fear of giving offence to others is impertinent a Snare and a direct Temptation and as improperly urged against Conformity as it would be against any other Duty how necessary soever to tell us that there are a great many men that will be offended with our doing of it In this and all such cases we stand immediately responsible unto God and may justly retort that so much abused and mistaken Apology of the Apostles Whether it be not right to obey God rather than regard men judge ye 2. But there is a second thing yet incumbent upon me and that is to shew that supposing the Text were pertinently urged against Conformity and there were a real possibility of giving offence by it yet it would not serve that purpose that it is produced for by our Dissenting Brethren but on the contrary make very much against them And this I shall endeavour to make good by considering who the persons are that the Apostle here cautions us against giving offence unto not onely the Jews nor onely the Gentiles nor both these onely but the Church of God From whence before I come to the main Improvement of this place against the purpose and practice of our Dissenting Brethren we may take occasion to consider what the object of Scandal is and who they are that men ought especially to regard in their cares not to give it At the time of the Apostles writing this there were three different sorts of men that might be offended with eating things offered to Idols the Jews the Gentiles and the body of Christians which he here calls the Church of God In analogy to which there are and always will be different Parties among which men converse Upon which account it will concern us to enquire what our respects to them in this matter ought to be and whether we ought to make any difference among them And this we may resolve our selves in by considering the Cases that concern us which I think are onely these two 1. When we perceive or have reason to think that what we are going to do will offend all Parties equally then no doubt but we ought to forbear it This was plainly the case here The Jews might be prejudiced against Christianity by this practice seeing its Professors make so little a matter of Idolatry which their Law so strictly prohibited and God had always declared himself so
to grieve or offend some private persons than to trouble and disturb and endanger the Constitution of the whole Church which we must needs do if at every private persons pleasure we take upon us a liberty to dispense with the Commands and Institutions of it And this is a Rule that not only all wise Nations but even all men still act by in Cases that are any way like to this All Nations prefer the Publick good before the Private and think it much better that some single persons suffer inconvenience than that the Publick be endangered and have ever set the worst Characters upon those men that have sacrificed the good of their Country to their own private Ambition and Revenge and never regarded what Confusion and Mischief thus bring upon it so they may please and gratifie their own Passions All the world hath ever hated and reproached these as Monsters of men and I hope we in time shall learn to do so also Nay we see nothing more common among the wisest Nations than to punish single persons for the correction and good of the whole and many times to cut off those whose crimes in their own nature were not so great and who seemed fairly capable of mercy onely to be Examples and Warnings to others and to deter them from any thing by which the Publick might be endangered and which were but the least steps to the dissolution of its Government And we shall see all men act by this Rule too in their own concerns even any of our dissenting Brethren themselves They do not suffer every particular person to neglect and speak against their establishments but chuse rather to punish and molest them than endanger their whole Constitution And they prefer their own Body and the health of it before any particular Member they readily gash and cut one to save all yea and will have a putrid and mortified Member taken off rather than it shall endanger the good of the whole Body So true is it that the more Publick good ought to be preferred to the more private and that all men naturally yield a greater respect to the whole Society than they do to any single Member of it And that the same Rule ought to be observed by us in our present Case of giving Offence I shall endeavour to make evident both by plain Warrant of Scripture and by some proper Considerations which all men allow the reasonableness of in other cases 1. I begin first with searching what warrant for this we can find in holy Scripture either in the Precepts and Directions of it or in the Lives and Actions of those who are proposed there to our imitation And first as for Precept and Direction I think that of St. Paul Gal. 6. 10. to be very plain and a firm foundation for what I am upon As we have therefore opportunity let us do good to all especially to those of the houshold of faith Where it is plain the Apostle not only allows but enjoyns us to make a difference in our Charity and to shew this upon all occasions rather to the houshold of Faith i. e. to the Church of God than to any other person or persons whatsoever This place is full and directly comes up to our present Case and the pretences made about it For Charity is as direct and plain a duty as the not giving offence it is as strictly enjoyned as the other and the neglect of Charity is as severely threatned as the giving Offence is or can be And yet for all this when the Church of Christ and any other persons whatever come in competition and are Candidates for our Charity we ought to shew it unto that and not unto these And the same reasons that determine thus our Charity will determine as well our care of not giving Offence especially since this is a proper and principal act of Charity and no one that I know of more so This will be a sufficient answer to all the tragical stories of the sin of Scandal and the great necessity of not giving it to any We are expresly charged not to give Offence and so we are expresly charged above all things to put on Charity In giving Offence we must have a regard to the meanest person in the Church and a woe is denounced against him that offends a little one And so we are in charity commanded too and a woe threatned to him that shuts up his bowels of Compassion from the meanest servant of God Yea this is commanded even to the creatures below us And yet for all this we must prefer the Church before all others and if it should so happen that Charity could not be shewed unto both we ought to determine our respects and Charity to the Church and to suspend the acts of it unto the others and must do so too in our Charity of not offending or grieving the Church unless some disproportion could be shewed in this from the other acts of Charity or some reasons here to alter the case which I am very sure cannot This place alone if there were none others sufficiently determines this Case And that we are warranted also by the Precedents of the New Testament to act by this Rule the actions of those great men whose lives are there recorded for our imitation do shew us The Life of our blessed Saviour is a good example for us in this as well as in all other instances of duty that are incumbent on us We find him in every thing paying a mighty deference to the Church of the Jews and studiously avoiding to give any displeasure or offence unto them and this in many things which they themselves had introduced without any express Warrant or Command from God as were easie to shew and hath been by many learned men of late But there is one instance which comes pretty well up to our present case and that is his paying Tribute of which you have the story Matth. 17. 27. there is no doubt but by this he might give some offence in this loose notion of offence i. e. occasion some trouble in his followers by owning himself a stranger and paying Tribute as such nevertheless he chose to do that rather than to give any offence to the Publick Notwithstanding that we offend them not c. Whether the persons he was so careful here not to offend were the Roman Government or the Church of the Jews it is all one to our present Case If it were the Church of the Jews then we see he was more careful not to offend them than his own Followers But if it were the Government of the Romans it concludes more strongly for us and for our present Case where the Government is Christian and that of the Church and of the Kingdom one and the same where we cannot offend the Church but we must offend the Government and Civil Power too under whose protection and favour it is established and whose Canons it hath adopted
will suggest enough to him Neither God nor Religion can be so much concerned in the one as in the other nor can the Souls of men or the peace of the World be so much endangered by private offences as by those against the publick Church Mens guilts are higher and more injurious to themselves and the effects are more dangerous and mischievous to others which is another good consideration to sway men in this case For a wise man will weigh the probable effects of what he doth and where an honest and uninstructed man is uncertain whether he may do or forbear such things and after his enquiry remains scrupulous and unresolved it is a good means to determine himself by to consider as well as he can what the effects and consequences of what he is going to do or forbear in all likelihood will be and that which he sees attended with a train of the worse and more mischievous consequences disargues it self and pronounceth its own condemnation And by these effects he may make as true a difference as if the plain essence and nature of the things were naked unto his view 3. Offending the Church of God is offending those to whom we owe more duty than we do unto any private party whatsoever I confess charity and respect and all the possible ininstances of it we owe to every private person with whom we converse and to whom we are any way related and God hath made all this matter of plain duty But it is a great deal more than this that we owe those that are over us in the Lord and his whole Church even as much more as we owe of deference and Duty of Obedience and Submission to a Father and a Governour and those that God and Nature hath set above us above that common Charity and Duty that we are to owe to one that is in all respects our equal The Laws of all Nations consider us under greater obligations to our Parents and to our Country than to any single persons whatsoever and make injuring of a Father or our Prince more heinous than doing the same to a common person upon the same level with us And I am sure the Laws of God and Religion too considering us as Members of the Church and calling the Governours of it our Fathers in Christ let us know what great duty we owe to them and of how much greater guilt it must needs be to offend them than our Fellow-christian or any Party in which we can be engaged There is a complication of sins and guilt in the one when there is but the breach of common charity in the other I deny not but men may joyn themselves to such a Party and make another man their Guide and commit themselves to the Conduct of him and thereby oblige themselves to more duty than they owe to others But this is duty of their own choice and the failure in it a sin of their own causing and doth no more supercede their original and primer obligations which God and Nature had layd on them than the being faithful to a company of Banditi will excuse disloyalty to our Prince and Country or than giving a gift to the Corban among the Jews would atone undutifulness to a wanting Parent However men may divide themselves from the Church of which Providence and Religion have made them Members and enter themselves into separate Factions yet they must remember that they owe duty to it still that no voluntary and second Compacts of their own can dissolve their primitive Obligations or their care to continue faithful to the one expiate their regardless offending of the other for they do owe more duty to the one than to the other what they pretend to owe to one is contracted by themselves but what they owe to the other is bound on them by the sacred and strong ties of Religion and Providence And this is another good Argument to determine a scrupulous person in this matter If he be in doubt which he had best to offend the Church of Christ or his own private Party and know not by what considerations to determine his resolution let him in Gods name consider to which he owes most what the Laws of God make his duty to the one more than to the other and then if he be honest and single-eyed he will soon be able to resolve his scruple and know what choice he ought to make 4. Offending the Church of God is truly a grievous Scandal and an Offence in the true Gospel-notion of it but the offending particular persons may possibly not be so That which I mean is this the Church of God we may be sure will not take offence but upon just reason but other men may call that an offence to them which really is not If we do that which grieves and injureth the whole Church then we do properly offend and are guilty of Scandal in the true notion of it But if we onely offend some private persons of our own party they may call that an offence which is not so For every grieving and offending of another in that sense of the word is not a formal Scandal as I hinted before and hath been since this made clear by a better Pen. And to apply this to our present matter in debate this is really so in our Case of Conformity the refusal of it and separating our selves from the Communion of the Church is truly that giving of offence which the Gospel condemns it is laying a snare in the way of men intrapping them into that damnable sin of Schism it is an obstructing the effect of Religion and a direct hinderance of that Concord and Love that Unanimity and Peace that it so strictly calls for among Christians and designes to render the World happy by But you may challenge any dissenting person to shew how angring some private persons and a single party of Schismaticks can be a Scandal to them or to name any one sin that it is temptation to them to commit and to instance that prejudice or disservice that it doth to Christian Religion It is possible I must confess that grief and anger at such a persons Conformity may irritate and provoke men to some things that are evil But then I say that this is the fault of them that are angry and not his with whom they are causelesly offended it may be taking an offence on their parts but not giving it by him For if we must call every thing an offence that any man doth pervert into an occasion of evil there will scarce any no not the best actions of men escape that denomination This methinks is a very material consideration and ought always to sway with men in this Case and if men could not determine themselves in it by other Reasons yet they might by this They should consider which is most likely to judge truest what is Scandal and what is not and when both sides say they are offended
which is likely to be so indeed Particular persons and Parties of men may mistake and it is notorious often do call that an Offence and Scandal which is not so But the whole Church is not so like to take cognizance of and be offended publickly with any thing which doth not deserve that name To which we may cast in this consideration to add weight to the other Every offence to a single private person or persons is not the sin of Scandal but no man can offend the Church of God but he sins grievously and is directly guilty of a great Scandal To conclude the sum of all that I would have considered on this Subject is this 1. That the fear of giving offence to weak and uninstructed persons by Conformity to our Church and returning to the Communion of it is causeless and wholly without any just reason Conformity being neither a sin nor causal of any nor any just cause of offence to any persons whatsoever 2. That it is now matter of plain and indispensible duty tied on us by the Commands and Laws both of God and man and therefore carefully to be done whatever may be the consequences of it to others That no snares or possibilities of offence to some men by it ought to supersede our care or can atone the sin of neglecting of it That we cannot forbear it now for fear of offending others without grievously offending our selves and our own Consciences 3. That our refusing to Conform will greatly offend the Church of God and indeed it doth so Not onely our own National Church of England but even all the Reformed Churches abroad too as may be seen in some Declarations of the Great men among them of late who cannot but grieve to see their great Bulwark and the whole Reformation so battered and weakned by this means and such great advantage thereby given to the great Enemy against it And therefore that this consideration ought to preponderate all the scruples and fears and fancied possibilities of giving offence to private persons of our own party by it And lastly that the effect of all this discover it self in a speedy conscientious care and honest endeavour to put a period to our causeless Separations and Divisions which are the onely true Scandal and giving Offence that I know of in this Case That we no longer go on madly to contrive our own Ruine in pulling down those Walls and making those Breaches in our Churches Banks at which the Enemy may and without Gods immediate interposition will suddenly break in as a mighty resistless torrent That we may all of us return to the Communion of the Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox and Government Apostolical and whose terms of Communion none of us dare term sinful In which we may acceptably serve our God and happily save our own Souls live happily and die comfortably and pass into the Communion of that Church Triumphant above which sings incessant Hallelujahs to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost To whom let us also give all possible praise and Thanksgiving both now and for evermore Amen FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasoâ—ableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to â—he late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling c. The Second Part. 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England By some Divines of the City of London THE SECOND VOLUME LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1685. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from
Name since we may as well and truly offer it in his Name though he is not named in it as if he were and he hath not given us the least intimation of his will to the contrary 't is true he did not express his Name in it because as yet they to whom he gave it were not to ask in his Name he being not yet ascended but now that he is ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if his Name had been express'd in it how then doth it follow that because he did not direct them to offer it in his Name before his ascention therefore he did not intend they should offer it in his Name afterwards especially considering that he himself had so fram'd it that after his ascention when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd to them they could not offer it at all but in and through his mediation for now that we understand his mediation we know that we are the Sons of God in and through him and therefore when we thus invoke God Our Father which art in Heaven we must implicitly invoke him in and through Jesus Christ through whom alone we acknowledge it is that God is peculiarly our Father Since therefore our Saviour hath so composed this Form as that after his ascention his Followers could offer it up no otherwise but in and through his mediation this is a plain indication that he intended that after his ascention they should offer it in his mediation though his Name be not exprest in it and what though it be not exprest yet it may be exprest and always hath been in the Prayers immediately preceding it for though we do believe that our Saviour hath commanded us to use this Form at least in our publick Worship yet we do not pretend that no other Prayer is to be used besides either in publick or in private and if we use another Prayer before it we may express in the transition to it as we ordinarily do that 't is in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ that we pray Our Father c. Since therefore when we say Our Father we do implicitly pray in Christ's mediation and also explicitly in the Prayers annext to it how doth it follow that because Christ's Name is not express'd in it therefore he did not intend we should offer it in his mediation or therefore he did not intend it for a standing Form 3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves oblig'd to use it for the great designe of the New Testament being to give an account of the Life of Jesus and of the Doctrines and Precepts of his Religion together with those miraculous Works by which it was confirm'd it can no more be expected that the Prayers of the Christian Assemblies should be recorded in it than that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be recited in the Exposition of the Creed or the whole Duty of Man And therefore as the New Testament takes no notice of their using the Lord's Prayer so neither doth it take notice of any other particular Prayer that they used in their publick Assemblies from whence we may as reasonably conclude that they used no Prayer at all notwithstanding our Lord commanded them to pray as that they did not use the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding he commanded them to say Our Father or at least that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost since notwithstanding Christ commanded them to do so yet there is no record in the New Testament of their baptizing any persons in that Form So that from the silence of the New Testament in this matter it would be very unreasonable to infer that the Apostles omitted the Lords Prayer notwithstanding he once commanded them to use it especially considering that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did always use this Form in their publick Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so For thus in the Apostolick Age Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lords Prayer vid. Lucian Philop. And Tertullian who lived about an hundred years after the Apostolical Age discoursing of the Lord's Prayer tells us that Novis Discipulis novi Testamenti Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. That Christ hath instituted a new Form of Prayer for his new Disciples St. Cyprian who was but a small matter his Junior reckons his giving a Form of Prayer among those divine and wholesome Precepts which he imposed on his People and a little after Oremus saith he Fratres dilectissimi sicut Magister docuit c. Let us pray as our Master hath taught us let the Father own the words of his Son and since saith he we have an Advocate with the Father when we ask pardon for our sins let us ask it in the words of our Advocate and how much more shall we prevail for what we ask in Christ's Name if we ask in his Prayer De Orat. Domin So St. Cyril acquaints us that after the general Prayer for all men followed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Cyril Cat. Myst 5. Thus also St. Jerom Docuit Apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater Noster Hieron in Pelag. l. 3. And St. Austin tells us that in his time the Lords Prayer was every day said at the Altar and that almost every Church concluded with the Lords Prayer And St. Chrysostom speaking of those who would not forgive injuries tells 'em c. When thou sayest Forgive us Hom. 42. 50. ep 59. ad Paul Qu. 5. St. Chrysde simultat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Trespasses as we forgive if thou dost not forgive thou beggest God to deny thee forgiveness which is a plain evidence that this Form of Prayer was of ordinary use in his Age and that 't was then thought matter of duty to use it syllabically is evident from what follows But saith he you will say I dare not say Forgive me as I forgive but onely Forgive me To which having answered That however he said it God would forgive him as he forgave he concludes thus Do not imagine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you are secured from this danger by not pronouncing all the Prayer do not therefore curtail it but as it is instituted so use it that so the necessity of dayly using the whole may compel thee to forgive thy Brother And St. Gregory expresly affirms That the Apostles themselves Ep. l. 7. c. 6. did always
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever 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 not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies 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 used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
Christians and them or between Protestants and Papists And we find that the distance that God made between the Jews and Heathens as very wide as it was was not wide enough to preserve the Jews from being very often and that generally too infected with their Superstitions and various kinds of Idolatry No though they frequently paid most dear for these their Wicked Imitations of them But thanks be to God there is no such inclination in the Members of Our Church to go over to that of Rome nor hath any such inclination been observ'd ever since the Reformation And where one of our Communion hath Revolted out of Love to Popery of those few Comparatively who have play'd the Apostates we have cause to believe that many have so done meerly upon the score of interest And I need not say that such Persons would not have been preserved from Apostasie by our Churches being set at the widest distance possible from the Church of Rome in indifferent things Nay 't is so far from being true that there is a general inclination in our Protestants to Popery that nothing is better known or hath of late been more observed than the greatest Antipathy and Aversation thereto imaginable in the generality Upon which account I say the foresaid and the like Prohibitions to the Jewish Nation although they should be understood in the sence of our Dissenting Brethren can by no parity of reason be obliging to us Protestant Christians And indeed most of them have seemed of late years to be pretty well aware of this and therefore divers of their Writers have limited the unlawfulness of Symbolizing with the Romish Church to things that have been abused notoriously in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services And that our Symbolizing with that Church in any such things is Unlawful they endeavour to demonstrate both by Scripture-Precepts and Examples First They endeavour to demonstrate this by Scripture-Precepts And if any such Precept as this could be produced That all such things as have been notoriously abused and Polluted in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious services should by all be abolished and laid aside there could be no place left for dispute about this matter and I doubt not but we should all of us express as great Zeal as our Brethren do for the abolishing of all such things But no such express and unlimited Precept is pretended but the chief of those Texts from whence our Brethren endeavour to Infer this Proposition That it is the will of God that all things so polluted should be utterly destroyed and laid aside are these following Isaiah 30. 22. Ye shall defile also the covering of thy Graven Images of Silver and the Ornament of thy Molten Images of Gold Thou shalt Cast them away as a Menstruous Cloath thou shalt say unto it Get thee hence Deut. 7. 25 26. The Graven Images of their Gods shall ye burn with Fire thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is on them nor take it unto thee lest thou be snared therein for it is an Abomination to the Lord thy God Neither shalt thou bring an Abomination into thy House lest thou be a cursed thing like it but thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhor it for it is a Cursed thing Jude 23. hating even the Garment spotted with the Flesh Revel 2. 14. I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a Stumbling block before the Children of Israel to Eat things Sacrificed unto Idols c. V. 20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest that Woman Jezebel which calleth her self a Prophetess to teach and to seduce my Servants to commit Fornication and to Eat things Sacrificed to Idols Now to their alledging of these Texts to prove the foresaid Proposition I reply First That the last of them is altogether impertinent For the eating of things offered to Idols condemned in those two verses is nothing better than joyning and complying with Idolaters and Communicating in Idol-worships Which the vile Gnostiques held they might do and accordingly practised this Doctrine to avoid Persecution Which abominable Sect arose in the Church as we learn from Irenaeus Epiphanius Eusebius c. even in the Apostles times of which Simon Magus was the first Founder But St. Paul hath given us his Judgment concerning Eating of things offered to Idols without any respect to Idols in Eating in 1 Cor. 8 chap. viz. That upon no other account but that of Scandal it is unlawful And the like he hath done 1 Cor. 10. 27 28 29. If any of them that believe not bid you to a Feast and you be disposed to go whatsoever is set before you Eat making no question for Conscience sake But if any man say unto you This is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake who shewed it and for Conscience sake c. Conscience I say not thine own but of the others For why is my liberty judged of another mans Conscience That is so as to make a thing indifferent in it self simply unlawful to me But the stating of this case of Scandal is the business of anothers Pen to which I refer those who need satisfaction in this matter Secondly As to those words of St. Jude hating even the Garment spotted by the Flesh Nothing more can possibly be gathered from them than what we and all Christians must acknowledge as well as our Brethren viz. that we ought to be as Cautious of exposing our selves unnecessarily to temptations to sin as we naturally are of touching the Garments of infected Persons But if the Text had run thus hating even the Garment that was once spotted with the Flesh or once fouled with a Plague-Sore though it be never so well cleansed from infection then I must confess it would be an argument for our Brethrens purpose we could make no reply to Thirdly As to the two places cited out of the Old Testament they indeed not only serve to prove that it was God's will that the Jews should destroy Idols but also the Appurtenances of them And the reason of these Precepts being given to those People hath already been shewed viz. because they were so strangely so prodigiously addicted to the Superstitions and Idolatry of their Heathen-Neighbours But if these and the like places should really make for our Brethrens design in Citing them and do prove that Christians are obliged to destroy or cast away all things notoriously defiled in grosly Superstitious and Idolatrous services they would certainly prove more than the more sober sort of Dissenters do desire they should For they do not object against the lawfulness of our using the Churches or Fonts or Bells which heretofore were most notoriously so defiled by the Papists But if these Texts speak it to be the duty of Christians as well as Jews to destroy all such things then 't is manifest that down we
prejudicial to mens Souls and contributed unspeakably more to the impurity both of mens hearts and lives than the impure Ordinances you so complain of And therefore all good and pious Church of England men cannot but say How happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing with such mighty concern about little things and things that are perfectly harmless and innocent Would make no more Sins than God and their Blessed Saviour have made Would be as fearfull of culpably Disobeying Authority as of culpably Obeying it Would be as thankfull that they are in no worse Circumstances as they are full of Complaints that they are in no better Would take as much pains to satisfie themselves how far they may lawfully hold Communion with our Church as how far they may lawfully Separate from it Would be as willing to read those Books that are written in the defence of the things enjoined by our Church as to read those which are written in opposition to them Would as impartially consider the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome as thus dwell upon the most inconsiderable Agreement that is between them which our Author hath convincingly to any unprejudiced person proved to be no justifiable pretence for Separation And if we would well digest those excellent words of the Apostle Rom. 14. 17 18. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men And if we would follow after the things that make for v. 19. peace and things wherein one may edifie another And lastly if we would at length be perswaded to Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and Eph. 4. 31 32. clamour and evil speaking against one another be put away from us with all malice And to be Kind and affectionate one to another notwithstanding the Difference of Apprehensions tender hearted forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us I say if we could once be brought to this temper we should be unspeakably more happy than those things you express so passionate a desire of could possibly make us And without this blessed temper we shall be miserable wretches though there were no Agreement in any one Rite between Rome and us and though our Ordinances were as pure as 't is your wish to have them Nor will our bidding the greatest defiance to the Antichrist in the Roman Chair one whit avail us while the Spiritual Antichrist which is the worse of the two continues possessed of his Seat in our Hearts And so Sir I heartily bid you Farewell ERRATA Page 19. Lin. 12. read in their greatest p. 27. l. 30. dele p. 32. l. 1. read is so contrived FINIS Books sold by R. Horne T. Basset R. Chiswell B. Tooke Brabazon Aylmer W. Rogers and F. Gardiner 1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England 's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawfull to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. In two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered 15. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions c. 18. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation c. 19. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book Intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism In Five QUESTIONS I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised IV. Whether it be the Duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy LONDON Printed by T. Hodgkin for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet-Street Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism The Previous Discourse THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Discourse about Infant-Baptism I think it requisite to premise a short Introduction First Concerning the Original And Secondly Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy or to express my self more plainly in the * * * Heb. 2. 5 6. Scripture-phrase concerning the alteration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ As for the Original of the Jewish Church it is to be referred unto Abraham the †††Rom. 4. 11. Father of the Faithful purely considered as a Church But if it be considered as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a Political Regulation then it is to be referred unto Moses who was called even by Heathen Writers the * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 7. Legislator of the Jews These two Considerations of the Jewish Church purely as a Church and as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a mixture with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be distinguished 1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature
not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * * * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * * * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †††Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of | | | Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a a a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b b b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c c c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d d d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the
a a a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b b b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enâ—â—â— them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * * * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gâ—ntilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * * * Heb. 13. 17. Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †††Act. 16. 4. Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of
betoken our being made new Creatures and entred into a new State or Condition of Life which still they seem to aim more expresly at in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name or some name that should signify some excellent vertue or Grace some Religious duty owing to God or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him Here we have an outward Visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament or a Sacrament within that of Baptism than we do our Sign of the Cross and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other and no more 2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper do shew that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other for some of them plead for the posture of sitting as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs Now in this matter let us consider our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him so that we see this gesture of sitting by the Tenor of their Argument made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace and this not from any antecedent express institution of Christ which notwithstanding this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper 3. Lastly Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant which they insist upon that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches must engage themselves in this is of that importance amongst them that they call it the Constitutive Form of a Church that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church Apol. for Church-coven Yea and as another expresses it that wherein the Vnion of such a Church doth consist We will suppose then this Covenant administer'd in some form or other and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other such as holding up his Hand or the like Let me ask them What must they of that Church think of this Rite or Ceremony of holding up the hand will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member Here then is an outward Visible sign of What of no less according to their apprehension of things than a perfect new State and Condition of Life that is of being embody'd in Christ's Church engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it Will they say that this way of admission either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred or the Ceremony of holding up the hand by which this Covenant is taken and assented to was originally ordain'd by Christ or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament or did the Presbyterian-Brethren in all their Arguments against this way charge them with introducing a new Sacrament So that from all instances imaginable both of the Jewish and Christian Church and that both Primitive and later Reformations even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren it is very Evident how unreasonable a thing it is that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi d c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But then they tell us secondly we seem to own it our selves when in an entire Representative of our Church such as we suppose a Convocation to be it is actually determin'd that by the Sign of the Cross the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross and what can be more immediate saith one of our Brethren than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating Signification It is confest that the 30th Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is because the Sacrament of Baptism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant and Dedication to God and the Christian Religion therefore by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross we have made a new Sacrament and added to that of Baptism to dedicate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted 1. To this I answer that surely the word dedication is of a much larger Signification than that it should be confin'd meerly to the Interpretation that our Brethren would put upon it The meaning of dedication properly is the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service such as a Church or Temple for the Worship of God any Person to the profession the true Religion to the Ministry or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars This is the strictest sense of dedication but then in a larger sense we may suppose it apply'd to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties and answering all the ends of the first dedication Thus suppose a Man ordain'd to the Ministry whereby he is properly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel he may by some solemn act of his own dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office and this after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been committed to him This cannot be call'd in any sense a new ordination but it may with reason and sense enough be stil'd a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordain'd to And therefore 2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood when they in explaining the intention of the Cross tell us it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross c. And yet I must needs say it seems hard measure upon the Church of England that if those in a Convocation should not have apply'd the word dedication to what might be most strictly the sense of it that this should be so severely expounded that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of than what meerly the strict and critical sense of that word will bear Surely
Pap. of the Presbyt p. 31. before these unhappy Wars began yielded to the laying aside of the Cross and making many material alterations c. They have not those apprehensions of these things that they are unalterable and obligatory upon all Christians as such or that the laying them aside for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God I would to God our Brethren at least would but meet us thus far as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceiv'd against them and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God so the use of them cannot be so neither Forgive the expression of Superstitious prejudices For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indifferent rites when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority that will alter the Case Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by I mean a causeless dread of God It is a passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Calvin that it is equally Superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy It is infinitely In 2 Praecept a nobler Conquest over our selves a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God to possess our selves with such notions of God and of indifferent things as to believe we cannot recommend our selves to him in the least measure by scrupling what he hath interpos'd no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful FINIS A Catalogue of the several Cases c. 1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawfull to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved The second Part. 16. The Case of â—ay-Communion with the Church of England considered 17. A Persuasive to frequent Communion c. 18. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England 's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution 19. The Case of compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith c. 6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE Lords Supper LONDON Printed by M. Flesher for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1684. A PERSUASIVE TO FREQUENT COMMUNION MY design in this Argument is from the Consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the World to awaken Men to a sense of their Duty and the great Obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their Duty in this particular because in this last Age by the unwary Discourses of some concerning the Nature of this Sacrament and the danger of receiving it unworthily such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of Men as utterly to deter many and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it to the great prejudice and danger of Mens Souls and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it and to the mighty scandal of our Religion by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points First Of the Perpetuity of this Institution this the Apostle signifies when he saith that by eating this 1 Cor. 11. 26. Bread and drinking this Cup we do shew the Lord's Death till he come Secondly Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution this is signified in that Expression of the Apostle As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup which Expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament Thirdly I shall endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the Minds of Men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from their receiving this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought which Objections are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says Wherefore whosoever
what past John 13. from Ver. 1. to 31. vid. Hor. Heb. Tal. p. 300. and Mat. 26. 6. between Christ and his Disciples at a common and ordinary meal in Bethany and that for this reason among many others judiciously urged by him because the Disciples thought when our Lord had said to him Ver. 27. That thou doest do quickly that he had given order to Judas who kept the bag to buy those things that they had need of against the Feast viz. the Passover and therefore all those passages and that discourse related by St. John in the foregoing Verses of that Chapter were transacted at an ordinary and common Supper And indeed this seems to be the great end and design which St. John proposed to himself in writing his Gospel and which throughout he constantly pursues viz. To add out of his own Knowledge several remarkable passages especially such as tend to demonstrate the Divinity of our Saviour as had been omitted by the other Evangelists in their History of the Birth Life Actions and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour There is another passage in St. John's Gospel which in the Judgment of John 5. 53. many Learned Divines both Ancient and Modern hath respect to the Lord's Supper though not at that time instituted when those mysterious words were uttered by our Saviour Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink Ver. 54. his Blood ye have no life in you Whoso Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is meat indeed and Ver. 55. my Blood is drink indeed He that Eateth my Flesh and Ver. 56. Drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Now all that can be inferr'd from these words as they relate to this Holy Feast is onely thus much that it 's highly necessary for all Christians who have an opportunity to do it to partake of the Lord's Supper as they would partake in the merits of his Sacrifice and the Efficacy of his Death and his Sufferings and that none but such as do receive the tokens and signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for their Sins shall be owned and rewarded by him as his Friends These are all the places that we meet with in the Gospel let us now see what is delivered in the Acts and other Writings of the Apostles and Divinely-inspired Authors Among all their Writings there is but one place which gives any account of the History of the Sacrament and Institution of it and that is in the 1 Epist to the Corinthians Chap. 11. where St. Paul declares that what he delivered to them he received by immediate Revelation from Christ himself viz. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which Ver. 23. Ver. 24. he was betrayed took Bread and when he had given Thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you this do in Remembrance of me After the Ver. 25. same manner he took the Cup when he had Supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud this do as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me For as often as Ver. 26. ye eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew or shew ye the Lord's Death till he come There are several other places wherein the Holy Sacrament is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 16 21. 1 Cor. 11. 20. Acts 2. 46. Acts 20. 7. and described by several Names and Titles sutable to the nature and ends of it which for brevity sake I omit and desire the Reader to consult at his leisure and I would not put him to that trouble if they did contain any thing that made against Kneeling or that lookt like a command for the use of any other Gesture Let us now look back a little upon the places forementioned and see what our Lord hath ordained and appointed to be of perpetual use in his Church The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament were the Representatives of the whole Church and are to be considered under a double capacity Either as Governours and Ministers entrusted 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 obliged 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 designed it to break it to give it to the Communicants as he gave it them And so in like manner to Take the Cup to bless it to give it to their fellow-Christians That which they were obliged to do by the command of our Lord considered as private Men and in common with all believers was to take and receive the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine to eat and Drink and to do all this in Commemoration of his wonderful Love in giving his Body to be broken and his Blood to be shed for the Sins of the World And what the least Syllable or Shadow of a Command is there here in all this History for the use of any Gesture in the Act of Receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter its 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 And this hath been ingenuously Confessed in writing by a A Manuscript of an unknown Author cited by Mr. Paybody p. 48. great Enemy to Kneeling and a great Advocate for Sitting That the Gesture of Sitting is but a matter of Circumstance and not expresly Commanded But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm Object that when our Lord at the Institution Commanded his Disciple to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he used at that time as well as to Take Eat Drink c. The Force of their Argument lies in this if it have any force at all Our Saviour Sate at the Passover as the Scriptures plainly inform Mat. 26. 20. Mar. 14. 18. Luke 22. 14. us and it is to be supposed he continued in the same posture when he instituted and Administred the Sacrament which was at the close of the Passover therefore Do this relates to and includes the Gesture amongst other things But this is a miserable shift which tends to Sink rather than Support their Cause For first If our Lord did Sit when he Administred Answ I the Sacrament which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason in the World to incline us to think that he intended by those words Do this to oblige us to observe his Gesture onely and not several other Circumstances which he observed at the same time Since Christ hath not restrained and interpreted these words Do
Subjects more lov'd commanding equally Bowels and Affections and Duty and Honour Masters and Servants Husbands and Wives and all Relations are kept in their just Bounds and Priviledges With other Churches we make good Works necessary to Salvation but think our selves more modest and secure in taking away Arrogance and Merit and advancing the Grace of Christ With other Men we cry up Faith but not an hungry and a starved one but what is fruitful of good Works and so have all that others contend for with greater modesty and security 3. How fitly this Church is constituted to excite true Devotion When we make our Addresses unto God we ought to have worthy and reverend Conceptions of his Nature a true sense and plain knowledge of the Duty and of the Wants and Necessities for which we pray to be suppli'd All which our Church to help our Devotion plainly sets down describing God by all his Attributes of just wise and laying forth the Vices and Infirmities of Humane Nature and that none else but God can cure our needs When her Sons are to pray the matter of her Petitions are not nice and controverted trivial or words of a Party but plain and substantial wherein all agree Her Words in Prayer are neither rustick nor gay the whole Composure neither too tedious nor too short decently order'd to help our Memories and wandring Thoughts Responsals and short Collects in Publick Devotion are so far from being her fault that they are her beauty and prudence There are few Cases and Conditions of Humane Life whether of a Civil or Spiritual Nature which have not their proper Prayers and particular Petitions for them at least as is proper for publick Devotions When we return our Thanks we have proper Offices to enflame our Passions to quicken our Resentment to excite our Love and to confirm our future Obedience the best instance of gratitude When we Commemorate the Passion of Christ we have a Service fit to move our Affections to assist our Faith to enlarge our Charity to shew forth and exhibit Christ and all his bloudy Sufferings every way to qualifie us to discharge that great Duty She hath indeed nothing to kindle an Enthusiastick heat nor any thing that savours of Raptures and Extasies which commonly flow from temper or fraud but that which makes us manly devout our Judgment still guiding our Affections When we enter first into Religion and go out of the World we have two proper Offices Baptism and Burial full of Devotion to attend those purposes So that if any doth not pray and give thanks communicate and live like a Christian 't is not because the Services to promote these are too plain and hungry beggarly and mean but their own mind is not fitly qualifi'd before they use them bring but an honest mind to these parts of Devotion a true sense of God sober and good purposes and affections well disposed that which is plain will prove Seraphical improve our Judgment heighten our Passions and make the Church a Quire of Angels Without which good disposition our Devotion is but Constitution or melancholy Peevishness Sullenness or Devotion to a Party a Sacrifice that God will not acccept 4. Her Order and Discipline Such are the Capacities and Manners of Men not to be taught onely by naked Vertue a natural Judgment or an immediate Teaching of God but by Ministry and Discipline decent Ceremonies and Constitutions and other external Methods these are the outward Pales and Guards the Supplies and Helps for the Weakness of Humane Nature Our Church hath fitted and ordered these so well as neither to want or to abound not to make Religion too gay nor leave her slovingly neither rude nor phantastick but is cloth'd in Dresses proper to a manly Religion not to please or gratifie our senses so as to fix there but to serve the reason and judgment of our Mind There are none of our Ceremonies which good Men and wise Men have not judged decent and serviceable to the great ends of Religion and none of them but derive themselves from a very ancient Family being us'd in most Ages and most of the Churches of God and have decency antiquity and usefulness to plead for them to help our Memories to excite our Affections to render our Services orderly and comely Were we indeed all Soul and such Seraphical Saints and grown Men as we make our selves we might then plead against such external helps but when we have Natures of weakness and passion these outward helps may be call'd very convenient if not generally necessary and as our Nature is mixt of Soul and Body so must always our Devotion be here and such God expects and is pleas'd with Our Church is neither defective in Power and Discipline had she her just dues and others would do well to joyn with her in her wishes that they might be restor'd which would turn all into Confusion nor yet tyrannical want of Authority breeding as many if not more Miseries than Tyranny or too much Power both of them severe Curses of a Nation But her Government like her Clime is so well temper'd together that the Members of this Christian Society may not be dissolute or rude with her nor her Rulers insolent being constituted in the Church with their different Names and Titles not for lustre and greatness and Secular purposes but for suppression of Vice the maintaining of Faith Peace Order and all Virtues the true Edification of Mens Souls And if those Vices are not reprov'd and chastized which fall under her Cognizance 't is not the fault of her Power but because by other ways ill restrain'd unnecessary Divisions from her hindring her Discipline upon Offenders and so they hinder that Edification which thy contend for This Government is not Modern Particular or purely Humane but Apostolical Primitive and Universal to time as well as place till some private Persons for Number Learning or Piety not to be equall'd to the good Men of old who defended it and obey'd it and suffer'd for it out of some mistakes of Humane frailty and passion or born down with the iniquities of the times began to change it and declaim against it though so very fit and proper to promote Christianity in the World This is a general account of that Edification that is to be had in that Church in which we live a more particular one would be too long for this Discourse but thus much must be said that examine all her particular Parts and Offices you will find none of them light or superstitious novel or too numerous ill dispos'd or uncouth improper or burthensome no just cause for any to revolt from her Communion but considering the present circumstances of Christianity and Men the best constituted Church in the World If therefore Edification be going on to Perfection Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 3. or growing in Grace if it is doing good to the Souls of
strangers I mean who have seen the World and having learnt our language and heard and read the Sermons that are commonly preached and printed in this great City affirm there are not the like to be found in any Church whatsoever God grant we be not deprived of such singular helps by our contempt of them and that our Candlestick be not removed out of its place because we withdraw our selves from the light which it holds forth to us Of which we are in very great danger if not knowing what it is truly to profit by Sermons we make no progress at all in the state of Christianity but deceive our own Souls in a vain opinion of our acquaintance with God and our blessed Saviour and the Mysteries of the Gospel which have little or no effect upon our hearts and lives I do not pronounce this to be the case of those who object to us that we have an unprofitable Ministry but I doubt not to demonstrate that the Sermons which are generally preached by the Ministry in this City to whose Inhabitants I principally write are such that they may profit by them if it be not their own fault and then leave them to Judg of themselves as they see cause I suppose we are all agreed or may easily agree what it is to profit by Sermons for we agree that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to our Salvation and therefore when they are rightly opened and duly applied in a Sermon so that the Hearers improve either in Christian knowledg or in Faith or in well-doing then they profit by that Sermon Now if any Man do not improve in these by the help of the Sermons which he may hear in our Churches and the Fault lye in the Sermon it must be either in the matter of it or in the manner for none I presume will be so bold as to affirm that Gods Spirit doth not accompany a Sermon which wants nothing belonging to either of these the Preacher also being duely qualified And thanks be to God there are none that dare now complain of an Idle Scandalous Insufficient Ministry about this City but instead of that they that were wont to have those words in their mouths have taken up the complaint of an Vnedifying Whereby we have gained this great Point That they have no colour to pretend the Person who preaches is unsanctified and therefore God doth not bless his Ministry but the fault must lye if there be any in the Sermon it self and that in the matter of which it consists or in the manner of its delivery I. And as for the former of these I can scarce think that any Dissenter when he seriously considers will except against our Sermons upon that account they being taken out of the Holy Scriptures which are the foundation of our Religion and with such care to find out their true sense and proper meaning that perhaps they were never more clearly opened and rightly applied then they are now adays in our Churches I am sure All that heavenly Truth which was delivered to our first Parents when they were about to be expelled out of Paradise which God repeated in his Promises to Abraham Isaac and Jacob which he shadowed and confirmed in the Law of Moses illustrated by the Oracles of the Prophets and finally fulfilled in the Incarnation Birth Life Death Resurrection and Ascension of the Son of God and diffused by the Preaching of the Apostles and the Power of the Holy Ghost all over the World is there so fully and distinctly taught that we may safely say the whole Counsel of Gods Will is at one time or other faithfully declared among us And as that is declared compleatly so little else is medled withal matters of controversie being as rarely handled in our Pulpits I believe as in any place of the World unless it be those which the present State of things sometimes makes absolutely Necessary to fortifie the People against Popery and against Separation yet even these are not so often treated of as matters of general concernment to all Parties of Christians whatsoever For the great drift of our Preachers seems to be to instruct the People in the Truth and to make them good particularly to give them right notions of God which are the very bottom of all Religion knowing that Errors and Superstitions will fall of themselves without a particular confutation For they are supported by nothing but ignorance and naughty affections which will uphold them against all the Arguments whereby they can be assaulted unless mens minds be informed and possessed with such a right sense of things as alters their Wills and Affections and turns them to an unfeigned love of God and Goodness Which seems to me to be the aim and scope of the Sermons which are generally preached by our Ministers and which is so well performed that we need not fear to affirm there is nothing necessary either to make men truly knowing in the things of God or to work belief in them or to confirm them in the Faith or to direct them in their practice of what they know and believe or to excite them to follow those directions and to live according to the Laws of the Gospel or to satisfie material Scruples to resolve doubts and cases of Conscience to comfort disconsolate penitents and awaken drowsie sinners or any thing of like Nature but may be met withal in our Churches so fully solidly and judiciously handled that men need go no whither else for Edification if that be the thing they truly desire and sincerely seek and indeavour For what truth can they learn any where else which is not to be learnt if they will attend upon Gods service there in our Churches what Motives to believe or what Arguments to convince men of their Duty which are not there represented and pressed What Vice is there which doth not there receive just Correction What Virtue that is not there most strongly recommended which of the promises are not there applied to the Hearts of the faithful and where can men have better means of knowing the terror of the Lord as the Apostle speaks against all the impenitent and disobedient And if men cannot profit where such things as these are constantly managed to as much advantage as the skill of the Preacher will inable him I am sure the fault must lie somewhere else than in the matter of the Sermons II. Yes will some say we allow the matter of them to be good enough but the manner of them is such that we cannot reap the like benefit by them that we do by other mens preaching who cannot conform to the Church of England Which if it be a just Exception the fault must lie either in the Composition of them or in their delivery after they are composed 1. Now if the composition of them be faulty it is because their Method is not clear and perspicuous or the Language not plain enough to convey the
is with his Method his Stile his way of Reasoning and Discourse as well as accustomed to his Voice which you cannot be in an instant or at the first hearing For the Scriptures themselves are obscure and difficult to the best of us in abundance of places till by Conversation with them we grow acquainted with their Phrase manner of Speaking Arguing and Connexion And if God's Word had been generally used as some among us have treated his Ministers rejecting them I mean because they did not presently apprehend them it had been thrown out of all mens hands long ago as an unprofitable piece 3. Quest I desire such further to examine seriously and recollect themselves Whether the thing that made them first forsake our Ministry as unprofitable was not That when they came to Church the Preacher hapned to treat on some Subject cross to their Opinion Which hasty Persons who consider not what different Apprehensions men may have in many matters and yet agree well enough together cannot brook but presently fling away from those that contradict them as if they contradicted God himself Whereas if they would have had Patience they might have profited even by such Discourses either by being convinced of their Error or more confirmed in that which they took for truth being able to answer the Arguments brought against it 4. Quest But that which is worse than this the Minister was perhaps upon some distastful Subject when you chanced to go to Church and hapned to treat of such matters as you love not to hear of though more necessary it may be than many others for this very Reason that because of their Ungratefulness they are seldom handled Will you not be angry nor lay aside this Paper and read no further if I give an Instance or two Which I mentioned for no other Reason but because I know some have taken offence as they call it at such Doctrines and ought if it be possible to be better taught Was he not preaching I mean about Schism or Disobedience to Governours It is certain there are such Sins which are very heinous and dangerous every way and therefore no faithful Servant of Jesus Christ can with a good Conscience balk the treating of them some time or other And suppose he that treated of them when you was at Church extended the Duties of Vnity and of Obedience further than you desire might not you for all that have profited very much by what was said upon those Subjects I beleive sober Men among you have heard some of your own Ministers speak harder Words of Conformity and Conformists than you would have had them and yet you did not for that Reason leave them but still fancied you could profit by them even by what they said on that Subject of Conformity And therefore you would do well to search and try what account you can give of taking such distaste at the established Ministry as to forsake it upon their pressing some things which are most certainly Christian Duties with greater strictness than agreed with your present Inclinations And I the rather beseech you to consider such things as these because it is a common thing to hear Men and Women of your way to complain of their Vnprofitableness under Ordinances of the Deadness of their Heart in Duty and their Barrenness under the most powerful means of Grace which arises perhaps in those minds that are well inclined merely from a natural Dullness or Indisposition which makes them unable to attend or to remember and keep in mind as they desire what they have heard and therefore moral Indispositions such as Prejudice Passion Disaffection to the way of Worship or to any Christian Doctrine will much more make men unapt to receive any Impressions from what is said to them though in it self never so good and fitted powerfully to affect the Heart were it but entertained with an honest Mind So that if you complain of Deadness and Unprofitableness under the Ministry of our Church it is no more than a great many of you do of the like Barrenness under your own but proceeding it is to be feared from a worse Cause of which in Reason you should suspect your selves to be guilty rather than conclude so suddenly as you do our Ministry to be unedifying V. The very same may be said to those who fancy that though they can profit something by our Ministry yet they can profit more by others They ought in Conscience to examine whence this Conceit ariseth whether it do not proceed from Prejudice from Disaffection from Disgust at some Doctrine which they love not should be touched from their seldom attendance upon the establish'd Ministry from their careless hearing when they were there or from the hasty Sentence they pronounced against it before a sufficient Tryal And withal they should consider what they mean by profiting whether really and truly they are not more earnestly pressed in our Congregations to be thoroughly good and vertuous to take a strict care to please God in Thought Word and Dred than they are in those where they imagine they profit more because they are entertained there perchance with more pleasing Subjects than this of their whole Christian Duty I only suggest this as a thing to be most deeply pondered and do not accuse you to be guilty of such Falseness to your own Souls but this I must say That if you do not grow more holy harmless and unreproveable in your common Conversation if your Passions be not better governed if your Tongues be not more strictly bridled if you grow not more humble less conceited of your selves less confident of your own Understandings more fearful to offend God by censuring rash Judging disrespectful Behaviour to your Betters and Superiours and such like things you do but deceive your selves with an Opinion of profiting more by the Non-conforming Ministry than by ours Upon which if you would attend with a Mind to improve in these great things I am well assured your profiting might appear to all men as well as to your selves who might be convinced in a little time there is no need to go any whither else for such Edification And if you go for any other there will be no end of seeking still for better entertainment of your Fancies and Itching Ears which will desire to be gratified with infinite variety The mischief of which they of your own way have felt and complained of as much as we and the better any of them have been the more careful have they appeared in giving Cautions against this wanton humour though pretending never so much to Religion and to growth in Grace or Soul-saving knowledg In the days of your Fore-fathers I am sure they who could not in all things conform to the Church of England lookt upon this as a dangerous principle that men must go where they can profit most And because it is likely that the Opinion of a grave and serious person highly esteemed by
have brought your self to much liberty I doubt not you will find that you are in a wrong way and therefore resolve to alter it and come into the way of the Church Where if you do not meet presently with such advantages for your Spiritual growth as you are told you may receive you have reason to conclude as the forenamed Mr. Hildersham doth to those that said they could not find such Lights such Power such Comfort in the Word as was spoken of First either you have not sought it aright not with earnestness or not with a good Heart or Secundly if you have and do not find it at first yet you shall hereafter if you seek it here with an honest heart VIII And the preaching of Gods holy Word among us would be of greater efficacy upon your Hearts if when you come to partake of it you would remember and observe some Rules delivered by the same Author in another place Lecture XXVI about the Publick Worship of God which now alas are generally neglected and therefore had need to be pressed for the disposing all Mens Hearts to profit by their attendance on it 1. One is that at your coming into the Congregation and during the whole time of your abode there you would behave your selves reverently For we may not come into the place of Gods Worship as we would into a dancing-School or Play-House laughing or toying c. neither may we go out of it as we would out of such a one but in our very coming in and going out and whole outward carriage there we ought to give some signification of the reverence that we bear to this Place and that we do indeed account it the House of God Which serious temper of Mind and awful sense of Gods Presence possessing the Mind would no doubt be an excellent preparation to receive benefit by the whole Service of God as well as by the Sermon For which end 2. Another Rule is that we must all come to the beginning of Gods publick worship and carry till all be done Yea it is the Duty of Gods People saith he to be in Gods House before the beginning For it becomes them to wait for the Minister of God and not to let him wait for them The Reasons he gives for this are two First there is Nothing done in our Assemblies but all may receive profit by it For example by the confession of Sins and Absolution I may add and all other Prayers used in the Congregation a man may receive more profit and comfort than by any other Which is the reason why the Apostles even after Christs Ascention when the typical Honour of the Temple was abolished c. were so delighted to go to the Temple to pray at the times of publick Prayer 1. Act. 3. c. And so he goes on to shew how by hearing the Word read all may profit and by hearing it preached even by the meanest Minister of Christ if the fault be not in themselves How the singing of Psalms also furthers the fruit of the Word in the Hearts of Believers and much more benefit may the faithful receive by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Nay by being present at the Administration of Baptisme all may receive profit being put in mind there-by of the Covenant God made with them in Baptism c. Lastly by the blessing pronounced by Gods Minister all may receive good and therefore none ought to absent himself from any part of the publick Service of God For which his second Reason is very remarkable that though we could receive no profit by the Exercises used in our Assemblies yet we must be present at them all to do our homage unto God and shew the reverent respect we have to his Ordinances For there is nothing done in Gods publick Worship among us observe this but it is done by the Instruction and Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. As he shews particularly that it is his ordinance there should be all sorts and kinds of Prayers used yea this is the chief duty to be performed in our assemblies 1 K. 11. 1 2. that in our publick assemblies the Word of God should be read as well as preached the Holy Communion administred c. that is all things should be done as they are now in our Common-Prayer to which it is plain he hath respect And this he repeats again Lecture XXVIII If thou wast sure thou couldst not profit yet must thou come to do thy Homage to God and to shew thy reverence to his Ordinance 3. Another of his general Rules is that when we are present we ought to joyn with the Congregation in all the parts of Gods Worship and do as the Congregation doth For it makes much for the come liness and reverence of Gods Worship that all things be done in good order without confusion And it is a principle part of this good order that should be in the Congregation when they all come together and go together pray together sing together kneel together in a word when every part of Gods Worship is to be performed by the Congregation as if the whole Congregation were but one Man And in several places he reproves with a great deal of Zeal mens great carelessness in this particularly their neglect of kneeling in the Prayers having observed that men who will kneel at their own private prayers can never be seen to kneel at the common and publick Prayer His last general Rule is that we ought to teach our Children and Servants to shew Reverence to the Sanctuary and publick Worship of God For God cannot indure profaneness and contempt of Religion no not in Children And it stands us all upon to use the utmost Authority we have to maintain the Reverence of Gods Sanctuary for the open contempt done by any may bring Gods curse on us all And certainly saith he among other causes of the Plauge and other Judgments of God upon the Land this is not the least that Gods publick Worship is performed among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is I am tempted to transcribe a great deal more of these Lectures because by them you may see that if I had moved all that hath been said about our Sermons I might according to the Judgment of this devout and learned man have maintain'd that there wants not sufficient means of profiting in our Congregations if there were none as long as the word of God is there read by which together with the other holy duties all may receive the greatest profit and comfort if they please For it is of far greater excellence authority and certainty than the Sermons of any Preacher in the World First because it comes more immediately from God and though it be translated by men yet is there in it far less mixture of humane Ignorance and Infirmity than in Sermons While the Word is read we are sure we hear God speaking to us and that it is the
Church since the Apostles Times that had not its Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in number and as liable to exception as those that are used in our Church at this Day nay there are few things if any at all required by our Constitution which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity This were it my design I might demonstrate by an Induction of particulars but it is fully done by other Hands I shall therefore only as a Specimen instance in One and the rather because 't is so much boggled at viz. The Sign of the Cross in Baptism which we are sure was a Common and Customary Rite in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian the latter whereof says oft enough that being Regenerated Cypr. adv Demetr p. 203. de Vnit Eccl. p. 185. vid. de Laps p. 169. Bas. de Spir. S. c. 27. Tert. de Coron mil. c. 3. that is Baptized they were Signed with the Sign of Christ that they were Signed on their Foreheads wbo were thought worthy to be admitted into the fellowship of our Lords Religion And St. Basil plainly puts it amongst those Ancient Customs of the Church which had been derived from the Apostles Nay Tertullian assures us that they used it in the most common Actions of Life that upon every motion at their going out and coming in at their going to Bath or to Bed or to Meals or whatever their Occasions called them to they were wont to make the Sign of the Cross on their Fore-heads and therefore 't is no wonder that they should never omit it in the most Solemn Act of their being initiated into the Christian Faith And now let our Dissenting-Brethren seriously reflect whether the Constant and Uniform Practice of the Church in all times be not a mighty Testimony against their Separating from us upon the account of those things which were used in the wisest best and happiest Ages of the Gospel and when their Separation upon this account can in point of Example pretend not to much more than a Hundred Years Countenance and Authority to Support and Shelter it And yet it has not that neither for I could easily shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practised in Foreign See Durels view of the Government and publick worship of God 1662. Churches or at least allowed of by the most Learned and Eminent Divines of the Reformation whose Testimonies to this purpose are particularly enumerated and ranked under their proper Heads by Mr. Sprint in his * * * p. 123 124 c. Cassander Anglicanus which they that are curious may Consult VI. Sixthly We beg that those who by their Conformity have declared that they can close with our Communion would still continue in the Communiâ—n of our Church This is a Request so reasonable that I hope it cannot fairly be denied Whatever Dissaâ—tsfactions others may alledge to keep them at a distance from us these Men can have nothing to pretend having actually shewed that they can do it For I am not willing to think that herein such Men acted against their Consciences or did it meerly 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 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 Acts of Worship that I can hardly suspect any should be guilty of it but Men of Proflâ—gate and Atheistical Mindâ— who have put off all Sence of God and Banished all Reverence of Religion I would fain belâ—eve that when any of our Brethren receive the Sacrament with us they are fully persuaded of the lawfulness of it and that the Principle that brings them thither is the Conscience of their Duty But then I know not how to Answer it why the same Principle that brings them thither at one time should not bring them also at another and that we should never have their company at that Solemn and Sacred Ordinance but when the fear of some Temporal Punishment or the prospect of some Secular Advantage prompts them to it 'T is commonly blamed in those of the Romish Church that they can dispence with Oaths and receive Sacraments to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause But God forbid that so heavy a Charge should ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who would be thought most to abhor Popish Practices and who would take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their ways than other Men. Now I beseech our Dissenting or rather Inconstant Brethren to reason a little if our Communion be sinful why did they enter into it if it be lawful why do they forsake it is it not that which the Commands of Authority have tied upon us and whose Commands we are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but 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 Does not the Apostle say that if it be possible and as muâ—â— as in us lies we are to live Peaceably with all Men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most entire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their power Are they satisfied in their Consciences to join in Communion with us and will they not do it for the sake of the Church of God Or will they refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority Commands it and has made it their Duty Oh Sirs I beseech you by all that 's Dear and Sacred to assist and help us and not strengthen the Hands of those who by a Causeless and Unjustifiable Separation endeavour to rend and destroy the best Church in the whole Christian World VII Seventhly We beg of them that they would Consider what Sad and Deplorable Mischiefs have ensued upon bearing down the Constitution of the Church of England This is matter of Fact and whereof many yet alive were made sensible by Woful Experience Omitting what may seem of a little more remote Consideration the Blood and Treasure the Spoils and Ravages of the late War the Enslaving and Oppressing all Ranks of Men and what is above all the Murder of an excellent and incomparable Prince I shall instance in a few particulars which were the more immediate Effects of it And First No sooner was the Church of England thrown down but what Monstrous Swarms of Errours and Heresies broke in upon us both for Number and Impiety beyond whatever had been heard â—f in the Church of God And here I need go no further than the sad account which Mr. Edwards has given us in the several parts of his Gangraena
strongly enforc'd upon his Mind or in Prayers which among them are better compos'd and more fervently sent up unto God and in all other parts of Devotion which there are better fram'd and order'd to affect his Soul and make a truly Christian man These two things being explain'd and premis'd the Answer to the Question will be found true if we consider these following Reasons 1. That the Ground upon which the Question stands is false viz. There is not better Edification to be had in the Separate Meetings than in the Communion of the Church of England This will appear if we consider 1. How apt and fit the whole Constitution of the Church of England is to Edifie Mens Souls 2. That this Constitution is well us'd and manag'd by the Pastors of our Church for Edification The first will be manifest by Induction if we consider the several parts of her Constitution reducible to these following Heads 1. Her Creeds or Articles of Faith are those which our Dissenters themselves allow which are full and plain containing all Necessaries and Fundamentals in Religion nothing defective in Vitals or Integrals to make up the Body of a true Christian Church Christ that founded his Church best knew what was absolutely necessary to her being and there is nothing that he hath declar'd to be so but is contain'd in her Creeds Whatever is fundamental for us to know of the Nature of God is to be found there or by easie Consequences deduced from them Would we know what we ought to believe of the Nature of Christ or his Offices the Designs of his coming upon Earth the Constitution of his Reign and Government the Rewards and Punishments of his Laws the Times of Account and Retribution the mighty Miracles and extraordinary Acts of Providence to confirm these we may read them at large in Holy Writ and find wisely summ'd up in our Creeds Whose Articles to help the Memories of Men are short and few and to assist the dulness of their Understandings are manifest and plain they containing no more than what was some way or other either suppos'd before or included in or following from that brief Creed the Character of a true Christian that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 1 John 4. 15. 5. 5. Whatever is any way reveal'd by God as necessary is an Article of our Faith nothing that is nice and obscure fit onely for dispute and wrangling is brought into our Creed all whose Articles are Primitive and of Divine right none of them purely speculative or curious but plain and useful in order to practice naturally leading to an Holy Life the end of all Religion We love every thing that is truly ancient and Apostolical but we cannot call that an eternal truth which was but yesterday and we are ready to embrace all truth but we cannot call that the High-Priest which is but the Fringe of his Garment We believe all that the early Christians in the first 300 Years thought sufficient for them to know and they were very secure that this would save them And if any truth be disguis'd or defac'd by the iniquity of the descending Ages we are ready to receive it whenever it is made clear and restor'd to its former shape and complexion we casting out obstinacy and perversness out of our Practice as well as niceness out of our Creed That Creed that Christ and his Apostles taught the Saints Martyrs and Confessors the Wise and Good Men in the first and purest days of Christianity believ'd and were secure of Heaven by it and therefore added no more that Faith this Church maintains which will sufficiently and effectually Edifie the Souls of Men. 2. The Necessity she lays upon a Good Life and Works For this is the solemn intention of all Religion our Creed our Prayers our Sacraments and Discipline and all Devotion Her Creed is such that all its Articles so directly or by natural consequence lead unto Virtue and Holiness that no man can firmly believe them but they must ordinarily influence his Manners and better his Conversation and if by virtue of his Creed his Life is not mended he either ignorantly and grosly mistakes their Consequences or is wilfully desperate Our Church publickly declares that without preparatory Virtues no Acts of Devotion however set off with Zeal and Passion are pleasing unto God and if obedience be wanting afterwards are but scene and show Such a Faith she lays down as fundamental to salvation which rests not in the brain and story in magnifying and praising in sighing and repeating but in the production of Mercy Charity and Justice and such excellent Virtues She makes no debates between Faith and Good Works nor argues nicely about the preference nor disputes critically the Mode how joyntly they become the condition of Salvation but plainly determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God She not onely keeps to a Form of sound Words but to a Conversation of equal Firmness and Solidity Her Festivals are to commemorate the Virtues of Excellent Men and to recommend them as Presidents for imitation Her Ceremonies which were principally design'd for Decency may also remind us of those Virtues which become the Worshippers of God Her Collects and Petitions are for Grace to subdue our Follies and to fortifie our resolutions for Holiness Her discipline is to lash the sturdy into Sobriety and Goodness And her Homilies are plainly and smartly to declare against the gross Acts of Impiety and to perswade a true Christian Deportment in Word and Deed and her whole Constitution aims at the Design of the Gospel to teach Men to live Soberly Righteously and Godly She flatters and lulls no man asleep in Vice but tells all secure sinners plainly that they do not pray nor receive aright that they are not absolv'd that their persons are not justified nor can have any true hopes of Heaven except they purifie themselves and be really just and good She neither useth nor allows any nice distinctions in plain Duties to baffle our Obedience nor suffers a cunning head to serve the designs of a wicked heart and teach Men learnedly to sin but urgeth plain Virtues laid down distinctly in Holy Writ and taught by Natural Reason and Conscience without calling them mean Duties or ordinary Morality to be the great Ornament of our Religion and the Soul of our Faith She sets no abstruse and phantastick Characters nor any Marks whose truth must be fetcht in by long deductions and consequences for Men to judge by whether they shall be sav'd or no but Faith and good Works which the Philosopher and meanest Christian can easily judge of The civil interest of a Nation is Edifi'd by such a Church pressing the necessity of good Works not onely thereby enforcing Peace and Justice Pity and Tenderness Humility and Kindness one towards another but she makes Kings safer and Subjects more secure condemning both Tyranny and Disobedience Parents more obey'd and