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
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
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
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
persons Now tho all this is generally true yet I think there are no certain unalterable rules to be laid down to direct our practise in this affair For it being an exercise of charity must be determined by the measures of prudence according to circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain rules for Mens charity in other cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his estate towards the relief of the poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own liberty for the sake of his Brother and so I end this head with those words of the learned Dr. Hammond in his little Treatise of Scandal This whole matter is to be referred to the Christians pious discretion or prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that piety and that prudence shall represent it to be most charitable and beneficial to other Mens Souls Thus I have done with the first proposition that nothing sinful is to be committed to avoid Scandalizing others 2. I proceed now to the Second that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons Not that such a case can ever happen wherein we must necessarily give just Offence to one side or other and so are uncharitable whether we do or forbear to do the same action for then we should be under a necessity of sinning which implies a contradiction but yet it may and often doth happen that some weak persons may take Offence at my doing and others be more Offended at my forbearing to do the same thing and thus whether I do it or not I shall give Offence tho not justly nor through my own fault to some one or other In such circumstances therefore we are to consider which way is given the greater and more dangerous Offence and it can never be either prudence or charity to abstain from that which may Scandalize our Brother when by forbearance a greater and more publick Scandal is ministred to others for in this case we have greater reason on the account of Scandal it self to do than to forbear that action as all that write on this subject do and must acknowledge and for which they usually quote that saying of Bernard Prudenter advertendum est scandalum scandalo non emendari c. We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another which kind of emendation we should practise if to take off offence from one party we give offence unto another This was the occasion of that famous Contest between the two great Apostles mentioned in the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians St. Peter had freely conversed with the Gentile Christians and had eat with them all kind of meats but afterwards when certain believing Jews from Jerusalem who were still Zealous for Moses's Law and the distinction of meats came to Antioch out of fear of Offending them and occasioning their falling off from the Faith of Christ he abstained from that liberty and withdrew from that conversation which before he had without any scruple used and all the believing Jews that were at Antioch followed his example and separated themselves from their Gentile Brethren Now St. Paul considering the greater Scandal and mischief that would follow this pretended tenderness of St. Peter and his complyance with the Jewish Christians and that it was a likely way not only to confirm them in their error but also wholly to exclude the Gentiles from the Faith of Christ and so to hinder Christian Religion being propagated in the World he withstood Peter to the face and chid him sharply for his imprudent behaviour who to avoid offending some of the weak Jews did give a far greater Offence and of much more dangerous consequence to the Gentile Converts of whom the Christian Church was chiefly to consist In this case therefore of Scandal we are not only to regard one side or party of Men but as the same St. Paul directs us 1 Cor. 10. 32. We must give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God It would swell this discourse much beyond my present design to set forth at large the many and great Scandals which are given by those who Separate from the Church of England and I doubt not but if this matter was rightly considered and we were but impartially careful to avoid giving all Offence to others we should soon find our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal peaceably to communicate with our Church than to continue divided from it I shall hint at some few of the most obvious considerations by which we may a little Judge which way the greater Scandal is given 1. By leaving the Parish-Churches and joyning to the Separate Assemblies we do mightily establish and harden as I have before observed those Dissenters with whom we associate in their sinful Separation and Erroneous persuasion of the unlawfulness of conformity for it is but reasonable with them to judge that we do the same things for the same reasons with themselves and this is the true Scandalizing of our weak Brethren leading them into o confirming them in an evil course Whereas by our forsaking them and returning to the Church we may possibly incline some that are sincere amongst them to consider and suspect their own way and enquire after the Arguments that prevail with us to conform and they may begin to think that there is not so much evil in it as they have all along supposed and thus our Authority or example may contribute something towards the gaining our Brethren 2. Which also I have just mentioned before whatever Sect or denomination of Dissenters we joyn with we Offend all the other Sects or Parties amongst them for they agree only in their opposition to the Church of England but in other things they have their distinct Forms and Models of Worship and Shibboleths and they think as ill and sometimes speak as hardly of one another as they do of Conformists Which would evidently appear if any one sort of them should get the upper hand the rest of them would all act as fiercely and complain as loudly of that Party that did prevail as they now do of the Church of England Till therefore they all agree in one way and speak the same Language there is no reason why any one Sect of them should challenge our condescension to them to the dissatisfaction and Offence of all the other Dissenters who have as good a right to this Plea of weakness as themselves 3. Hereby great Offence is given to all those who do conform for this Separation from the Church is a publick condemning of the Government Orders Discipline or Doctrine of our Church and
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by 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 Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
there were any Law of God obliging to the use of any one Gesture whatsoever 2. That there is no express Command in Scripture for any one Gesture in the Act of Receiving may be inferr'd from the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches abroad Whose Judgment and example will I presume sway much with those who separate from the Church of England as not being sufficiently purged from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as other Neighbour-Churches are and who stood once engaged in a Solemn Covenant to reform the Churches of England and Ireland according to the Word of God and the Pattern of the best Reformed Churches Let us now compare the practice of our Church with the example of the Protestant Churches abroad and see whether she ought to reform the Gesture prescribed at the Sacrament The Reformed Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia Stand the Dutch generally Sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they Stand. The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustan Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden through Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuany and the Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were reformed by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffered Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luthers time and those of the Augsburg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reformed by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so called Both these Churches so early reformed and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church enjoyns at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetick Confession did in three general Synods unanimously condemn the Sitting Gesture though they esteemed it in it self Lawful 1 At Cracow Anno. Dom. 1573. 2 Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3 Wladislaw 1583. as being Scandalous for this remarkable reason viz. because it was used by the Arrians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change Sitting into Kneeling or Standing both which Ceremonies we Indifferently leave free according as the Custom of any Church hath obtained and we approve of their use without Scandal and Blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the Practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Forreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which useth Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-Worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemned Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French do and at last conclude thus Harmon 4 Synods of Holl. These Articles are setled by mutual Consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be changed augmented or diminished What now should be the ground and reason of this variety both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be used at the Lords Supper Is it to be supposed or imagined that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to Reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God should through weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and established what was most agreeable to their own Phansies contrary to the known Will of God Would they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tyed them to observe but one Would they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they enjoyned might be altered if the good of the Church so required if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be used by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they would not we cannot either in reason or Charitie suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reformed Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England goes by in her Synods and Convocations viz. That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church hath Authoritie to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charitie shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administration of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses Vid. Art 34 observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions edit Geneva 1681. sect 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacr. suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this that the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckoned among things Indifferent and that whether we Sit or Kneel or Stand or Receive Walking we Transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my assertion true that Kneeling is not contrary to any express Command no more than any other because they allow of all Lawful in themselves to be used which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Query II. Whether Kneeling be not a Devotion from that Example which Christ set us at the first Institution FOr a full and satisfactory resolution of this doubt I shall propound the four following particulars to the consideration of our Dissenting Brethren which I will endeavour with all Brevitie and Clearness to make good 1. That it can never be proved so as that the conscience may surely build upon it what Gesture Christ and his Apostles used at the Celebration of the Sacrament 2. Supposing that our Lord did Sit yet his bare example doth not oblige all Christians to a like practice 3. That they who urge the example of Christ for our Rule in this case do not follow it themselves 4. That they who Kneel at the Lords Supper in complyance with the Custom and Constitution of the Church do manifestly follow the example of Christ First The particular Gesture used by Christ and his Apostles at the Institution and Celebration of
months space was granted to Berengarius to consider in and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals That God would shew by some sign from Heaven who was in the right the Pope or Berengarius It seems the Doctrine of the Popes Bâ—nno Card. in vita Hild. Epis Dunelm Hist Trans p. 135. Infallibility was not known to that Age and that of the Corporal presence much doubted But however thus much we may conclude upon That from the dark and mysterious Writings of those men Paschasius and Amalarius did that monstrous Errour of Transubstantiation spring which afterwards came to be established as an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome As to the time then wherein we are to contain this Discourse it shall be the first 700 years after Christ and to Authors onely that liv'd within that compass I will appeal for evidence in the matter under dispute and surely our Dissenting Brethren will allow that they lived in the first and purest Ages because they were dead before the Doctrines either of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation were hatcht much less received or establisht in the World If I would take all the advantage that our Adversaries give us I need not confine my self within so narrow a compass For they challenge us to produce one instance for Kneeling before the days of Honorius the Third who lived 1220 or thereabouts and confidently affirm Kneeling was never heard of nor used for 1200 years after Christ I hope therefore they will not complain of foul dealing or that I strain the point since I give away 500 years wherein the pure ancient Catholick Faith touching the Holy Sacrament began to decline and was by various arts and tricks at last foully corrupted Which piece of liberality I need not have exercised but that I design purely to convince not to contend Let us therefore bring this matter under examination and see what the practice of the Church was within the compass of 700 years after Christ or which is all one in the first and purest Ages And what I shall produce out of Antiquity may be conveniently placed under these two general Heads according to the method proposed in the beginning of this Discourse 1 That notwithstanding several Nonconformists well esteemed of for Learning have in their Writings boldly asserted Kneeling to be contrary to all Antiquity it is highly probable the Primitive Christians did Kneel in the act of Receiving as the Custom is in the Church of England 2 It 's certain they used an Adoring posture As to the first I hope I shall be able to make it good by this following Account which I shall give with all possible plainness and sincerity And I declare beforehand to all the World that I will offer nothing for satisfaction to others which I do not think in my Conscience to be true and that I would not use a Fallacy to serve the Cause though I were sure it could never be detected by any of our Separating Brethren In the first place for the first Century or 100 years wherein our Lord and his Apostles lived the Scripture hath left us in the dark and under great uncertainty what the particular Gesture was which they used at the Institution and Celebration of the Holy Sacrament which I think I have sufficiently evinced in my Answers Part 1. p. 17. to the first and second Query In the next place I desire those who urge a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting which was a usual posture at Meals among those Eastern Nations as well as among us now to observe that Sitting was esteemed a very irreverend Posture to be used in the Worship and Service of God by the Primitive Church of which I shall give a few instances The ancient Loadicean Which met under Pope Sylvester 1. between the Neocaesarian Synod and the first general Council of Nice that is between the years 314 and 325 as some learned men think or Anno Dom. 365. after the first general Nicaene Council as others Synod finding great inconveniencies to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lords Supper prohibited absolutely the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was of Solemnizing those Feasts The words of the Canon are these The Feasts of Charity ought Can. 28. not to be kept in the Lords House or in the Church neither may ye eat or make Couches in the House of God This was afterward forbidden by the Council of Carthage and the Decrees of both these Provincial or National Councils were ratified by the 6th Trullan Council and that under the pain of Excommunication Can. 74. upon which in some time the Custom dwindled to nothing Now the Reasons which induced these holy Bishops and ancient Fathers to prohibit these Feasts of Charity and the use of a discumbing posture upon Beds or Couches in the House of God which was too an ordinary Table-gesture according to the custome of those times were in all probability taken from the Disorder and Irreverence the Animosities and Excess that accompanied these Feasts and which both poor and rich were guilty of They did not distinguish between their spiritual and corporal Food between the Lords Supper and an ordinary Meal they did not discern the Lords Body as St. Paul speaks and I am apt to think that the same abuses which had crept in so early into the Church of Corinth and which St. Paul took notice of and reproved continued and spread till the Church by her Censures and Decrees opposed the growing evil and rooted up the causes of such mischievous effects To these Canons of Councils if we adde the Testimony of particular Bishops who lived in those first Ages and who speak not their own private sence and Opinions but Customes and Usages of the Church in their time we shall plainly discern that Sitting was accounted an irreverent posture in the Worship of God while they were engaged in Prayer or Praise or receiving the Holy Sacrament Justin Martyr who lived in the second Century which immediately Flor. Ann. D. 155. succeeded that of the Apostles seems to hint that the people sate at the Sermon and while the Lessons were reading when he informs us concerning the Christian Assemblies in his Apol. 2. time and the place where he lived After the reading of the Lessons and the exhortatory Sermon of the Bishop we rise up saith he all together and send up our Prayers He doth not indeed signifie what the particular Gesture was which they used at their Prayers but it 's clear enough they did not Sit and they might Kneel for any thing he saith to the contrary For it 's customary among us to sit at the Sermon and during the reading of the Lessons and after they are ended we may be truly said to rise up all together and send up our Prayers But if any one should hence infer that we stood and not kneeled he would conclude
to Idolatry But here a few things must be premised to prevent Cavils and Mistakes 1. I take it for granted that indifferent things may be lawfully See the Case of Indifferent Things used in the Worship of God This is supposed in the present Question for otherwise it would be sinful in us to Kneel whether that Gesture had been ever used or abused by Idolaters or no. 2. I grant that the Worship of God is to be preserved pure See Dr. Fal. lib. Eccles p. 443. from all sinful Mixtures and Defilements whatsoever whether of Idolatry or Superstition and that things otherwise indifferent which either in the design of them that use them or in their own present tendency do directly promote or propagate such Corruptions do in that case become things unlawful To follow Idolaters in what they think or do amiss to follow them generally in what they do without other reason than onely the liking we have to the Pattern of their Example which liking doth intimate a more universal approbation than is allowable in these cases I think with the Reverend Mr. Hooker Conformity Hook Ecles Pol. l. 4. p. 165. with Idolaters is evil and blame-worthy in any Christian Church But excepting these Cases it is not sinful or blame-worthy in any Society of Christians to agree with Idolaters in Opinion or Practice and to use the same Rites which they abuse And consequently our Church is not to be blamed or charged with Idolatry for her Agreement with the Church of Rome in using the same Ceremonies unless it can be proved that the Church of England doth abuse the said Ceremonies to sinful ends or that the Ceremonies used and appointed by our Church naturally tend to promote the Corruptions practised in the Church of Rome and were ill designed or that she did not follow the general Rules of Gods Word the Directions of the Holy Ghost in appointing and enjoyning the use of Ceremonies as being godly comely profitable but overlooking all this had an eye purely to the Example of Idolatrous Papists in what they did amiss Now this I am sure can never be made good against our Church who hath sufficiently vindicated her self by the open declarations she hath printed to the World from all accusations of this nature Let but any man consult the Articles of Religion Art 20. Art 34. Canon 18. the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer just after the Act of Vniformity the two excellent Discourses that follow it concening the Service of the Church and Ceremonies and the Reasons she hath publisht at the end of the Communion-service for enjoyning her Communicants to receive Kneeling I say let any man peruse these and he will receive ample satisfaction that our Governours in Church and State in appointing the use of Ceremonies did not steer by the Example of Idolaters nor enjoyn them out of any ill design or to any ill ends but were conducted by the light of Gods Word the Rules of Prudence and Charity the Example of the holy Apostles and the Practice of pure Antiquity These things being premised I proceed to prove this Assertion That it is not sinful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Or which is all one That to Kneel in the Act of Receiving according to the custom of the Church of England is not therefore sinful because it hath been and is notoriously abused to Idolatry for these Reasons 1. In general No abuse of any Gesture though it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be used in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in its own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abused by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be used at all then the Jews sinned in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observed in the Worship of their false Gods No say the Dissenters we except all such Rites as were commanded or approved of by God and such are all those fore-mentioned But say I it 's a silly Exception and avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be used at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what hath been once abused must ever remain so that is an infinite power can't undo what hath been done and clear it from ever having been abused And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare Conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practice in the Worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry for if it had God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position would plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This Position That the Idolatrous abuse of any thing renders the use of it sinful to all that know it is attended with very mischievous consequences and effects First It intrenches greatly upon Christian liberty as dear to our Dissenting Brethren as the Apple of their Eyes and I wonder they are not sensible of it At other times they affirm that no earthly power can rightly restrain the use of those things which God hath left free and indifferent and that those things which otherwise are lawful become sinful when imposed and enjoyned by lawful Authority and yet these very men give that power to Strangers both Heathens and Papists which they take away from their own rightful Princes and lawful Superiours An Idolater may yoke them when a Protestant Prince must not touch them And what more heavy and intolerable Yoke can be clapt on our necks than this That another mans abuse of any thing to Idolatry though in its own nature indifferent and left free by God renders the use of it sinful Whether this be not a violation of Christian Liberty let St. Paul determine who tells us that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offered to Idols and to eat whatsoever was 1 Cor. 10. 25 27 28 29. sold in the shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture should be more defiled by Idolaters than Meat which they had offered up in Sacrifice to Idols and why should one be sinful and idolatrous to use and not the other Certainly St. Paul would never have granted them
He was an eminent Minister of the Presbyterian Party Epist Dedicat to Gangraen print 1646. One who as he tells the Parliament had out of Choice and Judgment from the very beginning Embarqued himself with Wife Children and Estate and all that was dear to him in the same Ship with them to sink and perish or to come safe to Land with them and that in the most doubtful and difficult Times not only in the beginning of the War and Troubles in a Malignant place among Courtiers where he had Pleaded their Cause justified their Wars and Satisfied many that Scrupled but when their Affairs were at lowest had been most Zealous for them Preaching Praying stirring up the People to stand for them and had both gone out in Person and lent Mony to them He held Correspondence with considerable Persons in all parts of the Nation and was careful to have the best Intelligence from all Quarters and professes to lay down the Opinion and Errours which he mentions in terminis and in their own Words and Phrases Syllabically and as near as might be Now amongst infinite other things he tells us Catal. and discov of Errors p. 15 c. vid. 2 d. Part. p. 5. 22. 24 27. 105. 110. fresh discov p. 115. 16â— alibi passim 't was then commonly maintained That the Scriptures cannot be said to be the Word of God and are no more to be Credited than the Writings of men being not a divine but Humane Tradition that God has a Hand in and is the Author of the Sinfulness of his People not of the Actions alone but of the very Pravity which is in them that all Lies come forth out of his Mouth that the Prince of the Air that Rules in the Children of Disobedience is God that in the Unity of the God-head there is not a Trinity of Persons but that it is a Popish Tradition that the Doctrine of Repentance is a Soul-destroying Doctrine and that Children are not bound to Obey their Parents at all if they be Ungodly that the Soul of Man is Mortal as the Soul of a Beast that there is no Resurrection at all of the Bodies of Men nor Heaven nor Hell after this Life I instance only in these as a Tast not that they are all or the Hundred part no nor the worst there being other Blasphemies and Impieties which my Pen trembles to Relate Secondly The Liturgy of our Church being discharged and thrown out and every one left to his own liberty 't is scarce possible to believe what wild and prodigious Extravagancies were upon all occasions used in holy things not in Preaching only but especially in Prayer the most immediate Act of Worship and Address to God It is an affront to the Majesty of Religious Worship that there should be any thing in it Childish and Trivial Absurd and Frivolous that its Sacred Mysteries should be exposed to Contempt and Scandal by that Levity and distraction that heat and Boldness those weaknesses and Indiscretions those Loose Raw and Incongruous Effusions which in most Congregations of those Times did too commonly attend it But the things I intend to Instance in are of a far worse colour and complexion for whose Ears would it not make to tingle to hear men in the Pulpit telling God That if he did not finish the good Work which he had begun View of the late troubles in Eng. cap. 43. p. 567 c. See also Edwards Gang 3 d. Part a little before in the Reformation of the Church he would shew himself to be the God of Confusion and such a One as by cunning Stratagems had contrived the Destruction of his own Children That God would bless the King and Mollifie his hard Heart that delights in Blood for that he was fallen from Faith in God and become an Enemy to his Church let thine Hand we pray thee O Lord our God be upon him and upon his Fathers p. 17. House but not upon thy people that they should be Plagued O God O God many are the Hands lift up against us but there is one God it is thou thy self O Father who dost us more Mischief than they all We know O Lord that Abraham made a Covenant Moses and David made a Covenant and our Saviour made a Covenant but thy Parliaments Covenant is the greatest of all Covenants I presume the Devout and Serious Reader desires no more of such intolerable Profane and Lewd Stuff as this is They that are curious of more may find it besides others in The short view of the late Troubles in England where Times Places and Persons are Particularly named Thirdly The Fences of Order and Discipline in the Church of England being broken down what a horrid Inundation of all manner of Vice and Wickedness did immediatly over-flow the Land The Assembly at Westminster Petitioned the Parliament That July 19. 1644. some Severe Course might be taken against Fornication Adultery and Incest which sry they do greatly abound especially of late by reason of Impunity Further discov p. 187. 3 d. Part p. 185 c. And Mr. Edwards speaking of the whole Tribe of Sectaries tells us He was confident that for this many Hundred Years there had not been a Party that hath pretended to so much Holiness Strictness power of Godliness tenderness of Conscience above all other Men as this Party hath â—lone that hath been guilty of so great Sins horrible wickedness provoking Abominations as they are with much more both there and elsewhere to the same purpose and the Charge very often made good by particular Instances So that indeed Hell seemed to have broke loose and to have Invaded all Quarters in despite of their Covenant and all the little Schemes of their so much Magnified Reformation The Covenant Cries God grant not against you for Reformation of the Kingdom the Extirpation of Heresies Schisms Profaneness c. and these Impieties abound as if we had taken a Covenant to maintain them and since it was taken these Sins which we have Covenanted against have more abounded than in the space of Ten Times so many Years before as Mr. Jenkin tells the Lords in Parliament And that all East Sermon Jan. 27. 1646. p. 29. that I have mentioned which yet is â—nfinitely short of what might be said was the effect of the Ruin of the Church of England and let in by the Method they took for Reformation we have from their own confessions We says Mr. Edwards in these Four Cat. and discov p. 73 74 76. last Years have over-passed the Deeds of the Prelates and justified the Bishops in whose time never so many nor so great Errours were heard of much less such Blasphemies or Confusions we have worse things among us than ever were in all the Bishops Days more corrupt Doctrines and unheard of Practices than in Eighty Years before I am persuaded if Seven Years ago the Bishops and their Chaplains had but Preached
owned it at his Condemnation that perhaps he thought Colemans Tryal p. 101. Def. of his Answ to the Admonit p. 349. that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted And this is that which wise Arch-Bishop Whitgift long ago foresaw would come to pass when he told the Dissenters of those Days I am persuaded that Anti-Christ worketh effectually at this Day by our Stirs and Contentions whereby he hath and will more prevail against this Church of England then by any other means whatsoever And now upon the whole matter I desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider whether the orderly and truly Primitive Constitution of the Church of England or Innovation Schism and Separation be the likelier way to keep out Popery and do therefore Conjure them by all the Kindness which they pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us as which I believe humanely speaking to be if not the only at least the only safe and durable means of shutting Popery for ever out of Doors IX Ninthly We desire of them that if neither these nor any other Advices and Considerations can prevail with them they would at least cease to Reproach the Government for Reviving the Execution of the Laws about these matters I know it is very natural to Men to complain when any thing pinches them but then they ought to be so just as to consider whose fault it is that has brought it upon them The Laws in this case were framed with great Advice and upon dear bought Experience and every Nation in the World thinks it self obliged when no other ways will do it by Penalties to secure the Publick Peace Safety and Tranquility of the State though it may sometimes press hard in some particular Cases when Men through Fancy Humour Mistake or Design especially about little and as themselves confess indifferent matters shall endanger the Publick Welfare and by an ill Example expose the Reverence and Majesty of the Laws And yet notwithstanding all this and a great deal more that might be said we find them at every turn charging the Government for using them Cruelly and with the hardest Measure censuring their Superiours and speaking Evil of Dignities and this not only the Cry of the mean and common Sort but of their chiefest Leaders even to this Hour It being no hard matter but that I love not to exasperate to instance in several things that are no very good Arguments of that Obedient Patience which some of them so much pretend to It is far from my Temper to delight in Cruelty much more to plead for Severity to be used towards Dissenting Brethren and therefore should have said nothing in this Argument were it not necessary to Vindicate the Government which upon these occasions I have so often heard Blamed and Censured I would these Persons who complain so much would consider a while how their Predecessors were dealt with in the times of the good Queen Elizabeth which will appear either from the Laws then made or from the Proceedings then had against them The Laws then made against them were chiefly these In the First of the Queen An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. wherein among other Clauses and Penalties it is provided That if any Person shall in any Playes Songs Rhimes or by other open Words declare or speak any thing in the derogation depraving or despising the Book of Common-Prayer or any thing therein contained being thereof lawfully convicted he shall forfeit for the first Offence an hundred for the second four hundred Marks for the Third all his Goods and Chattels and shall suffer Imprisonment during Life A Clause which had it been kept up in its due Life and Power our Liturgy and Divine Offices had been Treated with much more Respect and Reverence then I am sure they have met with especially of late In Her Fifth Year an Act was passed for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo amongst others particularly levelled against such as refuse to receive the Holy Communion or to come to Divine Service as now commonly used in the Church of England with severe Penalties upon those that shall not yield up themselves to the same Writ Anno. 13. passed an Act of general Pardon but it was with an Exception of all those that had committed any Offence against the Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer or were Publishers of Seditious Books or Disturbers of Divine Service Anno 23. By an Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience it is provided That every Person above the Age of Sixteen Years which shall not repair to some Church or usual place of Common-Prayer but forbear the same by the space of a Month shall for every such Moth forfeit Twenty Pounds Which Act was again Confirmed and Ratified by another in the 29th Year of Her Reign with many Clauses and Provisions for the better Execution of it And by the Act of the 35th of Her Reign If any Person so forbearing shall willingly joyn in or be present at any Assemblies Conventicles and Meetings under colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion contrary to the Laws of the Realm such Person being lawfully Convicted shall be Imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize untill he Conform and if he do not that within Three Months he shall be obliged to Abjure the Realm and if refusing to Abjure or returning without Licence he shall be Adjudged a Felon and suffer as in case of Felony without benefit of Clergy Such were Her Laws and such also were Her Proceedings against those who faultered in their Conformity or began to Innovate in the Discipline of the Church and these Proceedings as quick and smart as any can be said to be against the Dissenters of this time Do they complain of their Ministers being Silenced now so they were then being deprived of their Benefices and Church-Preferments for their Inconformity Thus Sampson was turned out of his Deanry oâ— Christ-Church for refusing to Conform to the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church Cartwright the very Head of them Expelled the Colledge and deprived of the Lady Margarets Lecture Travers turned out from Preaching at the Temple with many more Suspended from the Ministry by the Queens Authority and the Approbation of the Bishops for not Subscribing to some new Rites and Ceremonies imposed upon them as appears from Beza's Letter to Bez. Epist 8. Bishop Grindal Anno 1566. Are any in Prison so they were then Benson Button Hallingham Cartwright Knewstubbs and many others some in the Marshalsey others in the White-Lion some in the Gatehouse others in the Counter or in the Clink or in Bridewel or in Newgate Poor Men miserably handled with Revilings Deprivations Imprisonments Banishments if we may believe what themselves tell us both in the First and Second Admonition And what is yet far beyond any thing which God be thanked our Dissenters can pretend to complain of
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-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
several of them lost their Lives Barrow and Greenwood were Executed for their Scandalous and Seditious Writings Penry and Vdal Indicted and Arraigned for Defaming the Queens Government in a Scandalous Book Written against the supposed Governours as they called them of the Church of England for which they were both Cast and Condemned to be Executed as Felons but Arch-Bishop Whitgift interposing they were Reprieved and Vdal suffered to Die as he did soon after in his Bed The truth is the wise and wary Queen beheld Schism growing on apace and needed not to be told what ill Influence it was like to have both upon Church and State and therefore Resolved to carry a Streight Hand as well over Puritanism on the one side as Popery on the other and in order hereunto She charged Arch-Bishop Whitgâ—ft Sir G. Paul Life of A. B. Whitgift Numb 53. p. 29. to be Vigilant and Careful to Reduce Ministers by their Subscription and Conformity to the setled Orders and Government Adding That She would have the Discipline of the Church of England formerly Established of all Men duly to be Observed without alteration of the least Ceremony But nothing more fully discovers her Judgment and Resolution in this matter then what She gave in Command to the Lord-Keeper-Puckering to tell the Parliament part of his Dr. Peirce New Discov against Mr. Baxt. 1659. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. p. 109. Speech Transcribed and Published some Years since from the Original Copy under his own Hand Writing by an Eminent Divine of this Church was as followeth And especially you are Commanded by Her Majesty to take heed that no Ear be given or Time afforded to the wearisome Sollicitations of those that commonly be called Puritanes wherewithall the late Parliaments have been exceedingly Importuned Which sort of Men whilst in the Giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership they do nothing else but disturb the good Repose of the Church and Common-wealth which is as well grounded for the Body of Religion it self and as well guided for the Discipline as any Realm that professeth the Truth And the same thing is already made good to the World by many of the Writings of Learned and Godly Men neither Answered nor Answerable by any of these new fangled Refiners And as the present Case standeth it may be doubted Whethey they or the Jesuits do offer more Danger or be more speedily to be repressed For albeit the Jesuits do impoison the Hearts of Her Majesties Subjects under a Pretext of Conscience to withdraw them from their Obedience due to her Majesty yet do the same but closely and only in privy Corners but these Men do both Publish in their Printed Books and Teach in all their Conventicles sundry Opinions not only dangerous to the well-setled Estate and Policy of the Realm but also much derogatory to Her Sacred Majesty and Her Crown as well by c. In all which Things however in many other Points they pretend to be at War with the Popish Jesuits yet by the Separation of themselves from the Unity of their Fellow-Subjects and by abusing the Sacred Authority and Majesty of their Prince they do both joyn and concur with the Jesuits in opening the Door and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is Threatned against the Realm Thus far he by her Majesties most Royal Pleasure and Wise Direction as he there speaks To which let me add That the Speech took such effect that the Parliament passed the Act of 35th of Eliz. the Severest Act against Dissenters in the whole Body of our Laws And indeed so Jealous was the Queen of the least appearances of Innovation that Arch-Bishop Grindall only for giving too much encouragement to Prophesyings which were beheld as likely to prove Nurseries of Schism and Faction as indeed they did fell under Her Displeasure and was Sequestred from his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction and though great intercession was made in his behalf yet could he never be restored to his Dying Day This was the State of things then and yet these were the Proceedings of those Days which our Dissenters at another time are wont so much to Magnifie and Extol nothing of late having been so much in their Mouth as the Wisdom and Prudence the Care and Diligence the Zeal and Piety of Good Queen Elizabeth I speak not this to cast any reflexion upon the Memory of that incomparable Princess whom we have all the reason in the World to own to have been the Glorious Instrument of Perfecting and Setling the Reformation in this Kingdom and whose Memory will be dear and pretious as long as the Protestant Name has a Being in England But I only take notice how extreamly partial People are and how apt to be prejudiced against the present Government under which they live and to be always Crying out That the former Days were better then these whereas supposing their Circumstances were really harder than they are and harder then those of the Puritans in former times yet they have no reason to accuse the Government of Rigor and Severity towards them if three Things be farther taken into Consideration First That the Dissenters of old especially the first Race of them were generally much more Modest and Peaceable then those of latter times more Conformable to the Laws less Turbulent and Offensive to the Government when they could not Conform as Ministers they yet did as private Christians and quietly acquiesced in their Suspension or Deprivation and as one truly says of them When they could not be Active without Sinning as they judged they could be passive without Murmuring They medled not with things without their Line nor mixt themselves with matters of State Declared that Kings have See a Book called The Protestation of the Kings Supremacy 1605. Numb 8 9. 11. power by the Law of God to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as tend to the good Ordering of the Churches in their Dominions that the Churches ought not to be Disobedient to any of their Laws that if any thing were Commanded contrary to the Word they ought not to resist the King therein but peaceably to forbear Disobedience and sue to him for Grace and Mercy and where that cannot be obtained meekly to submit themselves to the punishment They generally came to Church and did not run into Separate Congregations nay writ stoutly and smartly against those who began then to attempt a Separation But whether our Modern Dissenters have observed the same Course and be of this Spirit and Temper let the World judge yea let themselves be Judges in the Case Secondly Sad Experience of the Evil Consequences of Schism and Separation have made it necessary for the Government to take all just and lawful ways for preventing the like for the time to come Men first began to be dissatisfied with the Rites and Orders of the Church then discontented that they were not presently gratified with an Alteration Discontent brought on