especially in these two Considerations First Because the abuse of Love-Feasts viz. Superstuity was never so great and scandalous in the Apostles time as the abuse of Kneeling viz. Idolatry was and is in the Synagogue of Rome And besides Love-Feasts were either before or after the Lords Supper whereas Kneeling is in the principal part of the Holy Communion Therefore if the Apostle banished Love-Feasts from the Lords Supper because of the Abuse and brought the Church to the Simplicity of the first Institution is it not a tempting Sin to retain the Idolatrous Kneeling of Papists and reject the exemplary Sitting of our Master Christ And the rather because it is in that Sacrament and in that part of the Sacrament which especially setteth forth our communion with Christ and his Church and is therefore called the Communion Doth not God strictly forbid us to serve him as Idolaters do their Godds The which considered can Kneeling wherewith Papists honour their Breaden God be honourable to Christ in his holy Sacrament For such Reasons many are convinced that Kneeling at the receiving the Communion is Unlawful and seeing without Kneeling they cannot have Communion with the Church of England they cannot locally communicate with her but yet highly honour her for the soundness of her Doctrine and do mentally hold Catholick Communion with her so far as she agrees with the Catholick Church but Necessity makes them to with-hold local Communion from them To make this yet more clear the Reader must Observe that the Argument Mr. Baxter doth furnish them with runs thus It is not lawful to communicate with those that impose Sinful Terms of Communion This Mr. Baxter affirms But the Church of England imposeth many things as Terms of Communion with them which they think are sinful Ergo They must not communicate with them Now in the Minor Mr. Baxter and they differ he thinks the things they scruple for instance Kneeling are Lawful but yet proposes strong Arguments against the Lawfulness of Kneeling which Arguments though not Convincing unto him yet are so unto them And therefore whatever is his Liberty it is their Duty to with-hold their Communion from the Church of England still honouring her for the soundness of her Doctrine c. § 11. Mr. Baxter in his Schism detected p. 40. affirms That he who is unjustly cast out of the Church and by its very Laws Excommunicated ipso facto is no damned nor sinful Schismatick for Worshipping God in a Church that will receive him But according to the Judgment of Mr. Baxter Protestant Dissenters are unjustly cast out of the Church of England and by its very Laws ipso facto Excommunicated Ergo they are not Sinful Schismaticks When Mr. Baxter speaks of going to another Church Mr. Baxter must be understood to mean a with-holding Communion from the Excommunicating Church and commuicating with another whose Laws do not ipso facto Excommunicate The which being so the Argument against Mr. Baxter is valid for the acquitting their Seperation from the Guilt of Sin § 12. There is another Argument which Mr. Baxter in Conjunction with Dr. Sherlock gives us and which will acquit the Lay-Dissenter from Sin 〈…〉 no Sin but a Duty to with-hold Communion from a Schismatical Church This Dr. Sherlock doth over and over assert But the Church of England is a Schismatical Church saith Mr. Baxter It is a Schismatical Church it is guilty of haneous and aggravated Schisme Mr. Baxter in his first Plea p. 41. saith § 14. If any Proud or Passionate or Erronoous Person do as Diotrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications it is TYRANNICAL SCHISME what better Name soever cloaks it If any should make sinful Terms of Communion by Laws or Mandates imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin this wore HANEOUS SCHISME And the further those Laws extend and the more Ministers or People are cast out by them the greater is the Schisme § 15. If any should not only Excommunicate such Persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more haneously aggravated Schism § 16. All those would be deeply guilty of such Schism who by Talk Writing or Preaching justifie it and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Then look to your self good Mr. Baxter reflect on your Talk and Writing and clear your self from the guilt of Reproaching the Innocent as Schismaticks if you can But I 'll proceed § 17. If any should corrupt such a Church or its Doctrine Worship or Discipline in the very Essentials by setting up forbidden Officers and Worship or casting out the Officers Worship or Discipline instituted by Christ and then prosecute others for not communicating with them would be yet the more Haneous Schisme § 18. If either of the last named sorts would not be contented with mens communion with them but would also silence and prosecute such as will not own justifie and consent to all that they do by Subscriptions Declarations Covenants Promises or Oaths this would be yet more aggravated Schism So far Mr. Baxter Now let any impartial Reader compare what is here said with what else-where Mr. Baxter accuses the Church of England of and he 'll find all this to be but his Description of the Church of England which according to the general import of his Writings must be looked on as guilty of Haneous Aggravated and Tyrannical Schism that is to be deeply Schismatical and therefore according to Dr. Sherlock not to be communicated with But I 'll draw to a close beseeching the Reader to consider well what Mr. Baxters judgment is about communicating with the Parish-Assemblies by Law established how much he is against it and what are some of his Reasons and he will find I. That Mr. Baxter is as much against communicating with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required as his Brethren are The Parish-Assemblies by Law established are Diocesane and with them as such Mr. Baxter communicates not But first fancies the Parish Assembly to be a Congregational Church and the Parish Minister to be an Independant Pastor exempt from the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Diocesane Bishop and then holds communion with it as such that is he either communicates with it as if it were what indeed it is not or if it be really such a Church as he fancies it to be his communion with it is only as 't is a Church separated from the National settled Order For the Parish Assembly as a part of the National settled Order is no Church it has no Pastor c. II. That Baxter's communion is no more Catholick than theirs though he talks more of the Name he has no more of the thing than they have Doth he hold Catholick Communion mentally with the Universal Church so do they Do they with-hold mental communion from Parish-Assemblies as by Law established i. e. as they are parts of the Diocesane â—nstitution So doth Mr. Baxter Are the Conâ—â—â—â—â—…tions to which their local Communion is confined of a Constitution different from and independent on the Diocesane So is the Parish Church with which Mr. Baxter communicates if it be really what he fancieth it to be so that his Local Communion is as much confined to Dissenting Assemblies as theirs is This is on a Supposition that Mr. Baxters Imaginations were operative ad extra and would make a real change on the Constitution But if the Parish Assembly continues de facto as established then I must say III. That Mr. Baxter holds both those Premises from which a conclusion justifying their separation doth naturally follow The Premises are these It is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Corruptions that are in the Parish Assemblies But the very Constitution of the Parish Assemblies and Ministry by Law established are Corruptions These are Mr. Baxter's Premises And let the World judge whether this Conclusion namely That it is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Parish Assemblies and Ministry as by Law established doth not naturally flow from them justifying a with-holding Communion from the Parish Assemblies In fine it must be observed that if the Parish Assemblies be really de facto but parts of the Diocesane Church and no compleat Churches Mr. Baxter must justifie the Separation and that he doth so I will give you his own words as I find 'em in his Schism detected p. 28. Either our Parish Churches saith he are true Churches or not if not the Separatists are so far in the Right and separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them so far Mr. Baxter who if the Parish Assemblies be but parts of the Diocesane Constitution and not true compleat particular Churches justifies the separation from 'em And who knows not that the Parish Assemblies as by Law established are but parts of the Diocesane FINIS
find it in some of his late Writings together with those Reasons that he doth furnish us with as Arrows which we may gather up to shoot back upon him against communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required The giving a just Account of Baxter's Judgment against parish-Parish-Communion is I acknowledge but Argumentum ad hominem adapted chiefly for the silencing Mr. Baxter but the Reasons that are couched in what is given out of Mr. Baxter are more than so and such as must receive another Answer than meerly the saying That Mr. Baxter is grown wiser and hath changed his Judgment for until Mr. Baxter or some other do validly answer what Mr. Baxter has said in his Five Disputations against Episcopacy and Ceremonies and in his late Treatise against Episcopacy what I have here urged will abide in its strength and carry also with it the Authority and Weight of the Vnanswerable Mr. Richard-Baxter Mr. Baxter's Judgment and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required impartially stated and proposed THere has been of late no little stir about going to the Parish Assemblies and communicating with them in their Liturgy-Worship and in special Mr. Baxter hath been warmely engaged in the Defence as he himself will have it of his own and the Practice of those that are for Parish-Communion and cannot suffer a little Manuscript said to be Dr. Owens to escape his Annimadversions and Opposition It is at this time no part of my Province to examine Baxter's Answer to Owen's Arguments I call the Manuscript Dr. Owens not only because common Fame directs me to do so but because in the Arguments there is the Doctor 's wonted Accuracy and Strength There are very many Scripture-Reasons couch'd in a few Lines and such as are too strong to receive any harm from Baxter's Answer as I could by divine Assistance clearly evince but at this time it shall be no part of my Work In this my aim is to shew What it is Mr. Baxter is really for that he is as much against holding Communion with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required as those are against whom he writes and that we are furnished with unanswerable Arguments against such Parish-Communion by Mr. Baxter Thus much will be made very manifest to a common Capacity by shewing what are Baxter's avowed Principles about the Institution Ministry and Discipline of Christ's Churches and what are the natural consequences of those Principles he holds and wherein lies the point in which he differs from his Brethren In doing which I will give you Baxter's sence for the most part in his own words directing you to the very pages of those Books of his I make use of § 1. All Christians saith Mr. Baxter are agreed that Christ is the Author of the Universal Church consider'd both as Baptized or Externally Covenanting call'd Visible and as Regenerate and sincerely Covenanting call'd Mystical as it is headed by Christ himself and called his Body and special Kingdom § 2. We doubt not but Christ has instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry to be under him as a Teacher Ruler and High-Priest of the Church in Teaching Guiding and Worshipping and that he has instituted holy Assemblies and Societies for these things to be exercised in And that a Society of Neighbour Christians associated with such a Pastor or Pastors for Personal Communion even in such Doctrine Discipline and Worship is a Church-form of divine Institution § 3. We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank must of duty make one fixt greater Compound Church by Association whether Classical Diocesane Provincial Patriarchal or National and that God has instituted any such form vide Mr. Baxter's Nonconformists plea for peace p. 8. 12. § 4. Christ has stated on the Pastors of his Instituted Churches the Power of Teaching Assemblies and particular persons of leading them in publick Worship and Sacraments and of Judging by the power of the Keyes whom to receive into their Communion by Baptism and profession of Faith and whom to admonish and for Obstinate Impenitance reject and this Institution none may Alter § 5. He has Instituted Ordinary Assemblies and stated particular Churches as is aforesaid for these Holy Exercises and forbad all Christians to forsake them and he and his Apostles have appointed and separated the Lords day hereunto None therefore may abrogate or suspend those Laws all this is proved Mat. 28. 19 20. and 16. 19. and 18. 18 19. Joh. 20. 23. Luke 12. 37 38. Mat. 21. 36. and 22. 4 5. c. And 24. 45 46. Heb. 11. 25 26. Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 14. Ephes 4. 4. to 17. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7. 24. Tit. 1. 5 6. c. 1 Tim. 3. Acts 14. 23. Acts. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 1. c. Mr. Baxter Vbi supra p. 24. § 6. The Diocesane kind of particular Churches which has only One Bishop over many score or hundred fixed parochial Assemblies I take saith Mr. Baxter to be it self a Crime Which in its very Constitution overthroweth the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles Instituted For 1. Parishes are made by them no Churches as having no ruling Pastors that have the power of judging whom to Baptize or admit to Communion or Refuse but only are Chappels having preaching Curates 2. All the first Order of Bishops in single Churches are deposed 3. The Office of Presbiters is changed into Semi-presbiters 4. Discipline is made impossible Mr. Baxter ' s Church History of Bishops and Council abridged ch 1. § 54. The like he affirms in his five Disputa of Church-Government pag. 19. As to the eight sort of Bishops viz. The Diocesane who assumeth the sole Government of many Parish Churches both Presbiters and People as ten or twelve or twenty or more as they used to do even a whole Diocess I take them saith Mr. Baxter to be Intollerable and Destructive to the peace and happiness of the Church and therefore not to be admitted under Pretence of Order or Peace if we can hinder them § 7. This Diocesane Church Government being de facto established in this Kingdom the parish Assemblies are not compleat particular Churches of the first Rank and Order they are but parts of a Diocesane which is de facto established as a single Church Infime speciei That parish Assemblies are not particular Churches is manifested from Mr. Baxters principles For 1. That Cement which is necessary to the being of a Church is wanting And it is impossible saith Mr. Baxter in his Cathol Concord p. 231. to be a Church without the Cement of Consent If many be forced into a Temple not Consenting it is a Prison they are not a Church if they Consent only to Meet on other Occasions as for some Occasional Act of Religion it is not thereby made a Church If they be commanded to consent and do not and if
s a destroying his Office saith Mr. Baxter Though an Office may be Unexercised for a time on some special Reason yet if it be statedly suspended and that suspension established by Law or Custom during the Life of the Minister this is plainly a destroying or nulling the Office it self and not to be endured And surely the Exercise of the Pastoral power is statedly suspended and the suspension is by Law or Custom established during the Ministers Life and therefore the Office is nulled and destroyed that is the parish Minister is not a Pastor nor has the Parish Assembly any Pastor it is not a particular Church All this Mr. Baxter saith of the Old English Prelacy and yet thinketh that the present is much worse than the Old In his second Defence of the Nonconformists p. 64. Dr. Still saying That tâ—ere is no other reason of our Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Mr. Baxter Answers To say that we grant that there are no more Reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth there is more reason 1. From the Quality of the things imposed 2. From the designes and drifts of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the Aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. The late general contrary Church state and Engagement to it c. On these particulars Mr. Baxter enlargeth I will but just intimate what he saith on some of them 1. As to things imposed now which were not then 1o. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable part of the Parish Churches as the Vestries are are to renounce all Obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant so that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 5. The Reordination of Ministers Ordained by Presbyters was not then required and made a Necessary condition of their Ministration and Church relation even by them that confess Reordination Unlawful And therefore Plainly intimateth the Nullity of the first 9o. The Word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgies nor the 20th of the Acts as applyed to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and to the Flock c. in plain design to Alter the Office and Parish Churches To all this let us add § 8. That he that will hold Communion with a Church must consent to the Ministry Discipline and Worship of that Church see Cathol Concord ubi supra So that he that will Communicate with the Parish Assemblies must consent to the Ministery Discipline and Worship of their Assemblies that is he must consent to the Diocesane Pastor to the Parish Semi-presbyters and to the Parish Assemblies as being a part of the Diocesane Church and to the Diocesane Discipline for de facto this is the Constitution and Frame of Parish Assemblies they are but parts of the Diocesane Church they are under no other Pastor but the Diocesane Bishop have no other Minister than a Semi-Presbyter who wants what is essential to the Pastoral Office and the Assembly wants that Cement of consent that is necessary to the making e'm a compleat particular Church This being so May we by any Act or Deed contribute to the fixing and establishing the Diocesane Episcopacy amongst us I 'll Answer according to sound Reason in conjunction with Mr. Baxter's own Principles If it were unlawful to restore the old English Episcopacy its unlawfull to give countenance and strength to it once restored for the strengthening it is but the continuation of the thing restored and if we might not lawfully help forward nor consent unto the Restoration of it we may not lawfully fix it when once restored for all these Mischiefs that are said to be the Fruits of its Restoration will be continued by a fixing it But according to Mr. Baxter it was not lawful to restore the Old English Prelacy much less Lawful to settle the New which he saith is worse His Reasons are many e. g. It destroys the end of Government and is certainly inconsistent with the necessary Government and Discipline to be exercised in the Churches It unavoidably causeth Separations and Divisions in the Church it degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocess and destroys and nulls their Office it is the product of proud Ambition and Arrogancy contrary to the express command of Christ It so far gratifieth lazy Ministers as to ease them of the most painful part of their Work It is contrary to the Word of God and Apostolical Institution according to their own Interpretation Moreover it gratifieth the Devil and Wicked Men not by an unavoidable Accident but by a natural Necessity therefore saith Mr. Baxter in his five Disput pag. 32 to 50. not to be restored under any pretence of the Order or Peace of the Church And for the same Reason say I according to Mr. Baxters principles not to be complyed with not to be countenanced not to be fixed and strengthened by us though now restored Though the Order and Peace of the Church be pretended yet we must do nothing that countenanceth or stregthens the English Episcopacy we must not hold communion with them for that is to consent to the uninstituted species of their Church Ministry Discipline and Worship What then must we do May we separate without contracting the guilt of Schisme Take Mr. Baxter's own Answer § 9. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province Diocess or Country into one onely Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christs Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the power of the Keys and all essential to their Office though he should allow parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church it were no Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince see Nonconformists first plea for peace p. 52. Thus according to Mr. Baxters principles a separation from the Parish Assemblies and an erecting particular Churches according to Gospel Order is not Schism Our separation from the Diocesane Constitution and from the Parish Churches as but parts of the Diocesane is justifyable and not to be Condemned Now the Lay-Nonconformists are fully perswaded that the Law of the Land requires our coming to Church our going to the parish Assemblies as they are parts of the Diocesane Church which Mr. Bax. saith they must not do This being so manifest I presume the Reader will be querying about Mr. Baxters Practice and late Writings and say Why then does Mr. Baxter go to Church Why doth he write so much for it and cannot