of mind is most suitable to Religion which is as well free from the bleaknesse and turbulency of passion as the saint gleams of Lightnesse and Vanity But a further solemnity then this is required by the dictates of Nature too which lyes in the circumstantiating of time and place and a dedication of both to the end of Worship That these are very consonant to natural Reason appears by the universall consent of all Nations agreeing in any form of the Worship of a Deity who have all had their set-times and fixed places to perform this Worship in I shall not insist as some have done that the Seventh day hath been particularly and solemnly observed for the worship of God by the consent of Nations Although there be many probable arguments and plausible testimonies brought for a peculiarity of honour to if not service on the Seventh-day out of Iosephus Aristobulus Iudaeus and by him from Linus Hesiod Homer Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Lampridius Seneca Tibullus and many others From which Testimonies it appears that some kind of reverence and honour was given to the Seventh-day but whether that day was the seventh of the week or the seventh of the month which was consecrated among the Greeks to Apollo upon which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the seventh of every month were observed in honour of him whether the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did belong to the seventh as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Festivall or inauspicious dayes for it was common to both Whether observed by any publike religious custome or by some private superstition are things too large to inquire into too difficult now to determine and not necessary for my present purpose It being sufficient in order to that if they had any set times at all for worship which shews how solemn the worship of God ought to be And this is not denyed by any it being so necessary a consectary from the duty of Worship that there must be a time for performance of it And not only in generall that there must be some time but a sufficient proportion of time to be consecrated to the publike exercise of piety both from the consideration of mans obligation to divine service from his nature from the weight and concernment of the things that time is imployed in and the inward sense of immortality upon the soul of man But then what this proportion of time must exactly be I see not how meer natural light could determine it but it would rather suggest it to be highly reasonable to wait for and expect such a determination from the supream Rector and Governour of the world It being far more fit for the Master to prescribe unto the servant what proportion of service he expects from him then that the servant should both divide and choose his own time and the proportion of service which he owes to his Master Nay it being so much more reasonable for us to wait for Gods order then for a servant for his Masters as Gods power and Dominion over the creature is greater then that of a Master over his servant as it is the voyce and sense of nature that Gods commands cannot otherwise be but just holy reasonable and good which may be otherwise from men as the acceptance of our persons with God lies not barely in the work done but in the doing it out of obedience to the commands of God which is otherwise with men as God can give strength to perform what he commands which man cannot which things considered make it evident to be highly reasonable that God himself should prescribe the proportion of time and not mans nature But when God hath thus determined it nature cannot but assent to that particular determination that in consideration of the works of God it is most reasonable that rather one day in a week then one in a month should be dedicated to Gods service that the seventh day of the week upon Gods resting on that day and sanctifying it should be the precise day unlesse some reason equivalent to that of the first institution and approved by God for that end be the ground of its alteration to another of the seven which is the reason of the change under the Gospel As an evidence of the solemnity of times for worship the Romans as well as other Nations had their several feriae their dayes set apart for the honour of their Gods In which Macrobius tells us the Priests held them polluted si indictis conceptisque opus aliquod fieret praetereâ regem sacrorum flamines que non licebat videre feriis opus fieri ideò per praeconem denuntiabatur nè quid tale ageretur praecepti negligens multabatur If any work were done upon those dayes of Rest the day was polluted and the person punished unlesse it were as Umbro there affirms in order to the honour of their Gods or for necessaries of life To which purpose Scaevola answered him that asked what work must be done upon the Feria Quod pratermissum noceret What would be spoiled by letting alone as taking an Ox out of a ditch strengthening a beam like to fall and ruine men and thence Maro allowed it lawfull to wash sheep if it were to cure and not only to cleanse them Balautumque gregem fluvio mersare salubri By which last word Macrobius saith it was only lawfull to do it for healing them and not in order to gain Servius informs us likewise that the Priests when they went to sacrifice sent their servants before to bid all Tradesmen leave working nè pro negotio suo ipsorum oculos Deorum ceremonias attaminent Feria enim operae Deorum creditae sunt Lest by following their work they both offend them and the Gods too For these Holy-dayes are devoted to the service of the Gods Festus saith that upon their dies religiosi nisi quod necesse est nefas habetur facere nothing but works of pure necessity were to be done But by dies religiosi probably he means the dies atr◠nefasti their ominous unlucky dayes as they accounted them But however Macrobius distinguisheth the dayes among the Romans into Dies festi profesti intercisi The Festi were dedicated to the Gods the Profesti to their own works the Intercisi were divided between both at some hours of which it was lawfull to follow their civill employments at others not Nam cum hostiacaeditur fari nefas est inter caesa porrecta fari licet rursus cum adoletur non licet While the sacrifice was killing no Courts of Judicature were opened in which the Praetor might fari tria verba solemnia Do dico addico thence called dies fasti but between the killing the sacrifice and offering up the entrails called Porrecta from porricere which was verbum sacrificale pervetustum saith Turnebus an old
But those judicial Laws which are founded upon common equity to bind still not by virtue of that Sanction but by virtue of common principles of equity which certainly in the present shortness of humane reason cannot be fetched from a clearer Fountain then those Laws which once came from the Fountain of Goodness none of whose constitutions can any ways be supposed to deviate from the exactest rules of Justice and Equity And upon this very ground too some part of the fourth Commandment is abrogated and the other continues to bind still For the reason of the Ceremonial and occasional part is ceased and the reason of what was Moral continues Therefore the School-men say right of the Sabbath day Cultus est à naturâ modus à lege virtuâ— Ã Gratiâ Nature dictates that God should be worshipped the Law informs what day and time to spend in his worship Grace must enable us to perform that worship on that day in a right manner And because the same reason for Gods Worship continueâ— still therefore it is a Precept of the Natural Law that God should be worshipped What time precisely must be spent in Gods Worship as one day in seven though the reason be evident to nature of it when it is made known yet it is hard to conceive that Nature could have found out the precise determination of the time Although I must confess the general consent of Nations as to the seventh part if it were fully cleared would speak fair to be the voice of Nature or at least a tradition received from the Sons of Noah which if so will be an evidence of the observation of the Sabbath before the Children of Israels being in the Wilderness But granting that the seventh part of time was a positive Law of God yet I say it binds immutably because there is as strong a reason for it now as ever and Ratio immutabilis praecepti facit praeceptum immutabile This I take to be the sense of those who distinguish between morale positivum and morale naturale i. e. that some things are so moral that even Nature its self can discover them as that God should be worshipped Other things are so moral that though the reason of them be founded in Nature yet there wants Divine Revelation to discover them to us but when once discovered are discerned to be very agreeable to common principles of reason And these when thus discovered are as immutably obligatory as the other because the reason of them is immutable And of this nature is the determination of the particular time for Gods worship and limitation of it to one day in seven But what was in that Precept meerly occasional as the first and original ground of its limitation to the seventh in order Gods resting on that day from the work of Creation and the further ground of its inforcement to the Jews viz. their deliverance out of Egypt these being not immutâ—ble but temporary and occasional may upon as great ground given and approved of God for that end as is evident by the Apostles practice be sufficient reason of the alteration of the seventh day to the first day of the week By this may briefly be seen how irrationally those speak who say we have no further ground for our observation of the Lords day now then for other arbitrary Festivals in the Church viz. The Tradition of the Church of God I grant the Tradition of the Church doth acquaint us with Apostolical practice but the ground of our observation of the Lords day is not the Churches Tradition but that Apostolical practice conveyed by Universal Tradition which setting aside the Festivals observed upon the Lords days can very hardly be â—ound for any other But supposing Universal Tradition for other Festivals I say here Tradition is not only used as a testimony and instrument of conveyance as in the other case of the Lords day but is it self the only argument and the very ground of the original observation Between which two what a wide difference there is let any rational man judge But for a further clearing this observation we must consider that the reason of the Command which we say is the measure of its obligation must not be fetched from mens uncertain conjectures among whom dreams often pass for reasons but it must be either expressed in the Law its self or deducible by apparent and easie collection from it as is plain in the Decrees of the Apostles about things strangled and offered to Idols where the reason of the Command is plainly implied to wit for present compliance with the Jews and therefore no sooner did the reason of the Command cease but the obligation of it ceased too but of this more afterwards This is one way then to discern the difference between positive Laws as to the obligation of them by the ground and reason of the Command And therefore it is well observed by Divines which further confirms what I now prove that no Command doth bind against the reason of the Command because it is not the words but the sense and reason of a Command which hath the greatest obligatory force Therefore Tully tells us that the ratio juris legislatoris consilium is the best Interpreter of any Law who excellently and largely proves that the reason of the Law is the Law and not the words So much for the first Rule Secondly Another way to know when Positive Laws are immutable is when Gods Will is expresly declared that such Laws shall bind immutably For it being granted on all hands that God may bind us to those things which are left indifferent by the Law of Nature and likewise for what term he please the only inquiry left is to see in his Word whether he hath so bound us or no and if he hath whether he hath left it in mans power to revoke his Laws For as to Positive Laws expresly laid down in Scripture the ground of which is only as the Jews speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the will of the King i. e. Gods own pleasure without any reason or occasion of it else expressed or necessarily implied these do bind immutably unless the same Power which commanded them doth again revoke them For we cannot in any wise conceive that the wise God should after the declaring his own will leave it in the power of any corrupt fallible Being to determine or dispence with the obligation of his own Laws Which to do and instead of them to enforce others immediately upon the Consciences of men as standing Laws is an attempt beyond that of the Gyants against heaven or the men at Babel that being only an affectation of reaching heaven but this an actual usurpation of Gods supreme and legislative power and authority But though man hath nor God alwayes reserves to himself a power to relax interpret and dispence with his own positive Laws which imply no repugnancy to his own nature And this
binds necessarily but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a Law making it to be a duty And so it evidently appears that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves and resolved into one of the two former the morall nature of the action or a positive Law And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-examples must either produce the morall nature of these examples or else a rule binding us to follow those examples Especially when these examples are brought to found a New positive Law obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world Concerning the binding nature of Apostolicall practice I shall discourse largely afterwards The next thing pleaded for a Divine Right is by Divine Acts. As to this â—t is again evident that all Divine Acts do not constitute such a Right therefore there must be something expressed in those Acts when such a Divine Right follows them whence we may infallibly gather it was Gods intention they should perpetually oblige as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose as Gods resting on the seventh day making the Sabbath perpetual For it was not Gods resting that made it the Sabbath for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution but it was Gods sanctifying the day that is by a Law setting it apart for his own service which made it a duty And so Christs resurrection was not it which made the Lords day a Sabbath of Divine Right but Christs resurrection was the occasion of the Apostles altering only a circumstantiall part of a morall duty already which being done upon so great reasons and by persons indued with an insallible spirit thereby it becomes our duty to observe that morall command in this limitation of time But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts meerly positive and acts donative or legall The former conâ—er no right at all but the latter do not barely as acts but as legall acts that is by some declaration that those acts do conserr right And so it is in all donations and therefore in Law the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legall title to it without express transferring of dominion and propriety with it Thus in Christs delivering the Keys to Peter and therest of the Apostles by that act I grant the Apostles had the power of the Keyes by Divine Right but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it but it was only the declaration of Christs will conferring that authority upon them Again we must distinguish between a right conferâ—'d by a donative act and the unalterable nature of that Right for it is plain there may be a Right personall as well as successive derivative and perpetuall And therefore it is not enough to prove that a Right was given by any act of Christ unless it be made appear it was Christs intention that Right should be perpetuall if it oblige still For otherwise the extent of the Apostolical Commission the power of working miracles as well as the power of the Keyes whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty or a power authoritative and penall must continue still if a difference be not made between these two and some rule sound out to know when the Right conferr'd by Divine Acts is personall when successive Which rule thus found out must make the Right unalterable and so concerning us and not the bare donative act of Christ For it is evident they were all equally conferr'd upon the Apostles by an act of Christ and if some continue still and others do not then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable Divine Right And so though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the Pastors of the Church by an act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christs intention that superiority should continue in their successors or it makes nothing to the purpose But this argument I confess I see not how those who make a necessary Divine Right to follow upon the acts of Christ can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for Divine Right is Divine approbation but this least of all constitutes a Divine Right For if the actions be extraordinary Gods approbation of them as such cannot make them an ordinary duty In all other actions which are good and therefore only commendable they must be so either because done in conformity to Gods revealed Will or to the nature of things good in themselves In the one it is the positive Law of God in the other the Law of Nature which made the action good and so approved by God and on that account we are bound to do it For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his Will revealed or natural which Will and Law of his is that which makes any thing to be of Divine Right i. e. perpetually binding as to the observation of it But for acts of meerly positive nature which we read Gods approbation of in Scripture by vertue of which approbation those actions do oblige us in this case I say it is not Gods meer approbation that makes the obligation but as that approbation so recorded in Scripture is a sufficient testimony and declaration of Gods intention to oblige men And so it comes to be a positive Law which is nothing else but a sufficient declaration of the Legislators will and intention to bind in particular actions and cases Thus now we have cleared whereon a necessary and unalterable Divine Right must be founded either upon the Law of Nature or some positive Law of God sufficiently declared to be perpetually binding CHAP. II. Six Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or Divine positive Laws in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God where there is no prohibition by positive Laws inlarged into 5 subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Laws concerning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of Nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the naturall and positive Laws of God may be lawfully determined by the supream authority in the Church of God 5. What is thâ—â— determined by lawfull authority doth bind the consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawfull authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority HAving shewed what a Divine Right is and whereon it is founded our next great inquiry will be How far Church-Government is founded upon Divine Right taken either of these two wayes
when Abraham had bestowed Legacies on his other Children he left Isaac haredem ex asse his lawfull heir I am unwilling to deny a Tradition so generally received among both Jewish and Christian Writers as the Priesthood of the first-born before the Law but this I say I cannot yet find any other ground for it but Tradition no place of Scripture giving us sufficient evidence for it and many against it That which serves sufficiently for the consutation of it is that observation of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is to be observed that the younger are alwayes preferred before the first-born Which he takes notice of from the case he there speaks to of Ephraim and Manasses and so runs it up to Abel preferr'd before Cain Seth before Iapheth Abraham before his elder brethren Isaac before Ismael Iacob before Esau Iudas and Ioseph before Reuben Moses before Aaron and David before the rest of his Brethren although that was after the Law That place which gives the greatest countenanc◠to the opinion is Numbers 3. 41. And thou shalt take the Levites for me instead of the first-born where it seems that the first-born were formerly the Priests in whose room the Levites were taken But with submission to better judgements I can see nothing implyed in this place but only that God having delivered their first-born in Egypt Exodus 12. 23. and calling for them to be sanctified to him Exodus 13. 2. upon the account of the propriety he had in them in a peculiar manner by that deliverance and not on the account of any speciall service for many were very unfit for that by reason of age and which is observable God requires as well the first-born of beasts both to be sanctified and redeemed Numbers 3 41. therefore God now setling a way of Worship he gave the Israelites liberty to redeem them and instead of them pitched on the Tribe of Levi for his own service Another plac◠is Exodus 24. 5. where the young men are mentioned that offered burnt-offering It is confessed that the Chaldee Paraphrast and Arabick Version understand here the First-born but however the place implyes no more then that they were employed to bring the sacrifices for so the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else that they were employed as the Popae only to kill the Sacrifices for we see the sprinkling of the blood which was the main thing intended here as a foederal rite was done by Moses himself who was the High priest of the people as well as Prince till Aaron and his sons were set a part which was not till Exodus 28. 1 2. and yet Aaron was three years elder then Moses Exod. 7. 7. which is an evidence that Aaron as first-born was not the Priest for till his consecration Moses and not Aaron performed the offices of Priesthood Thence we read Psalm 99. 6. Moses and Aaron among his Priests For although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sometimes attributed to those in civill authority 1 as 2 Samuel 8. 18. compared with 1 Chron. 18. 17. and 2 Sam. 26. 26. Gen. 41. 50. Exodus 2. 16. Iob 12. 19. yet there is no reason so to understand it of Moses And further the ground why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was attributed to both Prince and Priest before the Law was because the same person might be both as the Priests of Egypt were Princes too Gen. 41. 50. But for Moses we read not only of the title but the proper offices of Priests attributed to him as sacrificing Exodus 24. 5. consecrating Aaron and his sons Exodus 29. 35. and therefore Aben Ezra upon that Psalm forecited calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the High Priest This Priest-hood of Moses leads us to another evidence of the honour of those who were employed in the service of God which is that when Families encreased and many associated into a Common-wealth though the private service might belong to the master of the Family yet the publike before positive Laws restraining it was most commonly joyned with the civill power That Melchizedek was both King and Priest in Salem if with the Jews we conclude he was Som which we have little reason for it will be a greater evidence Sem being then the greatest Potentate Living But we passe from him to other Nations after the dispersion to see where the power over religious Societies was generally held In Egypt we find that their Priests were often made Kings as Plutarch observes out of Hecataeus and is confessed by Strabo Diodorus and others Of the Greeks the same Plutarch gives us a large testimony that among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Priesthood was accounted of equal dignity with the Kingdom The same doth Aristotle in severall places of his Politicks and particularly of the Spartans of whom Herodotus adds that the Priest-hood of Iupiter Coelestis and Lacedaemonius did alwayes belong to the Kings own person For the old Latins Virgils Anius is sufficient and among the Romans after the powers were separated the Pontifex Max. had royal state his cella'curulis and Lictores as the Consuls had only their Priests medled not in civill affairs of which Plutarch gives a double reason the impossibility of minding both imployments as they should do and so must either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neglect the Worship of the Gods or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrong the people with the neglect of the administration of justice The other reason is because those that were imployed in civill affairs were put upon execution of justice and it was no wayes fit a man should come reeking from the blood of Citizens to go and sacrifice to the Gods This conjunction of civill and sacred power is attested by Clemens Alexandrinus of the most civilized Heathens so likewise by Synesius of the most ancient Nations by Strabo of the Ephesians by the Roman Historians of the Roman Emperours who from Augustus to Gratian and some say after continued the title of Pontifex Maximus among the rest of the Imperiall Honours Thus much then may serve to manifest how the Honour of those persons who are im 〈…〉 e service of God and the Governme 〈…〉 is a dictate of the Law of 〈…〉 CHAP. V. The third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lies in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods worship rationall His spirit destroyes not the use of reason The Enthusiastick Spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit time and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Silence in Devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of discipline Excommunication among the Iews by the sound of a Trumpet amongst Christians by a Bell. THe next
avoiding of her errours and not partaking of her sins is Thence we read in Scripture of rejecting such as are hereticks and withdrawing from their society which will as well hold to Churches as to persons and so much the more as the corruption is more dangerous and the relation nearer of a member to a Church then of one man to another And from the reason of that command we read in Ecclesiasticall History that when Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were constituted Bishops of Antioch being Arrians many both of the Clergy and people who resolved to adhere to the true faith withdrew from the publike meetings and had private Assemblies of their own And after when Leontius was made Bishop of Antioch who favour'd the Arrians Flavianus and Diodorus not only publikely reproved him for deserting the Orthodox faith but withdrew the people from communion with him and undertook the charge of them themselves So when Foelix was made Bishop of Rome none of the Church of Rome would enter into the Church while he was there And Vincentius Lyrinensis tells us a remarkable story of Photinus Bishop of Syrmium in Pannonia a man of great abilities and same who suddenly turned from the true faith and though his people both loved and admired him yet when they discerned his errours Quem antea quasi arietem gregis sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti lupum fugere coeperunt Whom they followed before as the leader of the flock they now run away from as a devouring woolf This is the first thing which makes separation and withdrawment of communion lawfull and necessary viz. corruption of Doctrine The second is Corruption of practice I speak not of practice as relating to the civil conversation of men but as it takes in the Agenda of Religion When Idolatrous customs and superstitious practices are not only crept into a Church but are the prescribed devotion of it Such as the adoration of the Eucharist chiefly insisted on by Mr. Daillé in his Apology as a cause of separation from the Church of Rome invocation of Saints and Angels worshipping Images and others of a like nature used among the Papists which are of themselves sufficient to make our separation from them necessary But then thirdly as an accession to these two is the publike owning and professing them and requiring them as necessary conditions of communion from all the members of their Church which makes our withdrawing from them unavoidably necessary as long as we judge them to be such corruptions as indeed they are For men not to forsake the belief of errours supposing them to be such is impossible and not to forsake the practice and profession of them upon such belief were the highest hypocrisie and to do so and not to forsake the communion of that Church where these are owned is apparently contradictious as Mr. Chilling worth well observes seeing the condition of communion with it is that we must professe to believe all the doctrines of that Church not only not to be errours but to be certain and necessary truths So that on this account to believe there are any errours in the Church of Rome is actually and ipso facto to forsake the communion of that Church because the condition of its communion is the belief that there are none And so that learned and rationall Author there fully proves that those who require unlawfull and unnecessary conditions of communion must take the imputation of Schism upon themselves by making separation from them just and necessary In this case when corruptions in opinion or practice are thus required as conditions of communion it is impossible for one to communicate with such a Church without sin both materially as the things are unlawfull which he joyns with them in and formally as he judgeth them so This is the first Proposition The second is Where a Church retains the purity of doctrine in its publick profession but hath a mixture of some corruptions as to practice which are only tolerated and not imposed it is not lawfull to withdraw communion from such a Church much lesse to run into totall separation from it For here is no just and lawfull cause given of withdrawing here is no owned corruption of doctrine or practice nor any thing required as a condition of communion but what is in its self necessary and therefore there can be no plea but only pollution from such a communion which cannot be to any who do not own any such supposed corruptions in the Church Men may communicate with a Church and not communicate with the abuses of a Church for the ground of his communicating is its being a Church and not a corrupt or defective Church And that men are not themselves guilty by partaking with those who are guilty of corruptions in a Church might be easily and largely proved both from the Church of the Jews in the case of Elies sons and the Christian Churches of Asâ—â— and Corinth where we read of many corruptions reproved yet nothing spoken of the duty of the members of those Churches to separate from them which would have been had it been a sin to communicate with those Churches when such corruptions were in it Besides what reason is there that one mans sins should defile another more then anothers graces sanctifie another and why corruption in another should defile him more then in himself and so keep him from communicating with himself and what security any one can have in the most refined Churches but that there is some scandalous or at least unworthy person among them and whether then it is not his duty to try and examine all himself particularly with whom he communicates and why his presence at one Ordinance should defile it more then at another and why at any more then in wordly converse and so turn at last to make men Anchorets as it hath done some Many other reasons might be produced against this which I forbear it being fully spoke to by others And so I come to the Third Proposition which is Where any Church retaining the purity of doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawfull or suspected practice men may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism I say not men may proceed to positive Schism as it is call'd that is erecting of new Churches which from Cyprian is call'd erigere Altare contra Altare but only that withdrawing communion from a Church in unlawfull or suspected things doth not lay men under the guilt of Schism which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks then prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion then where-ever such things are required by any Church non-communion
so much of their Natural Rights as was not consistent with the well being of the Society Secondly a free submission to all Laws which should be agreed upon at their entrance into Society or afterwards as they see cause But when Societies were already entred and Children born under them no such express consent was required in them being bound by vertue of the Protection they find from Authority to submit to it and an implicite consent is supposed in all such as are born under that Authority But for their more full understanding of this Obligation of theirs and to lay the greater tye of Obedience upon them when they come to understanding it hath been conceived very requisite by most States to have an explicite Declaration of their consent either by some formal Oath of Allegiance or some other way sufficiently expressing their fidelity in standing to the Covenants long since supposed to be made To apply this now to the Church We have all along hitherto considered the Church in general as a Society or Corporation which was necessary in order to our discovering what is in it from the light of nature without Positive Laws But here we must take notice of what was observed by Father Laynez the Jesuit at the Council of Trent That it is not with the Church as with other Societies which are first themselves and then constitute the Governours But the Governour of this Society was first himself and he appointed what Orders Rules and Lawes should govern this Society and wherein he hath determined any thing we are bound to look upon that as necessary to the maintaining of that Society which is built upon his Constitution of it And in many of those Orders which Christ hath settled in his Church the Foundation of them is in the Law of nature but the particular determination of the manner of them is from himself Thus it is in the case we now are upon Nature requires that every one entring into a Society should consent to the Rules of it Our Saviour hath determined how this Consent should be expressed viz. by receiving Baptism from those who have the power to dispense it which is the federal Rite whereby our consent is expressed to own all the Laws and submit to them whereby this Society is governed Which at the first entring of men into this Society of the Church was requisite to be done by the express and explicite consent of the parties themselves being of sufficient capacity to declare it but the Covenant being once entred into by themselves not onely in their own name but in the name of their Posterity a thing implyed in all Covenants wherein benefits do redound to Posterity that the Obligation should reach them to but more particular in this it having been alwayes the Tâ—nour of Gods Covenants with men to enter the seed as well as the persons themselves as to outward Priviledges an implicite consent as to the children in Covenant is sufficient to enter them upon the priviledges of it by Baptism although withal it be highly rational for their better understanding the Engagement they entred into that when they come to age they should explicitely declare their own voluntary consent to submit to the Lawes of Christ and to conform their lives to the Profession of Christianity which might be a more then probable way and certainly most agreeable both to Reason and Scripture to advance the credit of Christianity once more in the World which at this day so much suffers by so many professing it without understanding the terms of it who swallow down a profession of Christianity as boyes do pills without knowing what it is compounded of which is the great Reason it works so little alteration upon their spirits The one great cause of the great flourishing of Religion in the Primitive times was certainly the strictness used by them in their admission of members into Church-Societies which is fully described by Origen against Celsus who tells us they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enquire into their lives and carriages to discern their seriousness in the profession of Christianity during their being Catechumeni Who after tells us they did require 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true Repentance and Reformation of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then we admit them to the participation of our Mysteries I confess the Discipline of the Primitive Church hath been very much misrepresented to us by mens looking upon it through the glass of the modern practices and customs obtaining among us as though all this onely concerned the Admission to the Lords Supper though that was alwayes in chiefest veneration in the Church of God as being the chief of Gospel-Mysteries as they loved to speak yet I cannot find that any were admitted to all other Ordinances freely with them who were debarred from this but their admission to one did include an admission to all so on the contrary I finde none admitted to Baptism who were not to the Lords Supper and if Catechumeni presently after onely confirmation intervening which will hardly be ever found separate from Baptism till the distinction of the double Chrism in vertice pectore came up which was about Ieroms time The thing then which the Primitive Church required in admitting persons adult to Baptism and so to the Lords Supper was a serious visible profession of Christianity which was looked upon by them as the greatest Evidence of their real consent to the Rules of the Gospel For that purpose it will be worth our taking notice what is set down by Iustin Martyr Apolog. 2. speaking of the celebration of the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where we see what was required before Admission to the Lords Supper A Profession of Faith in the truths of the Gospel and answerable Life to the Gospel without which it was not lawful to participate of the Lords Supper And further we see by Pliny that the Christians of those times did make use of some solemn Engagements among themselves which he calls Sacramenta they did se Sacramento obstringere nè funta nè latrocinia nè adulteria committerent nè fidem fallerent c. and Tertullian reports it out of Pliny that he found nothing de Sacramentis eorum as Iunius first reads it out of M. S. for de Sacris after him Heraldus and as it is now read in Rigaltius Edition besides cautelam ad confoederandam disciplinam c. scelera prohibentes which Eusebius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pacta Covenants between them and so Master Selden interprets the place of Origen in the beginning of his Book against Celsus where Celsus begins his charge against the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gelenius renders it conventus but in its proper sense for contracts or covenants that were made by the Christians as by other Societies onely permitted and tolerated by the Common-wealth