lawful to Communicate with us in Prayer and hearing of the word and in Receiving of the Sacrament upon occasion stand bound in Conscience so to do as oft as by the Magistrate you are required so to do and it can only be pretence of Conscience which doth induce you to forbear such Communion with us at these times for seeing negative precepts do bind always and at all times so that no man at any time may do what is forbidden by God It follows that there can be no prohibition against doing that at other times which we can sometimes do and which cannot be more or less lawful or unlawful for being done at one time than another as clearly seems to be the case with reference to your occasional Communion It therefore is to be suspected that men only pretend Conscience against that Communion with us at all times which they at sometimes can maintain And yet I wish there were no instances of men of your perswasions who when they are presented or when they find it necessary to qualifie them for an Office or to give a vote in which they may do service to their party will attend upon the publick worship used in our Churches and will receive the Sacrament according to the order of the Church of England who before never did and afterwards neglect to do so Now whilst men do thus vary in their practice according as their interest and as their circumstances vary they tempt men shrewdly to suspect that they act rather out of interest than Conscience in these matters and that they notwithstanding all their pretence to Conscience have either none at all or a bad Conscience for if they thought Communion with us in those Ordinances unlawful by doing it in the forementioned circumstances they only must be doing evil that good may come and making Conscience and Religion stoop to interest which is the proper character of Hypocrites but if they did conceive it lawful their Separation and refusal of it cannot be excused from Schism or from transgression of the injunctions of St. Paul If it be possible as much as in you lies live peaceably with all men follow after the things which make for peace give no offence unto the Church of God obey Superiors and submit your selves Ah my Dear Brethren by doing of these things you have given greater scandal unto others than your submission to the Constitutions of the Church of England could have done and therefore if you do indeed abstain from our Commuon for fear of giving scandal to weak Brethren do you more carefully abstain from matters of this nature which carry with them such a plain semblance of Hypocrisie that no pretence can hide no Charity excuse it Under this head I cannot pass by your violence in Petitioning His Sacred Majesty against His Royal Proclamation to the contrary for be it granted that the Law did authorize or give permission to you to Petition sure I am it laid upon you no necessity to do so and so this might have been forborn in compliance with the pleasure of his Majesty And if you do Reply That then you may by Proclamations be abridged of that liberty the Law affords you Consider I beseech you what it is that you expect and call for from Superiors viz. That for your sakes and out of pity to your weakness they would abate the exercise of their own power and with what equity and justice can you expect they should do this if you at their request will abate nothing of that liberty and power which the Law allows you § 17 2. If you cannot conform let me intreat you Religiously to abstain from censuring reproaching or speaking evil of your Governours in Church or State For this undoubtedly you may do and it doth very much concern you so to do For they who being Christians do reproach and do speak evil of their Civil Governours do that which the Wiseman would not permit the Jew to think of for his command runs thus Eccles 10.20 Curse not the King in thy heart or Entertain not any light vain contemptuous or dishonourable thoughts of him Assemb Annot. wish thou no evil to his Person Crown or Dignity in thy most secret retirements They do what all good men should tremble to commit for of such men St. Peter gives this Character Presumptuous are they 2 Pet. 2.10 self-willed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they do not tremble when they speak evil of Dignities Such persons dare to offer that to Gods Vicegerents to those who bear his Name or Character on Earth which Michael the Archangel durst not offer to the vilest and the worst of Creatures Jude 8 9. for he contending with the Devil durst not bring against him a railing accusation and yet it well deserves to be observed that if this sin was capable of pardon or excuse in any case or circumstances it must have been so in the reproaching of the then present Governours they being by consent of all Historians the greatest monsters of mankind and the most bloody Persecutors of the Christian Faith Moreover they who offend in the like kind against their Ecclesiastical Superiors do that which blessed Paul when he had ignorantly done to a corrupt High-Priest acknowledged as a crime condemned in the Law of God I wist not saith he that he was the High-Priest Acts 23.5 for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people they do that which the Conscience of a Jew could not let pass without just indignation and reproof for when St. Paul had said God shall smite thee thou whited wall v. 3 4. they presently cry out Revilest thou Gods High-Priest There lies indeed no obligation on us to call evil good or flatter our Superiors in their sins or judge well of them against the clearest evidence of Sense or Reason but then we are obliged not to cherish evil thoughts or harbour groundless jealousies of our Superiors much less must we express our inward apprehensions of them by opprobrious language or disrespectful carriage towards them And yet 't is but too evident that both the Writings and Discourses of Dissenters are too often stuft with these malevolent reflections in which they take the liberty of speaking evil of the Rulers of the people and of blaspheming Dignities and representing the Reverend Bishops as Popish Antichristian and Ithacian Prelates § 18 Lastly Let me conjure you by that affection which you bear unto the Name and Doctrine of our common Lord and Saviour and to the credit of the Protestant Religion to abstain carefully from all Seditious and Rebellious Principles and Practices and to do all you can to clear your selves from all suspicion of maintaining or approving of them For to deal plainly with you this is one great fault among you that you have many of you vented and more of you have practised sutably to those Opinions which are Seditious and Rebellious and these Opinions
lawfully submit to the institution § 7 or introduction of New Sacraments into the Church of God or use them being introduced without Divine Institution For a Sacrament according to the Catechism of the Church of England being an outward visible sign of inward Spiritual grace and both a means thereof and a pledg to assure us of it he only can have power to appoint a Sacramental sign who has right to promise and power to Minister that grace and therefore he alone who is the God of all grace can institute a Sacrament now that our Ceremonies some at least of them are Sacraments they endeavour to prove by these Arguments 1. All Mystical Bodily rites and signs of Spiritual grace administred to the Church of God in his Solemn Service to confirm grace and that by him who represents the Person of Christ are Sacraments but such are the greatest part of our Ceremonies for they being Administred to Edifie the Soul and Conscience must be Administred to confirm grace the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being for this cause alone a Sacrament because it is a Mystical Rite whereby the Soul Spiritually feedeth upon Christ i. e. is Edified in Christ these being Mystical Rites whereby the Soul is Edified must be also Sacraments 2ly No reason say they can be given why the representation of some Spiritual Duty by a Mystical Rite should not as properly pertain to the Nature of a Sacrament as the shadowing or Sealing some Spiritual promise and it seems altogether as lawful for Man to devise signs for the confirmations of his Faith as to admonish of and teach his Duty for what difference is there between an addition to the means of instruction appointed by God and to the means of our assurance prescribed by him the Commandments and Promises being so knit together that we cannot perform our Duty without assurance of some benefit by it from God Moreover to be a teacher of the understanding and exciter of devotion requireth power supernatural no less than to be a confirmer of the heart and he who hath Authority to ordain means effectual for any of these ends can bless them all and Man hath as much power to Seal what he cannot bestow as to teach by his own sign that which he cannot bless to that end Answ 1 1. It must be granted that it is not in the power of the Church to introduce new Sacraments truly and properly so called but then unto the Arguments produced to prove our Ceremonies to have the Nature of true Sacraments I Reply 1. That I know not any Ceremonies which by the Church of England are appointed to be signs of Spiritual grace or to confirm grace to us for it is one thing to appoint or use such Rites as in themselves are apt to signifie or mind us of Spiritual things or bring such things to our remembrance which the Church confessedly doth and it is another thing to appoint such Rites to be used to that end which the Church doth not by the bare using of the thing appointed we comply with the institution in the first sense but only by using of these Rites to such an end do we comply with it in the Second now where doth the Church of England require us to use her Ceremonies to such ends Where doth she say you shall wear a Surplice to put you in mind of that purity of Conversation which is required by the Ministers of Christ you shall Kneel to signifie or mind you of that Reverence you owe to God you shall receive the sign of the Cross to put you in mind of your Duty to confess and own a Crucified Saviour no sure that Ceremony is used to Persons not capable of being put in mind of any Duty only in token to the Congregation that they are listed amongst them who are engaged so to confess What enquiry doth the Church of England make whether any of her Members have used her Ceremonies to these ends or not When did she ever quarrel with or punish any for neglecting to use them to these ends Wherefore the whole foundation of this Argument is in my judgment false and rather grounded upon some fanciful expressions of some Writers of the Church of England than upon any of her own institutions and decrees she having no where said that she administers any of the forementioned Rites to confirm grace or doth appoint them to be signs of grace but only that she doth appoint them as being apt and proper in themselves to put good thoughts into us or to express our Reverence as beating on the Breast or sighing is apt to signifie or to express our Godly sorrow and looking up to Heaven to mind us of the wisdom and the power of the great Creator and of that Majesty who dwelleth there Answer 2 2ly If the design of these Ceremonies to signifie express or bring into my mind Spiritual things would make them Sacraments Then 1. the kiss of Charity and the love Feasts used and approved in the Apostles time and all the Ancient Ceremonies of the Church designed to signifie or represent Spiritual things must also be esteemed Sacraments they being all designed to Edifie the Soul and consequently the whole Church of Christ from the beginning to this present day must justly be obnoxious to this Sacrilegious guilt of adding to the Sacraments of Christ 2ly Then must all visible Creatures become Sacraments they being all designed by God to Edifie us by instructing us in and minding us of the Almighty power and Majesty of God Then 3ly Every Crucifix and Picture relating to Spiritual things every piece of Tapestry or Turky-work which contains any piece of sacred History whereby we may be Edified Every good Ballad Pious Book and Frontispiece set before it and even that Pack of Cards which lately was contrived to mind us of the Popish Plot must be a Sacrament If as the first Objection saith all Rites and Signs whereby the Soul is Edified or which have been designed to that end are Sacraments then all the Moral signs of the whole Jewish Law must be reputed Sacraments The Tabernacle the Altar the Sacrifices the Golden Candlestick the Lamp and Snuffers the Priests Garments the Phylacteries and Fringes which God Commanded them to wear for a Memorial the clean Beasts appointed to be Eaten and Offered and the unclean to be abstained from must all be Sacraments according to this Rule they being Rites appointed to signifie Spiritual things or Duties and so to Edifie the Soul and Conscience yea every good word we speak every instruction we deliver to our Child or Friend or our Parishioners every Publick Prayer must be a Sacrament for words are signs and these are words and therefore signs designed to Edifie the Soul Lastly If every thing designed to teach the understanding or to excite devotion only as objects and as occasions which the mind of Man may use or may reflect on to that end must be a Sacrament then every
here not to touch the unclean thing is only to purge our selves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit as is evident from the context of the words for the Apostle having mentioned the promises God had made to those who did separate themselves and touch not the unclean thing viz. that God would receive them and be a Father to them he infers wherefore beloved let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit chap. 7.1 So that this Text cannot concern our Ceremonies unless it be asserted that whilst we use them we cannot cleanse our selves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit And 4ly The unclean thing here spoken of is plainly the Idolatry of the Heathens as that expression intimates what conjunction hath the Christian who is the Temple of God with Idols to touch this unclean thing is to Communicate with them in their Idolatry by eating of their Idol Feasts in the Temple of their Idols which is saith the Apostle to have Communion with Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 to partake of the Table of Devils v. 21. let us not therefore saith he who have taken upon us the Yoke of Christianity be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawing in a contrary Yoke with the unfaithful for that the Apostle cannot by the unclean thing mean Marriage with an Infidel is evident because he saith the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the beliving Wife 1 Cor. 7.14 if then these Ceremonies which we use cannot be proved to be Idols they must be unconcerned in this prohibition To the Argument from the Apostle Judes exhortation to hate the Garments spotted with the Flesh Defence of Dr. Morton p. 437. it is well Answered by Dr. Burges That as a Garment spotted with the Flesh of the unclean was no longer to be hated than till it was washed and being washed might again be used so is it with Ceremonies of indifferent nature which have been defiled 2ly To hate or flie the Garments spotted with the Flesh is only to hate every thing that doth defile tho in the least degree for so the Leprous and Unclean Garments did Hate saith the Reverend Dr. Hammond all the beginnings and the least degrees of impurity and uncleanness when therefore it can be proved that there is any degree of impurity or uncleanness in the use of our Ceremonies then only may this Text be urged against them And 3ly The refusal to Submit unto them tending to Disobedience and Schism and all the dreadful consequences which do follow from them may seem more likely to be forbidden by this Text than our Submission to them in Obedience to Authority Again whereas it is Objected That Christ reproved the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira for suffering Men to teach her Children to eat things Sacrificed to Idols Rev. 2.14 20. I Answer 1. That St. Paul hath taught us that it was not necessary in it self to eat Flesh offered to Idols for the Earth saith he is the Lords and the fulness thereof 1 Cor. 10.28 and so we may sufficiently be fed by other meat and yet he tells us that this meat may lawfully be eaten by the Christian that it is clean to the clean Tit. 1.15 and that 't is only through weakness that it can defile the Conscience and only is unclean to him that thinketh it to be so Rom. 14.14 and he gives free commission to all Men to eat it asking no question for Conscience sake 1 Cor. 10.27 and bids us as it were in flat contradiction to this Objection not to enquire or be follicitous whether the meat we eat have been by others so abused to Idolatry and if the offering of Flesh to an Idol doth not debar our freedom of using it to the sustaining of our Bodies why should the Superstitious use of a Ceremony make it unlawful to be used by others without that Superstition the eating therefore of things Sacrificed to Idols and teaching others so to do which was the thing condemned in those Churches by our Lord was only eating of them in the Idol Temples and at the Feasts of Idols so as to be partakers of the Table of Devils or to commit Idolatry by the participation of them which is so evident from the Context that he who runs may read it For 1. They are there also said to teach their Children to commit Fornication and to eat things offered to Idols Revel 2.14 20. Now all Men know that Fornication in the spiritual sense imports Idolatry 2ly They of the Church of Pergamus who taught her Children to eat things Sacrificed to Idols are said to hold the Doctrine of Balaam who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the Children of Israel that is to Sacrifice to their Gods to eat and to bow down unto them or to entice them by the Daughters of Moab to this sin Numb 25.1 2 3. Lastly The Woman who seduced the Church of Thyatira to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols is called Jezabel a Woman famous for her promotion of Idolatry Proceed we now to Answer the examples propounded in the Objection And § 8 1. Gen. 35.4 To that of Jacob who caused his Family to give unto him the Ear-rings which were in their Ears I Answer 1. That these Ear-rings were say some Interpreters the Ear-rings which adorned their Gods and so were parts of their strange Gods they were say others Ear-rings in which were graven the effigies of their Gods after the manner of the Gentiles and so they were plain Idols which ought to be abolished they were say others dedicated to some Numen according to the manner of the Syrians and the Phaenicians and so were actual instruments of Idolatry Now what doth this concern the Ceremonies of the Church of England which as she useth them are neither Idols nor instruments of Idolatry 2. Dan. 1.8 To the example of Daniel who would not defile himself with the portion of the Kings Meat nor with the Wine which he drank I Answer that it is on many accounts impertinent 1. Because according to the judgment of Mr. Calvin the pollution spoken of was not a Ceremonial pollution arising from the Idolatrous use of the meats but only Moral and occasional by their being Bates and Allurements to draw him to an irreligious forgetfulness of the service of God 2ly If the pollution was Ceremonial it might arise from a mixture of Meats forbidden by the Jewish Law with others lawful to be eaten and which if he refused he would not have eaten the full portion allowed by the King 3ly Esth 3.2 To the example of Mordecai refusing to bow to Haman 1. If he himself may be believed he did not refuse what he conceived lawful in it self because it was by others abused to Idolatry but because the Worship which by Haman was required was in it self Idolatrous as being Worship proper to the God of Heaven For thus he speaks Thou knowest Lord that it was neither out of Pride nor
by executing of them only should rebuke the Scorner which the Wiseman forbids Prov. 9.8 Here then our Saviors Rule seems to take place Give not that which is Holy unto Dogs Matt. 7.6 lest they turn again and rent you Such persons ought therefore only to be excluded from the Sacrament according to the Counsel and Direction of the Church of England but not entirely and without exception excommunicated from the Church Prim. Christian Part 3. p. 377. To this effect it is observed by Dr. Cave that the Primitive Church Relaxed the severity of their Discipline when great multitudes were concerned or such persons as were like to draw great numbers after them in this case saith He they thought it prudent and reasonable to deal with persons by somewhat milder and gentler methods lest by holding them to terms of Rigor and Austerity they should provoke them to fly off either to Heathenism or to Heresy This Course St. Cyprian and his Brethren took for as the concord of his Collegues and the benefit of uniting the Fraternity and healing the wound in the Church required they 1 Necessitati temporum succubuisse p. 52. §. 3. yeelded to the necessity of the times and admitted the lapsed to Communion upon tolerable hopes of their true repentance 2 Ad gentiles se vias saecularia opera convertat vel ad Hereticos Schismaticos rejectus ab Eccle. transeat ibid. §. 10. v §. 3 9. lest being excluded from the Church they out of desperation should fly back to the Worldy or joyn with Hereticks or Schismaticks And in like manner saith he did our Brother 3 Cornelius yield to the necessity of the times Cornelius necessitati succubuit ibid. §. 6. Admitting to Communion plebis maximam partem maximum Fratrûm numerum a great part of the common people or the Brethren which separated with him upon the satisfaction and repentance of Trophimus alone with whom as they first separated they returned Moreover to this accords the judgment of St. Austin who declareth that 4 Neque enim potest esse Salutaris à multis correptio nisi cum ille corripitur qui non habet sociam multitudinem cum autem idem morbus plurimos occupaverit nihil aliud bonis restat quà m dolor gemitus Contr. Epist Parmen l. 3. p. 61. B. Correption cannot be salutary when the offendor hath many partners and that when the same disease hath seiz'd on many there remains no other Remedy for Good men to use but Prayers and Sighs and Sorrow And again that when 5 Et revera si contagio peccandi multitudinem invaserit Divinae Disciplinae severa misericordia necessaria est nam Consilia separationis inania sunt perniciosa atque Sacrilega quia impia superba fiunt plus perturbant infirmos bonos quam corrigunt animosos malos ibid. lit D. the Contagion of sin hath ceased the whole multitude the severe mercy of Divine Discipline is necessary for then all Councils of separation are vain pernicious wicked and Sacrilegious because they will more disturb the pious that are weak then correct the wicked that are sturdy And to confirm the judgment of St Austin the 6 Synop Pur. Theol. disp 48 §. 30. Authors of the Dutch Synopsis have observed that the Prophets and pious Priests among the Jews did never in a general declension of the people recur to these severer Methods And * Neque enim duris remediis locus est ubi tota Ecclesia in morbo cubat Grot. 2 Cor. 12.6 Grotius and Estius observe from these words of St Paul to the Corinthians that he was in a Readiness to revenge all disobedience when their obedience was fulfilled that there was no place for severe Remedies when the disease had infected the whole Church And that the Apostle was forced to yield to this necessity Esth in locum because the Offendors in the Church of Corinth being many Compan to the Temple part 4. p. 548.549 they could not easily be excommunicated I conclude therefore with the judicious Dr. Cumber that till men be so humble as to be willing to suffer shame and undergo severities in this world that their Souls may be saved in the next we may advise them to private and particular acts of mortification and repentance but it will be in vain to impose them on this untractable generation since by imposing them in these circumstances the Church would make this holy means of Reformation rather despised then obeyed Prop. 8 Altho it is the Christians duty to withdraw from and to avoid the scandalous Professor and the disorderly Walker yet is this only then a duty when we can serve no Higher ends of piety or mercy in holding correspondence with them For he that doth command us to withdraw from him that walks disorderly doth leave it still our duty to admonish him as ae Brother and therefore still to maintain that correspondence with him which is necessary to that admonition 2 Thess 3.14 15. and to all other good endeavors to reclaim and gain our Brother And therefore tho our Lord knew well the obligation of this duty and the great scandal which the Scribes and Pharisees would take at his free converse with Publicans and Sinners he doth not only justify the fact as being done in order to their reformation and conversion but also represents it as an higher duty and more incumbent on him then the avoiding the familiarity of wicked men and bids those Pharisees who reckoned it their duty to renounce all familiarity with such men learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice And tho St. Paul permits not his Corinthians to have any fellowship with Unbelievers Matt. 9.13 or go unto their Idol Temples or their feasts yet he allows the coming of the unbeliever into their Assemblies 1 Cor. 14.23 as being that which might be instrumental to his conviction and conversion And v. 24 25. which is more observable St. Jude speaking of those impure Dreamers who defiled the Flesh c. saith thus v. 8. These are spots in your feasts of charity when they feast with you they therefore did intrude into these feasts and consequently joyned with them at the Table of the Lord of which these feasts were an Appendix and yet St. Jude prescribes no separation of the Saints from these Assemblies on that account Lastly tho Eli's Sons were Sons of Belial Sam. 1.2 12. and knew not the Lord Altho they caused the People to abhor the offering of the Lord v. 17. and therefore to neglect to come to Shilo with them v. 24. yet are they also said to make the Lords People to transgress viz. By this neglect it therefore was the Peoples duty still to attend upon these Ordinances of the Lord tho this could not be done under these circumstances without Communion with these Sons of Belial and Ministring
they not just reason to suspect that opinion which will force them to deny Communion with all the Churches of the world besides themselves and that not on the score of any Idolatrous Worship exercised by them or of any false doctrine required to be assented to as the condition of Communion but barely on the account of some supposed defect as to her Discipline 2ly Have they not reason to suspect the truth of that opinion which will render Union and Communion with any of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas a thing unlawful and as things do now stand impossible For as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Vnreas of separ p. 190 191. Still doth put the Question Do we want Discipline And do not they in other Churches abroad The Transylvanian Divines in their discourse of the Union of Protestant Churches declared that little or none was observed among them Irenic Tract p. 55. will they then separate from all Protestant Churches Will they shut them out from any possibility of Union with them For what union can be justifyable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful since Union supposeth such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may Communicate in another or if they notwithstanding this defect can hold Communion with them will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to their own Church 3ly Have they not reason to suspect that doctrin which is so like to some of the old Heresies or Schisms exploded by the Church of Christ that 't is not easie to perceive a difference betwixt the principles of our Dissenters and those which moved those condemned Schismaticks to separate from the Communion of the Church Vide Petav. ad Haer. 59. Novat p. 226. 227. For tho I cannot exactly Parallel them with the Novatians who did not properly desert the Church because she did not exercise the power of the Keys upon Offenders but because she afterwards admitted them upon Repentance and so they did not separate on the pretence of the defect of Discipline but on pretence that the Church exercised a part of Discipline which did not properly belong unto her Meletiani nolentes orare cum conversis Schisma fecerunt Aug. de Haer. c. 48. Epiph Haer. 68. §. 2. Luciferiani poenitentiam clerici post ordinem in Ecclesia gradum acceptum lapsis denegant Dan. in Haer. 81. p. 2â—9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 45. nor yet with the Meletians and Luciferians who did not separate from the Church because Offenders were not censured by her but because after Censures executed the lapsed Clerks were readmitted to their Stations in the Church and who with the Novatians did without cause pretend corruption in the Churches Discipline whereas I fear there may be too much cause to Charge our Churches with defect of Discipline yet will not these disparities excuse them wholly from Communion with them in their Schism For 1. 't is certain that the Novatians did separate out of zeal for the purity of Ecclesiastical Discipline and yet Dionysius of Alexandria tells the Author of that Schism that he had better have suffered any thing than thus to have made a rent in the Church and therefore he had better suffered a defect in the Purity of Discipline now this comes home unto the case of our Dissenters 2ly The Meletians would not pray with the lapsed after their renovation by repentance therefore separated from that Church which did so they therefore must divide upon presumption that the Church was polluted by Communion with them and that her Discipline required their separation Com. in August de Her p. 161. Epiph. Haer. 68. §. 3. and therefore as Danaeus notes from Epiphanius this Schism spread it self among the Monks Praetextu severioris cujusdam in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciplinae zeli in Deum Majoris under pretence of zeal for God and severity of Discipline against those who denyed him Com. in August Haer. 50 p. 169. Epiph. Haer. 70. §. 1. p. 812. contr Epist par l. 2. c. 10.21 3ly As for the Audians since as Danaeus saith from Epiphanius propter hominum vitia caetum Orthodoxae Ecclesiae deserebant they left the Church for the vices of those that were in it as for the Donatists since among others this was their peculiar tenet that no wicked person was to be tolerated in the Church no tares continued with the wheat and that those Churches were not to be communicated with which did not cast them out because they were defiled by Communion with them as appears fully by St. Austins disputations against the Donatists and more especially by his three Books against Parmenianus the Donatist I see not how our Brethren will be able to Escape their condemnation That altho excommunication be the Duty of Church Officers Prop. 7. and they are by the Author to the Hebrews strictly required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently that none among them fail of the Grace of God Hebr. 12.15 16 that there bo no root of bitterness springing up among them by which many may be defiled that there be among them no Fornicator or profane person yet is not this a duty necessary to be exercised at all times on all Offenders in all Conjunctures but only when it is likely to do more Good than hurt and therefore is the exercise of the power which the Lord hath given them for edification and not for destruction For all Agree that Affirmative duties do not bind ad semper for tho that which is evil must never be done yet that which generally considered is good may sometimes be omitted especially when it is only Matter of Discipline and when the danger of exercising of it is greater than the hope of doing good thereby Upon the equity of which case it is determined by the Canon Law that a Kingdom a Corporation a Community or Body Politick ought not to be excommunicated nor in the whole New Testament do we find any Rules or Precepts for the Excommunication of such multitudes Now the harm our Church might suffer by the strict exercise of these her Censures in this age of General looseness upon all Offenders even those of highest Rank and quality among us is threefold 1. That hereby they may be exasperated against the Government and Office which inflicts these Censures and be induced to use their power to undermine and overthrow it and to set up her enemies upon the Ruins of it 2ly That they may some of them be tempted to fly off from her government to one of the two potent factions now among us and so may strengthen them and weaken us Or 3ly That being Sceptically or Atheistically inclined as practically we are sure the wicked of our Nation are and have great cause to fear too many of them are in speculation also they would but rally on the execution of these censures and we
apart unto a sacred use to sanctifie it then is only usurpare prout sanctitatem ejus decet to use it sutably unto its holiness in which sense we are said to sanctifie the Sabbath day c. Christ by thus using the Baptism of John appointed for the remission of sin did in this sense also sanctifie it and by thus making use of it he did encourage saith Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 153. and provoke others to use it to that end Q. 9 Why do you say after the Repetition of the Fourth Commandment Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law Are you turned Sabbatarians Answer Our Prayer then to God prescribed in the Liturgy is not to beseech him to encline our hearts to keep this Law according to the special form and circumstance of time there spoken of viz. the seventh day from the Creation but in such a manner as is agreeable to the state of the Gospel 1. By duly considering of and bringing to our remembrance the great and glorious works of God performed for the good of men viz. of creation redemption the passion resurrection and exaltation of our Lord which are actions no less considerable to us both in respect of glory due to God and benefit accruing to us than was the creation formerly to the Jews 2. That upon the Lords Day and all other days appointed for publick Assemblies to worship God and Christ and to hear his holy word and receive his Sacraments we may by the assistance of Divine Grace be enabled devoutly reverently and holily to engage in those duties to the Glory of God and the edification of our selves in faith and true obedience Q. 10 What mean you by these words in the office of Matrimony with this Ring I thee wed were they not man and wise and therefore wedded before what by this phrase with my body I thee worship is not the man the head of the woman and so not to use any sign which may import subjection to her as that of worship doth what lastly by those words with all my worldly goods I thee endow will you leave nothing for their Children Answer 1. This phrase with this Ring I thee wed doth not import that they were not man and wife before but only is a declaration of the fact as is apparent from the following words Forasmuch as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock and have declared the same by giving and receiving a Ring c. 2ly That phrase with my body I thee worship may have these three senses 1. I give unto thee honour according as Gods Law requires in these words husbands live with your wives according to knowledge giving honour to the wife 1 Pet. 3.7 Or 2ly I vouchsafe thee the honour of my Body i. e. I deem thee worthy of the honour belonging to my person as Mr. Selden doth explain the words Uxor Hebr. l. 2. c. 27. Or 3ly I promise to thee due benevolence as H. L'Estrauge saith this old word imports and so it is only a promise to obey St Pauls command 1 Cor. 7.2 3ly This phrase with all my worldly goods I thee endow bears this sense I promise thee a share in all my wealth and give thee right and liberty to use it as there is occasion But then the Husband being dead the Wife according to the common Law of England cannot lay claim unto the whole but only to the thirds of her deceased Husbands estate if he leave any Children or others who have right to any part of his inheritance Other things have been scrupled in the office for the visitation of the sick the form of burial and of commination but since the Churches constitutions do not oblige the Laity to use or to be present at them I wave the consideration of them and beseeching God to give a blessing to what I have written and make it successful to the desired end and to pardon the errors I may unwittingly have committed in it I humbly submit it to my ever honoured Superiours and so conclude FINIS
that account is never in the least insinuated this therefore Principles of love p 44. saith Mr. Baxter to his dissenting Brethren you may observe that no one Member is in these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any one of all these Churches as if Communion with them 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 And to confirm this Answer it deserves to be considered that we find in the New Testament express injunctions directed to the whole body of the Christian Churches requiring them to refuse Communion in their private conversations with such persons or to renounce familiarity with them not to company with them 1 Cor. 5.9 Not to eat with them v. 11. To mark them who cause divisions and scandals contrary to the Doctrine which they had received and avoid them Rom. 16.17 To withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly Thess 2.3 6. To have no company with them that they may be ashamed v. 14. We also find the Angels or Officers of the Church oft blamed for this neglect by Christ and his Apostles as in the case of the Incestuous Person the case of Pergamos and Thyatira where they were suffered who taught the Doctrins of the Nicolaitans of Balaam and of Jezebel that is both spiritual and carnal fornication This I have against thee O Thyatira that thou permittest Jezebel Vid. Synops in locum quod eam non coerces censuris Ecclesiae that thou doest not execute the censures of the Church upon her this against thee O Pergamos that thou hast those who teach the Doctrine of Balaam whereas thou being the Angel of the Church shouldst have fought against them with the Spiritual Sword as did the Angel who resisted Balaam because his way Numb 22.22 23. Hebr. 12.15 was perverse before God We find them call'd upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to execute the Office of a Bishop by looking diligently that no such persons be among them and warned of the great danger that the Whole lump might be exposed to by such Soure Leaven We lasty find our Saviour praising the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not bear them but never do we find our Lord or his Apostles calling the People to come out from them or to be separate but only in such cases as did oblige them to touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 that is to joyn in their Idolatries or partake with them in their Sins From which Considerations Rev. 18.4 it follows as Estius well notes that the Governors of the Church which tolerate Such Persons in the Church offend and that the People who use familiar converse with them do likewise offend but it by no means follows that they who do perform the publick duties of Religion where they are present do offend and as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Unreas of Sep. p. 217. Stillingfleet well notes There be many Reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to Publick Communion and which may render it the Christians duty to do the first and not the latter For our Communion in Publick is a thing which Chiefly Respects God and is a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his promises and all the Communion we have with other men therein is only that of Christ and his Apostles with Judas at the Paschal Supper joyning together for the performance of a Common Religious duty But private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the persons we converse with it is a thing of meer choice and of much danger it being hardly to be imagined without approbation at least if not imitation of their wickedness And to this the concurrent judgment of the Old Nonconformists who did not think this want of Discipline sufficient cause of separation from Communion with us for having laid this as a foundation that no man ought to separate from a true Church requiring nothing sinful of him Grav confut p. 18. in order to Communion with them they add that altho it were Granted that we wanted both the exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a true Church notwithstanding as there was a true Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline reformed there till the latter end of Jehosaphats Reign The Church of Corinth was a true Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline the Congregation of Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there and even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before Sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were Gathered some Good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that howsoever those parts of the Discipline which we want be necessary to the beauty and well being and perservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a true Church may be without them 2ly They add Ibid. p. 51.52 That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the will and consent of the Christian Magistrate and Governors of the Church yea they declare that in so doing they should highly offend they are bound saith Giffard P. 59 95 100 101 102. by the bands of Conscience and the fear of God from presuming to take upon them publick Authority And if so it is evident that they cannot chuse Pastors for themselves and set up other Churches and Church Governors to exercise the Churches Discipline because they do conceive it is neglected by the Christian Magistrate and other Governors of the Church Yea lastly let me ask our dissenting Brethren if on account of this supposed neglect of Discipline they think themselves obliged to desert Communion with the Church of England whether will they go The Church of Rome they know besides her other errors is more Guilty of this crime than we men may be any thing in their Communion provided that they be not Hereticks and still be owned as Genuine Members of their Church The rest of the Reformed Churches are as loose as we their Members Generally are as corrupt in manners as ours are the same may be affirmed of the Eastern Churches they therfore must acknowledge that they cannot lawfully maintain Communion with any other Church on this account and that there always was even since the reformation a necessity of separation from all Christian Churches in the world for this neglect of Discipline or that they notwithstanding this supposed neglect may hold Communion with the Church of England now have