are for a Form This do they urge that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper and this they say that are for Kneeling so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion and are for Edification is an argument used by both Now if Adjuncts are not part of VVorship and may be yet used to further Devotion then the furthering Devotion by any Rite doth not in it self make that Rite so used to be VVorship I acknowledg there is False VVorship as well as True True VVorship is of Divine Institution and False VVorship is of Humane Appointment and becomes Worship when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it s used for the same special ends that Gods VVorship is instituted for that is as necessary to acceptance or as a means of Grace And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False VVorship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of VVorship in our Church we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them use them not as necessary nor as means of Grace after the manner we do the VVord of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in VVorship that They are used to further Devotion VVithout this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine VVorship being the acknowledgment of God and a giving Honour to Him should have all things about it Grave and Solemn that may best sute it and promote the ends for which it s used But if Rites are used in it that have no respect to such ends they become Vain and Trifling neither worthy of that nor our Defence And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their VVorship and for such that either have no signification or whose signification is so obscure as is not easie to be observed or traced and that rather hinder than further Devotion Surely it would not so well answer the end if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book as when on the Gospel nor if the Love-feasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal without respect to Charity signified by it 3. It s another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men and used for the furthering Devotion are made to be of the same Nature with Images This there is no foundation for for the Religious use of Images is expresly contrary to the Command of God and Forbidden because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that VVorship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries as are before spoken of that fall under the censure of either of these but that we may lawfully use them and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the VVorship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than Object IV the Law and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses in the care of his Church Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined but by what they have It s a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided and the Peace of the Church secured But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify there is not one Word in Scripture which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary that doth shew that it is necessary or were it so who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion Thus it is in the matter before us the pretence is very Popular and Plausible that Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God than God whose Worship it is And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for But when we come to enquire into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the VVord of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things Rev. 22. 18. God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intollerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
Lord Jesus Christ whereunto you are now called through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit Amen I received Yesternight from you Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel a Letter wherein you gently require my Judgment concerning the Baptism of Infants which is the effect thereof And before I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word and of his true Infallible Church touching the same I think it not out of the matter first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend Being in the midst of my sweet rest it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure and white four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof yea the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy And as Charity is no Churle but would have others to be Partakers of his delight some thought I called to others I cannot tell whom and whilst they came and we together beheld the same by and by to my great Grief it vaded away This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ and the appearance of it in the Sky signifieth the Heavenly State thereof whose Conversation is in Heaven and that according to the Primitive Church which is now in Heaven Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth for as the Prophet David saith The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World as the Prophet affirmeth saying God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost and Peace which passeth all Understanding as it is written in the Psalms As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision and to behold this wonderful City I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me musing on your Letter to the end that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith and to conform your self in all points to the same which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments and having with a greater fulness than we have now the first fruits of the Holy Ghost did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter which should teach them all truth And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church which is our Mother let us all that be obedient Children of God submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture Let us not go about to shew in us by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had lest we deceive our selves For there is but one Faith and one Spirit which is not contrary to himself neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures and be at peace with them according as the true Catholick Church is at this day And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss through our Obedience to Faith with them Therefore God commandeth us in Job to ask of the Elder Generation and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers For we are but Yesterdays Children and be Job 8. ignorant and our days are like a Shadow and they shall teach thee saith the Lord and speak to thee and shall utter words from their Hearts And by Solomon we are Prov. 6. commanded not to reject the direction of our Mother The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her and to abhor contention with her For as St. Paul writeth If any Man be contentious neither we neither the 1 Cor. 11. Church of God hath any such custom Hitherto I have shewed you good Brother S. my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable and then doubtless you cannot err but boldly may be glad in your Troubles and Triumph at the hour of your Death that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only and not after God's Word I will take the ground of your Letter and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful commendable and necessary whereof you seem to stand in doubt Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Auxentius one of the Arrians Sect with his Adherents was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
Church upon the account of them But to go on whereas our Author saith of Episcopal Government and the three other following things pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them Vnlawfull and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature You reply pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawfull in this sense I answer there are as many things unlawfull in this sense as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue I presume you 'll find those things not a few You say at the bottom of this 18th Page That it troubles you to reade your Author saying I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholique Church c. And why I pray Sir doth this trouble you You give this reason why viz. Because certainly for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures or some other infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day and not for the mere Apostolical practice or you will say nothing to the purpose But to save my self the labour of saying more upon this Argument and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated together with the most Learned Dean of St Pauls his Ample Proof of these two Propositions in his Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 244 c. viz. First that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church And Secondly That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority As to what you say p. 19. about Liturgies viz. that they cannot be indifferent if indeed as our Author speaks they be highly expedient to be universally imposed yea necessary I reply you have not caught him in a Contradiction as you think for his saying concerning Liturgies c. pag. 38. is That he takes it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature And tells you what he means by those words in the next viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them c. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing that it is indifferent in its own nature and that 't is necessary considering certain circumstances And I farther say that Liturgies are necessary considering that through humane Weakness and Frailty the performance of publick worship with that Solemnity and Gravity which it calls for cannot be secured and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent and so are all those things too which God 's Positive Laws have made necessary as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies which you say our Author knoweth to be denied you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected and which you say you will patiently wait for to give you satisfaction about this matter And it is excellently fitted as I hope you have before now found not onely for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies but divers others also In your next Paragraph you tell us that all Divines will readily acknowledge that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules of Doing all to Edification the Glory of God and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God may make it unlawfull And I also do readily acknowledge this and am confident that you cannot prove that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules And as to the last of them whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy I am sure it gives no offence to them In what follows you profess that you never thought it unlawfull for any Laick wholly to separate from the Church of England because of our Liturgy and I hope you think it no more Lawfull for a Clergy-man nor did your self ever so separate But for all that you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do But you say there is a new Generation started up that not onely makes you a Separatist but all Conformable Ministers if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar This in good earnest is somewhat a hard Case but I pray Sir by what figure do you call one Start-up Warm Head a new Generation In your next Paragraph pag. 20. You say Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out And you add that you will candidly enquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain and hinder healing To make no reflexion Sir upon your expressing your self thus phancifully your meaning must be that you will enquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy which Dissenters object against as symbolizings with the Roman Service from being liable to just Offence Of which The First is The shortness of many Prayers But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof But tell us that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found either in the Prayers of Solomon c. or any others and be a little stumbled at it you cannot condemn them But you must needs condemn it as an errour in them to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures when there are many more short than there are long Prayers When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed but the using of several such in the same Service instead of one very long one I must take leave to say this is mere Wantonness And whereas you say you cannot condemn Dissenters if they be a little stumbled at it I say to be stumbled at it so as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers is not to be a little stumbled at it And you know that that which our Author is concerned to doe is to perswade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with
A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England By some Divines of the City of London In Two Volumes To each Volume is prefix'd a Catalogue of all the CASES and DISCOURSES contain'd in this Collection LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. A CATALOGUE OF ALL THE Cases and Discourses Contained in the first Volume of this COLLECTION 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 4. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered 5. The Case of mixt Communion 6. The Case of indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and stated 7. A Vindication of the Case of indifferent things c. 8. A Discourse concerning Conscience In two Parts 9. A Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience containing some plain Directions for the Cure of it 10. Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to weak Brethren 11. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity refelled and reflected back upon Separation A PERSWASIVE TO COMMUNION With the Church of England The Second Edition Corrected Ephes 4. 15. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã LONDON Printed by J. Redmayne for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A Perswasive to COMMUNION With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THere is nothing that does more scandalize and unsettle the Weak nor tempt the Proud and Licentious to a professed neglect of all Religion than the many causless Divisions which do sometimes happen in the Church And he is no lively Member of that Mystical Body of Christ that is not sensibly affected with the Fatal Consequences of these things and does not endeavor what he Lawfully may to do something towards the healing of those Wounds which have been made by the extreme Scrupulosity of some and are still kept Bleeding by the Subtilty and cunning Artifice of others For it is manifest enough and cannot now be denied that the Papists have always attempted to pull down the Church of England by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of the facility of our Dissenting Brethren to bring about their own Designs I wish the eminent Danger we have been brought into would prevail with them at last to forbear to Batter and Undermine us as they have done when they cannot but see that the Common Enemy is waiting all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those Breaches which they are making They might condemn the rashness of their own Counsels and lament it it may be when it would be too late if they should see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which they themselves had overthrown We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has always been and the only visible Security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Vnion of the whole Protestant Profession and there is nothing wherein there is the least probability that we can ever be all Vnited unless it be the Church of England as it stands by Law established agreeable to the Rules of the Holy Gospel consonant to the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Christians and not only Allowed but highly Honored by all the Reformed Churches in the World Here is a Point fixed in which we all may Center whereas they that differ from us are not yet and it may be never will be perfectly agreed upon their own New Models of Discipline and Government neither can they find one Precept or Example in Scripture or Antiquity for the Constituting any Church without an Episcopal Power presiding over it And if any Party amongst them could have that Form of Church Government confirmed by Law which they esteem the most Apostolical it is manifest from reason and experience that it would be presently Opposed by all the rest with no less Violence than ours is and instead of putting an end to our Divisions would most certainly increase them Therefore though they have all still imposed their several Forms with the greatest Rigor wherever they have had the Power or but the Hopes of it in their hands yet that all Sorts of Dissenters may be drawn into the Confederacy for the present we hear now of nothing so much as the Mischief of Impositions and the Natural Right and great Advantages of Toleration Which is the very thing which the Romish Emissaries have always aimed at and seems to be one of the subtilest parts of the Popish Plot As might be made out by divers undeniable Arguments and appears sufficiently from many of the Letters Tryals and Narratives that have been lately published And it can be no wonder that they should give their Cordial Assistance to such a Design which if it should ever pass into an Act would reward their Diligence with a cheap and easie Victory For they may plainly foresee that it would be so far from Vniting us that it would undoubtedly break us in pieces by a Law Now if Vnion be always necessary upon the common Obligations of Christianity it will be much more so in the present Conjuncture considering the strength and incouragements that may be given to the Popish Cause by the continuance of our Dissensions And if there be far greater hopes that we may at length by the blessing of God be sooner Vnited in the way of the Church of England than in any other then it must needs be the greatest Service that can be done to the Protestant Interest if we could all be perswaded to joyn heartily in the Communion of that Church that has hitherto been and still is so great a Defence against the Errors and Superstitions of Rome It would be an unpardonable Vanity to imagine that these short Papers should be able to effect what so many Learned and Solid Treatises have not yet done But I address this little Essay only to those that have not time to peruse a larger Volume I have been incouraged to this Undertaking by the Numbers of those here in London that have seemed formerly to dissent from us who have lately joyned with us not only in Prayer but in the Holy Communion of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ And I hope that many more may be invited and disposed by their good Example to receive the same Satisfaction that they have found These that are already come in will not stand in need of any farther Perswasion but only that they would continue Constant in that Communion they have now embraced For if they should leave us again and return to their Separate Assemblies they would seem by this to condemn themselves For if it were Lawful for them to Communicate with us once it must be Lawful for them to do so still and they will not refuse to submit to Authority
Scruples satisfied I think most of the Prejudices against the Church of England might be easily removed and we might all joyn in the same Communion to the Glory of God and the Joy and Comfort of all good Protestants and the Confusion of those that design to swallow us up and have no other hopes of prevailing but by the help of those Differences which for that end they have a long time most studiously fomented amongst us Let not our unreasonable Fears and groundless Jealousies encourage their Attempts with too great a probability of Success It would be a sad addition to our Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to our Charge With what remorse should we reflect upon it when the heat of our Passion was over if the Protestant Profession should be farther endangered and the Agents of Rome get greater Advantages dayly by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintained by our selves With what face should we look to see our Enemies not only triumphing over us but mocking and deriding us for being so far imposed upon by their cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of our own ruin But God Almighty in his wise and gracious Providence so confound all their Devices that tend to the subversion of the Truth and so Unite and Compose our Differences that hereafter we may have no just occasion to fear either their Treachery o their Force This is a Petition I am sure in which no good Christian can refuse to joyn and if we do heartily desire this let us do what we can to promote it if our Prayer be not unsincere and hypocritical we shall make use of our best endeavours to obtain the thing we have prayed for And now if our Vnion be thus desirable and necessary what should hinder but that at last we might be all most happily united under the Discipline and Government of the Church of England A Church that is already Framed and Constituted that has the Countenance and Establishment of the Laws that has been Protected by a Succession of Wise and Pious Princes that was Defended unto Death by our late Martyred Sovereign that was Restored by His Majesty that now is and has been ever since so graciously Cherished by him as if the Care of it were a Quality inherent and hereditary to the Crown A Church that was Reformed by full and sufficient Authority upon mature and serious Deliberation with a perfect submission to the Rule of holy Scripture and a due regard to the example of the most Primitive times A Church that has constantly rejected all the Errours and Corruptions of Rome that admits of neither their Infallibility nor Supremacy that allows no Purgatory nor Indulgences no adoration of Reliques and Images no Praying to Saints nor Angels that does not think that God can be pleased with idle Pilgrimages or a forced Celibacy or any set number of Ave's and Paternoster's or other formal Devotions exactly computed upon a string of Beads and muttered over in an unknown Tongue that does not rob the Laity of half the Communion nor teach them that strange and contradictious Doctrine that the Elements are transubstantiated into the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper that does not only constantly deny these and many more absurd and erroneous Opinions of the Papists but has always sent forth as stout and able Champions to oppose them as any the Christian World affords A Church whose Doctrine is confessed to be Orthodox by the generality of our Dissenting Brethren and whose Discipline and Order of external Worship has nothing in it repugnant to any Law of God And what imaginable ground can there then be to justifie a Separation from such a Church Certainly the use of a few Indifferent things appointed only for Order's sake will not be enough to do it These are not Forbidden and therefore cannot be Sinful in themselves and where God has not Forbidden our Superiours may Command and in all such cases we are bound to Obey Some indeed there are that will not be satisfied with this They tell us that it is not sufficient that a thing be not Forbidden but that it must be Commanded or else it cannot be used in the Worship of God without Sin But if this Opinion be true I must confess that then it is Unlawful to hold Communion not only with ours but with any Church that is or ever was in the World for I do not believe that One can be found amongst them All that has not required the use of some Indifferent thing that was not Commanded Our Dissenting Brethren themselves will allow that the Time and Place of Religious Assemblies may be prescribed by Authority And if these necessary Circumstances may be thus Determined though they be not Commanded by God then it will be as Lawful to prescribe what particular Gestures and Habits shall be there used For these are things of the same Nature Circumstances as necessary as Time and Place and if we have any respect to the Decent and Reverent performance of the Service of God they may be as necessary to be determined too However it must be acknowledged that some things that are not Commanded may be Lawfully Enjoyned and Submitted to and if some then all that are of the same Indifferent nature unless there can be some sufficient reason assigned why some should be excepted and some not which will be very difficult where the Nature of the things is the same And in our present case it will be hard in the general to conceive how the Command of a Lawful Power should make that Unlawful which was not Forbidden and by consequence was Lawful before But if it should be still insisted on that nothing must be Commanded that God has not Commanded they that are of this Perswasion should be very certain that they have clear proof out of the Scriptures for it before they undertake to Forbid that which God has not Forbidden or else they stand condemned by their own Principle Now the Arguments they bring for this out of the New Testament are very few And those very obscure and no way applicable to the matter in hand without being mightily strained Those out of the Old Testament are not many that which has been chiefly urged and seems indeed the most pertinent and material is this The whole Levitical Service was particularly prescribed by God himself and Moses was strictly charged to make the Tabernacle and all the Utensils that belonged unto it After the pattern that was shewed him Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 3. 5 6. in the Mount And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant and so is Christ as a Son over his own House that is the Church Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules to be observed in the Worship of God under the Legal Dispensation so has Christ under the Evangelical and it is as
Law of God then we are indispensably ingaged to join in Communion with her For as has been intimated several times and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Unlawfulness of Communicating can make a Separation Lawful But if it be resolved that the Church of England must be forsaken notwithstanding that neither her Doctrine nor Discipline can be justly condemned it would yet convenient to bethink our selves what might be the most advisable to be done after we had left it Whether we should set up another way of Administration in the room of it Or whether every one should have the Liberty of following that which he fancied the best If we are for the setting up another way it must be either Presbytery or Independency For if there should be any other new Forms of Government they are not yet of Reputation enough to be put in Competition with these two great Pretenders to Divine Right And Presbytery which had once the fairest hopes of establishing it self is now grown weak and inconsiderable in comparison of what it was and those few which would still be thought of that Perswasion are manifestly departed from their own Principles and are fain to support themselves by Gathered Assemblies which they were not wont to allow Independency therefore seems at this time to be the prevailing way but their manner of Gathering Members and Associating themselves into particular Congregations their holy Band special Agreement or Covenant which they make essential to the Constituting of a Church are things which have not the least foundation in the holy Scriptures neither were they ever Countenanced by the practice of any Orthodox Christians in former Ages But put the case we should admit of either of these Forms of Discipline and Government we should be as far if not farther from being Vnited than we are now For they have both been known to have been very rigorous Imposers wherever they have had the Power of Commanding and as they have sometimes been so they would soon again become more odious to the several Subdivisions of Dissenters than Episcopacy it self And this being a thing so easily foreseen we are not now urged with the necessity of setting up either of these The great expedient that has been proposed of late is to indulge a Liberty of choosing what Church and what way of Worship any man pleases that is to grant a publick Toleration of divers Religions But this though it might gratifie the present humor of some part of the Nation and serve some mens Occasions better than any Establishment would be quickly disliked by most of those that now contend so Zealously for it For there must needs be a constant Emulation and Strugling betwixt the several Tolerated Parties which would give a continual Disturbance and as soon as any of them began to grow Numerous and Powerful and had any Hopes of succeeding they would presently imagine it very necessary to impose their own Discipline upon all the rest and this probably might soon put an end to the so much desired and magnified way of Toleration Or if we could suppose them contented to allow the same Freedom to others which they injoyed themselves yet it could not possibly be avoided but that this Indulgence must strangely multiply our Divisions while some Members of their Separate Churches would take Offence and withdraw and make choice of a new Pastor and incorporate themselves into another new Church and that after a while upon the like Pretences might be split into another and another and so on without any stop And then this would certainly set open the Gate to a Flood of Heresies and such monstrous and extravagant Opinions as must be confessed by the most prejudiced Dissenter to be of far more dangerous consequence to the cause of Religion than that sober and pious Liturgy and those few indifferent Rites which are now injoined This the experience of the Late Times found to be true The Church of England was no sooner overthrown but some of those that had been the most forward and busie to pull her down when they saw how suddenly the swarms of other Sectaries increased upon them were forced to acknowledge that the Constitution which they had destroyed was a great check and restraint to those Errors which grew Bold and Licencious under the Liberty they had procured The Bishops then who just before had been the common Theme of Popular Obloquy had some good Words unwillingly dropt upon them and their Diligence and Success in suppressing Absurd Heretical and many times Blasphemous Doctrines was allowed some just Commendation That Government which they had traduced and rendered as odious as was possible by all the arts of Defamation that could be used was found upon Trial to be far more desirable by some of its greatest Enemies than that Anarchy and Confusion they had contended for with so much Violence But if we cannot be made sufficiently Apprehensive of the dismal Effects that will almost Naturally follow upon a Publick Toleration yet methinks we should now be a little Suspitious of it since we know it is the main Engine the Papists have been working with these many years If there be no Remedy but that our Church must fall let us not throw it down our selves by methods of their Prescribing let us not act as if we were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if we were governed by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair We may be ashamed to look so like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when we suffer our selves to be guided by those measures which they had taken and talk and do as they would have us as if we were immediately inspired from Rome For we cannot be ignorant that Toleration has been a Device of theirs and it would not be any part of our Wisdom to grow unreasonably fond of the Invention of our Enemies and think to strengthen the Protestant Interest by those very means which their Subtilty and Malice had contrived to destroy it But if this Consideration should be laid aside What need can there be otherwise that we should desire to be Indulged in our departure from a Church where we may Communicate with a safe Conscience As we may certainly do in ours whose greatest Adversaries have not been able after the most curious Search they could make to find out one thing in the whole Constitution which they could positively affirm to be Forbidden and till that can be made appear we must still say that it cannot be Unlawful If the Imposition of some Indifferent things be thought a sufficient ground for a Separation as it is now generally urged since the proof of their Unlawfulness is despaired of then we must have Separated from the Apostolical Churches who had some such Usages as the Holy Kiss and others whose Indifferency is acknowledged by their being wholly disused We must have Separated from the first Churches that succeeded them which had all some Indifferent
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
may 1 Cor. 14. 5. 12. receive Edifying That ye may excel to the Edifying Eph. 4. 12. of the Church For the Edifying of the Body of Christ And it is very observable wherein the Apostle places the Edification of the Body of Christ viz. in Unity and Love Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the 13. knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Till we are united by one Faith into one Body and perfect Man And speaking the truth in love may grow up in him into 15 16. all things which is the head Even Christ from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the Effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the Edifying it self in love This is an admirable description of the Unity of the Church in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together as Stones and Timber are to make one House and thus they grow into one Body and increase in mutual Love and Charity which is the very Building and Edification of the Church which is Edifyed and Built up in love as the Apostle adds 1 Cor. 8. 1. that knowledge puffeth up but charity Edifieth this Builds up the Church of Christ and that not such a common Charity as we have for all Mankind but such a love and Sympathy as is peculiar to the Members of the same Body and which none but Members can have for each other and now methinks I need not prove that Schism and Separation is not for the Edification of the Church to Separate for Edification is to Pull down in stead of Building up But these Men do not seem to have any great regard to the Edification of the Church but only to their own particular Edification and we must grant that Edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture according to St. Pauls Exhortation Comfort your selves together and Edifie one another 1 Thes 5. 11. even as also ye do And this Edifying one another without question signifies our promoting each others growth and progress in all Christian Graces and vertues and so the Building and Edification of the Church signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all Spiritual Wisdom and knowledge and Christian graces the Edification of the Church consists in the Edification of particular Christians but then this is called Edification or Building because this growth and improvement is in the Unity and Communion of the Church and makes them one Spiritual House and Temple Thus the Church is called the Temple of God and every particular Christian is Gods Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells and yet God has but one Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells only in the Church of Christ but particular Christians are Gods Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells in them as living Members of the Christian Church and thus by the same reason the Church is Edified and Built up as it grows into a Spiritual House and Holy Temple by a firm and close Union and Communion of all its parts and every Christian is Edified as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And therefore whatever extraordinary means of Edification Men may fancy to themselves in a Separation the Apostle knew no Edification but in the Communion of the Church and indeed if our growth and increase in all Grace and Vertue be more owing to the internal assistances of the Divine Spirit than to the external Administrations as St. Paul tells us I have planted and Apollos watered but God gave the 1 Cor. 3. 6 7. increase So then neither is he that planteth any thing nor he that watereth but God that gave the increase And the Divine Spirit confines his influences and operations to the Unity of the Church as the same Apostle tells us that there is but one Body and Eph. 4. 4. one Spirit which plainly signifies that the operations of this one Spirit are appropriated to this one Body as the Soul is to the Body iâ Animates then it does not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christs Body 3. The Third and Last Case still remains which Case 3 will be resolved in a few words according to the Principles now laid down which is this Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two distinct and Separate Churches For this is thought of late days not only a very Innocent and Lawful thing but the true Catholick-Spirit and Catholick-Communion to Communicate with Churches of all Communions unless perhaps they may except the Papists and Quakers It is thought a Schismatical Principle to refuse to Communicate with those Churches which withdraw Communion from us And thus some who Communicate ordinarily with the Church of England make no Scruple to Communicate in Prayers and Sacraments with Presbyterian and Independent Churches and Presbyterians can Communicate with the Church of England and with Independents whom formerly they charged with down-right Schism and some think it very indifferent whom they Communicate with and therefore take their turns in all But this is as contrary to all the Principles of Church-Communion as any thing can possibly be To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two Separate and Opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those Separate Churches are to each other Christ hath but one Church and one Body and therefore where there are two Churches divided from each other by Separate Communions there is a Schism and Rent in the Body and whoever Communicates with both these Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have made an Actual Separation from the Church of England I have evidently proved already and therefore if the Communion of the Church of England be Lawful as those who can and ordinarily do Communicate with the Church of England must be presumed to acknowledge then they are Schismaticks and to Communicate with them is to partake in their Schism Now if Schism be an Innocent thing and the true Catholick Spirit I have no more to say but that the whole Christian Church ever since the Apostles times has been in a very great mistake but if Schism be a very great Sin and that which will Damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder then it must needs be a dangerous thing to Communicate with Schismaticks The Sum of all in short is this Besides these Men who justifie their Separation from the Church of England by charging Her with requiring Sinful terms of Communion which is the only thing that can justifie their Separation if it could be proved there are others who Separate lightly and wantonly for want of a due sense of the Nature of
the words are these I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth I mean a Company of Men that profest at least so much as was necessary to Salvation and I believe there will be some where or other such a Church to the Worlds end This is his answer to that Popish Question about the perpetuity of the Visible Church whereby it appears that this Company of Men he speaks of are not single and scattered Individuals which are no Visible Church but he means a Formed and Visible Church-Society and his Answer is true though there were never a sound Church in the World For a corrupt Church which retains all the Essentials of Faith and Worship is a true Visible Church and this is the meaning of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer but how this proves that there is no need there should be any Visible Church at all or that Christians are not bound to actual Communion with the sound and Orthodox Church wherein they live is past my understanding At the same rate you defend your self against me in your Preface by the Authority of those two excellent Persons the Dean of Canterbury and the Dean of Saint Pauls Dr. Stillingfleet had asserted That all things necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them hence S. C. infers That the Governours of our Church have no Authority to teach Truth or to condemn Errours and all the People are become Prophets and all their Articles Answer to several Treatises p. 272. c. Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority and if he had added as he might have done with the same reason And all Church-Communion is needless it had been exactly what you aim at in this Citation The Dr. vindicates his Doctrine from such a wild Fanatical inference 1. By shewing the intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christian Faith living in the Communion of our Church And if this was his design as he says it was certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing which should overthrow the necessity of Church-Communion and then he can say nothing against me nor for you 2. He distinguishes between the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church that is what is necessary for every Christian considered in p. 275. a private Capacity to know and believe to make him capable of Salvation and what care the Church must take to instruct the ignorant to satisfie the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak and not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not barely the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot p. 276. be done without prudent Orders setting the bounds of Mens Employments c. i. e. though it is possible for a private Christian who lives alone and has the use of the Bible in a Language which he understands by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth as is absolutely necessary to Salvation yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church all this I firmly assent to and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of Church-Communion when it may be had upon Lawful Terms and so does this Reverend Person also and therefore I cannot look upon your alleadging his Authority against me to have any other design than to affront the Dean for his excellent Pains in vindicating the Communion of our Church and shewing people the Evil and Danger of Separation He has sufficiently declared what his Judgment is about Separation and therefore I need not concern my self any farther to prove that he is not my Adversary in this Cause At the same rate you deal with that great Man as you deservedly call him Dr. Tillotson who says I had much rather perswade any one to be a good Man than Preface to be of any Party and denomination of Christians whatsoever for I doubt not but the belief of the Ancient Creed provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it together with a good life will certainly save a Man and without this no man can have reasonable hopes of Salvation no not in an Infallible Church if there were any such to be found in the World How does this oppose me who assert the necessity of Church-Communion Is the Catholick Church then and the Communion of Saints no part of our Creed and is not Schism destructive to these great Articles of our Faith or is Schism which is the breach of Christian Charity properly so called which is the Love and Charity which the Members of the same Body ought to have for each other and consists in Unity and Communion consistent with a good Life if by that we understand an Universal goodness of which Charity is the most vital and essential part But do you indeed think Sir that the Dean believes a Man may be saved without Communion with any Church when it may be had without Sin when in the very next Paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to Communion with the Church of England I can easily forgive your usage of me since I find you cannot Read the best Books without perverting them and that you never spare any Mans Reputation to serve your Designes for your Reproaches and your Commendations are but different ways of abuse though I confess I should rather chuse to be reproached by you Your last Consideration is whether it be a good way to convert Schismaticks to prove that Schism is as Letter 3. p. 29. Damning a Sin as Murder or Adultery Truly Sir St. Cyprian and St. Austin and all the Ancient Fathers of the Church thought this a very good way for they insisted very much upon this Argument and if Men will not forsake their Schism though the Salvation of their Souls be endangered by it I am apt to think that no other Arguments will perswade them And if this be true as I verily believe it is and shall believe so till I see the Third Chapter of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still fairly answered I think it the greatest Charity in the World to warn Men of it and if it should prove by their perverseness no Charity to them it is Charity to my own Soul and delivers me from the guilt of their Bloud whether such Doctrine Preach Men into or out of the Church And now for your parting Blow Certainly if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation It could not blame Men for dividing from it Yes certainly upon such a Supposition the Church could and would blame Men for their Separation though it may be they might not deserve to be blamed for no doubt the more necessary the Church judges her Constitutions the more she will blame Dissenters But he who tells us or he
this Head we may observe That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons according to the Principles they espouse they agree not in the Constitution of Churches c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be as I have observed before true Churches of Christ that Communion with such Churches is lawful and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing as whether it be an Act of Communion and about the Call of those they hear yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches are equally condemned by all 3. They hold that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church and affect the Vitals of Religion or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion 1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church or affect the vital Parts of Religion So saith Mr. Tombs Not every nor many Corruptions Theodulia Answer to Preface § 23. p. 47 48. of some kind do unchurch there being many in Faith Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia Aid Blake 's Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 229 c who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of Errors in Faith as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith to wit Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man and Salvation by him Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in Life by evil Manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched For till then the Corruptions are tolerable and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church or to depart from it So Mr. Brinsly Arraignment of Schism p. 50. Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us yet are they tolerable If so then is Separation on this ground intolerable unwarrantable in as much as it ought not to be but upon a very great and weighty Cause and that when there is no Remedy So Mr. Noyes Private Brethren may not Temple measured p. 78. separate from Churches or Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners Heresy or Prophaneness To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen and Mr. Cotton The former asserts That many Errors in Evangelical Love p. 76. Doctrine disorders in sacred Administrations irregular walking in Conversation with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers may fall out in some Churches and yet not evacuate their Church-state or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion and separate from them The latter saith Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 156. Unless you find in the Church Blasphemy or Idolatry or Persecution i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion there is no just Ground of Separation This is universally own'd But if any one should yet continue unconvinced let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture collected by Mr. Baxter and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable Observe saith he that no Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 5. p. 40 c. one Member is in all these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful And therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were 2. They are not to separate if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these On the Sacrament p. 239. The Church may be corrupted many ways in Doctrine Ordinances Worship c. And there are degrees of this Corruption the Doctrine in some remote Points the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom How many Churches do we find thus corrupted and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth c. to separate I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption hold the Communion But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed the Worship is become idolatrous and what is above all if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful in that Case Come out of Babylon The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature nor thus strictly required then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful and may be a Duty So saith Mr. Corbet in the name of the present Nonconformists We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33. true Church as no Church for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof while our personal Profession of some Error or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more for he saith Irenicum c. 23. p. 162 163. Where these Causes are not viz. the being constrained to profess believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith or being deprived of Means altogether necessary or most expedient to Salvation but Men may communicate without Sin professing the Truth and enjoy all Ordinances as the Free-men of Christ Men must not separate from a Church tho there be Corruption in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion yet if not actually imposed upon us our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue So Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 103. though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation as it is also own'd for saith one When the Corruptions of a Church are such as Jerubbaal p. 12. that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably that seems to me to be a just Ground though not of a Positive yet of a Negative though not of a total yet of a partial Separation i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser but is not so for the greater Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion
separate to those Churches which they account better because they never found those where they were before to them good Find the setting up Christ in your Hearts by the Ministry and then you dare to account it Antichristian Thus one in a Farewel Sermon speaking of supposed Defects in a ânglanâ's Reâembrancer Serm. 16. p. 456. Church doth advise his Auditors Enlarge your Care and Pains in your Preparations a right Stomach makes good Nourishment of an indifferent Meal you may be warm though in a colder Air and Room than you have formerly been if you will put on more Cloaths before you come Watch your Hearts more narrowly and speak things to your Hearts more than you have done Ecclesiast 10. 10. If the Iron be blunt then must he put to more Strength But supposing it be really for Edification yet this they declare is no sufficient reason for Separation So Mr. Burroughs If you be joyned to a Pastor Iren. c. 12. p. 85. so as you believe he is set over you by Christ to be a Pastor to you though this Man hath meaner Gifts than others and it would be more comfortable for you to have another Pastor yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you And so the Ministers in New-England Platform c. 13. § 5. deliver their Minds To separate from a Church for greater Enlargements with just Grief to the Church is unlawful and sinful So when this Question was put Are they not at all times obliged to use the Means which are most edifying It 's answered by the aforesaid Author They may say at all times when they have nothing to outweigh Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 4. p. 91. their own Edification So that Edification may be outweighed and then it can be no standing and sufficient Reason So Mr. Burroughs declares in this Irenic c. 12. p. 85 86. case Men must consider not only what the thing is in its own Nature but what it is to them how it stands in reference to their Relations It is not enough to say the thing is in it self better but is it better in all the References I have and it hath Is it better in regard of others in regard of the Publick for the helping me in all my Relations may it not help one way and hinder many ways Of the same Opinion is Mr. Baxter Many things saith he Defence part 1. p. 85. must concur and especially a respect to the publick Good to know which is the best So that Edification is not to be adjudged of alone our own Improvement is not to determine us in our Actions and especially not with respect to Church-Communion for then other Reasons do give Law to it and over-rule it Thus we see those that dissent from the Church in other things agree with her in this And they give several Reasons and Arguments for it First If we were sure we could not profit yet we must Arg. 1 come to do Homage to God and shew Reverence to his Lect. 28. p. 129 309. Ordinance This is Mr. Hildersham's Opinion Secondly The leaving a Church for better Edification Arg. 2 is built upon a false and dangerous Principle which is that we must always chuse the best So Mr. Burroughs To hold what is in it self best must be chosen Irenic c. 12. p. 84 87. and done not weighing Circumstances or References is a dividing Principle And afterwards he saith A Christian without comparing one thing with another will hack and hew and disturb himself and others in the ways of Religion I belive some of you have known those who whatsoever they have conceived to be better than other they have presently followed with all Eagerness Of this V. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. p. 75 76 78 never considering Circumstances References or Consequences but the thing is good it must be done yet being wearied with this they have after grown loose in as great an excess the other way Thirdly This Principle of better Edification if followed Arg. 3 would bring in Confusion So Mr. Hildersham Lect. 66. This factious Disposition of the Hearers of God's Word hath in all Ages been the cause of much Confusion in the Church of God and greatly hindred the Fruit of the Gospel of Christ This saith Mr. Brinsly the moderate Author of the late Irenicum Mr. Burroughs Arraignment of Schism p. 48. will by no means allow but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of Disorder and Confusion into the Church and I think none who are judicious but will therein subscribe to him It will not be amiss to transcribe his own Words It is in it self a better thing to enjoy a Ministry Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 85. of the most eminent Gifts and Graces than one of lower but if this should be made a Rule that a Man who is under a Pastor who is faithful and in some good measure gifted upon another Mans coming into the Country that is more eminent he should forsake his Pastor and joyn to the other and if after this still a more eminent Man comes he should leave the former and joyn to him and by the same Law a Pastor who hath a good People yet if others be more likely to receive more good he may leave his own People and go to them what Confusion and Disorder would there be continually in the Church This is condemned also by the New-England Ministers This Mr. Cawdrey doth expose If a Man may lawfully Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. § 1. Independ a Schism p. 50. separate from a true Church c. only with a good mind to serve God in Church-Institutions true or conceited by his own Light all the Sectaries and Separatists Donatists Brownists in the World may be justified This saith another speaking of hearing Methermeneut p. 72 74. for this Reason is a Church-destroying Principle sure if one Member be not fixed then not another nor another c. and then not the Pastor nor Teacher and so farewel Churches Fourthly This will be endless So Mr. Burroughs Arg. 4 Men must not separate from a Church though there Irenic c. 23. p. 163. be Corruptions in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable First Because we never find the Saints in Scripture separating or raising Churches in such a Case And Secondly There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship if this were admitted for what Church is so pure and hath all things so comfortable but within a while another Church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there And he concludes with this prudent Maxim The general Peace of the Church should be more regarded than some comfortable Accommodations to our selves So Mr. Baxter Defence part 1. p. 85. What if twenty Ministers be one abler than another in their several degrees doth it
safely Communicate with such or in a Church where such are without Sin Thirdly To separate upon this Ground is to maintain Arg. 3 Vines on the Sacrament p. 244. a Principle destructive to the Communion of the Church visible which consists of good and bad This Mr. Cotton is peremptory in It is utterly untrue Infant Baptism p. 102. V. Bains on the Ephes c. 1. v. 1. p. 5. to say that Christ admits not of any dead Plants to be set in his Vineyard or that he takes not to himself a compounded Body of living and dead Members or that the Church of God is not a mixed Company c. From the ill Effects of which Mr. Cartwright used to call this Separation upon In Proverb Edward's Apol. pretence of greater purity the white Devil And because there are some Scriptures that seem to look this way and are made use of by those that make mixed Communion an Argument for Separation therefore they have taken off the force of them If a Brother be a Fornicator c. the Apostle exhorteth Object 1 not to eat with him 1 Cor. 5. 11. To this they Answer That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion it must be done by the Church Answ 1 Defence Part 2. p. 27. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 126. and not a private Person But you are not commanded to separate from the Church if they exclude him not So Mr. Baxter c. That it concerns not Religious but Civil-Communion Answ 2 and that not all Civil Society or Commerce but Familiar also For which they produce several Reasons 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread which is a Token of Love and Friendship in phrase of Ball 's Tryal p. 200. Brinsley's Arraignment p. 45. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Tomb's Theodulia p. 210. Scripture not to partake of or to be shut from the Table is a sign of Familiarity broken off So Mr. Ball c. 2. The eating which is here forbidden is allowed to be with an Heathen but it 's the civil eating which is only allowed to be with an Heathen therefore it 's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother So Mr. Jenkin c. 3. The eating here forbidden is for the punishment of the Nocent not of the Innocent To these there are added others by the Old Non-Conformists Grave Confut. Part 4. p. 57. Tomb's Theodulia p. 167. Cawdrey's Reformat p. 75. Cure Dir. 9. p. 81. As for other Objections they are also undertaken by the same Hands and to which Mr. Baxter's Answer is sufficient If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases besides our separation from the Infidels and Idolatrous World or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies and No-Churches is but one of these two sorts 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys Or 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them but that the private Members should separate from the Church because such Persons are not cast out of it shew me one Text to prove it if you can This saith Mr. Vines hath not On the Sacrament p. 246. Tomb's Theod. p. 128. a syllable of Scripture to allow or countenance it But supposing it be allowed that we ought not to separate from a Church where corrupt Members are tolerated or connived at under some present circumstances as for want of due proof or through particular favour yet it seems to be allowable where there is no Discipline exercised or taken care of For then we are without an Ordinance To avoid this Objection I shall consider 2. The Case with respect to Discipline and shall Sect. 2. shew from them 1. That the want of that or defects in it are no sufficient reason for Separation 2. What Discipline is exercised or taken care of in the Church of England The former of these they do own and prove First As Discipline is not necessary to the being Arg. 1 of a Church This was of old maintained by Mr. T. C's Letter to Harrison against Separation in the Defence of the Admonit p. 98 99. Cartwright who thus argues That Church-Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the Right and Title of so being the Church of Christ For though there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet they be necessary to the comely and stable Being and not simply to the Being of the Church And afterward he gives an Instance in the Dutch Assemblies or Lutheran Churches which he saith are maintained in P. 106. Discipline So Dr. T. Goodwin Whereas now in Com. on the Ephes p 487 488. some of the Parishes of this Kingdom there are many Godly Men that do constantly give themselves up to the Worship of God in Publick c. These notwithstanding their mixture and want of Discipline I never thought for my part but that they were True Churches of Christ and Sister Churches and so ought to be acknowledged So that if Discipline be not essential to a True Church and a True Church is not to be separated from as has been proved above then the want of Discipline is no sufficient reason for Separation Secondly This they further prove by an Induction Arg. 2 of Particulars This way Mr. Blake proceeds in Vindiciae c. 31. p. 236 238. Discipline was neglected in the Church of Israel yet none of the Prophets or Men of God ever made attempt of getting up purer select Churches V. Grave Confut Part 1. p. 18. or made Separation from that which was in this sort faulty All was not right in the exercise of Discipline in the Churches planted by the Apostles some are censured as foully faulty c. yet nothing heard by way of Advice for any to make Separation nor any one Instance of a Separatist given To come lower we are told by Mr. Vines On Sacram. c. 19. p. 226. That the Helvetian or Switzerland Churches claim to be Churches and have the Notes Word and Sacraments though the Order of Discipline be not setled among V. Gillespie's Nihil respondes p. 33. them and I am not he that shall blot out their Name To come nearer Home it was so in the late Times when this was wanting as was acknowledged (a) (a) (a) Knutton's seven Queries Brinsley's Arraign p. 48. and of which Mr. Vines saith (b) (b) (b) On Sacram. p. 219. Troughton's Apol. p. 65. we know rather the Name than the Thing And if we shall look into the several Church-Assemblies amongst the Dissenters we shall find that as there are many Preachers without full Pastoral Charge as it is acknowledged that have little Authority over their Flocks in this
the Protestant Religion amongst us at Home and that according to the noted saying of Mr. Egerton The withdrawing totally from it would more effectually introduce Popery than all the Works of Bellarmine It becomes them when this is the Bulwark of it abroad and all the Reformed Churches in the World Brinsley's Healing of Israel's Breaches p. 62. have a Venture in this Bottom which if compar'd to a Fleet the Church of England must be acknowledged to be the Admiral And if it go ill with this Church so as that miscarry there is none of the Churches of Christ this day under Heaven but are like to feel it as Mr. Brinsley discourses Lastly It becomes them when Divisions and Separations draw down the Displeasure of God and lay us open to his Judgments Therefore Dr. Bryan after Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 313. 314. he hath largely insisted upon the Argument and the present Case amongst us doth thus apply himself O that I could prevail with you to lay sadly to heart the greatness of the Sin of Divisions and grievousness of the Punishment threatned against it and hath been executed for it and that the Leaders and Encouragers of private Christians to make this sinful Separation would read oft and meditate upon St. Jude's Epistle to vers 20. and that the Multitudes that are willing to be led by them would follow the prescription of the means here to preserve or recover themselves from this Seduction vers 20 21. And that both would leave off their reviling the Government Ecclesiastical and the Ministers that conform and submissively behave themselves by the Example of Michael c. I shall conclude the whole with the peaceable and On the Ephes c. 2. p. 297 298. pious Advice of Mr. Baines Let every Man walk within the compass of his Calling Whatsoever lieth not in us to reform it shall be our Zeal and Piety to tolerate and with Patience to forbear especially in things of this nature which concern not so much the outward Communion with God or Man essentially required in a visible state as the due ordering of Business in the said Communion wherein there be many Superfluities and Defects salvâ tamen Ecclesiâ yea and such a Church notwithstanding as wherein the best and truest Members Circumstances considered may have more cause to rejoice than to grieve FINIS THE CASE OF Mixt Communion Whether it be lawful to Seperate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. Many are call'd but few chosen Matth. 20. 16. The Second Edition LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleetstreet B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. THE CASE OF Mixt Communion Whether it be lawful to Separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions THE Foundation of this Pretence seems to be the great mistake of some Men concerning the matter whereof the Church of Christ is to be composed which they will have to be only real Saints and persons endowed with inherent and substantial holiness Accordingly finding in the Communion of our Church many corrupt Members who lived not answerable to their Holy Vocation they for that reason amongst some others alledg'd by them cry her down as no true Church or which is all one deal by her as if she was so totally separating from her Communion and setting up Churches of their own consisting wholly of Persons in their Judgment far more pure that is really holy and Sanctified Into this most false and dangerous conceit concerning the matter of the Christian Church I cannot tell what it is that should mislead them unless it be The not rightly understanding the notion of that holiness that so often in Scripture is applied to the visible Church of God There is a twofold holiness in Scripture Inherent and Relative Inherent holiness and that can be in none properly but God Angels and Men In God essentially and originally as he is the most perfect Being in whom all excellencies do possess infinite perfection As it 's applied to God it does not only signifie a perfect freedom in him from all those sinful impureties wherewith the sons of men are tainted but all the excellencies of the Divine nature as wisdom goodness and power and a super-eminent and incommunicable greatness in them all hence he is call'd the holy One of Israel the Psalm 89. 18. excellency of Jacob said to swear by his holiness that is Amos 8. 7. by himself and there is none holy as the Lord said Psalm 89. 35. Hannah for there is none besides thee none holy besides 1 Sam. 2. 2. thee as the Septuagint renders it none comparable to thee in the heighth and greatness of all thy excellencies In Angels and Men by way of participation and as far as their natures are capable hence there are holy Angels and holy Men. Relative holiness which when it 's applied to persons may be more properly call'd faederal and this is founded in the relation persons and things have to God and the nature of it consists in a separation of them from common uses and in appropriating of them to the peculiar use and service of God hence the Sabbath is call'd an holy day Judea an holy Land Jerusalem an holy City and the Church and People of God an holy Church that is a Body or Society of men call'd and separated from the rest of the World to God to worship him in a way distinguish'd from the rest of the World having Laws and Promises and Rites of Worship peculiar and appropriate to themselves This account God himself gives of it I have separated you Levit. 20. 24. says he to the Israelites from other people that you should be mine and ye shall be an holy people unto me For the same reason do we find that whole âhurch of the Jews even then when its members had generally Deut. 9. 12. Deut. 9. 7. Deut. 32. 5. very much corrupted themselves were a rebellious people a crooked generation yet upon the account of their being separated to God and in covenant with him stil'd by Moses and other inspir'd men his saints his Deut. 7. 6. Psalm 135. 4. holy people his peculiar treasure For the same reason also did the Apostles dignifie those Churches to whom they wrote with those great and glorious titles of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã saints the sanctified the call'd and chosen in Christ Jesus because they as of old the Jews had entertain'd the profession of a Religion distinct from others of the World whereby they might be excited to the attainment of those excellencies which in the object of their Worship they did admire and adore and those Names being of as large a meaning as that of Christian shew rather what they ought to have been than assure
the Body by being denied all communications with it Should a Man be admitted a Member of any City or Corporation and yet at the same time be denied the priviledg of his Freedom and not be permitted to set up a Trade to give a Vote or to Act in any other case as other Members do what would be the difference betwixt him and a Foreigner unless it be that his condition is the worse by being mock'd and abus'd and cheated with the Name whilst he has nothing of the Priviledges of a Freeman 3. We have the Practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament for this The whole Nation of the Jews were not only permitted but commanded by God except in cases of legal uncleanness and those notorious Crimes for which they were to be cast out of the Congregation to observe his Ordinances and to joyn in the celebration of his publick Worship and we know they were not all Israel that were of Israel Three times a year were all their Males to appear before the Exod. 23. 14 17. Lord to keep Three solemn appointed Feasts unto him many of which it is to be fear'd had no other qualification than what they were beholden to their birth and the loss of their fore-skin for Again All the Congregation of Israel were too keep the Passover none Exod. 12. 44. were denied it but foreigners and hired servants and they too no longer but till they were Circumcis'd and thereby admitted into covenant with God which shews that meer Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in its most solemn and sacred Mysteries 4. This was also the Practice of the Christian Church in the Apostolick Age as is plainly intimated unto us from many Scriptures St. Paul tells us By one Spirit we are all Baptiz'd into one Body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made 1 Cor. 12. 13. to drink into one Spirit To drink into one Spirit particularly relates to the Cup in the Lord's Supper and by a figure of the part for the whole it 's put to signifie the whole Communion but the thing here especially to be taken notice of is that the Apostle makes the number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as comprehensive and universal as that of those that were receiv'd into the Church by Baptism As by one Spirit all were baptized into one body so all were made to drink into one spirit The Apostles speaks the same thing again in another place alluding to the other part of the Sacrament We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread all the 1 Cor. 10. 17. members that conspired to make up the one body did partake of the one bread But if any thing yet can be clearer 't is that account St. Luke gives us of the practice of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem where it 's said of the three thousand that gladly receiv'd St. Peter's words and were by Baptism added to the Church they all the three thousand Ananias and Saphira being of the number continued in the Apostles doctrine and in breaking of bread and in prayers 5. From the end of Church-membership which is not only for the more solemn Worship of God and the publick profession of Religion but also for the more effectual edification and salvation of mens souls By Baptism we were admitted into the Church incorporated into that Divine Society and entitled to all the Priviledges of the Gospel to the end that in the unity of the faith and the knowledg of the Son of God Eph. 4. 13. we might come to a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ But how this is to be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Communion with the Church to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and the Word and all other Priviledges and Duties is not easily to be understood hence we may observe that edification in Scripture is usually applied to the Church and tho the edification of the Church consists in the edification of the particular Members of it yet because that is not to be had but in the Unity and Communion of the Church 't is usually stiled the edifying of the Eph. 4. 12. Church and the edifying the body of Christ hence Faith is said to come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Hence we are said to be born again not of corruptable Rom. 10. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 23. seed but of incorruptable by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same is exprest in those words of our Saviour's Prayer for his Disciples Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is John 17. 17. truth God's Church is his Family which he especially takes care of and provides for he that is of it is under the Schechina the wing of the Divine Majesty and his special grace and providence It cannot but be of mighty advantage towards our growth and improvement in all Christian graces and virtues to have therein dispens't to us the lively Oracles of God and provision made for a constant succession of dispensers of the Bread of Life to fit it to allneeds and all capacities Not to be left to the deceits and whispers of a private spirit to personal conjectures or secret insinuations but to have the publick Doctrine of the Church to be our Guide and Leader to have our Devotions mingled with the concurrent Prayers of all God's people and so by their joynt forces after an Coimus incaetum ad Deum quasimanu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes Tertul. humble but powerful manner to besiege and belaguer Heaven to have before our eyes all the great Examples in God's Church to have our Faith strengthen'd our Repentance heighten'd our Love inflam'd our Hopes and our Comforts rais'd by the Holy Communion Will not the flame of others kindle our zeal and assections and will it not put us into a transpoât of devotion to see therein Christ Crucified before our Eyes pouring out his Blood for us bowing his Head as it were to kiss and stretching out his Arms as it were to embrace all that are penitent and return to him These are some of the great Blessings and advantages that cannot be had but in Church-Communion To which if we shall add that our improvement in Holiness and Vertue is more to be ascrib'd to the internal operations of God's spirit than any virtue or efficacy there can be in those external administrations and that God is pleas'd to promise his spirit to believers only as they are Members of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and ministry of his Word and Sacraments we shall farther see the necessity of Mens holding actual Communion with the Church in order to their Sanctification and Salvation We are not now discoursing what God
1 Cor. 11. 18 a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup In which words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews wâat private Christians in whose power ir is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to seperate had been the way the Apostle would then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and Strifes in the Church there is an incestuous person not cast out many proud contemners of their Bretheren Men of strange opinions of untam'd appetites and unbridled passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest ye should be polluted by their sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful acts and compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs But as clear and satisfactory as this Proposition seems to be it yet suffers very much from the Exceptions of some weak Understandings who meeting often in Scripture with such Commands and Exhortations as these to separate to come out not to touch to have no fellowship with and the like presently without staying to examine the sense of the Texts conclude that it is the duty and character of good Men to be always separating and tho wherever those places of Scripture are found they are for the most part to be understood with relation to Idolaters and Idolatrous Practices either amongst Jews or Gentiles yet will they have them extended to every thing and person that either really is or they think fit to call a Corruption or a corrupt Member in the Church of God Many Texts of Scripture are misunderstood and misappli'd by them to this purpose I shall instance only in two as the chief and hope in rescuing them from the false glosses they labour under to give a deliverance to all the rest The first is Obj. 1. Those words of the Apostle Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord 2 Cor. 6. 17. and touch not the unclean thing Ans This being the main place to which they fly upon all occasions as their strongest hold I shall give it a more particular consideration and that by shewing these three things 1. The occasion of this Apostolical admonition 2. What were the persons the converted Corinthians were to separate from 3. What was the unclean thing they were not to touch 1. What was the occasion of this Apostolical Exhortation To this purpose you must know that the converted Corinthians liv'd in civil Society amongst the unbelieving Gentiles by whom many of them being their kinsfolk and friends after the flesh were often invited to their Idol-feasts to which some of them 1 Cor. 10. 27. did not scruple to go and eat of the things sacrific'd to Idols even in the Idol's Temple thinking it not unlawful 1 Cor. 8. 10. to do so so long as they knew that an Idol was nothing and did not intentionally go and eat in any honour to the Idol Now from this Practice the 1 Cor. 8. 4. Apostle dissuades them by these two Arguments 1. Upon the account of scandal to their weak brethren telling them that tho' they that were strong knew that an Idol was nothing in the World and that there was but one God and so could not be suppos'd to worship the Idol when they eat of the Idol's sacrifice yet some other weak Christians and new Converts might not know so much and consequently by their practice might be drawn into sin not only to go to those Feasts but to do it in honour to the Idol 2. As harmless an action as they esteem'd it that 't was 1 Cor. 8. 7. plain Idolatry Be not ye Idolaters as were some of 1 Cor. 10. 14. them as it is written they sate down to eat and to drink and rose up to play that is they eat of those Sacrifices that had been offered up to the golden Calf Exod. 32. 6 and that this Action was Idolatrous he proves by an Analogy it bears to a Rite of the same nature both amongst Jews and Christians for as the Jews when they feasted on the Sacrifices did it in honour to God to whom the Sacrifices were offer'd and 1 Cor. 10. 18. as the Christians when they partake of the Lord's Supper do it in honour to Christ whose Death and ver 16. Passion is therein commemorated so when they did eat of the Idols Sacrifices they must have been thought to do it in honour to the Idol because to the Idol was the Sacrifice offer'd But blessed be ver 20. God we have not the like occasion for such an Exhortation we live not in a civil society with Idolaters but under a Christian Prince and with a People professing the Christian Religion Here are no publick Idols set up nor any Feasts kept in honour of them had the Case been thus with us we had been as much concern'd in the Text as the Corinthians were but being far otherwise not the least aid can be fetcht from hence to defend Separation from our Publick Assemblies 2. Who were the persons the Christian Corinthians were requir'd to seperate from They were no better than Vnbelievers than Infidels than Idolaters What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness And what communion hath light with 2 Cor. 6. 14. ver 15. ver 16. darkness And what concord hath Christ with Belial Or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols And then it follows wherefore come out from amongst them c. But now because Christians ver 17. by the Apostles command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters does it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians afford their presence at them Is there no difference betwixt a Pagan and an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who yet outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God Betwixt a Church wholly made up of Heathens and Idolaters and a Church made up of a mixture of good and bad Christians together 3. What is the unclean thing they are not to
and Climb upon in sign of their desire to seek the things above and a stiff Straw put into the Childs Hand for a sign of Fighting against Spiritual Enemies as with a Spear And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceedings (a) (a) (a) Ames Ib l. 1. c. 3. Pâid 1 would rerurn with success upon themselves Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters Fifthly If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church because they are used out of it and in Civil cases then what will become of that Position before spoken of and generally asserted by those who oppose us that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription except the Natural Circumstances of Action for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident yet they may be and often are Separated for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship and which that cannot be performed without And if these and the like were used in the Church and applied and annexed to Divine Worship then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth wherever that reason is justify the like Practice and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us that is all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it 3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship from the ill consequences attending the contrary one of which is that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the VVorld but are Guilty and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful there is no Church we can hold Communion with There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expresly condemns and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires as the Church of Rome in it's Worshipping Saints and Angels and denying the Cup to the Laity c. And these things make it necessary for those to quit it's Communion that are of it and for those to avoid it that are not in it But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages and may so far lawfully be Communicated with But even none of these are there but what either wittingly or unwittingly do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ and Descent of the Holy-Ghost the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epis. 118. Januar. the Praying toward the East (b) (b) (b) Basil de Spir. S. c. 27. the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days (c) (c) (c) Aug. Epis. 119. Januar. especially from Easter to Whitsontide the Dipping the Baptized thrice in Water (d) (d) (d) Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacrament c. 7. c. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood yet it 's plain that none of these are required in Scripture and if so a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded and to hold Communion with a Church so using must have separated from the Catholick Church since if there be Credit to be given to the Fathers so reporting they all agreed in the use and Practice of the things above recited And he that held all fixed Holy-Days of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited must not have Worshiped with them who did not only thus do but thought it unlawful when universally Practised to do otherwise But again as there were some Rites universally held in estimation so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches and that were not thought to be obliging out of that particular Communion as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday and of most orhers to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epist 118. In the Church of Milain they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptized but in the Church of Rome they used it not (b) (b) (b) Ambros l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Now if Persons did beleive such things unlawful they could have no Communion with any particular Church because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution yet how could they have Communion with a Church where the contrary Custom did prevail as in the cases abovesaid And as it was then so it is now with all stated and settled Churchers in the World who do Practice against this Principle and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them and that Practice with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milain once did so in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling in some Standing in others Sitting In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once and in others thrice Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these Circumstances or of being a Member of any Church if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God and that we must joyn in nothing which has it not As for Instance what Church is there in the World which has not some form or forms of Prayer and whose Service for the most part generally speaking is not made up of them especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful and that forms of Prayer are no where prescribed then he cannot joyn with the Church so using but while in the body of the Church by residence he must be no Member of that Body in Communion Nay further if this be true then none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion since those that pretend most to it and urge it as a reason against Communion with us live in contradiction to it and to Practice and Use things which they have no more Authority nor can give more reason for than we do for the things they condemn and that is that they are lawful expedient and convenient As for Example let us consider the Sacraments in wich if any thing we might expect particular Prescription because they are meer Institutions where do they find that the Baptized Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled What Command or
Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punnish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that even Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of Place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Batipzed VVhere do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Prerbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not VVorship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the VVorship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly VVhere do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a position can render things not Commanded to be unlawful And now I am come to that which must put an Issue one way or other to the Dispute for if there be no such position in Scripture either expressed in it or to be gathered by good consequence from it we have gain'd the point but if there be then we must give it up And this is indeed contended for For it s Objected That it s accounted in Scripture an hainous Crime Object I to do things not commanded as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange Fire before the Lord which he Commanded Levit. 10. 1 c. them not c. From which form of expression it may be collected that what is not Commanded is Forbidden and that in every thing used in Divine Worship there must be a Command to make it lawful and allowable To this I answer that the Proposition infer'd that all Answ I things not Commanded are Forbidden is not true and so it cannot be the Sence and Meaning of the Phrase for 1. Then all things must be either Commanded or Forbidden and there would be nothing but what must be Commanded or Forbidden but I have before shewed and it must be granted that there are things neither Commanded nor Forbidden which are called Indifferent 2. If things not Commanded are Forbidden then a thing not Commanded is alike Hainous as a thing Forbidden And then David's Temple which he designed to Build would have been Criminal as well as Jeroboam's Dan and Bethel and the Feast of (a) (a) (a) Esth 9. 27. Purim like Jeroboam's Eighth Month (b) (b) (b) 1 King 12. 32 33. and the Synagogal Worship like the Sacrificing in Gardens (c) (c) (c) Isai 65. 3. and the hours of Prayer (d) (d) (d) Act. 3. 1. like Nadab's Strange Fire The former of which were things Uncommanded and the latter Forbidden and yet They were approved and These condemned 2. The things to which this Phrase not Commanded is applied to give no encouragement to such an Inference from it for its constantly applied to such as are absolutely Forbidden This was the case of Nadab and Abihu who offered Fire not meerly Uncommanded but what was prohibited which will appear if we consider that the Word Strange when applied to matters of Worship doth signify as much as Forbidden Thus we read of Strange Incense that is other than what was compounded Exod. 30. 9 according to the directions given for it which as it was to be put to no common uses so no common Ver. 34. Ch. 37 29. persmue was to be put to the like uses with it So we also read of Strange Vanities which is but another Jer. 8. 19. Word for Graven Images and of Strange Gods And after the same sort is it to be understood in the case before us viz. for what is Forbidden For that such was the Fire made use of by those Young Men will be further confirm'd if we consider that there is scarcely any thing belonging to the Altar Setting aside the Structure of it of which more is said than of the Fire burning upon it For 1. It was lighted from Heaven (a) (a) (a) Lev. 9. 24. 2. It was always to be burning upon the Altar (b) (b) (b) Ch. 6. 12. 3.
If it was not made use of in all Sacred matters where Eire was to be used yet it was most Holy and when Atonement was to be made by Incense the Coals were to be taken from thence (c) (c) (c) Lev. 16. 12 46. and therefore surely was as peculiar to those Offices as the Incense and to be as constantly used in them as never to be used in any other And it will yet make it more evident if it be considered 4. That just before there is an account given of the Extraordinary way by which this Fire was lighted for the Text saith there came out a Fire from before the Lord and consumed upon the Altar the Burnt-Offering c. and immediately Lev. 9. 24. follows the Relation of Nadab's miscarriage Now for what reason are these things so closely connected but to shew wherein they Offended For before it was the Office of Aaron's Sons to put Fire upon the Altar and now through Inadvertency or Presumption Attempting Lev. 1. 7. to do as formerly when there had been this Declaration from Heaven to the contrary they Suffered for it 5. It appears further from the conformity betwixt the Punishment and the Sin as there came Fire from before the Lord and consumed the Burnt-Offering to teach them what Fire for the future to make use of So upon their Transgression there came out Fire from the Lord and devoured them to teach others how Dangerous it was to do otherwise than he had Commanded So that it seems to me to be like the case of Vzzah when 1 Chron. 13. 7. 10. Ch 15. 2. they carried the Ark in a Cart which the Levites were to have born upon their Shoulders and it was not an Offering without a Command but otherwise than Commanded that was their Fault and without doubt they might with no more Offence have taken what Fire they would for their Incense than what Wood they pleased for their Fire if there had been no more direction about the one than the other But to proceed in the other places of Scripture where this Phrase of not Commanded is to be met with it s also so applied to things Forbidden as to what is called Abomination which is the Worshiping of Strange Gods the Sun Moon and Stars and Deut. 17 34. Jer. 7. 31. Ch. 19. 5. Ch. 32. 35. the Host of Heaven To the building the High Places of Topheth and the burning their Sons and Daughters in the Fire to Baal and causing them to pass through the Fire unto Molech Of such and the like its said which I Commanded them not neither came it into my mind And lastly it 's applied to the false Prophets who spake Lies Jer. 29. 22 23. in the Name of the Lord in which case the meer being not Commanded nor sent by him is in the nature of the thing no less than a Prohibition it being a Belying God though there had been no such place as Deut. 18. 20. to forbid it Now if so much stress was to be laid upon the Phrase as the Objection doth suppose and that we must take a Non-Commanding for a Prohibition we might reasonablly expect to find the Phrase otherwhere applied to things that were no otherwise Unlawful than because not Commanded but when it s always spoken of things plainly Prohibited it s a sign that it s rather God's Forbidding that made them Unlawful than his not Commanding But it may still be said why should then the Phrase be used at all in such matters and why should the case be thus Represented if not Commanded is not the same with Prohibited To this I answer 1. That all things Prohibited are by consequence not Commanded but it follows not that all things not Commanded are Prohibited If it was Forbidden to Offer Strange Fire then it was a thing not Commanded for otherwise the same thing would be Forbidden and Commanded but if it had been a thing not Commanded only it would not by being so have been any more Prohibited than the Wood that was to be burnt upon the Altar Now it s with respect to the former that things Prohibited are call'd things not Commanded and not with respect to the latter 2. Indeed the Phrase not Commanded is only a Meiosis or Softer way of speaking when more is understood than express'd A Figure usual in all Authors and Languages that I know of and what is frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus it 's given as a Character of an Hypocritical People they choose that in which I Delight not Isai 66 3. 4 Ch. 65. 3 12. which is but another Word for what was said in the verse before their Soul Delighted in their Abominations or Idolatries And when the Apostle would Describe the evil state of the Gentile World by the most Hainous and Flagitious Crimes such as Fornication Covetousness Rom. 1. 28. 29. Laciviousness Envy Murder and what not he saith of these that they were things not Convenient And it is as evident that the Phrase not Commanded is of the like kind when the things its applied to are alike Notorous and Abominable But it s further Objected that it s said in Scripture Object II ye shall not add unto the Word which I Command you neither Deut. 4. 2. shall ye diminish ought from it And that our Saviour condemning the Practices of the Scribes in this kind concludes In Vain do they Worship me Teaching for Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines the Commandments of Men. From whence it may be collected 1. That all things not Commanded by God in his Word are additions to it 2. That such additions are altogether unlawful To this I reply Answer 1. If they mean by adding to the Word the doing what that Forbids and by diminishing the neglecting of what that requires as the next Words do intimate and is plainly the sense otherwise (a) (a) (a) Deut 12. 32. when it s no Deut. 4. 4 6. sooner said What thing soever I Command you Observe to do it but it immediately follows thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it it s what we willingly condemn according to that of our Saviour Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments and shall teach Matth. 5. 19. Men so he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven 2. If they mean by adding the appointing somewhat else instead of what God hath appointed as Jeroboam did the Feast of the Eighth Month and by diminishing the taking away what God hath Commanded as Ahaz did the Altar and Laver c. This is what we condemn 2 King 16. 14 17. also and do blame in the Church of Rome whilst they feed the People with Legends instead of Scripture and take away both that and the Cup from the Laity 3. If they mean by adding the adding insolent expositions to the Command by which the end of it is frustrated This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees Why
upon that as sufficient to put an end to all Contentions and Debates that whatever might be Plausibly urged against it from the Jewish Practice and the Representation even of Angels adoring after that manner and from the reason of the thing as a signification of Shame and Reverence or from the Practice of Idolators that dâd many of them Worship Uncovered yet he peremptorily concludes We have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a Peaceable Mind sufficient to put an end to all Disputes about it and the Peace of the Church depending upon the Observation of its Coustoms that is infinitely to be preferred before Scrupulosity and Niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary Practice For in publick cases a Man is not to go his own way or to have his own mind for that would bring in Confusion one Man having as much a right as another There must be somewhat Established some Common Order and Bond of Union and if Confusion is before such Establishment then to break that Establishment would bring in Confusion and where that is likely to ensue it is not worth the while for the Tryal of a new Experiment to decry and throw down what is already Established or Used in a Church because we think better of another for saith a Grave Author and well Skill'd in these matters The very change of a Custom though it may Aug. Epist 118. happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty Publick Peace is worth all new Offers if the Church is Disquieted and its Peace Endangered by them though in themselves better and it is better to labour under the infirmity of publick Order than the mischief of being without it or what is next to that the Trial of some Form seemingly of a better Cast and Mould that hath not yet been experimented I say it again Infirmity in a Church is better than Confusion or Destruction which is the Consequent of it And I had rather choose that as I would a House to have one with some Faults rather then to have none at all And if I cannot have them mended when tolerable I think my self bound not only to bear with them but to do all I can for its preservation though with them and to observe all things that are lawful for its support and encouragement In doing thus I serve God and his Church my own Soul and the Souls of others promote Religion and Charity in the World For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace in all the 1 Cor. 14. 33. Churches of the Saints In things which neither we nor the Worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order is far to be prefer'd before Niceties And certainly neither we nor the Service of God can be the worse for what God hath concluded nothing in What the Gospel looks as is the Main and Essential parts of Religion in Doctrine Worship and Practice And if these be Secured we are under no Obligation to contend for or against the modes and circumstances of things further than the Churches Order and Peace is concerned in them So the Apostle Let not your Good be Evil spoken of For the Kingdom of Rom. 14. 16. God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy-Ghost the promoting Love and Charity and substantial Righteousness He that in these things Serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men The Beauty of the Kings Daughter is within Aug. Epist 86. saith St. Austin and all its observations are but its vesture which though various in different Churches are no prejudice to the Common Faith nor to him that useth them And therefore what he and his mother received from St. Ambrose and looked upon as a Divine Oracle is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners Epist 118. 86. it becometh a Good and Prudent Christian to Practise according to the Custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a Scandal to them nor have them to be a Scandal to him And if the Custom and Practice of a Church should be thus taken into consideration by a Good Man then certainly much more ought it so to be when that is Established and is made a Law and is backed by Authority For then to stand in Opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront and to insist upon the Gratifying our own Inclination against publick Order is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern whether our Will or the publick Good and Order must take place And what can be the Issue of such a Temper but the distraction if not Dissolution of Government which as it cannot be without Governed as well as Governours so cannot be preserved without the submission of the Governed in all lawful things to the Gevernours and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet It s pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things Vndetermined in Scripture and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion as in Posture c. though Decency Would plead for Uniformity in those things also but there are other things which they must agree in or else there can be no publick Worship or Christian Communion which yet they differ in as much as the other As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening whether Prayers should be long or short c. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other or there be a Power in Superiours and Guides to determine for them and they are to submit to them in it there will be nothing but confusion And why Superiours may not then Command and why Inferiours are not to obey in all things of the like kind In Posture or Habit as well as the time above specified and Forms I understand not To conlude this if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church that is not Forbidden in Scripture or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church that is not required in Scripture we may and ought to Act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally Act or forbear or the Laws of that Communion require and in such things are to be determined by the publick Voice of the Communion that is Authority Custom or the Majority But to this it will be said If we are thus to be determined Object in our Practice then where is our Christian Liberty which being only in Indifferent things if we are restrained in the use of them we are also restrained in our Liberty which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in Gal. 5. 1. 1. This is no argument to those that say
understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid then we are not to expect a command nor do we Sin if we act without it As for example a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service and he useth a Coat or a Cloak takes an Horse or goes on Foot puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do Or if to carry a Message considers what to say and Writes it down that he may be the better fitted to deliver it In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions and it 's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act as he sees fit without them And this is the case with us as I shall afterward shew This said there is way made for the next inference Conclus 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 3 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded it follows that it 's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship as are not therein commanded It 's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation perfect p. 2â throughly furnished to all good Works Now if the Worship of God be a good work and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that And he concludes If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God except as before excepted c. then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise c. By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoyns viz. If our Author can shew us any Act of Worship c. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture and we the derogators from it And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny If saith he our R. Author can shew us any Act of Worship for the Pag. 29. performance of which in such a manner as God will accept we cannot shew him direction of Scripture Well! where is it Scripture with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature for the obtaining the ends of it or appearing to any Common Judgment to be so decent that without them the performance would be sordid Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul c. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted in his Book pag. 21 Suppose then we put it to the question Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God He readily answers Yes If you take in the Nature of the thing the light shining in every reasonable Soul if you take in Common Judgment convenience and decency Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church that is it is and it is not Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions to that and against pag. 38. Reason and Authority as a Supply or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority the Guides of the Church or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul so as to deny to pag. 29. the one what he grants to the other I am not able to understand Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us and somewhat shall be said to make it out For the Sufficiency of Scripture is a very great argument And so indeed it is and it has been an old pag. 28. argument against the practices of our Church and is not to be easily parted with But yet what to give and what to take and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant he knows not or has not been so kind as to discover But however when all this is pastover he concludes as to one part we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing viz. That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law This indeed I touched upon to shew that the Case of indifferent things pag. 30. faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision the Lord's Supper against the Passover and Prayers against Sacrifices Now let us consider what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree Certainly if ever controversie was like to be ended we may now expect it because it 's about plain matter of Fact But in this case he strangely fails of performance For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter But let us consider what he saith of the former and as much as we can make up his defect in the latter First he saith As to Circumcision what particular pag. 31. direction had the Jews Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel 2ly As to the Passover he acknowledges they had a Rule but then he adds What Rule had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb But was not that a Rule to determine them when it must be a Kid or a Lamb and no other Creature and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two But was there nothing else determined as his cautious way of expressing it would imply Let him consult the Text and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one Exod. 12. c. out of two but it was to be a Male kept the 14th day and to be killed at even without a bone broken to be roasted to be eaten in the house and with unleavened Bread with bitter Herbs and none left to the morning And they were to eat it standing as our Author acknowledges p. 32. with their loyns girt c. And with several other rites too long to enumerate But in the Lord's Supper there is nothing specified or required but the Elements and the breaking and pouring out nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine nothing required of the time or posture or number c.
that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâth all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
Authority for it is not so absurd as may by some be imagined for the Common People to take upon trust from their lawful Teachers what they are not competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty here is how shall a private Christian govern himself when the very Guides and Ministers of Religion determine differently concerning these matters in question amongst us Some warranting and allowing them others as much disapproving and condemning them by what Rule shall he choose his Guide To which I briefly reply 1. As for those who scruple at Conformity and are tolerably able to judge for themselves let not such relye barely upon the Authority either of the one or the other All we desire of them is that they would equally hear both sides that they would think that the Ministers of the Church of England have some Sense and Conscience too as well as other Men and are able to say somewhat for what they do themselves or require of others that laying aside all Prejudices Favour to or admiration of Mens Persons they would weigh and consider the Arguments that may be propounded to them being diffident of their own Apprehensions and indifferent to either part of the Question that they would think it no shame to change their Mind when they see good reason for it Could we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church would every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men for we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. But as for those who are not so capable of examining or judging for themselves as few of the common People who separate from us really are they not being able to give any tolerable account of their dissent from us only in general Words declaiming against Popery Superstition Antichristian and Unscriptural Ceremonies Humane Traditions c. such had better trust to and depend on those Ministers of known Sufficiency for their Office who are regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than any other Guides or Teachers that they can choose for themselves This to be sure is the safer course which in doubtful cases is always to be taken I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies so hotly agitated amongst us which are above the Sphere of common People out of their profession not of such things as concern the Salvation of all men which are plain and evident to the meanest Capacities When therefore in such cases about which we cannot easily satisfie our selves we follow the Advice of the publickly authorized Guides and Preachers of Religion if they chance to mislead us we have something to say or apologize for our selves Our Error is more excusable and pardonable as being occasion'd by those to whose Judgment by God's Command we did owe a great Respect and Submission But when we choose Instructors and Counsellors to our selves according to our own Fancy and liking and they teach us contrary to the Doctrine of our lawful Ministers if then we prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into Sin we may thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely accomptable for such Mistakes Thus let a Man that is troubled with any threatning disease apply himself rather to the Licensed Physicians or Chyrurgions of approved Skill and Honesty and if he chance to miscarry under them yet he hath this contentment that he used the best and wisest means for his Health and Recovery But if he leaves them all and will hearken only to Quacks and Empiricks tho they advise him quite contrary to what the others prescribed if under their hands he grows worse and worse he must then charge his own perverse Folly or idle Humour as the cause of his Ruine 4. In order to the curing of our Scruples we should thoroughly understand and consider what is the true Notion of lawful and how it differs from what is necessary and from what is sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God hath expresly commanded that is sinful which God hath forbid that is lawful which God hath not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbid for Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where kneeling at the Sacrament is forbid in Scripture where fitting is required where praying by a Form is forbid and extemporary Prayers are enjoyned then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end but if neither the one nor the other can be found as most certainly they cannot then kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin nay where they are required by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another Notion of Lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself hath not prescribed and appointed or that hath been abused to evil Purposes And on these two Mistakes are chiefly grounded Mens Scruples about indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in God's Worship 1. That only is said to be lawful in God's Worship which he himself hath prescribed and appointed so that this is thought Exception sufficient against the Forms and Usages of our Church that though they are not forbid yet they are no where commanded in Scripture Who hath required these things at your hands Now here I only ask Where our Saviour or his Apostles have forbid us doing any thing in God's Worship which is not by himself commanded or where in the New Testament we are told that God will be angry with us for doing any thing which he hath no where forbid either by general or particular Laws For unless this can be shewn there can be no colour for this Pretence and we are sufficiently sure that no such Place can be produced out of the Bible It is acknowledged by all that the Holy Scriptures as to all that is necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation as to all the essential and substantial Parts of Divine Worship is a plain and perfect Rule but it is as certain that the outward Circumstances of Time Place Habit and Gesture are not determined in the New Testament as they were in many cases by Moses's Law and yet God cannot be at least visibly and publickly worshipped without them If therefore these be not determined in Scripture and it is unlawful to
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
favourable Interpretations upon things to take them by the best handle and not strain things on purpose that they might cavil the more plausibly and raise more considerable Objections against them We must not make personal accidental Faults nor any thing a pretence for our leaving the Communion of our Church which ariseth only from the necessary condition and temper of all humane Affairs that nothing here is absolutely perfect 6. And lastly if you cannot by these and other the like considerations not now to be mentioned get rid of and conquer your Scruples then be advised to lay them aside to throw them out of your Minds as dangerous Temptations and act positively against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you perswade us to conform to the Orders of the Church tho we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this the best Advice that can be given to such scrupulous Persons It would be an endless infinite thing and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joyning himself to it till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required or was in use in that Church for indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Government Discipline or publick Worship no more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Common People generally have neither Patience to consider nor Judgment to weigh all Circumstances nor Wisdom to choose that which is best these things of a Publick Nature belong only to our Superiours and Governours and if they appoint what is unfit indecent or inconvenient they only are accountable for it It is not the fault of those that joyn with such Worship or yield to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I know therefore no better Rule for the directing and quieting Mens Consciences than this that as to all such Matters as relate to Publick Order and decent Administration of God's Worship they should without any superstitious Fearfulness comply with the Customs of the Church they live in never troubling themselves nor curiously examining what is best and fittest as long as there is nothing enjoyned or done which after due enquiry appears to us contrary to any Law of God Thus St. Augustin directs us in that often quoted place where he tells us He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take in matters of Rites and Customs than to follow the Churches Example where he is for whatsoever is prescribed neither against Faith or Manners is a matter in its self indifferent and to be observed according to the Custom of those he lives among This was agreeable to the Counsel St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave him when he was sent by his Mother to enquire his Judgment about the Saturday Fast When I am at Rome saith the Bishop I fast on the Sabbath but at Milan I do not So thou likewise when thou comest to any Church observe its Custom if thou wouldest neither be an offence to them nor have them be so to thee Which St. Augustin ever after looked upon as an Oracle from Heaven I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and Objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easie consequence contrary to the revealed Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens Minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Should all those that have some little Arguments against the Sign of the Cross puzzle themselves with the Objections usually urged against Infant Baptism and defer baptizing their Children till they were fully satisfied about it I doubt not but the baptizing of Infants would soon be as much scrupled at as the crossing them now is But there is no apparent Evil in it it is the Practise of the Church we live in it is no where forbid in Scripture this ordinarily is sufficient Warrant for what we do Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with its Orders we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded of the Unlawfulness of what is required that it is forbid by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful causes but there is not the same necessity that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise The Judicious and Learned Bishop Sanderson thus expresseth it in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum The Law taketh every Man for a good Man and true till his Truth and Honesty be legally disproved and as our Saviour sometimes said He that is not against us is for us so in these matters he speaks of those Ceremonies that for Order's sake and to add the greater Solemnity to sacred Actions are appointed in the Church we are to believe all things to be lawful for us to do which cannot be shewn by good Evidence either of Scripture or Reason to be unlawful If any one be afraid that this Principle once imbibed would introduce Popery make People greedily swallow and without any Examination submit to every thing their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only consider which we all agree in that there are many things in the Popish Worship and Religion manifestly evil and forbidden by the revealed Will of God which renders our Separation from them necessary and so consequently justifiable whereas the things objected against in our Church are at worst only doubtful and suspicious or rather not so good and expedient as might be devised and this surely makes a wide difference in the case But doth not St. Paul say Rom. 14. 19. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean it is unclean Doth not he expresly tell us That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin that is Whatever we do without a full Persuasion of the lawfulness of it tho it be not so in it self yet is a Sin in him that doth it against his Conscience And doth not the Apostle say He that doubteth is damned if he eat before he is convinced that it may be done I desire here therefore only to be rightly understood and then these things are soon reconciled 1. When I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well perswaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he
have taken due care to inform others rightly of the matter and warn them of the danger till I have endeavoured to rectifie their judgments concerning the innocency of my action and intention and given them notice of the evil that might possibly by my action happen to them If I dig a pit or lay a block in the way whereby others not knowing any thing of it are hurt and wounded here I stand chargeable with it and am guilty in causing them to fall but if they are plainly and often told of it and being forewarned yet will run into the danger they are then only to thank themselves and it is purely their own fault Now if it be thus in cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation it holds much more in our Ceremonies and the orders of our Church where the offence that is taken at them ariseth not so much from the nature of the injunctions as from mens gross Ignorance misconceit or perverseness Thus men are no longer weak in Scripture sense than they are inculpably Ignorant or which is all one the Plea of weakness is gone after that sufficient instruction hath been given or offered to them and other allowances made according to mens different capacities of understanding This shall suffice for the first thing propounded to shew what is the true notion of a weak Brother 2 I proceed to give you an account what it is to offend such an one Because I write for the use of the Common people only I shall not trouble them with the several significations of the Greek word which is Translated Scandal or offence nor distinctly consider the several places of Scripture where it is used only so far as plainly to shew First that people are generally mistaken in the sense they have of it Secondly What it is truly to offend or give offence 1. That people are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another and making him angry with them and so consequently they think themselves in Conscience bound to forbear all those things which godly persons do not like or approve of or is contrary to their fancy and judgment It is notorious that most of the ordinary sort of Dissenters who assign this as the reason of their not conforming to the Established Laws of the Church because by doing so they shall offend their Brethren mean nothing else by it but that they shall fall into disgrace with incur the displeasure and provoke the anger of those with whom they have held Communion for a long time in religious exercises They good men will be mightily troubled and vexed to see or hear such a sad thing and this is taken by many amongst them for an heinous crime even the same which St. Paul calls Scandalizing a weak Brother to do any thing which may chance to put any of their Godly Brethren out of humour The occasion of this false apprehension is in all likelyhood the Ambiguity of our English word offend which is used in the Translation of our Bibles In our Language it signifies to displease or to do something which another dislikes but the Greek word which is so rendered signifies to lay a stumbling block in the way of another which causes him to fall or to ensnare and deceive him into something that is evil as I shall shew more largely presently We must not therefore interpret the places of Scripture where offend or offence are found by the common importance of the words amongst us but by the undoubted signification of the Original word which all learned men agree to have quite another sense It must not be concealed that there is one place in the famous fourteenth chapter of the Romans that seems to favour this popular conceit v. 15. If thy Brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably and it is the only one I know of that sounds this way but surely it is more reasonable that this one verse should be interpreted by all the other places of Scripture about this matter than all the rest explained agreeably to this single verse Nay it sufficiently appears that by grieving our Brother is not meant displeasing him or making him sorry or sad but wounding or hurting him and so it is used to denote that which causes grief or sorrow For in the very next words it follows destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died and what is here expressed by grieving is v. 13. called putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall and v. 21. it is good neither to eat Flesh nor drink Wine nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak all which signifie the same with being grieved To be offended or grieved is not to be troubled at what another hath done out of pity and concern for his Soul but to receive hurt our selves from it being by it drawn or deceived into some sin and our own fall occasioned by what our Brother hath done is that which creates the grief and trouble But because this mistake doth so generally prevail amongst many as I hope well disposed people who think that they must not do any thing at which good men are displeased or grieved I shall offer these few things to their consideration 1. That thus to censure and condemn the actions and to be displeased and angry with the persons of those that differ from them or refuse any longer to joyn with them in their Separate Congregations is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his weak believers against viz. that they should not rashly judge those who knew their duty and understood their Christian liberty better than themselves This seems to be the same with that Argument the Papists use to perswade men into or to keep them in their Communion as the safest way to Heaven since they so confidently damn all Men whom tho never so unjustly they thrust out of their Church Because some of our Dissenting Brethren are so froward and unmerciful in their censures and so fond of their own way as to brand all that return to the Church with the infamous names of Apostates Time-servers Men that have made Shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience and have forsaken Christ for fear of Persecution and the like therefore all those who are convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity yet ought still to continue with them in their Separation lest they provoke and irritate their anger and displeasure against them and thus any company of men that shall joyn together and resolve to quarrel with all that do not as they do or that shall leave their society must oblige all for ever to remain with them for fear of giving them offence If what I do is not evil in it self it cannot become such because another Man is causelesly angry with me for doing of it Let
the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his House but still this would be but a pityful pretence for our wholly absenting our selves from Church and constant neglect of our Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours life may be invaded or his house fired by ill Men of which there is great store in the World and so he may stand in need of our help which is a more acceptable Service to God than any acts of Devotion So that however this Argument may serve to excuse the omission of some things Commanded by lawful Authority by those who otherwise are perfectly conformable in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen and for which no provision could be made by Law yet to be sure this will not at all help those who bid open defiance to the Laws stand out in manifest opposition against them live in plain disobedience and contradiction to them as if they were altogether free from them nay set up a distinct way and form of Worship of their own and all this because they are loth to Offend those who are not satisfied of the wisdom and goodness of what is appointed Thus our Dissenting Brethren can gain but little by this Plea if granted to them for upon this account of exercising mercy and charity towards their Neighbours they can be excused from Obedience to their Superiours in such cases only in which they may be excused also from the observation of the Sabbath from Prayer publick or private from Worshipping of God either in the Church or in a Conventicle nay from Obedience to God himself had he pleased in the Scriptures positively to have required whatever is at present enjoyned by our Church and let them well consider whether if God had plainly in his Word prescribed all that our Church doth Command they would have thought it selfe to have refused compliance with such divine impositions because they were unreasonably offensive to some Godly people If our Dissenters will but acknowledge themselves bound to submit to the determinations of their Superiours about the things in controversie between us so far as the Jews were bound to obey the ordinances of God concerning his external Worship delivered by Moses and that they are freed from such obligation to obey the Laws of their Governours only in such cases as the Jews were excused from offering their accustomed Sacrifices or as they think themselves at liberty to break the Sabbath to omit Gods Publick Worship I suppose this dispute would soon be at an end for they dare not own that the Scandal others may take at such things which yet are to give place to moral duties is sufficient to void their obligation to the doing of them Mr. Jeans whose objections I shall the rather consider because of his eminency amongst the Presbyterians tho I find my self somewhat prevented by a late Writer who hath taken particular notice of them thus putteth the Question Suppose saith he the greatest Monarch upon the face of the Earth should command the meanest and lowest of his Slaves upon some important affair to ride Post through such a City without any of the least stay or diversion and then it should happen that a company of little Children should be playing in the Streets can this Slave think that he is obliged to ride over them No surely he ought to use all means and take all care possible to execute his Commission without doing any hurt or damage to any person whatever but if he would have stated the case right it should have been done thus suppose this Slave should utterly refuse to do as he was Commanded and for his justification should plead that he must be forced to ride through many Towns and Cities where are many little Children who are often playing at the Doors or in the Streets he knows not but that some of them may be in his way or chance to run between his Horses legs and therefore to avoid the doing of this mischief which might possibly happen he resolves not to stir one foot from his own home Is this pretence sufficient to excuse his disobedience No more can our Nonconformity to the rules given us by our Superiours be innocent because some may be Scandalized at our Obedience 2. It is further said that Scandal is in the nature of it spiritual murder and if where Authority hath determined our choice we must hold to their determination any Scandal to the contrary notwithstanding it seemeth then in case the Magistrate command it we may lawfully murther the Soul of our Brother wound his weak Conscience and destroy with our meats our Ceremonies the work of God and him for whom Christ died It is good saith St. Paul Rom. 14. 21. neither to eat Flesh nor to drink Wine nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak But our Prelatists saith Mr. Jeans determine quite otherwise If Authority enjoyn it it is good say they to eat Bread drink Wine wear a Surplice use the sign of the Cross in Baptism tho thereby never so many Brethren stumble or are offended or made weak But all this is meer bugbear fitted only to fright Children and such weak persons as we are now treating of for it can never be shewen how wearing a Surplice or Kneeling at receiving of the Sacrament or Crossing the Infants forehead hath any tendency towards the scaring Men from Christianity or making them to deny Christ and forsake and grow weary of his Religion which I have sufficiently proved to be the only proper Scandalizing of our Brother which St. Paul so highly aggravateth and chargeth with the guilt of destroying and murthering his Soul none of these things do directly and immediately lead or tempt any man to any sin Whatever Scandal may follow is wholly accidental and the fault and mistake of those only who are Offended and to provide always against such Scandals is an impossible undertaking for they may follow the most innocent actions nay the most necessary duties and this Argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other Command of God if by it my Brother may stumble or be offended or be made weak as it doth against submission to our Superiours in things lawful They that make these Objections do not sufficiently consider that by Gods Law we are bound to obey the Lawful Commands of our Superiours and it is not only the Law or Ordinance of Man of which they seem to make so little account but it is the Law of God also that is violated by our disobedience to our Governours in things Lawful The Comparison therefore ought not to be only as they make it between an human Authority determining some indifferent things and the divine Law of charity to the Soul of our Brother but between the divine Command of obedience to our Superiours and the avoiding of Scandal Here we affirm that we cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God or which is all
is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning but less knowing members of it and by degrees produces a distast or dislike of our Worship and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administred in our Church whilest it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt and why there should not be a due regard had to those many who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship as well as of those who are said to be Scandalized by our Church service I cannot at all guess I shall only say here that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mens unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers their indecent postures and antick gestures at their devotions the extravagancies and follies not to say worse some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching in a word the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous then all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be 4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt concerning which the forenamed Mr. Jeans in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil hath these words If saith he it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck than to offend a little one a poor and illiterate Artizan what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate to a Religious Prince to a Parliament and Convocation to an whole Church and Commonwealth 5. By this Separation from the Church great Scandal is given to the Papists not that they are displeased at it they are not indeed offended in that sense but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship it increaseth their confidence that their Church is the only true Church of Christ because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us that Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and he saith of himself that he is persuaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the multitude of Sects among our selves This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us and hit us in the teeth with and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation 6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing a matter of endless dispute and debate it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Publick Peace of Societies when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheisme and all kind of Prophaneness and Irreligion After this manner it was of old and always will be where there are Parties in Religion and one contends that their Separation is lawful and the other that it is unlawful the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion I might add here that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity they beget implacable enmities and animosities Hence cometh strife emulation envying one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other watching for one anothers halting rejoycing in one anothers sins and misfortunes constant undermining one another to the disturbance of the Publick Government and endangering the Civil Peace of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undenyable an evidence that there need no more words to shew the mischiefs that attend such Divisions and now let any one judge whether the Peace and Unity of the Church the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren the keeping out Popery and Atheism the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate and quiet of the Society we are Members of the honour and credit of our Religion Lastly Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division nay Scandalizing them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal be not of far greater and more weighty consideration than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren Wo to those by whom Offences come But these things I have very lightly touched because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published To sum up all I have said Since they who dissent from the Church of England are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalize or Offend them in that sense in which the Scriptures use those words since tho we did give Offence to them by our Conformity yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief I think I may safely conclude that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent himself from his Parish-Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending his weak Brethren I end all with one word of Advice First to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity Secondly to those who are satisfied that it is lawful 1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request since they require all others to be so tender of them They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our publick Churches Let them not affront our Service and Common-Prayers nor revile our Bishops and Ministers nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches nor talk nor read in Books nor make sour
cannot charge the Church with any plain degeneracy or open Apostacy from the Doctrine or Practice of the Scriptures When any particular Church degenerates plainly either in Doctrine or Worship there I am not concerned to determine how far she forfeits all that respect that she might otherwise claim from men nor how much the Credit of a single person may vie with her Perhaps when the Church was degenerated into Arrianism the judgement of Athanasius and some few other Bishops was more to be regarded than that of a whole Synod and in the horrid Apostacy of the Roman Church perhaps the single Doctrine of John Huss was preferable to that of the whole Council of Constance But still in both these Cases or any other parallel ones that respect derived it self not from their persons but was wholly owing to truth and the holy Scriptures that stood with them But blessed be God this is not our case our Church doth challenge and triumph over all charges of any such Apostacy and all the disputes and contests with her by any of these men are about things confessedly doubtful and such as are in their own nature indifferent things about which to say the least it is as possible that single persons may erre and mistake as it is for the Church unless in this also as in many other instances men fall in with the grossest Tenet in Popery that single persons may more reasonably pretend to Infallibility than the whole Church Every man derides and thinks he can baffle all the pretences of the Bishop of Rome to Infallibility and therefore should blush and be ashamed of his own either arrogating it to himself or ascribing it to another For the truth is I do not see but his pretences are as just as another man's i. e. indeed they are both monstrously unreasonable And yet alas this is not the least source of the unhappiness of this Age nor need I be condemned for staying a little while to drop a tear upon it Men turn Dictators in Religion and impose their own Dreams as magisterially upon their Followers as if they were oracular and I am perswaded their Disciples hang as much upon their single authority and confidence and yield as absolute and implicite Faith to all their Doctrines as ever any poor Papists against whom they exclaim so tragically for blind Obedience and Faith They are kept in as absolute subjection to their placits and dare no more read and consult Books that are written to inform them than a poor Papist dare let a prohibited Book be seen in his House by a Father of the Inquisition If ever people followed their leaders blindfold these men do they will not hear any thing against them They have their persons in admiration and I wish I could not say of some for filthy lucres sake or at least some mean reasons equivalent thereto They will not so much as submit to means of Information they commonly say they are satisfied already and the single blustering of one of their own Rabbies shall signifie more with them than all the Arguments of the most Learned and sober men living beside But I am insensibly drawn aside from my chief Subject which is not to treat so much of a respect of Credit and Faith as of Tenderness and Charity which is certainly as justly due from us to the Church as to any private persons whatsoever and it cannot but be as unreasonable to fail in the one as in the other It is every whit as unjust for men to be more regardless of grieving and troubling the Church of Christ as it is foolish and unreasonable to set up one single man's opinion against that of many others that are in the same circumstances and advantages of Knowledge and every way both as knowing and as upright as himself Whatever considerations there are to determine our Charity to single persons there are the same at least to make it necessary towards the Church and as strong reasons to restrain us from offending the one as the other Whatever becomes an Argument in one case is equally so also in the other and if it be not as effectual with us we are partial in the Law and distinguish without any reasons but those of our own partial and unjust respects Let men be pleased to look into the Scriptures and consult the practices of our Lord himself or his Apostles after him and their thoughts will soon be resolved in this matter they will find the one calling for as much deference and respect to the Church as to private persons and the other upon all occasions as careful to pay it and in all cases extreamly careful not to give offence to it in any thing whatsoever as were easie to shew in Instances enough that are plain and obvious to all that read and can scarce pass unobserved by any This is the first Consideration and I appeal to all if it be not a very easie Postulatum a very modest and reasonable intimation and yet I assure you it were a good point gained and a very good step towards our peace were men hearty in their concessions of it Would men pay but the same deference to the Church of Christ and her Constitutions as they readily do to their own single Opinions or the confident suggestions of some admired Leader we might quickly hope to see some end of our Questions and Disputes And would they be but as tender of giving any offence to the Publick as they are of doing so to every little person of their own party we might begin to hope that the Constitutions of our Church might gain some respect and some measure of peaceableness and modesty bless the Inhabitants of this Nation once more 2. But this is too little to suggest and the lesser part of what I would propose to consideration upon this Subject and therefore in the second place I desire it may be considered whether we ought not to have a greater respect to the Church of God than to any single or private persons whatsoever And truly I think this is as reasonable a Postulatum as the other and that which will be as soon granted true by all that duly consider things In all things whatsoever the Publick requires more respect from us than any private person and the welfare of the one is to be preferred by us before that of the other If the Church of Christ and any private Party of men come in competition and it so happen that we probably may give offence to one we ought to let our regard to the Church sway and determine us and think it a less evil that some particular persons be offended than that trouble or offence be given to the whole Church That saying of Caiaphas recorded Joh. 11. 50. though spoken with an unjust and barbarous design yet is a certain and rational truth It is expedient that one man suffer and not the whole Nation perish And it is certainly a less evil
a more publick and general concern though the Composers of our Liturgy could not foresee the Horrid Powder-Plot and the strange discovery of it the impious Murder of the late King and the happy Restoration of this yet upon the happening of those great Events our Church hath always taken care to provide such Forms of publick Prayer as are every way suitable to the Case and as for those extraordinary Cases which might be foreseen because they happen more frequently in the course of things such as want of Rain or fair Weather Dearth and War Plague and Sickness there may be Forms composed for them afore-hand as there are in our Church's Liturgy so that it is no Argument at all against publick Forms that they cannot make a due provision for extraordinary Cases and Events for before they happen extempore Prayers can no more make due provision for them than Forms and after they happen as due a provision may be made for them by Forms as by extempore Prayers 3. That supposing such provision for extraordinary Cases be not or cannot be made in the publick Form yet that is no Argument why it should not be used so far forth as it comprehends the main of the common Cases and Necessities of the People for as I shew'd before the main matter of publick Prayer may be much more fully comprehended in a studied Form than it can reasonably be supposed to be in an extempore Prayer in which in all probability there will be more omissions as to what respects the ordinary cases of Christians than there are in the publick Form as to what respects their extraordinary cases so that if the Form ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their extraordinary Cases for the same reason extempore Prayer ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their ordinary Cases But since as hath been proved at large the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the publick Devotion it 's very reasonable that they should be used so far forth as they can and do express the common Cases and Necessities and that the people should not be deprived of the benefit of joyning with them in the main matters of publick Prayer because such extraordinary matters may occur as either are not or can be express'd in them especially when 4. The defect of such new provision for extraordinary Cases may be supplied by the Minister in a publick Prayer of his own for as I observed before our Church allows or at leasts permits the Minister to use a Prayer of his own composure in the Pulpit in which if any extraordinary Mercy or Judgment for which there is no provision in our Liturgie happen to the place he lives in there is no doubt but he may and ought to supply the Devotion of his People with such Confessions Petitions and Thanksgivings as are proper and suitable to the occasion and where this is allow'd of or permitted the non-provision for such extraordinary Cases in the establisht Liturgy can be no bar at all against the use of it provided its Prayers be good and comprehend all ordinary matters of Prayer it is sufficiently provided for ordinary publick Devotion and so far doubtless may be lawfully used sufficient provision being otherwise made for all those extraordinary matters which it doth not or could not comprehend The sum of all therefore is this That as for the ordinary and main matters of publick Prayer they may be more fully and distinctly comprehended in a Form than in an extempore Prayer and as for those new matters which extraordinary publick Emergencies do administer they may for the generality be as well comprehended in a new Form as in a new extempore Prayer and though it should not or could not be express'd in the publick Form yet that is no bar against our joyning with it in all other matters of Prayer especially when these new matters of Prayer may be comprehended and express'd in a publick Prayer of the Minister's own composure CASE V. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in Scripture or pure Antiquity IN which Case there are two Enquiries to be made 1. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in the holy Scripture 2. Whether there be any evidence of the publick use of them in the primitive and purer Ages of the Church 1. Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms of Prayer in holy Scripture Where by Warrant must be meant either first positive Command or secondly allow'd Example for upon both these our Brethren insist First they require us to produce some positive Command upon this pretence that nothing ought to be used in the Worship of God but what is commanded by him which how true it is is not my present business to enquire that being done already to excellent purpose in the Case about Indifferent Things But because upon this pretence our Brethren reject the use of Forms as unlawful I shall endeavour to prove these two things 1. That supposing this pretence were true yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms 2. That supposing it did conclude against the use of Forms it equally concludes against conceiv'd or extempore Prayer 1. That supposing this pretence were true viz. That what is not commanded by God ought not to be used in his Worship yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms for though we do not pretend that God hath any-where commanded us to pray to him by Forms and no otherwise or that all the Prayers which we at any time offer to him should be first composed into a Form yet we do assert that he hath injoyn'd some Forms to be used and offer'd up in Prayer though together with those particular Forms we grant there might be and doubtless sometimes were other Prayers to be offer'd up to him Thus in the Old Testament we read of sundry Forms of Prayer injoyn'd to be used by God himself and which is the same thing by persons immediately inspired so Numb 6. 23 24 25 26. On this wise or thus shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel saying unto them The Lord bless thee and keep thee the Lord make his face shine upon thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace In which words the Priest did solemnly invocate and pray for a Blessing on the people and he is commanded to do it saying unto them this very Form of words The Lord bless thee c. which is as plain an injunction of this Form as words can well express So also in the expiation of uncertain Murder Deut. 21. 7 8. the people are injoyn'd by God to say Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeem'd and lay not innocent bloud unto thy people of Israel 's charge So also at their paying their third years Tythes they were expresly injoyn'd to use this Form of words I
at the Consecration of the Eucharist make use of the Lords Prayer By these and sundry other Testimonies which are quoted by learned men upon this argument it 's evident that the Church of Christ in all Ages look'd upon the Lords Prayer as a standing Form given by our Saviour to be perpetually used by Christians and to be sure they who believed the institution of it to be perpetually obliging could not make the least doubt but that it was constantly used in the Apostolick Age. And my thinks 't is very strange that had the institution been temporary the Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years should never be wise enough to discover it and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determine against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages without the least warrant so to do either from our Saviour or his Apostles By all this therefore it 's abundantly evident that both in the Old and New Testament there have been Forms of Prayer instituted and appointed by God himself so that were that true which our Brethren affirm that nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God which he hath not commanded yet this will not conclude against the admission of Forms of Prayer since there are Forms which God himself hath commanded But they object yet farther That all that this proves is that Forms of Prayer of Gods appointment may and ought to be admitted into his Worship which no body doubts of but from hence it doth by no means follow that men may appoint Forms of humane composure for those Forms of Prayer which God prescribed were immediately dictated by him to those inspired persons who delivered 'em and therefore we may as well pretend to appoint new Scripture for publick instruction because those inspired persons did so as to appoint new Forms for publick Worship Now because I perceive this Objection is very much insisted on by our Brethren I shall endeavour to return a full and clear answer to it in these following Propositions First That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful in its own nature Secondly That it must allow the prescribing of publick Forms to be not onely lawful but good and useful Thirdly It must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation as the thing it self is good and useful and lawfully imitable by us Fourthly That though it follows that because God by inspired persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer therefore the Church may prescribe them upon Gods reasons yet it doth by no means follow that therefore it may prescribe them as Scripture or divine Inspirations First That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful of its own nature that is to be void of all intrinsick evil and to have no contrariety in the nature of it to the eternal Rules and Dictates of right reason for this Objection granting as it doth that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer must either admit that God may do and hath done that which is intrinsically evil and repugnant to right reason or grant that the prescribing of Forms hath no intrinsick evil in it And in particular it is to be considered that our Saviours prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescribed before and that not onely by God but by men too for though besides those Forms which were prescribed by God for the publick Worship of the Jews their Doctors tell us of sundry Forms of humane Composure that were used in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time yet he was so far from disapproving either them or that which John Baptist taught his Disciples that in conformity to the later he prescribed a Form to his own Disciples which Form of his as our Learned Gregory hath proved he collected out of Forms of Prayer which were then used among the Jews in whose Books the several parts and clauses of it are extant almost verbatim to this day and certainly had he disapproved their Forms as evil and sinful he would never have collected his own Prayer out of ' em Since therefore our Saviour hath not onely given us a Form but hath also given it under such circumstances as do plainly signifie his approbation of other Forms it necessarily follows that either he hath approved that which is evil or that Forms of Prayer are not evil Secondly That this Objection must allow the prescribing of publick Forms to be not onely lawful in it self but also good and useful for whatsoever God doth he is directed to do by his own infallible Wisdom which always proceeds upon the best reasons and proposes the best ends of action to him and the most effectual means to compass and obtain 'em when therefore we grant that God hath done such or such a thing we must either allow the thing to be good and useful to some excellent end and purpose or suppose that he did not consult his Wisdom in it or that his Wisdom was mistaken He therefore who allows that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer must either blaspheme his Wisdom or grant the prescribing 'em to be good and useful But it is objected that the prescribing 'em was good and useful onely at that time and under those circumstances wherein they were prescribed as for instance in the times of the Old Testament it may be allowed that the prescribing of Forms might be good and useful the Jews to whom they were prescribed being a carnal dull and stupid People and yet under the times and circumstances of the Gospel-state which is so vastly different the prescribing 'em may not onely cease to be good but become hurtful and injurious To which in short I answer 1st That supposing it were the Carnality Dulness and Stupidity of the Jews that render'd Forms so useful to 'em I doubt that as to those particulars the case is not so much alter'd with the generality of Christians but that they may be useful still and though 't is to be hoped we are not altogether so very dull and carnal as they were yet as it hath been made appear in the former part of this Treatise we are not so perfectly refin'd from Dulness and Carnality but that Forms of Prayer may still be very useful to us But 2ly this Objection allows not onely that there were Forms of Prayer prescribed in the Old Testament but that our Saviour himself hath also prescribed one in the New for all successive Ages to pray by and if so then we must either blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour for prescribing what is vain and useless or grant the prescription of Forms to be good and useful not onely for the Jewish but also for the Gospel-state Thirdly This Objection must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation as the
thing it self is good and useful and imitable by us if God doth such or such a thing because it is good and useful to some end that is a sufficient Warrant for us to do the same provided we have the same reason for to imitate God is not onely our priviledge but our duty But how can we be said to imitate Him if so far as our power extends we do not the same things that he doth when we have the same reasons Since therefore God as supreme Governour of his Church hath prescribed Forms of Prayer because they are good and useful those whom he hath substituted to govern for him are thereby sufficiently warranted to prescribe 'em too so long as they continue so so that Gods prescribing 'em is a sufficient argument that they are useful and that they are useful is a sufficient reason for the Governours of the Church to prescribe 'em also because for that reason God himself hath prescribed 'em and certainly our Spiritual Governours who are in Gods stead are sufficiently warranted to do as God hath done when they have Gods own reason to do it Against this I know nothing can be objected but onely that common and fundamental Principle of all our Separations viz. That God himself hath forbid the prescribing of any thing in or about his Worship but what he himself hath prescribed and therefore whatsoever reason there may be for it no other Forms ought to be prescribed but what are of his own inditing and prescription The falseness of which hath been sufficiently demonstrated in the Case about Indifferent Things And therefore as to the matter in hand I shall onely say that the Objection strikes with equal force against Extemporary words which God hath not prescribed as against Forms of words which he hath not prescribed for as I have already proved Part 1. and shall yet further prove hereafter praying Extempore by our own Gift of expression is no more prescribed by God than praying by a Form and therefore the words of Extempore Prayers are no more prescribed by him than the words of Forms so that if the latter may not be admitted into the Worship of God because they are not prescribed by him neither may the former And indeed he who prays extempore doth as much prescribe a Form of words to the people in publick Worship as he who prays by a Form their devout desires and affections being equally confined to this particular Set of expressions in both And if each single Presbyter may prescribe a Form of words to the People which God hath not prescribed 'em how much more may the Governours of the Church Admitting therefore that such words may be prescribed in Prayer as God hath not prescribed his prescribing of Forms of Prayer must be a sufficient Warrant for the Governours of his Church to prescribe 'em when they have his reason so to do Fourthly and lastly That though it follows that because God by inspir'd persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer therefore the Governours of the Church may prescribe 'em upon Gods reasons yet it doth by no means follow that therefore they may prescribe 'em as Scripture or Divine Inspiration As briefly to instance in another case Because God the supream Governour of his Church hath taken care to instruct it by inspired persons it thence follows that those whom he hath appointed to govern it should take care to instruct it too but it doth by no means follow either that they should instruct it by inspired persons or that they should pretend to instruct it by Divine Inspiration for they have the same reason that God had to instruct it viz. because it 's good and useful to the best purposes And so far as they have the same reason with God they ought to do the same thing but they cannot have the same reason that God had to instruct it by inspired persons because 't is not in their power so to do and therefore as they cannot be obliged to it so neither ought they to pretend to it And so it is as to prescribing Forms of Prayer for That God himself hath prescribed 'em to his Church by immediate Inspiration may be a sufficient Warrant for Church-Governours to prescribe 'em too but it cannot be a sufficient Warrant for 'em to prescribe 'em by immediate Inspiration for they may have the same reasons to prescribe 'em that God had viz. because they are good and useful for publick Devotion but they cannot have the same reason to prescribe 'em by immediate Inspiration because that is not in their power and therefore 't would be a manifest cheat for 'em to pretend to it Had they the same common reasons with God for both his Example would warrant 'em not onely to prescribe 'em but to prescribe 'em as Scripture and Divine Inspiration but since there is a peculiar reason why they may not prescribe 'em as Scripture viz. because they cannot without manifest falshood and presumption which reason is not at all applicable to the bare and simple prescribing 'em therefore it doth by no means follow that if they may lawfully do the latter they may lawfully do the former also Having thus answered the Objections of our Brethren it remains that supposing that Principle were true viz. That nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God but what God hath commanded yet it doth not universally conclude against the admitting Forms of Prayer into his Worship because he himself hath commanded some Forms and by commanding them hath licensed and authorized the Governours of his Church to prescribe others upon the same reasons I proceed therefore to the second general Head proposed which was to shew that supposing this Principle viz. That nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God but what is commanded by him did conclude against Forms of Prayer it equally concludes against conceived or extempore Prayers because these are no more commanded by God than Forms nay indeed as to publick Worship have much less claim to Divine Authority than Forms but we will suppose at present the Forms of Prayer were not at all commanded yet this we assert makes no more against them than it doth against Extempore Prayers there being no command of God requiring us to pray Extempore or to utter our affections in Prayer in our own conceptions and expressions It is indeed very confidently asserted by our Brethren That wheresoever we are commanded to pray vocally we are commanded to pray in our own conceptions and words but that this is not so is evident from what has been discours'd before viz. that God hath commanded men to pray in sundry Forms of his own composure and sure in those cases wherein they were commanded to pray vocally in Gods Conceptions and Words they could not be commanded to pray vocally in their own Thus far therefore our Brethren must grant if they will be determin'd by express words of Scripture that the commands to pray vocally
are not to be always understood of praying Extempore but sometimes of praying by a Form and therefore by the way I cannot but wonder why they should appropriate as they do the name of vocal Prayer to praying in their own words and not as well allow the expressing our desires to God in the words of a Form to be called Prayer but onely saying or reading of a Prayer for I would fain know did the Priests and Levites praise the Lord when they praised him in the words of David and Asaph did they pray to him when they exprest their desires to God in those Petitionary Psalms which were directed to be used in their publick Worship or did the Primitive Christians pray when they pronounc'd the Lords Prayer in their solemn Devotions If so then there is no doubt but speaking to God in a Form of words may as well be called Prayer as speaking to him in our own Extempore words for vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God and if they are spoken they are vocal whether it be in our own Extempore words or in a Form if we onely speak the words of Prayer whether they be Form'd or Extempore and do not send up our affections with them we onely say a vocal Prayer but do not vocally pray but if the words we speak carry our affections with them we vocally pray whether they be the one or t'other If our Brethren can prove that vocal Prayer consists in speaking our desires to God in words of our own Extempore effusion we will readily yield them the whole Cause but this they will never be able to prove whilst there are so many instances in Scripture of vocal Prayer by a Form But they pretend that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old times God hath declared in the New Testament that it is his will we should pray by our own Gifts of Expression and Utterance for the future which if they can prove we will readily yield that praying by Forms is unlawful though not impossible but as for the matter of proof they do not so much as pretend to produce any express prohibition of praying by Forms and all that they urge is onely some remote and far-fetcht consequences against it Now supposing it had been the will of God and our Saviour that we should not pray by Forms it seems very strange that in all the New Testament there should be no express prohibition of it for first the Jews as I shewed before had several Forms prescribed them in their publick Worship and that they used Forms in our Saviours time not onely their Modern Rabbins do assert but Philo himself who lived not longer after makes mention of the holy Prayers that Phil. de victim p. 843. were offered by the Priests in the time of Sacrifice And the Samaritan Chronicle as hath been observed upon this Argument makes mention of a Book in the year of the World 4713 which contained those Songs and Prayers that were always used before their Sacrifices And since the Jews who were a most tenacious People of their Rites and Customs were always wont in their publick Administrations to worship God by Forms how necessary was it to have given some express prohibition of them had it been his intent to exclude them out of his Worship for the future especially considering that the Sect of the Essenes who as it 's highly probable did of all the Sects of the Jews most readily embrace Christianity are particularly remarkt by Josephus for that De Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 785. they did use before the Sun-rising ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã certain Prayers which they receiv'd from their Ancestors And when those Jews who were the most disposed for Christianity and did most readily embrace it insomuch that in a little time the whole Sect of them seems to have been swallow'd up into the Christian Church were so addicted to the use of Forms how can it be imagin'd that had our Saviour intended they should use them no longer he would not have taken care to give them some express warning of it But when instead of so doing he bids them when they pray'd to say Our Father how could they otherwise apprehend but that it was his meaning that they should still continue to pray by a Form as they had always done before And if he had not so intended it seems very strange he should take no care to undeceive them or to prevent their being deceiv'd in this matter by some express command to the contrary for considering all there was not a more urgent occasion for an express prohibition of any Rite or Usage of the Jewish Church than of this of praying by a Form supposing the prohibition of it had been intended and yet I dare boldly affirm that there is not one Rite of that Church which our Saviour intended to forbid but is much more plainly and expresly forbidden than this is pretended to be For the proof of this and which is more of the main assertion viz. that there is no injunction in Scripture of praying by our own gifts of utterance without a Form I shall particularly examine the several Pretences from which our Brethren infer such an Injunction 1. Therefore they pretend that God hath promised and given to all good Christians an ability to utter their minds in vocal Prayer to him and therefore for them to omit the using this ability to the end for which God hath given it to them and pray by Forms of other mens composure is contrary to his mind and intention which Objection hath for the main been answered already Part 1. Case 2. wherein it hath been prov'd at large that this ability which they pretend is promised and given by God for the purpose of vocal Prayer is a common Gift which God hath no more appropriated to Prayer than to any other common end of utterance and elocution and that therefore to omit the using it in Prayer is no more contrary to the intention of God than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occasion But because our Brethren urge some places of Scripture to prove that God hath promised and given it meerly to inable them for vocal Prayer I shall briefly inquire whether it be so or no. First therefore they urge Zech. 12. 10. I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplications which as I shew'd before Part 1. Case 1. singnifies nothing to their purpose 'T is urg'd indeed that the Hebrew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã here translated Supplications doth always denote vocal Prayer and that therefore pouring out the Spirit of Supplications must imply communicating an ability to Pray vocally but this is not so for if we examine the places where this word is used we shall find 't is no more restrain'd to vocal Prayer than any other word by which Prayer is
onely oversaw their being dictated rightly in order to their being repeated rightly When therefore Tertullian saith We pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether it were out of a Book or extempore but that we pray without a Custos or Overseer either to admonish our People of their repeating the Prayers falsly or to admonish our Priests of their dictating them falsly in order to the Peoples repeating them rightly Because saith he we pray from our hearts which words may admit of a twofold interpretation first because we do not vocally repeat our Prayers after our Priest but onely joyn our affections with them and send up our hearts and desires after them or 2ly because we can say our Prayers by heart and so are in no great danger of repeating them falsly and consequently have no such need of a Monitor to observe and correct us for it is well known how much Tertullian in all his Writings affects to imitate and express the Greek which renders him oftentimes so very obscure and therefore it 's probable enough as hath been observ'd (p) (p) (p) Thornd Relig. Assem p. 237. that his de pectore here or from the heart may be onely a translation of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies to say by heart according to which account these words of Tertullian are so far from testifying against the use of Forms that they rather argue the use of them for since he onely denies their having a Monitor he doth in effect grant their having a Priest to read the publick Prayers to them as well as the Heathen and if from the heart be in Tertullian's Language the same with by heart it 's a plain case that they used Forms for otherwise how could they have them by heart That this is the true account of this difficult phrase I will not confidently affirm because it is onely my own single guess but whether it be or no it 's certain it can no more signifie without a Form of Prayer than without a Minister to pray extempore the one being as much a Monitor to the People as the other The last Testimony which our Brethren urge against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Sucrates Scholasticus (q) (q) (q) Soc. Hist l. 5. c. 21. whose words they thus translate Everywhere and in all Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words and therefore say they it 's very unlikely they should pray by receiv'd Forms But how far this is from the sence of the Author will evidently appear by considering what he had been before discoursing of In short therefore he had been just before relating the different Customs that were used in several Churches and among the rest he tells us that in Hellas Jerusalem and Thessalia the Prayers were made whilst the Candles were lighting according to the manner of the Novatians at Constantinople and that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and Cyprus the Presbyters and Bishops always interpreted the Scripture on the Saturday and Lord's-day in the evening the Candles being lighted that the Novatians in the Hellespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople but that for the most part they followed the Customs of the chief Churches among them and then he concludes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. upon the whole every where and among all the Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in the same thing where by Worships of Prayer it 's plain he means the Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer that were used in several Churches for 't was of these he had been immediately before discoursing and therefore his meaning can be no more than this that among all the constituted Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer that were used in the several Churches there were not two to be found that agreed in the same and how doth it follow that because they did not use the same Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer for even now we see there are different Rites of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer And now I proceed to the second thing proposed which was to prove the use of Forms of Prayer in the primitive Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact That in the first Age there was a Gift of praying extempore by immediate inspiration seems highly probable both from what the Apostle discourses of praying in unknown Languages 1 Cor. 14. and from what St. Chrysostom asserts concerning it (r) (r) (r) Chrys in Rom. 8. 26. viz. That together with those miraculous Gifts which were then poured out there was a Gift of Praying which was called by the Apostle a Spirit by which he who was endued with it poured out Prayers for all the People and while this Gift continued perhaps which how long it was is very uncertain there might no other Form be used in publick Worship in those places especially where it abounded but onely that of the Lord's Prayer and it may be in imitation of this Gift upon which even in the Apostles time the Christians were apt to over-value themselves some might affect to pray extempore after it was wholly expired but it is highly probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it it was in most places immediately supplied by Forms of Prayer which were composed either of the words or according to the method and manner of those inspired Prayers by Apostolical persons that heard and remembred them for so as the same St. Chrysostom goes on (s) (s) (s) Chrys ibid. For we being ignorant of many things which are profitable for us do ask many things which are unprofitable and therefore this Gift of Prayer was given to some one person that was there i. e. in the Congregation who ask'd for all that which was profitable for the universal Church and taught others to do so that is to form Prayers according to those inspired Models for though I do not pretend that there were no other Prayers used in publick but onely Forms either in or presently after the Age of the Apostles yet it seems most probable that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the publick Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer and if so we have all the reason in the world to conclude that these Forms were composed according to the Pattern of those primitive inspired Prayers Now that there were Forms from the Apostolical Age seems highly probable because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of praying by a Form Had this way of praying been introduc'd after the Primitive Ages it would have been a most observable innovation upon the Primitive Christianity and that in such a publick matter of fact that every Christian could not but take notice
Sins are not thus Deadly For in many things we offend all and as for those Sins which the Regenerate commit through Humane Frailty only they are not thereby put into a state of Damnation And though all Sin be in its own Nature Deadly or Damnable yet through the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ Sins of meer Infirmity are not imputed to true Believers and therefore not Deadly to them But there are some Sins so heinous that he who Commits them is thereby put into a Damnable state and till he recovers himself by true Repentance and Actual Reformation he cannot upon any good ground promise to himself that the wrath of God does not abide upon him And 't is of such Sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication From Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us So that this Petition seems to be of the same Nature with that of the Psalmist Keep back thy Servant also from presumptuous sins let not them have dominion over me then shall I be upright and I shall be innocent from the great Transgression Psal 19. 13. Whereas therefore these Words of the Litany seem to suppose that some Sins are not Deadly we should be very unjust to make such a Construction of them as if they implyed that some Sins are in their own nature Venial and so slight that they will be forgiven without any consideration for as I have shewn we may hold that distinction which the Words suppose and yet retain that Protestant Doctrine that no Sin is forgiven but through the Mercy of God and the Merits and Mediation of Christ Again some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death But why should we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World when we are not fit to die For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us when we are not prepared for it And in this sense can any good Christian find fault with the Petition But suppose that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it that is a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness Are there not reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly May they not when they find themselves drawing towards their end by their good Instructions and Admonitions make impression upon their Friends Companions and Relations to the bettering of them May not their Counsels be more effectual with them than ever they were before And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so As for themselves may not the warning they have of Approaching Death be improved to make them more fit to die than they were in their perfect health In a Word he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God and not to stand in need of those Acts of Self-Examination Humiliation and Devotion by which good Men improve the warnings of Death which Mortal Sickness or Extream Age gives them let him suspend his Act and refuse to joyn with us when we pray God to deliver us from Sudden Death There is yet another Objection which I should not have named but that some of the Dissenters who seem to understand very little of Religion by making it have it often in their Mouths That is when we pray to be delivered by the Mystery of Christs Holy Incarnation c. by his Agony and Bloody Sweat by his Cross and Passion c. and by the coming of the Holy Ghost They say some of them that this is Swearing some that it is Conjuring and I know not what For which sayings favouring of great profaneness they ought to be severely rebuked and that is all the answer they should have were it not that some of them may be grosly ignorant of the true Sense of these Petitions And therefore I say that they might easily suppose if they would give their Minds to it that we pray to be delivered through the Saving Efficacy of Christs Incarnation and Passion c. And yet I do not take this to be the principal meaning or that which was intended For I conceive that to be this that when we say By the Mystery of thy Holy Incarnation and by thy Cross and Passion c. Good Lord deliver us we implore Christ who has already shewed such inestimable goodness towards us by taking our Nature to his Divinity to Die upon the Cross to be Buryed to Rise again to ascend into Heaven and there to intercede with the Father for us and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualifie the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World I say we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation and we plead with him by that goodness which he hath already given us such great demonstrations of by those wonders of Mercy that he hath wrought for us that he would now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from these Evils which we pray against And this is so reasonable so devout and affectionate so humble and thankful a way of Praying that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers should be so ignorant as not to understand it or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be as to deride it Though God does not need to be put in mind of his former benefits towards us yet it is fit for us to mention them in our most earnest Prayers not only because we are to make a grateful acknowledgment of them to him but likewise because by this means we encourage our selves to ask in Faith since he who unaskt hath done such great things for us will not fail upon our earnest and humble prayer which himself also hath required to give us all other good things that we need and to deliver us from all real evils of which we are in danger I proceed next to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church And 1. It must be acknowledged by those who allow the usefulness of Sermons and Catechising in the Church that those Chapters may be read in the Church though they are not Divinely inspired Writings since no sober Man will pretend that the Minister Preaches or Catechises by Inspiration But if other good Instructions may be read or recited in the Church besides the Word of God it self why may not some Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books be read which contain excellent Rules of good Life and Exhortations and Encouragements to Virtue and Piety especially since those writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other Humane Writings were also Publickly read as well as the Holy Scriptures 2. If it be said that those Chapters of Canonical Scripture which are omitted in the Calendar would be more profitably read instead of the Apocryphal Chapters it ought
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting life And the Blood of our Lord c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can But what reason is there for this For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies No Man can shew a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
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
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
must with all our Old Churches c. or we are guilty of an inexcusable violation of the Divine Law And to except such things as these after they have Evinced from such Scriptures our obligation to destroy all things notoriously polluted in grosly Superstitious and Idolatrous Services seems to be making too too bold with the express Laws of God which make no such exceptions nor doth the forementioned reason of them imply any such And therefore they have been highly condemned for making such like exceptions by others of their Brethren who have Attained to a higher dispensation And considering this Concession that such things as the fore-named may still be lawfully used as also the Concessions of a nameless Author in his famous Book call'd Nehushtan that no Creature of God is to be refused nor any necessary or profitable devices of men need be sent packing upon the account of their having been much abused to the foresaid ends I appeal to their own more sedate thoughts whether all that can be concluded from such Scriptures is any more than this that things so abused ought to be destroyed or abolished by all who have power to do it in some certain case or cases and not merely for this reason because they have been so abused This I presume none of us will deny and if they will acknowledge it as they must do if they will stand to those their Concessions they will be Constrained to give up this Cause I will conclude the Argument in hand with the judgment of that Eminent Reformer Mr. Calvin whose Authority goes farther with the generality of our Brethren than I think any Mans next to the Apostles Saith he upon the Second Commandment I know that the Jews throughout the time of their Paedagogy were Commanded to destroy the Groves and Altars of Idolaters not by vertue of the Moral Law but by an Appendix in the Judicial or Politick Law which did oblige that People for a time only but it binds not Christians And therefore we do not in the least scruple whether we may Lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abused to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too violently things in their own Nature indifferent be not too Superstitious It is equally Superstitious to Condemn things indifferent as Vnholy and to Command them as if they were Holy Thus you see Mr. Calvins sense agreeth exactly with Ours touching this Point of Controversie between us and many of our Dissenting Brethren Secondly They endeavour also to make out this Doctrine of theirs by Scripture Examples There are four or five of these Examples insisted upon but I will trouble the Reader with considering only one of them both because it is the Principal Example and that which they lay most stress on and because the Reply I shall make to this will be as satisfactory in reference to the rest It is that of Hezekiah his breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent that Moses had made because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Now saith a certain Noted Author What Example is more considerable than that of Hezekiah who not only abolished such Monuments of Idolatry as at their first Institution were but Men's inventions but brake down also the Brazen Serpent though Originally set up at Gods Command when once he saw it abused to Idolatry And he adds that this deed of Hezekiah Pope Stephen doth greatly Praise citing Wolphius for it and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation that when our Predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time and afterwards they are converted into Error and Superstition they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them Which soever of the Stephens this was he was a strangely Honest Pope especially had he Practised according to this his Profession and his Infallibility-ship had judg'd Impartially of Errors and Superstitions And he cites Farellus out of an Epistle of Calvins for this saying That Princes and Magistrates should learn by this Example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant Rites of Mens devising which have turned to Superstition And he farther adds that the Bishop of Winchester in his Sermon on Phil. 2. 10. acknowledgeth that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of Men when it is drawn to Superstition cometh under the Compass of the Brazen Serpent and is to be abolished And he saith he Excepteth nothing from this Example but only things of Gods own Prescribing But 't is strange if a Bishop should not except Churches and some other things besides which are of an humane make and as strange if there be nothing going before or coming after this acknowledgment to lead us to a better understanding of it We will not question our Authors faithfulness in Transcribing it but wish he had told us which Bishop of Winchester this is and in what page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgment But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolished and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do will I presume sufficiently appear by these following Considerations First The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services but it was made an Idol it self Secondly It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol or Object of Religious Worship but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed Nay it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry It being not only bowed down to but had likewise Incense burnt to it this being a Rite which is never used in meer Civil Worship like bowing the Knee c. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship that no Rite is more so Nay farther Thirdly It was not thus notoriously Idolized by some few of the People but the People were generally lapsed into this Idolatry As the Text plainly sheweth Nay Fourthly There was as little hope as could be of the Peoples being reclaimed from this Idolatry while the Idol was in being Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto For 't is said that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it which speaks it to have been not only a Custom but a Custom also of a long standing Fifthly Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed from the Peoples sight if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them and a Temptation to Idolatry Since now the use of it was ceased for which by Divine
appoint Patriarchs and Primates in every Province that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together In short for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops and call it Antichristian can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together Secondly As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick Offices It is easie to shew that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church that 't is highly Commendable For as herein our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church than with that of Rome as she is now Constituted nothing being more certainly known than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing so nothing is more highly expedient for the due management of the publick Worship of God than the use of a Liturgy And indeed instead of Expedient I might say Necessary it being impossible to secure the performance of publick Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse to which I refer the Reader I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of Calvins Epistle Ad Protectorem Angliae saith he As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to depart in the exercise of their Function Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear And lastly to put a barr to the skipping Levity of others who Affect certain innovations And therefore as he proceeds Statum esse Catechismum oportet Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem publicam item precum Formulam there ought to be an Established Catechism an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Establisht and also a Publick Form of Prayers And he accordingly composed a Liturgy to be used by the Ministers in Geneva on Sundays and Holydays And the Exiles that resided at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary did by his advice draw up a Liturgy which was Printed in the English Tongue in the year 1556. Thirdly As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein is sufficient to shew that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church upon the account of the Symbolizing that is between these two Churches in this particular But we will perticularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Roman Service which are most offensive to our Brethren they are especially these four 1. Our many short Prayers which some have too lighly called short Cuts and Shreddings and rather Wishes than Prayers But there needs no other reply hereunto than that our Learned Hooker gives viz. That St. Augustin saith Epist 121. That the Brethren in Aegypt are reported to have many Prayers but every of them very short as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind which in Prayer is very necessary should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance if their Prayers were few and long But that which St. Austin alloweth they Condemn c. He might as well have said What that good Father Commendeth nay his words imply no small commendation And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls who without prejudice joyn with us in our Publick Prayers whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their Devotion I don't question but that such will readily acknowledge that they find it an help And therefore in my weak judgment our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in this particular is Symbolizing with her in that which is highly commendable as 't is so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches 2. Another instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness but the Fitness and Expediency also of Symbolizing herein with the Church of Rome Saith he 1. The Scripture no where forbids it 2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre there can be no reason given but they may Lawfully do it in Prose 3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ that they would have taken it for an injury or quenching of the Spirit to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church 4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the Mind and stirs up Gods graces in his Servants 5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that first shut out the Responses while they kept up the Ancient Zeal they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship Though I were under no obligation of brevity I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter 3. Another instance of this Nature is the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book But to this I give this I hope as satisfactory as short Answer viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad if they are bad ones they may not be used though they were not in the Mass-Book and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful not upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Roman Church But if they are all good ones as they are very good then from what hath been said 't is Evident that this Symbolizing cannot make them bad and 't is a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture because they use it Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation 4. The last instance is The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books But herein we Symbolize with the Primitive Church rather than with this of Rome For as hath been shewed out of the 6. Article of our Church they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture and we perfectly agree with
all of them as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them The Second instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof you reply not one word to any of them But you think you have balanced as your word is those five with five of your own 1. You say These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship But we say they do and our yea is as good as your nay 2. You say many read false oftentimes And whose fault is it if they do But it appears from what is coming that you cannot prove it 3. You say Many Children and Girls understand not what they doe And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons 4. Those that cannot read you say are not edified in a confused noise not being able to understand what is read And then I hope you might have spared your second particular for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to doe in this confused noise 5. You say Many leud and profane persons are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Publique Worship c. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Publique Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister and then we will grant that not onely no profane men but no Lay-men neither be they never so good may have their part therein 6. You say There is no such practice in the Churches of God in New England Scotland France Holland c. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant that you urge such an Argument as this to him If you do you are much mistaken Sir But Mr. Baxter tells you in his fifth particular That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses And therefore those Churches you mention should doe well to imitate ours in this particular I am constrained Sir to tell you again that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this The Third instance is The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal You say you wish our Author had told us how many But I say 't is not worth the knowing if it were I could soon tell you if those that are taken thence are all good ones And considering what hath been said this is a sufficient Answer Remember our Author hath told you that our Departure from the Church of Rome was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty and those that were innocent occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's which I have heretofore somewhere met with viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23 d. Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfie you that you might have spared it Onely let me once for all tell you that whereas both here and elsewhere you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things wherein we symbolize with the Church of Rome you ought to know that while they are Enjoyned we who are under Government are not at liberty as the Christians in the Apostles days were as to the Eating of Meats c. And whereas you touch here upon the topick of Scandal I can not hope to satisfie you about this Point if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it To which I refer you and ought so to doe it not falling within our Author's Undertaking The Fourth instance is The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books And what you say under this head amounts to thus much that you think it were better if they were not appointed And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation and Consequently you can have no controversie with our Author about it Whether it were better or not that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on Holy-days and ordinary Week-days merely for Example of life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine let it be left to our Superiors to judge But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters as to this matter yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits nor made to doe what they cannot as well as you apprehend lawfull No God forbid that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him for not being at Church on a Week-day Holy-day But I must take notice of one more passage before I proceed viz. Holy-days are the same with Sabbath-days with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either Here is a good Wipe for our Author But I pray Sir did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath He said that indeed pag. 40th from whence it may be inferred that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholick Church and is that such a small matter to found it upon When 't is the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures But who are they that tell you that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other Holy-days Name any one if you are able that so saith or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church in which our Author saith pag. 45. Our symbolizing with Popery is so much condemned And you say pag. 24th that he observeth in the general 1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part you should have added scarcely of those used by the Papists And this you grant but you add that we may as well Symbolize in thirty as in three But I must make bold to tell you you never uttered a more inconsiderative saying It seems then 't is no matter how many Ceremonies are used in Divine Worship so they be all innocent I am sure St. Augustin was not of this mind But it may be you 'll say there are none innocent But if so you cannot say that we may as well use thirty as three Because the thirty must necessarily be a great hindrance to that attention of mind that Divine Worship calls for but he must have a Weak head indeed whose mind must needs be diverted by three 2. Our Author saith that our
of the thing 2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle who was of the Seed of Abraham an Hebrew of the Hebrews and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church and as a Common-wealth First I say there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before and after its Union with the Empire Before its Union with the Empire it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years in a State of Persecution from Christ unto Constantine the Great and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the Law But Secondly As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing so is it in effect made by the Apostle Gal. 3. 17. This I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God with Abraham in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise to Abraham of none Effect Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed when he separated him from the World unto himself and that Political one which he afterwards made with the Jews when he gave them the Law And this difference is also observed Rom. 4. 13. The Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise is of no effect From these words which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham or the Promise which he made unto him and the Law it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore in the second place the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical or pure Jewish Church is to consider the nature of the Covenant or Promise upon which it was founded and if we examine the Scriptures we shall find that it was an Evangelical Covenant For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with * * * Fide autem stare justitiaÌ illic esse vitam praedictaÌ est apud Habbaccuc Justus autem ex fide vivet Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit In Genes credidit Abraham Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Item Paulus ad Galatas Abraham credidit Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide c. Cyprian advers Judaeos Judaeos à Deo recessisse successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes de omnibus Gentibus ac toto orbe venientes Cyprian ad Quirin Testim L. 3. Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers with his Spiritual as well as Carnal Seed proceeding from him by Spiritual as well as Natural Generation and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans from the 9th to the 15th Verse Cometh then this Blessedness of Justification by Faith upon the Circumcision only or upon the Uncircumcision also For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckon'd When he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Promises made to the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that so believing before Circumcision he might be the Father both of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also as his Children and the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World in his Posterity was not to Abraham or his Seed through the Righteousness of the Law but through the Righteousness which cometh of Faith For if they only which are of the Law be Heirs his Faith so much celebrated is made void and the Promise made to it of no effect So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse He therefore that ministreth unto you the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the works of the Law or by the Faith which you have heard preached even as it is written of * * * Quoniam autem in Abraham praefigurabatur fides nostra quoniam Patriarcha nostrae fidei velut propheta fuit plenisfimè Apostolus docuit in eâ Epistolâ quae est ad Galatas dicens Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum operatur virtutes in vobis Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 38. Abraham he believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness know ye therefore that they which are the Children of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed So then they which be the Children of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham or his Seed or Race were the Promises of God made He i. e. God or Moses his Pen-man saith Not to Seeds or Races as if there were divers of them but to thy Seed i. e. to one of thy Seed which is Christ And this I say that the Abrahamical Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise made unto Abraham of none effect From all these Texts put together it is plain that the Abrahamical Covenant upon which the Jewish Church as such was founded was of a Spiritual Evangelical Nature and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ who was made of the Seed of Abraham and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed and whose Day Abraham himself saw and rejoyced It is farther evident from them that this Covenant was made with Abraham as the Father
veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de patre ut esset doctor veritatis Neglexerit Officium Dei villicus Christi Vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere aliter credere quam ipse per Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Tertul. de praescript Haereticorum c. 28. Would he suffer them all so soon to Apostatize and to practise and believe otherwise than Christ had taught and the Apostles preached No! It is impossible that they should all consent in such a dangerous error or that they should all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration should be made without Observation no body can tell how or when Wherefore these Dissenters are very unreasonable in charging the Church universal with apostasie from Christ upon the account of Infant-Baptism and in striving to throw her out of the possession of such an ancient and general practice merely by such indirect and consequential Arguments from the Scriptures as the Ancient Fathers never drew from them nor we can admit against their general practice and consent Certainly those places of the * * * Neque verò ignota fuerunt Ecclesiae priscis Ecclesiae patribus Evangelicae Apostolicae Scripturae loca in quibus poenitentia fides unà cum Baptismo requiri videntur Sciebant enim probe haec ad adultos Cassand Praefat advers Anabapt New Testament which require a Profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the Ancient Fathers they undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but yet they never drew this absurd Consequence from them that because Faith and Repentance were to go before Baptism which is an Institution of Latitude in Adult Persons that therefore Baptism was not to go before Faith and Repentance in Children and Minors as both Circumcision and Baptism in the like Case were wont to go before them in the Jewish Church They knew the difference betwixt the admission of actual and potential See Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants great Exemplar Sect. 9. part 2. Believers and also knew it was a very great inconsequence to argue from the Qualifications which the Gospel requires in those to the Exclusion of these I freely acknowledge to them that no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful yet when they are so I appeal to any sober Dissenter of this or any other Perswasion whether the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentical Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men. They thought Infant-Baptism lawful and valid and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism and let any modest and moderate Man judge whether so many Famous * * * Hanc desipuere praeterita saecula ut tot millibus parvulorum per mille eo amplius annos illusorium Baptisma tribuerent à Christi temporibus usque ad vos non veros ei Christianos sed Phantasticos crearent Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum tantaque huc usque caligine involutus ut ad aperiendos oculos suos ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam post tot Patres Martyres Pontifices universalem Ecclesiarum Principes vos tamdiu expectarit Petrus Abbas Cluniacens apud Cassandr Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times should fall into such a Delusion as to conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians and Mock-Churches or that a little Sect which must have separated from all the Ancient as well as Modern Churches that were ever yet discovered should be in a great and grievous Error themselves Let them begin with the first Testimonies about the practice of Infant-Baptism viz. at the latter end of the second and beginning of the third Century and take the pains to consult the successive Writers of the Church St. Irenaeus as I have observed was the Disciple of St. Polycarp who was the Disciple of St. John and Tertullian was contemporary with the last days of St. Irenaeus and the next Writer in whom we find Infant-Baptism mentioned as an a a a In Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam Spiritum ablui deberent In Lucam Homil. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum in lib. Homil. 8. quia per Baptismi Sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli Apostolical and Universal Practice I mean Origen flourished within fifteen years after Tertullian's Death St. Cyprian was Contemporary with the latter days of Origen and his Epistle to Fidus the Presbyter is such an account of Infant-Baptism that it alone is enough to Convince any Soul where Prejudice doth not reign that it always was the practice of the Church Fidus had written unto him to let him know that he thought it was not lawful to Baptize Children before the Eighth Day according to the Law of Circumcision to which he returned this Answer b b b Quantum autem ad causam Infantum pertinet quas dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos Baptizari non oportere considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae ut infra octavum diem eum qui natus est Baptizandum Sanctificandum non putares longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est Ep. 58. p. 95. Ed. Rigalt That he and the Council which consisted of 66 Bishops were of another Opinion having determined that as God under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons So he was no accepter of Ages but that Infants might be Baptized as soon as they were born to wash away their Original Sin The African Church was one of the most flourishing strict and pious of the Primitive Churches and this resolution of the Council which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after was not novum decretum supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original and immemorial practice of that Church This Council sat about the middle of the third Century 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus c c c Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptisma ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hast thou a Child Let not Sin get the advantage but let him be sanctified from his Infancy and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned because of the weakness of his Nature what a silly Mother art thou and how weak in Faith Anna promised Samuel to God before he was born and
Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and
allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on oftensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as tehy are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Governmenr is necessary because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason and
most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And accordlng to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water and * Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeâs l. 2. c. 39. the Spirit equally necessary for all ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã unless one be born again c. From the * * * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a a a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b b b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22. 28. the Original words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are the same with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c c c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro âexu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d d d Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. Joh. 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * * * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken from the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâher rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and â â â Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
a a a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b b b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enâââ them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * * * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gântilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * * * Heb. 13. 17. Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. â â â Act. 16. 4. Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of
being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and the Intention and Will of Christ First As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles who it is highly to be presumed authorized the practice of Infant-Baptism because it was practised in the next Age unto them And Secondly As being most agreeable to the Intention and Will of Christ who it is to be presumed would have forbidden and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants if he had not had a mind they should be Baptized Wherefore * * * Nam quum paedo-Baptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus usitatus frequens ut nihil ferè notius usitatius frequentius non opus erat ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit qualem invenit hoc solùm addito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos Baptizari Illud praecepto opus non habuit quod Communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesiâ insaniet certè ille quicunque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones Psalmodias eo quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum Particularis eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda sexus Baptizandus c. regulâ definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu E contra ergo planâ apertâ prohibitione opus erat ut Infantes parvuli non Baptizarentur si eos Baptizandos nollet servator Si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisset Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae paedo-baptismum firmat propagat Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6. his very not repealing of that practice is a sufficient Demonstration that it was his pleasure it should be continued it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came and the practice of the Church Christian not long after he departed and we find the practice of it in the one harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other and therefore what was before and what was after this time we may well presume was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles as his presumed Will and Intention who never did or spoke any thing that can reasonably be interpreted that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church laid aside and therefore his silence and the silence of the Scriptures are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism that considering the Antecedent usage of it they are very strong Presumptions for it as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth excellently prove To this purpose also have I discoursed above upon the Second and Third Questions and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church from the Law into the Gospel did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Baptism but left Baptism to be administred in the same Latitude as before his time then it must needs be concluded that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents abstracting from the Commands of the Church to desire Baptism for their Children as for grown Proselytes to desire it for themselves For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion doth lay at least an implicite Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to see that act be performed As if for Example an Act of Parliament should be made that all Persons whatsoever Men Women and Children should pay so much an Head unto the King the Act by the nature of it would oblige Parents and Pro-parents to pay for their Children and the Minors in their custody as well as for themselves Or if in the time of a general Contagion the Supream Power should command that all Men Women and Children should every Morning take such an Antidote that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended or instituted by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted as if it did not also lay an Obligation upon Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacrament it would be of no force at all To sum up all in short When our Lord first appointed Baptism and afterwards said Go and Proselyte all Nations Baptizing them c. either he intended that Children should be Baptized as well as Grown Proselytes or he did not if he did not intend they should be Baptized Why did he not plainly discover that Intention Nay Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptized as they were wont to be but if he intended they should be Baptized according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism as Adult Believers Men and Women are bound to offer themselves What I have here said about the Obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism concerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed as Guardians Tutors and Church-Wardens and lest any should ask as some Sceptically do at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism As soon as they are born or the next day after or when I answer by shewing the impertinency of that Question in reference to Grown Believers thus When must a Believing Man or Woman be Baptized As soon as he Believes or the next day after or when And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions at any time the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Ordinance and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof Quest V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only Baptized in their Infancy The stating of this depends upon what I have said upon the Second and Third Questions to prove That Infants are capable Subjects of Baptism and that it is
275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * * * Exod. 12. 26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * * * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a a a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men all who enter into Covenant and receive the Seal of the Covenant must contract and stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his and therefore St. Peter saith That the Baptism which saveth us must 1 Ep. 3. 21. have the answer or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God But how can Infants restipulate or what Conscience can be in them who have not the use of reason nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means To this Objection I answer as formerly That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as Infant-Baptism for the Infants
this so that they should onely respect Sitting as he did why should we not think our selves obliged to do all that he did at the same time as well as this For example If these words may be interpreted thus Do this that is Sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is celebrate the Sacrament in an upper Room in a private House late at night or the Evening after a full Supper â â â Mat. 26. 20. in the Company of 11 or 12 at most Mar. 14. 17. Luke 22. 14. and they onely Men with their Heads Covered according to the custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lyeth as great an Obligation upon all Christians to observe all these Circumstances in Imitation of our Lord by vertue of these words Do this as there doth to Sit. So that this Argument violently recoils upon those that urge it and proves a great deal more than they are willing to have it It concludes strongly against their own Practices and the liberty they take in omitting some things and pressing the necessary observance of others upon a reason which equally obliges to all But I desire our Dissenting Brethren who may be Answ II of the same Perswasion with these Scotch-men to take this further consideration along with them which I think will turn the Scales and make deep impressions upon tender Consciences and oblige them to observe most of the other Circumstances which they omit rather than this of Sitting which they so earnestly press and contend for All those forementioned Circumstances except the two Last which too are generally allowed among Learned Men on all sides are expresly mentioned in the Gospel and were without dispute observed by Christ at the Institution of the Sacrament But the particular Gesture used by him at that time is not expresly mentioned and what it was is very disputable and dubious as I shall evince by and by under the second Query How then can any Man think himself obliged in Conscience by the force of these words Do this to do what Christ is no where expresly said to do and not obliged to do what the Scripture affirms he really did Why that which is dark and dubious should be made an infallible Rule of Conscience and that which is plainly and evidently set down in Scripture should have no force nor be esteemed any Rule at all These are Questions I confess beyond my capacity and surpassing my skill to resolve It 's clear from St. Paul in the forecited place that Answ III those words of our Lord Do this do respect onely the 1 Cor. 11. 23 4 5 6 27 28. Verses Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Bloud of Christ and those other actions there specified by him which are essential to the right and due celebration of that Holy Feast For when it 's said Do this in Remembrance of me and This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me and As oft as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords Death till he come it 's plain that Do this must be restrained to the Sacramental Actions there mentioned and not extended to the Gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it And consequently Do this is a general Command obliging us onely to such particular Actions and Rites as he had Instituted and made necessary to be used in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that Bloudy Sacrifice which he offered to his Father on the Cross for us miserable Sinners Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lords Supper in any particular Posture and if any be so scrupulous after all as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly Commanded they must never receive it as long as they live And then I leave this to their serious consideration How they will be ever able to excuse their neglect of a known necessary duty such as receiving the Sacrament is before God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who loved us so much as to send his Son to be a propitiation for our Sins How they will ever Answer to their Crucified Saviour their Living and Dying in the breach of an express Command of his given a little before his Passion to Do this in Remembrance of him meerly because the Gesture prescribed by Authority was cross to their private Wills and Phansies but not to the Mind and Will of God 2. For the further proof and Confirmation of this Assertion that there is no express Command in Scripture for the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament I will appeal to the Judgment and Practice of our Dissenting Brethren and all the Reformed Churches in Europe 1. To begin with our Non-conforming Brethren There are a great many Serious and Sincere-Hearted persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty and not tyed up by the Law to Kneel at the Sacrament they could with a safe Conscience use that Gesture as well as any other And they further tell us that they are willing and ready to Communicate with us provided we would Administer the Sacrament to them either Sitting or Standing that is any way but that which is imposed by Law For the Rule by which they conduct their Consciences in this matter is this Things in their own nature indifferent which are no where Commanded or prohibited by God in Scripture cannot nor ought not to be restrained and limited by any Power or Authority of Man And therefore all such things which God left free for us to do or not to do without Sin become sinful to us when imposed by humane Authority It 's remote from my business to shew how weak and false a Principle this is and of what mischievous consequences to the Peace of the Church and for that reason I will pass it by But thus much may be inferr'd from this Tenent to my purpose that they who hold and urge it as a reason why they cannot Receive Kneeling which otherwise they could safely do plainly own that as to the Gesture in the Act of receiving it is in its own nature Indifferent and left free by God for us to use or refuse as we think fit and by necessary consequence that there is no express Command given by God for the use of any particular Gesture It could not be a matter of indifferency to our Dissenting Brethren whose Principle this is if there were no Law of Man to Kneel at the Sacrament and now there is such a Law it could not be Indifferent to them whether they received Sitting or Standing as they profess it is if
practice to them And if Christians in the several places of their abode did walk according to this Rule they would greatly promote the Peace and Welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and Peace to themselves with unspeakable Comfort and Satisfaction Whosoever would be esteemed and rewarded as a Peacemaker and avoid the ill reputation and Mat. 5. 9. guilt of a Turbulent Person ought among other things carefully to observe this viz. to Submit to and Comply with the Innocent Customs of the Church whereof he is a Member For thus the same Divine Writer after he had Argued against Womens being Uncovered in the publick Assemblies concludes all after this manner 1 Cor. 11. 6 If any Man seem to be Contentious we have no such Customs nor the Churches of God Pray by the way let this be observed from this place That we may Lawfully do some things in the Worship and Service of God for which we have no Command or Example in Scripture or else St. Paul's Argument from Custom is of no force To sum up all upon this second Query Seeing that we can never be certain of the particular Gesture used by Christ at the Institution of the Holy Sacrament Seeing his bare Example supposing he did Sit doth not oblige us in Conscience to Imitate it Seeing they who urge his Example do not follow it themselves even in that particular they urge it for Seeing Conformity to the Gesture prescribed by Law is a plain Conformity to the Example and Practice of Christ considered as to the Equity Reason and Spiritual Meaning and Instruction of it I think no Man can reasonably object against Kneeling and scruple in Conscience a Conformity to it as being repugnant to the Example of our Lord. Query III. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Vnsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be requisite to premise something which may explain the true sense of it and Discover upon what Grounds and Reasons our Dissenting Brethren build their scruples against Kneeling as being no Table-Gesture By a Table-Gesture we are to understand thus much That at the Lord's Supper we ought in their Judgment to use the same Gesture as we do at our ordinary Meals and Tables at our Civil Feasts and Entertainments And because divers Gestures are used at Meals according to the different Modes and Customs of several Nations therefore we are obliged to use that at the Sacrament which the Custom of our Country hath prescribed at our Ordinary and Civil Meals Thus saith the Author of Altare Damascenum a Stout and Learned Champion for a Table-Gesture Sitting cross-legged Altar Dam. p. 762. as the Turks do at their Meals would be amongst them if they were Converted a Comely fashion of Receiving the Lord's Supper The Sacrament is a Supper a Feast Disput against Kneeling p. 2. p. 56. arg 4. a Banquet and therefore requires a Supper a Feast a Banquet-Gesture And such a Gesture must be used as Standeth with the Custom of the Country In no Nation was it ever held Comely to Kneel at their Banquets or Abridgment p. 61. reply to Bp. Morton 3 Innoc. Cer. p. 37. set forth in K. James's Reign to Receive their food Kneeling So that according to the sense of their own Writers and great Patrons of Sitting this is the reason why they question the Lawfulness of Kneeling That the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same with that which we use and observe at our Ordinary Tables according to the Custom and Fashion of our Native Country wherein we live And then the full Import and meaning of the Query is this Whether the nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast doth not require and oblige us to Sit and not Kneel because Sitting and not Kneeling is the Ordinary Table-Gesture according to the Mode and Fashion of England Here the Reader may observe that this Argument for Sitting drawn from the nature of this Holy Feast quite overthrows the two former Arguments drawn from the express Command and Example of our Saviour and renders them useless and unserviceable to their cause 1. For they don't say we are obliged to use the same Gesture with our Lord but only a Table-Gesture though never so different from that which he used according to the Custom of our Country where we live Various Gestures according to the Variety of Fashions and Usages of several Nations at their Common Feasts may be all Comely and Sutable to the Nature of this Holy Feast According to this Argument therefore we are not obliged to Sit because Christ did at the Sacrament and then his bare Example is no Rule to us in this matter His Example was Governed and Guided by the Nature of the Sacrament and the Custom of the Jews Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament before the Paschal Feast was over and he continued in the same posture which he used at the Passover say they and that was Sitting Suppose this what follows Why therefore we are bound to Sit too after his Example No by no means say I unless it be the Custom of our Country to Sit at our Meals and Sitting be our Common Table-Gesture Which is the strength of this Argument drawn from the Nature of the thing if we may believe what they say themselves 2. Again if the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-Gesture and we are obliged to use that in particular which standeth with the Custom of our Country and the Gestures may be different according as their Customs differ then God hath no where Commanded the use of any particular Gesture nor obliged all Christians in all places to observe one and the same 3. And then Thirdly we may Lawfully observe some things in the Worship of God for which we have no Command or Example in the Holy Scriptures if this Argument of the Table-Gesture be good And this principle viz. that we ought not to do any thing in the Worship of God but what we have some Command or Example for in Scripture is the great battering Engine which hath been constantly imployed against the Ceremonies enjoyned by our Church and it is a Principle wherein the Mystery of Puritanisme doth Preface to his Serm. last Edit 1681. consist as Bishop Sanderson Notes Therefore it behoves our Brethren not to be fond of this Table-Gesture as they love the Life of their Cause I am sure no greater Argument can be afforded of a routed baffled Cause in the matter of Sitting at the Sacrament than to see the Patrons of it running up and down in Confusion and flying for Refuge sometime to the Command of Christ then to his Example when driven out there then to the Nature of the thing and Civil Customs and about again to the Example For thus the Authors of the fore-mentioned Tracts do Thus much being premised I proceed to Consider the
Question proposed for the Resolution whereof I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature of the Holy Sacrament that so we may truly understand what Gesture is agreeable or repugnant to it 2. Shew that the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Common Table-Gesture in order to our worthy Receiving 3. That Kneeling is very Comely and agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture 4. That the Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers had no such notion of the necessity of a Table-Gesture as is maintained and urged by Dissenters 1. As to the Nature of the Sacrament I shall endeavour to discover it under these following Heads First the Sacrament in the Holy Scripture is called the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper and and Banquet by the Ancient Greek Fathers because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord hath made for all worthy Receivers It is styled a Supper and a Feast either because it was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time at night or because it represents a Supper and a Feast And so it is not of the same Nature with a Civil and Ordinary Supper and Feast though it bear the same name There is some resemblance between this Holy Feast and Civil Feasts and the shewing wherein it lies will in part explain its Nature There are three things Essential and Necessary to a Feast and included in the notion of it Plenty good Company and Mirth And upon the account of these the Sacrament is considered in its own Nature properly a Banquet a Feast but then it is a Heavenly and Spiritual one consisting of Spiritual Graces and benefits Communion with Christ and with all true believers signified by and tendered under the outward Elements of Bread and Wine and even in these three particulars which are Essential to it considered as a Feast and are necessary ingredients into all Feasts whatsoever it very much differs from Civil and Ordinary Feasts For though there be Plenty yet it doth not consist of Variety of Dishes to gratifie our Palats or satisfie our Hunger as other Feasts do and particularly the Passover did where the Body was filled and Feasted as well as the mind The provision wherewith our Lord hath Furnished out his Table is not of an Earthly and perishing but of an Heavenly and Immortal Nature even the Body and Blood of Christ which we Spiritually Feast upon Alas if we only fix our Eyes and Thoughts upon what is placed on the Table and those small portions of Bread and Wine allotted us to Eat and Drink without lifting up our Hearts as * * * So St. Cypr. St. Chrysost and St. Aug. expound this Exhort of the Minister at the Communion Cyp. de orat Dom. Chrys Hom. de Encaeniis Aug. de ver Relig. c. 3. our Church exhorts us to do by the Minister in her Communion-Office to those Heavenly and Invisible good things couched under and signified by the outward Elements of Bread and Wine what is there in all that we see that deserves the name of a Feast or can by the help of any figure but an Irony be called by that name Did ever any Man esteem that a Feast where there was not Meat enough to fill his Mouth nor Drink enough to quench his thirst It is upon the account therefore of those Invisible and Spiritual good things wherewith the Souls not the Bodies of worthy Communicants are Strengthened and Refreshed of which the Bread and Wine are but the Types and Shadows that the Sacrament is and may truly be called a Feast or Banquet And for this reason â â â St. Chrys in Ps 90. Greg. Naz. orat 40. Athanasius St. Cyril Hierosol Catech. and others the Greek Fathers called it a Spiritual Feast and the Table a Mystical Table and the Cup the Cup of Mysteries and the Sacrament take it all together was by them Styled the Mystical Supper the Mystery and Mysteries as Presenting one thing to the Eye and another to the Mind 2. As Plenty is one necessary ingredient into the Nature of a Feast so also is Choice and Select Company Feasts are made in expectation of Friends and Acquaintance A Man may Dine alone but in Proper and Ordinary Speech no Man is said to Feast alone Now though the Sacrament doth resemble our Common Feasts in this Particular and therefore hath obtained the name of Communion and the Guests Communicants which Phrases do naturally import Number or Society yet if we consider what the persons are that constitute this Society and with whom Communion is held the Nature of this Spiritual Feast will further appear And truly our Communion is with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity though principally our Lord Jesus the Master of this Feast in and through whom we all have Eph. 2. 18. access by one Spirit to the Father as St. Paul speaks This high and inestimable priviledge and Honour of being admitted into the Presence of God and holding a friendly Correspondence and Converse with him at his Table is founded on the Blood of Christ which we thankfully Commemorate at this Solemnity by which we who were afar off are made nigh as the same Eph. 2. 13. Divine Writer hath it Moreoever by Eating and Drinking at the Lord's Table we are United to and hold Communion with all Faithful Christians and worthy Communicants the Members of his Mystical Body the Church whom he hath redeemed and cleansed by his most precious Blood And that which qualifies a Man for such Communion doth not Consist in External Garbs or Ornaments of the Body but in Holy and Virtuous Dispositions of Soul in a Penitent Humble Charitable Thankful and Obedient Heart 3. Another thing necessary to a Feast is Mirth and Joy which implies also good discourse and in this too the Sacrament resembles our Common Feasts But then the Joy is of a Spiritual Nature and flows from different Causes Not from what we Tast and See not from our Appetites and Phansies pleased and tickled with the richness and Variety of Dishes which adorn the Table nor from our Blood and Spirits raised and fermented by generous Wines but from Divine and Heavenly Considerations From the Boundless and Unaccountable Love of God in sending his onely Begotten and Beloved Son into the World to lay down his Life and shed his Blood as a propitiation for our Sins from the wonderful Condescention of our Dear Lord and Master in undertaking this hard Task in appearing Clothed with our Flesh in the form of a Servant and at last Humbling himself to the Death of the Cross for our Sakes from the Victory he hath gained for us over Death and Hell and all the Spirits of Darkness from the miraculous Redemption he hath wrought and the Right and Title to Eternal Life which he hath purchased for us Sinful Dust and Ashes by his own most Precious Blood This is
de Sacramentis lib. 2. c. 3. * * * A Monk of Corbie who wrote against Berengar and liv'd about the year 1074. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And â â â Coster Enchirid p. 353. edit 1590. Coster another Popish Writer is so far from saying the Pope introduced it and that after Transubstantiation took place that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continued from the Apostles times Seeing then upon the whole matter it appears by the confession of some who oppose Kneeling that Honorius did not institute or ordain that Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing the Decree which he made and which others appeal to doth not at all relate to this matter but onely to the Adoration of the Host at the Priests elevation of it seeing no other Pope is alledged as the Author of this Custom seeing Kneeling was never any instituted Ceremony in the Church of Rome nor is there any Canon or Decree or Rubrick extant which requires the use of that Gesture seeing the Pope himself and the Priests who celebrate use another Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing their own Writers look on it as an ancient Usage derived to them from the first and purest Ages it follows that what is pretended and supposed in the Question is without all Warrant and Proof viz. that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters And now to close up all I will appeal to any man of sense and understanding whether this be not a very silly and extravagant way of Arguing Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is sinful because it was first introduced by Antichrist and the man of sin and that after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was started and took place in the world and yet after all when you come up close to them and enquire into particulars they are not able to date the original of it nor name the Authors who first invented it and set it up At this rate of talking it were the easiest matter imaginable to evince that Sitting and Standing were equally unlawful with Kneeling For it is but affirming boldly that they were first brought in and used by Idolaters and then the work is done effectually And if such slender Objections must drive us away from the Lords Supper we shall never communicate as long as we live But besides the folly of such Arguments I think it 's a very wicked thing for men to invent and urge them as the Case stands with us at present For what is there more desired and wisht for by all good Christians than Brotherly Love and Concord than that we may all meet together with one accord in one place and with one mind and one mouth glorifie God in the publick Churches What more talkt of now adays then Peace and Vnion Whosoever therefore shall any ways obstruct so blessed and desirable a Work must be concluded every ill man And such a one most certainly is he whatsoever we may think of it who withdraws himself from the Holy Communion upon groundless jealousies and unreasonable fears of incurring the divine displeasure if he receive Kneeling and shall go about by the Bugbear-words of Idolaters Antichrist the man of sin to scare weak and honest men from Receiving the Holy Sacrament in our Churches Because the Lords Supper was instituted for this peculiar end among others viz. to be an uniting Ordinance to bind Christians together in the strictest bonds of Love and Friendship to dispose and engage them to put on Bowels of Mercy to exercise the most kind and tender affections and the most fervent Charity one towards another that is possible for men to do Those Nonconforming Ministers therefore who possess the people with these Arguments which they themselves know unless they be grosly ignorant to be false and senceless to render them averse from the Lords Supper as it is administred in our Churches are in plain English the Authors and Fomenters of our Divisions and the Disturbers of our Peace In the second place to proceed it is not unlawful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Before I produce my Reasons for the proof of this Proposition I think it will not be amiss to inform the Reader with those Arguments which Dissenters use to overthrow it and they are these two in general 1. All Things and Rites which have been notoriously abused to Gillesp Eng. Pop. Cer. c. 2. par 3. p. 130. Idolatry if they were such as were devised by man and not by God and Nature made to be of necessary use should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine Worship But Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is one of these Rites therefore it should utterly be Abridgment of Linc. Min. p. 17. Vid. Mr. Hook Eccles Pol. lib. 4. p. 160. abolished 2. To imitate and agree with Idolaters by using such Rites and Ceremonies as they do though in themselves indifferent and though they contain nothing which is not agreeable to the Word of God is sinful So that not to abolish utterly whatsoever we know to have been abused heretofore to Idolatry to take up any old Heathenish and Idolatrous Customs and Rites though at present disused by Idolaters is sinful and then to use the same Rites Gillesp p. 141. c. 3. with Idolaters at present to sort our selves and communicate with them in their Rites is to partake of their sins and to become Altar Dam. p. 536 549. guilty of Idolatry too With these Arguments they make a great noise and endeavour to confirm them by Scripture and Reason I shall not offer at a Confutation of these Proofs which stand built upon a weak and sandy Foundation upon trifling and sorry Reasons upon Scripture-Precepts whose sence is horribly wrested and Scripture-Examples falsly applied and nothing to the purpose There is a Case of Conscience lately published wherein the Author hath done this Work to my hands For he clearly shews That a Vid Case resolved whether the Ch. of Eng. Symbolizing c. p. 24. to p. 47. p. 38. Churches agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing and particularly instanceth in our Churches agreement with the Church of Rome by Kneeling at the Sacrament There you will find the most considerable Texts and Examples which they drag from Scripture and urge for themselves rendred utterly unserviceable to their Cause and rescued from their Tortures All that I shall do therefore at present is onely this briefly to propound my Reasons for the proof of my Assertion by which I hope to make it evidently appear that our Dissenting Brethren lie under a great errour and mistake by thinking that all those Rites and Ceremonies which are in themselves indifferent and of mans devising ought to be utterly abolished and become sinful for us to use purely because they either have been or are notoriously abused
Sense of them to the mind of the Hearers Neither of which I am confident can be truly charged upon them For never did men more indeavour orderly discourse and aim at plain unaffected Speech than they do now in the Church of England where good Sense in the most easie and familiar Words is now lookt upon as the principal Commendation of Sermons Some indeed I have heard find fault with our Sermons for not keeping the old method as they call it of Doctrine Reason and Vse which is altogether unjust as well as frivolous For there is no man that baulks that Method when it is natural but rather chuses it because it hath been common and is easie and useful As for example if any man among us were to preach upon this text Corinth XIII 13. And now abideth Faith Hope and Charity these three but the greatest of these is Charity He would without doubt not only observe among other Doctrines the preheminence of Charity but also give the best Reasons he could think of why it ought to be highest in our Esteem and our Affections too because it is the very end of Faith and Hope and because it makes us like unto God which Faith and Hope do not And after such like things he would likewise make that Use of this Doctrine which the Apostle himself doth Immediately in the very next words Verse 1. Chapter XIV pressing every one to follow after the Love of God and of their Neighbour to follow it earnestly and vigorously and never cease their pursuit till they feel their Hearts possessed with it not contenting themselves meerly with believing but being so affected with it that they attain the end of their Faith which ought to work by Love Nay he would wish them to examine and prove their Faith by this whether it be likely to save them or no. For if it leave them short of this Charity it will leave them short of Heaven for it is Charity alone that hath any place there And who would forbear most pathetical intreaties here to be very serious in this search there being so much Pretence to Faith in the World and so little Charity to be found there To one sort of Faith especially which is the apprehension of Christs Merits and application of them to themselves which every Body makes bold withal whilst very few have any thing of that Charity which St. Paul describes in the Chapter before named of that long suffering and kind Charity which envieth not which vaunteth not it self or is not rash is not puffed up doth not behave it self unseemly seeketh not her own is not easily provoked thinketh no Evil but takes things in the best Sense and puts the fairest Construction upon them in one Word makes a Man inoffensive not only towards God but towards Men of all sorts high and low rich and poor that is to the whole Church of God The like I might say of all other Subjects of the same nature which lead him that handles them into this Method But sometime the matter to be treated of is such that there is no other Reason to be given of it but only the divine Revelation upon whose Testimony we receive it as we do that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds The Vses of which I never heard any Preacher amougst us fail to make both for the begetting Reverence towards him Faith in him and Obedience unto him But what need is there of so many Words about this method of Sermons when the ancient Doctors of Religion it is manifest did not mind it nor any other But spake to the Business before them without observing any constant Rule at all in their Discourses and then it is apparent People profited by Sermons much more than they do now when they are most artificially contrived And it would be an inexcusable Sin in those that should leave our Church did the Ministers of it only open the Sense of the Epistle or the Gospel for the day or any other portion of Holy Scripture as St. Chrysostom was wont to do without making particular Observations or concluding all with distinct Uses as the manner now is but only with a general Application pressing what they thought most material or what the necessities of their People most required By which way of preaching if Men can receive no profit they must lay the Blame somewhere else than upon the Composition of the Sermon or the manner of its Delivery either which is the next thing to be considered 2. Now here two things are found fault withal first That our Preachers are not vehement enough in the Delivery of their Sermons secondly That they read them For the former of these it is not true where the matter in hand is of great concernment and requâres more than ordinary earnestness Which ought in reason to be reserved for some certain Occasions and not be spent upon all things alike for then it loses its effect at that time when it would be most seasonably and usefully employed But there is a great mistake in that which men call vehemence which oft-times consists only in the strength of the voice which neither all your Preachers nor all ours are indowed withal And if they were would be but noise without good Sense which will move attentive minds as much as a loud sound affects Mens Ears Add to this that there is a natural heat also in some Mens tempers which makes them speak vehemently with such a warmth as hath the appearance of much Zeal when they are nothing near so deeply affected with what they say as some Men of more sedate and cool tempers are whose Judgment operates more strongly than their Passions And these Men surely may be very serviceable for Illumination of the Mind with such force of Argument as will certainly move the affections vehemently by the help of serious Consideration without which if any affections be raised they are little worth and will not last but vanish as soon as that blast is over which stirred them up And this difference of temper is observable in your Men as well as in ours and therefore this can be no hindrance to Edification among us no more than among you As for reading of Sermons it is not universally used but there are those among us whom God hath blessed with such strength of Memory or readiness of Conception that they need not the help of any Notes at all in the Pulpit And others do not tye themselves to them so as never to look off the Book but only assist their Memory by them sometimes Whereby the Auditory is assured that they hear nothing but what hath been beforehand considered and digested and the Preacher himself also is secured that he shall not forget any thing of Moment which he hath prepared that no Expression slip from him on a sudden which may prove indecent or imprudent As for those whose weakness of Memory
of Antient Friends * * * See Spirit of the Hart. p. 12 13 c. George Fox declar'd he had Power to bind and loose whom he pleased â â â p â7 and said in a great Assembly * * * p. 41. that he never lik'd the Word Liberty of Conscience and would have no Liberty given to Presbyterians Papists Independents and Baptists From the Subordinate End of the Dissenters I pass The Principal End of the Dissenters the first part of it to the Principal and begin with the first part of it the removal of Popery A very good and commendable end And I heartily pray to God to prosper all Christians who persue it by fit and lawful ways But the Methods of Dissenters do not so well lead to it as those of the established Church Bare Reason maketh this manifest It may be also proved to us by Historical Inference This likewise is the Judgment of the Papists themselves who take their measures from this Principle that they shall enter in through the Breaches of the Church of England First Common Reason sheweth that the Interruption which may by Dissension be given to this Church will rather weaken than improve the Protestants Interest both at home and abroad Abroad the Protestant Interest will suffer much in the overthrow of this Church For by such means a principal Wheel is taken out of the Frame of the Reformation Nay Signior Diodati * * * Florentissima Anâlia Ocellus ille Ecclesiarum Peculium Christi singulare c. was wont to praise it in a more excellent Metaphor and to call it the Eye of the Reformed Churches and it is plain to considering Men that the Church of England which had greater regard to the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation can give a more full and unperplexed answer to all the Objections of the Romanists than some other Churches who are cramped in a few points unwarily admitted If therefore Dissentions put out this eye of the Protestant Churches the dark Doctrines and Traditions of Popery will the sooner spread themselves over Reformed Christendom At Home the Dissettlement of the Church of England will sooner introduce than root out Popery I am constrain'd thus to judge by the following Considerations First the design of keeping out Popery by the Ruine of this Church is like the preposterous way of securing the Vineyard by pulling up of the Fence or of keeping out the Enemy by the removal of our Bullwark Under that name this Church is commonly spoken of and they do not flatter it who give it that Title âts Constitution is Christian and it is strong in its Nature and if such a Church hath not ability with God's assistance to resist the assaults of Romish Power much less have they who dissent from it And it is Fanaticism properly so called or Religious Frenzie to lay aside a more probable means and to trust that God will give to means which are much less probable supernatural aid and success God supporteth a good Cause by weak means if they are the only means he hath put into our power against a bad Cause though externally potent But he who in cases of emergence assisteth honest Impotence and Infirmity will never work Miracles in favour of Mens Presumptions and Indiscretions The Romanists are a mighty body of Men and though there are Intestine Fewds betwixt the Secular and Regular Clergy as likewise betwixt the several Orders yet they are all united into one common Politie and grafted into that one stock of the Papal Headship They are favoured in many places by great Men they have variety of Learning they pretend to great Antiquity to Miracles to Martyrs without number to extraordinary Charity and Mortification they have the Nerves of worldly Power that is banks of Money and a large Revenue They have a Scheme of Policy always in readiness there are great numbers of Emissaries posted in all places for the conveying of Intelligence and the gaining of Proselytes they take upon them all shapes and are bred to all the wordly Arts of Insinuation There is given to their way in the Jargon of Mr. Coleman * * * Coll. of Lett. p. 8. c. a very fit name of Trade Traffick Merchandize Against all this Craft and Strength what under God can Protestants oppose which is equal to the Power of the Church of England A Church Primitive learned pure and nor embased with the mixtures of Enthusiasm or Superstition A Church which is able to detect the Forgeries and Impostures of Rome which hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extream which is a National Body already formed a Body both Christian and Legal a Body which commendeth it self to the Civil Powers by the Loyalty of its Constitution a body which hath in it great numbers of People judiciously devout and who are judged only to be few * * * See L. de Moulin's Advances c. p. 26. because they are not noysie but prudent though truly exemplary in their Religion And there is in the Church of England something more considerable than number for Union is stronger than Multitude Take the Character of this Church from Monsieur Daille * * * De Confess Advers H. Hammond c. 1. p. 97. 98. a Man whose Circumstances where not likely to lead him in this matter into any partiality of judgment and who at that time was engag'd in a learned Controversy with one of our Divines The Character is this As to the Church of England purged from Forein wicked Superstitious Worships and Errors either Impious or dangerous by the Rule of the Divine Scriptures approved by so many and such illustrious Martyrs abounding with Piety towards God and Charity towards Men and with most frequent examples of good works flourishing with an increase of most learned and wise men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time I have always had it in just esteem and till I die I shall continue in the same due Veneration of it And indeed it is to me a matter of astonishment that any men who have been beyond the Seas and made Observations upon other Churches and States should be displeased at Ours which so much excel them Now is it probable that such a Church as this is should have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery than an inferior number of divided Parties of which the most Sober and most Accomplish'd is neither so Primitive nor so learned nor so united nor so numerous nor so legal And against which it will be objected by the Romans that it is of Yesterday Amongst these Parties there are some who have not fully declared themselves And who knows whether they have not a Reserve for the Romish Religion against a favourable Opportunity though sometimes they speak of Rome as of Babylon I mean those People who are called Quakers who speak in general of their Light
the worldly increase with their Power And for illustration-sake when the House being garbell'd had much less right but more force the Army as yet agreeing with them and the good King being in their hands than they gave to the Declarations of their Pleasure the Title not as before of Ordinances but of Acts of Parliament * * * Whill Memoirs p. 363. Oliver likewise declared plainly That there was as much need to keep the Cause by Power as to get it And being potent he entred the House and mock'd at his Masters and commanded with insolent disdain that That Bawble * * * Speech at the Dissol of the House Jan. 22. 1654. p. 22 meaning the Mace of the Speaker should be taken away Men may intend well but using the help of the illegal secular Arm they can never secure * * * Id. ibid. â 529. what they propose but frequently render that which was well settled much worse by their unhinging of it But such means it comes to pass that the Civil State is embroyl'd and Religion sensibly decays in stead of growing towards perfection where publick order is interrupted and Men gain a Liberty which they know not how to use Secondly It appeareth by the History of our late Revolutions which began with pretence of a more pure Religion that our Dissentions occasion'd great Corruptions both in Faith and manners Then the War was Preached up as the Christian Cause And one of the City-Soldiers mortally wounded at Newberry-fight was applauded in an Epistle * * * Hill 's Ser. called Temple work A. 1644. to the Houses as one whose Voice was more than humane when he cryed out O that I had another Life to lose for Jesus Christ Then this Doctrine so very immoral and unchristian was by some * * * D. Crisp in Ser. called Our sins are already laid on Christ p 274 275. Preached and by great numbers embrac'd The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect Person yet in the heighth of Iniquity and the excess of Riot and committing all the Abominations that can be committed than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint Triumphant in Glory Then certain Soldiers * * * H. of Indep part 2. p 152 153. enter'd a Church with five Lights as Emblems of five things thought fit to be extinguish'd viz. The Lord's-day Tythes Ministers Magistrates the Bible Then by a publick Intelligencer who called himself Mercurius Britanicus ** ** ** Merc. Brit. N 13. Nov. A. 43 p. 97. the Lord Primate Vsher himself was reproach'd as an Old Doting Apostating Bishop Instances are endless but what need have we of further Witnesses than the Lords and Commons and the Ministers of the Province of London whose Complaints and Acknowledgments are here subjoyned The Lords and Commons in one of their Ordinances * * * Die Jovâz Febr. 4 1646. use these words We have thought fit lest we partake in other Mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their Plagues to set forth this our deep sense of the great dishonour of God and perillous condition that this Kingdom is in through the abominable Blasphemies and damnable Heresies vented and spread abroad therein tending to the Subversion of the Faith contempt of the Ministry and Ordinance of Jesus Christ The Ministers made a like acknowledgment saying Instead ** ** ** Testim to Truth of J. Chr. p. 31. of extirpating Heresie Schism Profaness we have such an impudent and general inundation of all these evils that Multitudes are not asham'd to press and plead for publick formal and universal Toleration And again We the Ministers of Jesus Christ do hereby testify to all our Flocks to all the Kingdom and to all the Reformed Churches as our great dislike of Pilacy Erastianism Brownism and Independency so our utter abhorrence of Anti-Scripturism Popery Arianism Socinianism Arminianism Antimonianism Anabaptism Libertinism and Familism with all such like now too rife among us Thirdly some Dissenters by the Purity of Religion mean agreeableness of Doctrine Discipline and Life to the dispensation of the New Testament and a removal of humane Inventions and thus far the Notion is true but with reference to our Church it is an unwarrantable Reflexion For it hath but one Principal Rule and that is the Holy Scripture and Subordinate rules in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ are not to be called in our Church any more than in the pure and Primitive Christian Church whose Pattern it follows humane Imaginations but rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom and Discretion But there are others among the Dissenters who by the Purity of Religion mean a simplicity as oppos'd to composition and not to such mixtures as corrupt the Circumstances or parts of Worship which in themselves are pure Quakers and some others believe their way the purer because they have taken out of it Sacraments and External Forms of Worship and endeavoured as they phrase it * * * G. Fox in J. Perrot's Hidden things brought to light p. 11. to bring the Peoples minds out of all Visibles By equal reason the Papists may say their Eucharist is more pure than that of the Protestants because they have taken the Cup from it But that which maketh a pure Church is like that which maketh a pure Medicine not the fewness of the Ingredients but the good quality of them how many soever they be and the aptness of their Nature for the procuring of Health Men who have this false Notion of the purity of Religion distill it till it evaporates and all that is left is a dead and corrupt Sediment And here I have judged the following words of Sir Walter Rawleigh not unfit to be by me transcribed and considered by all * * * Hist of the World l. 2. 1. part c. 5. p. 249. The Reverend Care which Moses had in all that belong'd even to the outward and least parts of the Tabernacle Ark and Sanctury is now so forgotten and cast away in this Superfine Age by those of the Family by the Anabaptist Brownist and other Sectaries as all cost and care bestow'd and had of the Church wherein God is to be served and worshipped is accounted a kind of Popery and as proceeding from an Idolatrous Disposition Insomuch as time would soon bring to pass if it were not resisted that God would be turned out of Churches into Barns and from thence again into the Fields and Mountains and under the Hedges and the Officers of the Ministry robbed of all Dignity and Respect be as contemptible as these places all Order Discipline and Church-Government left to newness of Opinion and Men's Fancies Yea and soon after as many kinds of Religions would spring up as there are Parish Churches within England Every Contentious and ignorant person clothing his Fancy with the Spirit of God and his Imagination with the gift of
Questions besides that it cannot serve any purposes of piety if it declines from duty in any instance it is like giving Alms out of the portion of Orphans or building Hospitals with the Money and spoils of Sacrilege 4. It is further said by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius If determination by Superiours is sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal then they do very ill that they do not so far as is possible determine all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving Offence by the use of them Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferent things Then St. Paul might have spared all his directions about forbearance out of respect to weak Brethren and fully determined the matters in debate and so put an end to all fear of Scandal This truly seemeth a very odd way of arguing and all that I shall say to it is that it supposeth nothing else worthy to be considered in the making of Laws or in the determinations of Superiours about indifferent things but only this one matter of Scandal and the project it self should it take would prove very vain and unsuccessful For tho we truly say that we are bound to comply with the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England they being but few and innocent and so giving no real ground of Offence yet we do not say the same upon supposition our Church had determined all circumstances in Gods Worship she possibly could which would perhaps have been a yoke greater than that of the Ceremonial Law to the Jews nor if she had prescribed as many Ceremonies as the Church of Rome hath done which manifestly tend to the disgrace and Scandal of our Christian Religion and as for the course St. Paul took it is plain that some things upon good reasons were determined by the Apostles as that the Gentile Converts should abstain from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols which decree I presume they might not Transgress out of charity to any of their Brethren who might take Offence at such abstinence and other things for great reason were for a time left at liberty which reason was taken from the present circumstances of those the Apostles had to deal withal tho afterwards as I observed before when that reason ceased determinations were made about those things which St. Paul had left at liberty and if St. Paul had determined the dispute about meats and days one way they who had followed so great an Authority whatever had happened had surely been free from the sin of Scandal but still the Scandal had not been prevented but all the contrary part had been in danger to have been utterly estranged from Christianity and that was reason sufficient why St. Paul did not make any determinations in that case For Governours are not only to take care to free those that obey them from the sin of Scandal but also to provide that as little occasion as is possible may be given to any to be Scandalized There are other Objections offered by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius and Rutherford against this Doctrine of our obligation to obedience to Superiours in things lawful notwithstanding the Scandal that may follow but they either may be Answered from what I have already said or else they chiefly concern the case of Governours and are brought to prove that they act uncharitably and give great Offence contrary to St. Pauls rules who take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites by which they know many good Men will be Scandalized but this is not my present business to discourse of tho I cannot forbear saying these two things which I think very easie to make out 1. That our Church of England hath taken all reasonable care not to give any just offence to any sort of persons and the offences that have been since taken at some things in our Constitution could not possibly have been foreseen by those who made our first Reformation from Popery and so they could not be any reason against the first establishment Nor 2. Are they now a sufficient reason for the alteration of it unless we can imagine it reasonable to alter publick Laws made with great wisdom and deliberation as often as they are disliked by or prove Offensive to private persons If this be admitted there then can never be any setled Government and order in the Church because there never can be any establishment that will not be lyable to give such Offence They who now take Offence at what the Church of England enjoyns on the same or a like account will take Offence at whatever can be enjoyned and the same pretences of Scandal will be good against any establishment they themselves shall make for tho they will not use these reasons against their own establishment yet in a short time others will take up their weapons to fight against them and what served to destroy the present Church will be as effectual to overthrow that which shall be set up in its room so that whatever alteration is made if this be allowed for a sufficient ground of it viz. to avoid the Offence that some men take at the present constitution yet still we shall be but where we were and new Offences will arise and so there must be continual changing and altering to gratifie the unreasonable humours and fancies of Men and should any one party of Dissenters amongst us get their Form of Government and Worship established by Law I doubt not but they would Preach to us the very same Doctrine we do now to them They would tell us that private persons must bend and conform to the Laws and not the Laws to private persons that it was our own fault that we were Offended that our weakness proceeded from our unwillingness to receive instruction that the weak were to be governed not to prescribe to their Governours that we must not expect that what was with good reason appointed and ordered should be presently abrogated or changed out of complyance with Mens foolish prejudices and mistakes It is sufficiently known how strict and rigorous botht the Presbyterians and Independents are and have been where they have had any advantage and what little consideration or regard they have had of their Dissenting Brethren tho they would have us so tender of them Thus much I think sufficient to shew that the Precept of Obedience to Superiours in things Lawful is more obligatory than the Precept of avoiding Scandal whence it follows that it is our duty to obey in such instances tho Offence may be taken at it because no sin is to be committed for the avoiding Scandal I might from this head further argue that if we must not commit any sin to avoid giving Offence then it is not Lawful to Separate from our parish-Parish-Churches upon that account because all voluntary Separation from a Church in which nothing that is unlawful is required as a condition of
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
severe against The Gentiles might be encouraged and confirmed in their Idolatry by feeing men of the most holy Religion as they called themselves consent with them in it And the Church might be offended too by seeing her Members have so little a regard to her Constitutions and the plain Canons of her great Founders And therefore they ought to be extreamly careful and cautious what they did in this nice point and so ought we always to be in such cases 2. But secondly it may so happen that what we do may onely offend some These different Parties may have different apprehensions of the same thing Some may think it lawful or a Duty others may scruple it or condemn it as a sin Now in this case it will concern us to consider how we ought to govern our selves and our actions and what difference to make in our respects to men And the Apostles Rule in this Text will be a safe measure and direction to us especially it Ecumenius his Note be true as it commonly is in all places where a Climax or Gradation is used as it seems plainly to be in this place His words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. consider what the Apostle saith how he puts the chief thing last and makes giving offence to the Church of God that which especially we ought to have a care of and he gives this reason for the equity of this Rule ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it concerns us to endeavour to win others unto the Faith but by no means to offend and grieve those that already profess it And certainly nothing can be more just and reasonable than this is So that the sum of this advice is plainly this You ought as near as you can to do nothing to offend any but however take care not to offend the Church You ough to have a charitable respect to all particular persons of what denomination soever whether Jews or Gentiles but especially to the Church and never to give offence to that by any thing that you do Now this will be a clear guide to us in our present case and not onely acquit Conformity from all guilt of Scandal but cast it wholly upon Separation and refusing to comply with the present Constitutions of the Church since that is a direct giving offence to those which the Apostle chiefly respects in this prohibition i. e. the Church of God I stay not now to give the notion of the Church I doubt not but all contending Parties understand that competently well Nor to prove the present national Church of England to be justly called the Church of God this God be thanked is fully done against both the opposite Factions against her those that call her Heretical or Schismatical on one hand and those that reproach her as Popish and Antichristian on the other Were her present Constitutions to be tried by Apostolical and Primitive practice her Faith to be judged by that of the first Centuries and four most truly General-Councils or her Liturgy and Discipline her Rites Ceremonies and way of publick Worship to be compared with what we can collect and judge of those purest times Or were she to stand or fall by the judgement and suffrages of the most able and learned of Protestant Divines abroad since the Reformation she would not onely be justified but commended not onely pass for a true and sound part of Christs Church but the most sound and Orthodox the most truly Primitive and Apostolical of any at this day on the face of the earth But I wave all this and proceed to apply this Advice and Rule of St. Paul to our own Case as it is at this day with respect to Scandal and the danger of it by conforming to the Church which is plainly this The Church of England having reformed it self from those Corruptions that had sullied the truth and beauty of Christian Doctrine and Worship not by Noise and Tumult and popular Faction which too much influenced some forein Reformations but upon grave and sober advice with the concurrence of the lawful Civil Power digested her Doctrinals into such a number of Articles as she judged most consonant to the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles and first Councils established such a Form of Worship as upon most diligent enquiry and search she found most agreeable to the practice of pure and Primitive Ages and retained onely such Rites and Usages as she found most ancient and freest from any just and reasonable Exceptions and Abuses All these thus constituted and framed she imposeth as Conditions of her Communion and requires Conformity unto of all her Members She will be grievously offended if any of her Children reject and comply not with this Constitution as knowing her Knowledge and Integirty questioned her Authority despised and that Power that hath confirmed all this contemned by so doing On the other hand there are some particular men some Hereticks some Schismaticks some either designing or less instructed persons that declare themselves offended by conforming to this Constitution The question now is how we shall govern our selves and which of these Considerations we will permit to sway us Whether respect to the Church and just Authority and fear of giving offence thereto shall engage us to conform or whether respect to some private persons and fear of offending and angring them shall cause us to cast off all regard to those Laws and Constitutions and all care to comply with them This is the plain Case and were there no other Considerations to determine us when yet there are many I would desire nothing plainer than the direction of the Apostle in this Text where he tells us that the persons we ought chiefly to have a care not to give offence unto are the Church of God If some private persons and the Church come in competition and we must needs offend some we ought to have a greater respect to the Church than unto them And were it truly giving them offence which yet it is not yet were it so I say we ought not to attend so to that Consideration as to cast off all regard and care to the Church of Christ This I think is a Rule so very reasonable at the very hearing of and so fair upon its own reasons that I do not know whether it be really worth while to go to adde any strength to it We might venture it to its own strength to stand or fall and may challenge any one to assault or undertake it Yet however I shall proceed to enlarge a little more upon it and to adde some Considerations which may make it something more popularly plain and convincing 1. And first I desire to have it fairly considered whether we ought not to have at least as fair a respect to the Church of God as to any private persons of what character or denomination soever I do not see upon what reasons any person can deny this to me especially in a case where we
Repetitions of the same thing in calling upon God from being Vain and that is That our Desires and Affections should be raised to keep pace with our Expressions But this belongs to us to take care of And if we would endeavour to stir up in our selves that Zeal and Devotion of Heart which should answer that Appearance thereof which these Repetitions make this would satisfie us beyond all other Argument that they are not Vain To Conclude this Matter I desire those who do not yet approve our Repetition of the Lords Prayer and the other short Devotions to consider whether it be so easie to spend the time it takes up more profitably than by joining in good earnest with the Congregation in these Prayers In the next place the Responsals of the Congregation are Matter of Offence to some Persons They do not approve the Peoples saying the Confession and the Lords Prayer after the Minister nor their alternate Reciting some Petitions in the daily Service with the Psalms and Hymns and least of all do they approve that part which the Congregation bears in the Prayers of the Litany Now it were well if they who blame our Prayers upon this account would consider what has often been said to shew the usefulness of this way Namely That it is apt to check a wandring Spirit and to help and relieve Attention and withal that it tends to quicken a lively Forwardness and Zeal in Gods Service whilst we invite and provoke one another to Pray and to give Thanks These things we say not without some experience of their Truth and we think they carry plain Reason along with them and I do not find that they have been Contradicted by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party It is True they have declared their dislike of this way but still without taking notice of what may be said for it If I have observed right the main Reason of their dislike is this That the Minister as they say is appointed for the people in all Publick Services appertaining to God and that the Scripture makes the Minister to be the Mouth of the People to God in Prayer And therefore I shall Examine this Reason in the first place And 1. If it were granted that the Scripture maketh the Minister to be the Mouth of the People to God in Publick Worship yet this must by no means be so Interpreted as to make all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving in Religious Assemblies unlawful to the People For then they must not declare their Assent to the Prayers which the Minister utters by saying Amen which yet the Scripture approves and is not disapproved by any of those that Object our way against us Nor must it be so taken as if the People were to be excluded from a Vocal Part in Praising God by Hymns and Spiritual Songs For this also is warranted by Scripture and seems to be confessed by our Dissenting Brethren who allow the People to Sing Psalms with the Minister Now he that audibly says Amen to the Prayers of the Congregation makes a short Responsal to the Minister And moreover they that sing Psalms in which there are Passages of Prayer Confessions or Petitions containing matter of Invocation proper for us as the Psalms often do they pray Vocally So that notwithstanding what is pretended concerning the Ministers being the Peoples Mouth to God it shall still be lawful for the People sometimes to joyn Vocally in Prayer as well as in Praise and not only by saying Amen but by expressing the very words of Confession or Petition But 2ly Where is it said in Scripture that the Minister is the Mouth of the People to God or that no Prayer may be Offered up to God in Religious Assemblies otherwise than by the Mouth of the Minister I doubt these sayings are grown so samiliar amongst some People that they believe them to be the Words or very near the Words of Scripture But there are no such Words nor meaning in the Bible that I can find or that they have found for us It is not good to pretend the Authority of Scripture for a Doctrine that is not to be met with there It is true that the Minister is the Mouth of the People to God in all those Prayers which he utters for them and because these are many more than what the People themselves utter he may be said to be their Mouth to God Comparatively but not Absolutely It will be true also that the Minister is appointed for the People in all Publick Services appertaining to God if this be understood for the most part or of All with little exception Some Publick Services there are which are inclosed in his Office and he is appointed for them in behalf of the People that is for Administring the Sacrament Absolving the Penitent and Blessing the People And therefore Prayers that immediately concern these things are to be pronounced by him only And as for the rest the Order of the Church and the Authority and Dignity of the Ministerial Function makes it fit and decent that the Minister should utter most ever of them that in those wherein the People have their part he should ever go before and lead them and guide the whole performance which is all taken care for in our Liturgie I said before that the Dissenters do not utterly debar the People from all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving of their own in God's Solemn Worship And therefore it were great pity that they should keep at a distance from us upon Questions of this Nature And I heartily intreat them to consider whether they may not upon their own Principles come up to the Rules and Customs of our Church in this thing 1. If they grant the Peoples interest in Vocal Praise let them consider whether they have reason to Condemn the Peoples bearing a part in any of the Hymns and Psalms by alternate Responses For the plain End of reciting those Psalms in the Congregation is to Praise and Magnifie God's Name and to excite in our Hearts such like devout affections in doing so as those Holy Men felt in themselves who were assisted by God's Spirit in Composing them And therefore the Dissenters are not obliged to demand that the People be silent all this while I have heard some of them say that if these Psalms and Hymns were Sung the Congregation might then challenge to put in their Voices with the Minister But when they are read as they generally are in our Parish Churches they say this ought to be the Work of the Minister only But I cannot see why singing or not singing should make such a Difference I grant it were better if they were every where sung because this is more suitable to the Design of Psalms than bare reciting is But if they be not sung which is customarily omitted in Parish Churches for want of skill as I conceive the next use of them that is most agreeable to their Nature and Design is not
that the Minister should read all as he does other parts of the Scripture but that the People should recite the Psalms and other Godly Hymns with the Minister by way of Answering in turns as the Custom is with us more or less in most Places For when the People rise up to do this in order to the Solemn Praising of God this is much nearer to singing wherein the People are allowed to bear a part in God's Vocal Praise than the Ministers reciting all himself and shutting out the People from any part thereof But it is Objected particularly against the reciting of one Verse of the Psalms by the Minister and another by the People that the Peoples Verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation since in the confused murmur of so many Voices nothing can be distinctly heard Now if our Brethren should admit of what has been already said in Vindication of these Responsals I hope this Objection will not be insisted upon I grant that which is uttered in the Congregation ought to be understood But then those Verses of the Psalms which are uttered by the Congregation may be well enough understood by every one that has a Book or who is acquainted competently well with the Psalms themselves I need not say much in answer to this Objection because it may be removed by every one that makes it if he can read and will bring a Book along with him And as for those that cannot I must needs say that it is not so hard as is pretended for them also to take those Verses which are uttered by those that are near them if they will carefully attend And I have been credibly informed that some devout People that could never read have attained to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without Book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited which shews that the Murmur is not so confused but that the Words may be heard ditinctly enough to be understood if one has a mind to it And then they that cannot read may by this means be more quickned than otherwise they would be to learn to read however to attend and to learn the Psalms without Book that they also may bear their part Vocally with the Congregation in God's Praises I shall add That for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presumed that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted For by the way this Method of reading the Psalms is not Commanded but every Parish Church is left at liberty to observe her own Custom about it In the Country Parishes the Minister generally recites all which way I do not think so convenient as that of Responsals for the Reason I gave before But there ought to be no breach amongst us about things of this Nature in which one way may perhaps be more convenient in one respect and the contrary more convenient in another and then we should not altogether dwell upon Considerations that favour our own opinion but attend also to those that may be offered for another and put the best construction upon it especially in favour of a Publick Rule or a received Custom This is more Christian-like and will be more for the honour of Religion and the good of other Mens Souls and for our own Comfort at last than to strain our utmost Wit to find faults with and to aggravate Inconveniences against the Laws or Usages of the Church where we live This that I am now speaking of is not a Law imposed on all the Churches of our National Communion but a Custom of some of them which I thought good to desend that they who think not so highly well of it as I do may not yet break Communion with those that use it And I hope our Brethren who grant the People are not to be excluded from Vocal Praise will consider that there is no inconvenience in uttering the Psalms by Responsals but that which is pretended concerning the difficulty to understand what is said And that there is very little reason for this pretence seeing the Psalms are the most known parts in the Bible and that if those few who cannot read will be careful they may reap great benefit by attending to the Congregation as some have done till themselves have been able to recite the Psalms 2. If they grant it Lawful and Expedient that the People should joyn in Vocal Praise I cannot see how they can Dispute the lawfulness or expedience of their joyning with the Minister sometimes in Vocal Prayer It will not be easie to shew a Reason why this should be disallowed if that be allowed If it be said there is some Example and Warrant in the Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of the Scripture for one is an implied warrant for the other Unless a Man will say that Nothing must be done in Gods Worship for which there is not express and particular Warrant which though a Man may say when he is opposing a way of Worship which he likes not yet he will not say it when he comes to defend his own It is a Principle that no Man will stand by though sometimes he may take it up to serve a turn The truth is the Scripture does not pretend to give us a perfect account of the Order and Manner of the Solemn Worship of God either in the Synagogues of the Jews or in the Churches of Christians nor to prescribe a Form for the Service of God by the Church in after times Several things were done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians first of all that were peculiar to the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit in those times and several that were fit enough for the conduct of God's Service when Miracles should cease and of both sorts some are intimated in St. Paul's two Epistles to the Corinthians but no Man that understands these things will say that they are all intimated there or any where else in the New Testament And therefore it does not follow that they did not observe in their Worship this or that Custom from hence that we do not find it written that they observed it We do not read that the Lords Prayer was used in the time of the Apostles but I suppose they are very few who will therefore make a question whether it was used or not We are able to shew that the Peoples joyning in Vocal Prayer with the Minister was very anciently practised In imitation of the way of the Christians Julian the Apostate appointed a Form of Prayer for the Heathen to be recited in Parts which shews that this was a known Custom Naz. Orat. 3. of the Church in those days and that it had been generally practised before And if this was the Primitive way it is more probable that it