to lay down our sins and instead of blocking up the way againgst any by scandalous living invite and allure them all in by exemplary Holiness and Purity and this I am sure how short soever my Discourse comes of would be a full Answer to and a perfect Confutation of this Objection FINIS THE CASE OF Indifferent Things Used in the WORSHIP of GOD Proposed and Stated by considering these QUESTIONS Qu. I. Whether things Indifferent though not Prescribed may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship or Whether there be any things Indifferent in the Worship of God Qu. II. Whether a Restraint of our Liberty in the use of such Indifferent things be a Violation of it LONDON Printed by T. Moore J. Ashburne for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Anâ—wer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A Serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union c. 15. The Case Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandals or giving Offence to Weak-Bretheren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. Question Q. Whether things not prescribed in the Word of God may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be fit to consider what the things are which the Question more immediately respects For the better understanding of which we may observe 1. That there are Essential parts of Divine Worship and which are either by Nature or Revelation so determined that they are in all Ages necessary In Natural Religion such are the Objects of it which must be Divine such are the acknowledgment of Honour and Reverence due and peculiar to those Objects as Prayer c. And in the Christian Religion such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper These are always to be the same in the Church 2. There are other things relating to Divine Worship which are arbitrary and variable and determined according to Circumstances as Gesture Place c. As to the former i'ts granted by the contending Parties that they are all already prescribed and that nothing in that kind can be added to what is already prescribed nor can any thing so prescribed be altered or abolished Nothing now can be made necessary and binding to all Persons Places and Ages that was not so from the beginning of Christianity and nothing that was once made so by Divine Authority can be rendred void or unnecessary by any other Therefore the Question is to be applied to the latter and then i'ts no other than Whether things in their own nature Indifferent though not prescribed in the Word of God may be lawfully used in Divine Worship Or Whether there be any thing Indifferent in the Worship of God Toward the Resolution of which I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent 2. Shew that things Indifferent may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship 3. Consider how we may know what things are Indifferent in the VVorship of God 4. How we are to Determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things so applied 5. Shew that there is nothing required in the Worship of God in our Church but what is either Necessary in it self and so binding to all Christians or what is Indifferent and so may be Lawfully used by them 1. I shall enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent In doing of which we are to observe that all things with reference to Practice are reducible to these three Heads First Duty Secondly Sin Thirdly Neither Duty nor Sin Duty is either so Morally and in its own Nature or made so by Divine and Positive Command Sin is so in its own Nature or made and declared to be such by Divine and Positive Prohibition Neither Duty nor Sin is that which no Law either of Nature or Revelation hath determined and is usually known by the Name of Indifferent that is it 's of a middle Nature partaking in it self of neither extremes and may be indifferently used or forborn as in Reason and Prudence shall be thought meet Things of this kind the Apostle calls Lawfal 1 Cor. 10. 23 c. because they are the subject of no Law and what are therefore Lawful to us and which without Sin we may either chuse or refuse Thus the Apostle doth determine Rom. 4. 15. Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is it can be no transgression to omit that which the Law doth not in-joyn nor to do that which it doth not forbid for else that would be a Duty which the Law doth not in-joyn and that would be a Sin which it doth not forbid which is in effect to say there is a Law where there is none or that Duty and Sin are so without respect to any Law But now if Duty be Duty because it's in-joyned and
that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18. 2. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition After their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5th to the 24th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19. 19. Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Jews and the Pagans than it ought to be between
Sin be Sin because it s fordidden then Indifferent is Indifferent because its neither injoyed nor forbidden For as to make it a Duty there needs a Command and to make it a Sin there needs a Prohibition so where there is neither Command nor Prohibition it s neither Duty nor Sin and must be therefore Indifferent Lawful and Free So that we may as well know by the Silence of the Law what is Indifferent as we may know by its Authority what is a Duty or a Sin And I have no more Reason to think that a Duty or a Sin which it takes no notice of since all Obligation ariseth from a Law than that not to be a Duty or a Sin which it doth The Nature of Lawful things being as much determined so to be by the want of such Authority as that of Necessary is determined by it And he that shall say that 's a Duty or a Sin which is not so made and declared by any Law may as well say that 's no Duty or Sin which there is a Law about To conclude there must be a Law to make it a Transgression and the want of a Law doth necessarily suppose it to be none and what there is no Law for or against remains Indifferent in it self and Lawful to us As for instance suppose there should be a Dispute concerning Days set apart for the Service and Worship of God how must this be determined but by the Law of Nature or Revelation and how shall we be resolved in the case but by considering what the Law injoyns or forbids in it If we find it not injoyned it can be of it self no Duty if we find it not forbidden it can be of it self no Sin and consequently it 's Lawful and Indifferent and in what we neither Sin by omitting nor observing So the Apostle concludes Rom. 14. 6. He that regardeth a day regardeth it unto the Lord and he that regardeth not the day unto the Lord he doth not regard it that is there was no Law requiring it and so making the observation of it Necessary and no Law forbidding it and so making the observation of it Sinful and therefore Christians were at Liberty to observe or not to observe it as they pleased and in both they did well if so be they had a regard to the Lord in it 2. I shall shew that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that such things though not prescribed may be lawfully used in it T is allowed by all that there is no Command to be expected about the Natural Circumstances of Action and which the Service cannot be celebrated without such as Time and Place and that these are left to humane Prudence to fix and determine But what those Natural Circumstances are is not so universally agreed to And if they be such as aforesaid that is such as the action cannot be performed without then it will very much serve to justify most of the things in dispute and defend our Church in the use and practice of them For what is there almost in that kind amongst us which is not Naturally or Morally necessary to the Action and if Time and Place fall under humane determination because they are naturally necessary then why not also Gesture and Habit which Worship can no more Naturally be celebrated without than the former and consequently a Surplice or Kneeling and Standing may be alike lawfully determined and used as Time for assembling together and a Church to assemble and Officiate in And what Natural Circumstances are to a Natural Action that are Moral Circumstances to a Moral Action and there are Moral as necessary to a Moral Action as there are Natural necessary to a Natural Action As for example what Time and Place are to Natural that are Method and Order to Moral and Religious Acts and can no more be separated from these than the other can be separated from the former and therefore the Method and Order of Administration in Divine Worship where not otherwise determined and appointed by God may as well be determined by Men as Time and Place with respect to the nature end and use of the Service So that the exception made against humane Appointments in Divine Worship viz. that all but natural circumstances must have a Divine Command to legitimate their use and that whatever is not prescribed is therefore prohibited is of no service to them that plead it and it remains good so far notwithstanding that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that the outward Order and Administration of it is left to Christian Prudence And this I shall more particularly prove 1. From the consideration of the Rules laid down in the Gospel relating to the Administration of Divine Worship which except what refer to the Elements c. in the Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and so always were obliging to all Ages under the several variations and forms of Divine Worship and will be always so to all Christians in the World viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification insisted upon 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than as bound by these measures and where not bound by them vve are free For as in former Ages from the beginning of the World vvhere Revelation did not interpose as it did under the Mosaical Dispensation all persons vvere left at liberty and if so be they had a respect to those natural rules might choose vvhat vvays they pleased for the regulation of Divine Worship So vvhen under the Gospel vve have no other than those Natural rules except as above excepted the particular Circumstrnces are as much novv the matter of our free choice as they vvere then and this or that may be used and observed as the Case requireth and Occasion serves So that if ever there vvere things Indifferent in Gods Worship and the Administration of it was left to the Consideration and Prudence of Mankind it is so still since the Gospel keeps to those eternal Rules which even the Nature of the Thing hath invariably established and which if it ever was sufficient for the guiding of the Church of God in those particulars is certainly so when the Nature of Man is improved by new helps and so he is more capable of judging what may be sutable to that Essential VVorship which God hath prescribed under the Gospel and to Him whom that VVorship is directed to But then that which confirms this is that those Rules are also general and such as will in their use and end respect all People in the VVorld The Apostles in all their Discourses upon this subject rarely do descend to particulars and in what they do shew how far Custom and Charity and the Reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of mens being Uncovered in the VVorship of God for which the Apostle doth argue not from Institution but the Nature and Decency
to do or not to do in the latter it is a Mans mind reflecting upon what he hath done or not done and Judging whether he be Innocent or Culpable in the matter he reflects upon I do not know how to give a clearer account of the Nature of Conscience in general than this I have now given This I believe is the Natural Notion that all Men have of it and there is no Expression in Scripture about it but what doth confirm this Notion If indeed we put Epithites to Conscience and talk of a Good Conscience or an Evil Conscience A Tender Conscience or a Seared Conscience or the like Then it includes more both in Scripture and in Common Language than I have now mentioned But to give an account of those things I am not now concerned as being without the Limits of our present enquiry II. And now we are sufficiently prepared for our Second general Point which is touching the Rule of Conscience if indeed after what we have already said it be not superfluous to insist upon that It appears plainly by what I have represented that Conscience must always have a Rule which it is to follow and by which it is to be Govern'd For since Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions as good or bad or Indifferent it is certain that a Man must have some measures to proceed by in order to the framing such a Judgment about Actions that is to say there must be something distinct from the Man himself that makes Actions to be good or bad or indifferent and from which by applying particular Actions to it or comparing them with it a Man may be able to Judge whether they be of the one sort or the other Now this whatever it be is that which we call the Rule of Conscience and so much it is its Rule that Conscience can be no farther a safe guide than as it follows that Rule If now it be asked what this Rule of Conscience is or what that is which makes a difference between Actions as to the Moral goodness or badness of them the Answer to it is Obvious to every Body That it can be nothing else but the Law of God For nothing can be a Duty but what Gods Law hath made so and nothing can be a Sin but what Gods Law hath forbidden the very Notion of Sin being that it is a Transgression of the Law and lastly we call a thing Lawful or Indifferent upon this very account that there is no Law of God either Commanding or Forbidding it and where there is no Law there is no Transgression So that undeniably the great nay I say the only Rule by which Conscience is to be Governed is the Law of God considered either as it Commands Actions or Forbids them or as it neither Commands them nor Forbids them But in order to the giving a more distinct account of this Rule of Conscience there is this needful to be enquired into viz. In what Sense we take or what we mean by the Law of God when we say it is the Rule of Conscience Now to this our Answer is That by the Law of God we here understand Gods Will for the Government of Mens Actions in what way soever that Will is declared to them Now the will of God is declared to Men two ways either by Nature or by Revelation so that the just and adequate Rule of Conscience is made up of two parts the Law of Nature and Gods Revealed Law By the Law of Nature we mean those Principles of Good and Evil Just and Unjust which God hath Stamp'd upon the Minds of all Men in the very Constitution of their Natures There are some things Eternally good in themselves Such as to Worship God to Honour our Parents to stand to our Covenants to Live Peaceably in the Government from which we receive Protection and the contrary to these will be Eternally Evil the Heads of all which things thus good in themselves are writ so plainly and Legibly in the Minds of Mankind that there is no Man who is come to the use of his Reason but must of necessity be convinced that to Practice these things will alway be his Duty and not to Practice them will always be Evil and a Sin Now all these Heads and Principles put together is that we call the Law of Nature and this is all the Rule of Conscience that Mankind had before God was pleased to discover his Will by more particular Revelation And this is that Law which the Apostle speaks of when he saith that the Gentiles who had not the Law of Moses yet had a Law written in their Hearts by their Acting according to which or contrary to which their Conscience did bear Witness to them and did either Accuse them or Excuse them But then Secondly to us Christians God to this Law of Nature hath superadded a Revealed Law which is contained in the Books of Holy Scriptures Which Revealed Law yet is not wholly of a different kind from the former nor doth it at all void the Obligation of it But only thus God hath in his Revealed Law declared the Precepts of the Law of Nature more certainly and accurately than before He hath given greater Force and Strength to them than they had before by the Sanctions of greater Rewards and Punishments He hath likewise herein perfected the Law of Nature and hath Obliged us in point of Duty to more and higher Instances of Vertue than Nature did strictly Oblige us to And Lastly He hath added some Positive Laws for us to observe which were not at all contained in the Law of Nature as for instance to believe in Jesus Christ in order to Salvation to make all our Applications to God in the Name of that Mediatour Christ Jesus to enter into a Christian Society by Baptism and to Exercise Communion with that Society by partaking of the Lords Supper And this is that Law which we Christians are Obliged to as well as to the Law of our Natures and which as it is a Summary of all the Laws of Nature so indeed is it a Summary of all our Duty So that if any Man will call it the great or only Rule of Christian Conscience I shall not much oppose him provided that this be always Remembred that In the Third Place when we say that the Natural and Revealed Law of God is the just Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience or when we say that the Law of God as Revealed and contained in the Bible is to us Christians the just Rule We are so to understand this Proposition as to take into it not only all that is directly and expresly Commanded or Forbidden by either of those Laws But also all that by plain Collection of Right Reason in Applying Generals to Particulars or comparing one thing with another doth appear to be Commanded or Forbidden by them So that by the Law of Nature as it
Evil thing in compliance with it My Judgment is as we have said the guide of my Actions but it may through my negligence be so far misguided it self as that if I follow it it will lead me into the most horrid Crimes in the World And will it be a sufficient Excuse or Justification of my Action in such a Case to say that indeed herein I did but Act according to my Perswasion No verily I may as certainly be damn'd without Repentance for Acting according to my Judgment in some Cases where it is mistaken as I shall be for Acting contrary to it in other Cases where it is rightly informed And the Reason of this is very plain It is not my Judgment or Perswasion that makes Good or Evil Right or Wrong Justice or Injustice Vertue or Vice But it is the Nature of things themselves and the Law of God and of Men under that Commanding or Forbidding things that makes them so If the Moral Goodness or badness of Actions was to be measured by Mens Opinions and Perswasions then Good and Evil Duty and Sin would be the most various uncertain things in the World They would change their Natures as often as Men change their Opinions and that which to Day is a Vertue to Morrow would be a Crime and that which in one Man would be a Heroically good Action would in another Man be a Prodigious Piece of Villany though yet there was no difference in the Action it self or in the Circumstances of the Man that did it save only the difference of Opinion But such consequences as these are intolerable nor indeed do Men either talk or think after this manner Every Man when he speaks of Good or Evil Lawful or Unlawful means some certain fixed thing which it is not in his Power to alter the Nature and Property of That Action is good and a Duty which is either so in it self or made so by some positive Law of God And that Action is Evil and a Sin that is Forbid by God in either of these Ways So that unless it was in our Power to change the Nature of things or to alter the Laws of God It will unavoidably follow that we shall be for ever Obliged to do some Actions and to forbear others whatever our Judgment concerning them is And consequently we may be Guilty of Sin if in these instances we Act contrary to this Obligation though at the same time it should happen that we are firmly perswaded that we ought so to do And thus is our Proposition fully proved but then for the further clearing of it I desire it may be taken notice of that we do not thus lay it down that every mistake of Judgment about Good or Evil doth involve a Man in Sin if he Act according to that mistake But only thus the mistake of a Mans Judgment may be of such a Nature that as it will be a a Sin in him to Act against it so it will likewise be Sin to Act according to it It is not every Error in Morals that brings a Man under the necessity of Sinning if he pursues it in his Actions A Mans Conscience may mistake its Rule in a Hundred instances and yet he may safely enough Act according to it And the Reason is because a Man may entertain a great many mistakes and false Notions of his Duty and Act according to them too and yet in such Actions he shall not Transgress any Law of God Now this that I say holds chiefly in these two inslances For example in the first place if a Man believe a thing to be Commanded by God which yet indeed is not but neither is it Forbidden As if a Man should think himself Obliged to retire himself from his business Seven times or Three times a Day for the purpose of Devotion or to give half of his Yearly Income to Pious and Charitable uses if he can do it without Prejudice to his family Now in this Case he is certainly mistaken in his Duty for the Law of God hath not bound him up to such measures in either of these instances But yet because God hath not on the other hand laid any Commands upon him to the contrary it is certain he may in both these instances Act according to this mistake without any Guilt in the World Nay so long as that mistake continues he is bound to Act accordingly Again in the second place if a Man believe a thing to be Forbidden by Gods Law which yet is not but neither is it Commanded As for instance if a Man think that he ought by Vertue of a Divine Command to abstain from all Meats that are strangled or have Bloud in them or if he believe it unlawful to Play at Cards or Dice or that it is Forbidden by Gods word to let out Money at Interest Why in all these Cases he may follow his Opinion though it be a false one without Sin Nay he is bound to follow it because it is the dictate of his Conscience however his Conscience be mistaken And the reason is plain because though he be mistaken in his Judgment about these matters yet since God hath not by any Law Forbid these things there is no Transgression follows upon Acting according to such a mistake But then in other Cases where a Mans mistake happens to be of such a Nature as that he cannot Act according to his Conscience but he Transgresseth some Law of God by which Conscience ought to be Governed As for instance when a Man looks upon that as a Lawful Action or as a Duty which God hath Forbidden or looks upon that as a Sin or at least an indifferent Action which God hath Commanded here it is that the mistake becomes dangerous And in such Cases the Man is brought into that sad Dilemma we have been representing viz. That if he Act according to his perswasion he Transgresseth Gods Law and so is a Sinner upon that Account If he Acts against his perswasion then he is self condemned and very guilty before God upon that Account Well but is there no avoiding of this Must it be laid down as a constant Universal Truth that in all Cases where a Mans Judgment happens to be contrary to the Rule of his Duty Commanding or Forbidding an Action he must of necessity Sin whether he Act or not Act according to that Judgment If indeed he Act against his Conscience it is readily granted he Sins But it seems very hard that he should be under a necessity of Sinning when he Acts according to it especially when he is perfectly ignorant of or mistaken in the Law against which he Offends This is indeed the great difficulty that occurs in this matter and for the untying it I lay down this third general Proposition viz. That the great thing to be attended to in this Case of a Mans following a mistaken Judgment is the Culpableness or Inculpableness the Faultiness or Innocence of the mistake
upon which he Acts for according as this is so will his Guilt in Acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all We do not say that a Man is always Guilty of a Sin before God when upon a misinformation of Judgment he Omits that which Gods Law hath Commanded or doth that which Gods Law hath Forbidden No though these Omissions or Actions may be said to be Sins in themselves that is as to the Matter of them as being Transgressions of Gods Law Yet before we affirm that they will be imputed to a Man as such that is prove formally Sins to him we first consider the Nature of the Action and the Circumstances of the Man If we find upon Examination that the instance wherein Gods Law is Transgressed is such an instance as even an Honest minded Man may well be supposed to mistake in And if we find likewise that the Man had not sufficient means for the informing himself aright as to this matter and that he hath done all that he could do in his Circumstances to understand his Duty If in such a Case as this he be mistaken in his Duty and Act upon that mistake yet we do not say that the Man is properly Guilty of any Sin in that Action however that Action is indeed contrary to the Law of God On the contrary we believe him to be Innocent as to this matter nor will God ever call him to an Account for what he hath done or omitted in these Circumstances And the Reasons and Grounds upon which we affirm this are plain and Evident at the first hearing No Man can be Obliged to do more then what is in his Power to do And what ever a Man is not Obliged to do it is no Sin in him if he do it not So that if a Man do all that one in his Circumstances can or should do for the right understanding of his Duty If he happens to be mistaken that mistake cannot be imputed to him as a Sin because he was not Obliged to understand better And if his mistake be no Sin it is certain to Act according to that mistake can be no Sin neither So that the whole point of Sinning or not Sinning in following an Erroneous Conscience lies here Whether the Man that is thus mispersuaded is to be blamed or not blamed for his Mispersuasion If the Error he hath taken up do not proceed from his own Fault and Negligence but was the pure unavoidable Effects of the Circumstances in which he is placed which Circumstances we suppose he contributed nothing to but he was put into them by the disposition of Divine Providence Then of what Nature soever the Error be he doth not contract any guilt by any Action which he doth in pursuance of that Error But if it was in his power to Rectifie that Error if he had Means and Opportunities to inform his Conscience better and the nature of the Action was such that it was his Duty so to do So that he must be accounted guilty of a Gross and Criminal Neglect in not doing it In this Case the Man is a Transgressor and accountable unto God as such for all the Actions that he doth or omits contrary to Gods Law while he Acts under that mistake or in pursuance of it And accordingly as this Neglect or Carelesness is greater or less so is the Sinfulness of the Action which he doth in pursuance of it greater or less likewise And this is a plain account of this matter So that we see there is no Fatal unavoidable necessity laid upon any Man to commit a Sin by Acting according to his Conscience But if at any time he be brought under those sad Circumstances he brings that necessity upon himself God never put any Man into such a Condition but that he might do that Duty which was required of him and be able to give a good account of his Actions But here is the thing Men by their Vice and Wickedness by neglecting the Means of Instruction that are afforded them and not using their Reason and Understanding as they should do may suffer themselves to be brought under the Bondage of such False and Evil Principles that they shall so long as they hold those Principles fall into Sin whether they Act according to their Conscience or Act against it I have done with the general Points concerning Conscience which I thought needful to be premised as the Grounds and Principles of our following Discourse I now come to that which I at first proposed and for the sake of which all this is intended that is to speak to the Case of those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it Now all that I conceive needful to be done in order to a full discussion of this Case and giving satisfaction about it are these Two things First To Separate the pretences of Conscience that are truly and justly made in this matter from the false ones Or to shew who those are that can rightly plead Conscience for their Nonconformity and who those are that cannot Secondly To inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when it is truly made will Justifie any Dissenter that continnes in Separation from the Church as Established among us and what is to be done by such a Person in order to his Acting with a safe and good Conscience in this affair Our first inquiry is what is required in order to any Mans truly pleading Conscience for his refusing to joyn in Communion with the Established Church Or who those Persons are that can with justice make that Plea for themselves I think it very convenient to begin my Disquisition here because by removing all the false Pretences to Conscience the Controversy will be brought into a much less compass and the difficulties that arise will be more easily untyed The truth is if the thing be examined I believe it will be found that the pretence to Conscience in the matter we are talking of is as in many other Cases extended much farther than it ought to be My meaning is that of all those who think fit to withdraw from our Communion and to live in Disobedience to the known Laws of the Church and pretend Conscience for so doing in a great many of them it is not Conscience but some other thing mistaken for Conscience which is the Principle they Act upon So that if the true Plea of Conscience be separated from those counterfeit ones which usually usurp that Name we shall not find either the Persons to be so many that refuse Communion with us upon the Account of Conscience truly so called nor the Cases to be so many in which they do refuse it upon that Account Now in Order to the making such a Separation or Distinction between Conscience truly so called and the several Pretences to it in this business of not conforming to
not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it if indeed Gods Law hath made it a Duty So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do when they withdraw from our Communion Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin A Sin against which there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians as against any other Sin whatsoever And therefore let those that forsake our Communion and set up or joyn with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours I say let them look to it that they be not involved in the Guilt of this dreadful Sin They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds if they would free themselves from the imputation of it It is not always enough to excuse them that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw For unless the thing be so indeed their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many but yet it is true for all that and will appear a little more Evident if we put the Case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concerned Here is one of the Roman-Catholick perswasion as they call it that hath been trained up in Popery and heartily believes it to be true Religion and the Only one wherein Salvation is to be had and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church doth pay Religious Worship to Images doth pray to Saints and Angels doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ to which his Soul and Deity is personally United Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not He doth verily believe that he is not He would abhor these Practices if he did in the least believe that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbid that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to
is not bound on either side of the Action but he may either do it or forbear it with a safe Conscience So that if there be any Obligation at all upon a man to Act thus rather than otherwise in a Doubtful Case that Obligation must arise upon one of these two Accounts viz. Either there is some Law of God concerning a Doubting Conscience which hath tied a man up to such precise measures of Acting Or at least a man hath a Perswasion that there is some such Law of God Now I grant That in both these Cases there doth a direct Obligation pass upon the mans Conscience But then it is to be remembred that this Obligation doth not arise from the mans being Doubtful in his Conscience but from his being resolved in his Conscience That is to say if there be really any such Law of God it is the Obligation of a Right Conscience Or if there be not but the man only judges that there is it is then the Obligation of an Erroneous Conscience But as for the Obligation of a Doubting Conscience there is no such thing The great therefore or indeed the only Point that is to be inquired into in order to the Resolution of our present Question is this Whether there be any Law of God which doth determine our Actions one way or other in the Case of a Doubt and what that Law is Now in answer to this Inquiry I say That it doth not appear that there is any express Law of God in Holy Scripture that hath laid any Obligation upon us as to this particular of a Doubting Conscience either one way or other The only Texts that I know of which are thought to make for this purpose are the two passages in the 14th of the Romans which I have before largely given an account of viz. That in the 5th Verse Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind And that other in the last Verse He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith But now I think I have made it plain by several Arguments that these Texts do not at all concern our present Case of a Doubting Conscience properly so called So that there being no express Particular Law of God in Scripture about acting with a Doubting Conscience we seem to be left as to that Affair to the General Laws of God as they are declared whether by Nature or Scripture Now the most that any Man can be Obliged to by the General Laws of God whether Natural or Revealed in the Case of a Doubt is only these two things First to use his Endeavour to get himself as well instructed in his Duty as his Circumstances and Opportunities will allow him And Secondly where he is at a loss for Information in that Case to Act as reasonably as he can I do not say that a Man in every Doubtful Case that happens is strictly obliged to thus much But I say it is impossible he should be obliged to more Because indeed more than this he cannot do and no man can be obliged to more than is in his Power Where-ever therefore a Man in a Doubtful Case takes care to observe these two things he Acts with a safe Conscience however he may act Doubtingly in that Case Thus far I think we are clear beyond Exception But it may be some will not be satisfied with this Account of our Point but will be putting a farther Question We have before laid down several Rules about a Mans Acting in a Doubtful Case the sum of all which comes to no more than what we have now said viz. That in every doubtful Case a man is to act as reasonably as he can The Question now is Whether a man is strictly bound in Conscience always to follow this Rule Or which is to the same effect Whether a man in a matter concerning which he hath only a pure Doubt may not without sin indifferently chuse either side of the Action though yet perhaps one side doth appear to him more reasonable or more safe than the other This Question is indeed more curious than useful But however since it properly falls under the Argument we are now treating of and tends somewhat to the clearing of it I shall venture to say something to it Only I declare before-hand that I mean not in what I shall say to assert any thing Dogmatically but only to propose in order to further Examination And withal that whether that which we say be true or false it doth not at all affect the Merits of the main Cause we have undertaken That now which I have to say to this Question is this That though it be eternally fit and natural and conducing to a mans Happiness both in this World and the other that he should in all Cases and especially in Doubtful Cases govern his Actions by the best Reason that he hath and certainly the Wiser and the Better any man is the more steadily will he pursue this Rule Yet on the other hand I dare not say that a man is strictly bound in Conscience so to do so as that he is properly guilty of sin if he do not My Reason is this Because there is no Law of God which doth oblige us in all Cases to do that which is Best And if we be not bound to do always that which is Best we are not bound to do always that which is most Reasonable for certainly that which is Best is always most Reasonable And if we be not bound to do that which is most Reasonable much less are we bound to do that which is Safest because that which is Safest is not always either Best or most Reasonable And if there be no Law of God that doth oblige us to any of these things then it is certain we do not sin if we Act otherwise For where there is no Law there is no Transgression Now That the first of these Principles is true we have as good Proof as can be desired viz. the Authority of St. Paul who hath in the 7th of the first of the Corinthians thus determined And if that be true the other two must needs be so likewise because they follow from it by unavoidable Consequence Taking now this for granted I ask what Law doth a man Transgress that in a purely Doubtful Case chuseth either side indifferently without respect to what is Safest or most Reasonable Always supposing that the side he chuseth be not in it self evil and forbidden by God I say according to these Principles he transgresseth no Law at all and consequently cannot properly be said to sin at all If the man be at all guilty it is upon one of these accounts viz. either because he Acteth against the dictate of his Conscience or because he Acteth against the Law of God in preferring that which is less reasonable and safe before that which is more so Now Upon the former account he is not at all guilty for his
we be said to give offence to others in either of these sences by conforming to the Institutions and Rites of the Church of England 1. Not in the first sence for that can onely be in one or both of these two cases either first by doing that which is essentially and in its own nature evil and a sin Or secondly by doing that which is directly a temptation and a snare to induce another to do that which is a sin Now if it can be shewn that complying with the Rites and Service of the Church of England is giving offence in either of these sences then I here profess I will my self immediately turn their Proselyte and renounce Conformity and protest against it for ever 1. It hath scarce ever yet been so much as intimated that the Church of England requires any thing as a condition of Communion with her that is essentially evil None of our adversaries that I know of have yet dared to charge her Doctrine with falshood or her Discipline with any thing that is in it self evil And when any shall adventure to do it I doubt not but he will find enough to enter the lists with him Even our bitterest Enemies of the Romish Communion have dared to charge us no further in either of these but onely that we are defective in both and reject many things which the Church of Christ as they pretend hath believed and practised in the ancient and primitive ages of it They would rather chuse to call us Schismaticks than Hereticks or to prove us Hereticks not because we believe or teach any things for necessary Doctrines which are false but rather because we do not teach or believe all things that are Christian and true Neither do they charge our Liturgy and Service or Form of Worship with any thing that is materially evil no nor redundant but onely deficient in many Usages and Rites which they pretend to be Apostolical And if our own Brethren must be more spightful and bitter against us than our worst Adversaries let them look to it that even they become not their accusers at the great day But yet thanks be to God they have not adventured to do this and will be unsuccessful enough when they do it and therefore themselves free us from giving any offence in our Conformity in this sence of giving offence i. e. doing any thing which is formally a Sin our selves and thereby inducing others into the same evil by joyning with us 2. Neither secondly do I see any one sin that Conformity is directly introductive of or a temptation unto and I will believe it will puzzle the most curious and inquisitive to find out any such I have so much charity for my dear Mother the Church and so much duty I thank God yet left in me as to dare to justifie her from this imputation I am sure she intends no sin in what she doth nor knowns of any evil that her Communion will betray any man into All that she designs in her Doctrine is to teach the truth as it is in Jesus and to keep close to that Symbol of Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints And what she intends and aims at in her Liturgie and Discipline is by the one to keep men from innovating and corrupting that Faith or debauching it in their manners and deteining it in unrighteousness And by the other to direct them to worship God in such a way as is suitable to his own nature and to the Principles of such a holy Religion and thereby conciliate that grace that may enable them to live so as the Worship of such a God and the Belief of such a Religion require and oblige them to do I must confess in one thing the Church of England may be an occasion of a great deal of sin in the world but it is such as will as little advantage our Brethren to have it granted as it will be any disparagement or disadvantage to be caused by it I mean in being an occasion of all that in and guilt that all those bring upon themselves that rail and cry out so much upon it that separate and divide from it and studiously maintain and keep up an unreasonable and downright Schism against it But certainly all men will see that this is an offence onely taken and not given and ought no more to be objected against the Church than Murther and Adultery Theft and Robbery ought to be charged upon the Laws of God that declare the same to be sin Were there no such thing as the Constitution of a Church these men would not be guilty of Schism and unjust Separation from it But so if there were no Law there would be no transgression and Adulterers may as well accuse the Law for their sin in one case as Schismaticks can accuse the Constitution of the Church in the other They are both in this case equally culpable i. e. indeed not at all In a word and to conclude this Period if Piety and becoming expressions of Devotion in the publick Worship of God If Gravity Decency and Order in the Offices of Religion And if engaging men to a due respect and regard to the rules of the Gospel be sins or evils to be eschewed and dreaded by men then I will grant that Conformity to the Church of England may possibly give offence in this sence of giving of it but if not I do not see any reason to apprehend or fear any danger at all of it By these considerations it will appear we are free from giving offence by our Conformity to the Rules of our Church in this first sence of Scandal and giving Offence 2. I proceed therefore now to enquire if we cannot clear our selves sufficiently from it in the second notion of these things also And this I think will best and most plainly be determined by considering what can be thought just cause of sorrow and grief to a good man or a reasonable discouragement or hinderance to him in his way of Duty I mean still cause of these given to him by another Now these I think I may reduce pretty safely to these three Heads 1. Some dishonour offered to God and his Religion 2. The Wickedness and Profaneness of men 3. The making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome and difficult than otherwise it would be These are great and just causes of offence and grief to a good man It cannot but greatly afflict a good man to behold his God whom he adores and honours and loves above all things affronted and dishonoured his Laws violated his Authority contemned and trampled upon by daring and foolish men Rivers of waters saith the holy Psalmist run down mine eyes because men keep not thy law Psal 119. 136. And it cannot but be cause of the like sorrow to such a man to see other men for whom he hath a great and concerning charity and whom he loves as his own soul to live in sin
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
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
and vilifie the person and sufferings of the most holy Jesus his person as one not worthy to be obeyed and followed his blood as a thing of no value and merit And what could such Persons expect but that God would vindicate the honour of his own Son and the infinitely wise contrivance of the redemption of the World by his great undertaking in some remarkable way upon them either in this World by Temporal Judgments for this cause many are weak and sickly amongst you and many sleep or in the next without repentance by 1 Cor. 11. 30. their Eternal Damnation Obj. But the Members of Christ's Body that come to this blessed Sacrament and are destitute of saving grace tho' they make a fair profession and are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconverted condition and this Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming Ordinance Answ Conversion may be taken in a two-fold sense 1. For turning Men from a state of open infidelity to the poofession of the Christian Faith and indeed till Men are in this sense converted they are not to be admitted to the Sacrament neither Jews nor Turks nor any others in a state of Gentilism till by Baptism they are receiv'd into Christ's Church and make profession of his Name can come to it 2. Taking conversion for the turning of those who are already baptiz'd and do profess Christ's Religion from the Evil of their ways to a serious and hearty practice of Holiness and Virtue and so this Sacrament is a converting Ordinance And indeed I do not know any more forceable Arguments to an Holy Life than what are therein represented to us What can more work upon ingenuous spirits than the discovery of such undeserv'd love and kindness Is it not enough to melt the most frozen heart into Floods of Tears and Joy to behold therein the Blessed Jesus shedding his Blood to reconcile sinners unto God What can more powerfully captivate the most rebellious spirits into obedience than the assurance of a pardon of their past transgressions by that full propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God What can more effectually fright Men from sin and folly than the infinite displeasure of God declared therein against all Iniquity How accursed a thing is sin will the considering Communicant say that the blessed Jesus who did but take sin upon him was made a Curse for it What a mighty evil must sin needs be when nothing could be sufficient to expiate it but the Blood of God! What an unspeakable malignity must sin have in it when it laid on the shouldiers of Omnipotency such a load of wrath as made him complain and sweat and grone and die Again Here we repeat our Baptismal Vow to God solemnly engage our selves afresh to be his faithful servants and bind our selves by a new Oath to be true to the Covenant we have made with him and certainly that Man must have a mighty love for Sin and Death that can break through all these Bonds and Obligations to come at it 3. The Third Proposition That some corrupt and scandalous Members remaining in the Communion of the Church through the want of the due exercise of Discipline in it or the negligence and connivance of the Pastors and Governours of it gives no just Cause for any to separate from her Gives no just Cause That which is chiefly pretended is That the viciousness of those Members do derive a stain and defilement on the whole Assembly and pollute the Worship of God to others as well as to themselves Here therefore I shall shew what is to be done by us that we be no way accessary to others sins and then upon that condition that we cannot be polluted by their sinful company Now many things are to be done by good men who are to joyn in mixt Assemblies that the Communion receive no perjudice by the corruption of some of its Members They are frequently to exhort and advise them for this end are we plac'd in the communion of Saints and tho' to instruct the Flock God hath appointed a whole Order of Men on purpose yet is it also the Duty of every private Christian in his place and calling to exhort one another daily whilst it is call'd to day to consider one another to provoke unto love und to good Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. works They are prudently and with much affection to admonish and reprove them we must not be so rudely civil as to suffer sin to lie upon them without disturbance so runs the Precept Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart but thou shalt rebuke thy Brother Lev. 19. 17. and not suffer sin to be upon him and if any man be overtaken in a fault says the Apostle ye that are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness Gal. 6. 1. considering that thou also may'st be tempted They are to bewail their sins and to pray for their reformation this is the true spirit and temper of a good man he cannot see God dishhonour'd his Laws trampled upon his Brother wilfully undoing himself but he must be deeply touch'd and affected with it Rivers of water run down my eyes says the Psalmist because Men keep not thy law And when in Ezekiel's time the Jewish Church both Preists and People were very much corrupted the Holy Ghost gives it as the particular mark of the faithful and upright not that they separated but sighed and cryed for all the abominations that were done in her Of the same holy frame and Ezek. 9. 4. disposition of mind was St. Paul he could not mention those in the Church at Philippi who whilst they profest Christianity shew'd themselves by their sensuality and earthly-mindedness to be Enemies to the Cross of Christ without Sorrow and Tears Of whom says he I have told you often and now tell you weeping Phil. 3. 18. that they are Enemies to the Cross of Christ whose God is their Belly c. They are to avoid as much as they can their company especially all familiarity with them and tho' in order to their conviction and reformation and in such cases where necessary business requires it and the publick Worship of God can't be perform'd but in conjunction with such persons I may be in their company without blame yet in all other cases I am to shew my dislike and abhorrence of their sins by shunning their society If any Man obey not our Word by this 2 Thess 3. 14. Epistle note that Man and have no company with him that he may be asham'd Again says the same Apostle I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company if any man be a Fornicator or an Idolater or c. with such an one no not to eat If private and often repeated Admonitions by himself or before one or two more will not do they are then to tell the Church of them that by its more publick Reproofs the scandalous
Member may be reclaim'd or by its just Censures be cut off from the Communion If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Matth. 18. 17. Rubr. before the Commun Our Church hath given every Minister of a Parish power to refuse all scandalous and notorius sinners from the Lord's Supper and as slack and as much disus'd as Discipline is amongst us were such persons more generally inform'd against and complain'd of they would not find it so easie a matter to continue in their Offences and the Church together You see by what means the Church may either be clear'd in some measure of publick Offenders or the Members of it together with the Ordinances of God secur'd from infection by their fellowship By this did the Primitive Christians shew their Zeal for their Religion as well as by suffering for it They were infinitely careful to keep the honour of their Religion â—nspotted and the Communion of the Church as much out of danger as they could from the malignant influence of bad examples for this reason they watch'd over one another told them privately of their faults and when that would not do brought them before the cognizance of the Church and tho' lapsing into Idolatry in times of presecution was the common sin that for some Ages chiefly exerciz'd the Discipline of the Church yet all Offences against the Christian Law all Vices and Immoralities that were either publick in themselves or made known and prov'd to the Church came also under the Ecclesiastical Rod and were put to open Shame and Pennance this was that Discipline that preserv'd their Manners so Uncorrupt and made their Religion so Renown'd and Triumphant in the World and how happy would it be for us in this loose and degenerate Age as our own Church expresses Preface to the Comminat her wishes and desires were it again in its due Force and Vigour restored and resetled amongst us But if after all imaginable care and endeavour by private Christians some scandalous Members through the defects of Power in the Discipline or of Care and Watchfulness in Governours should remain in the Church whatever pollution those whose Office it is to rebuke with all Authority may draw on themselves Tit. 3. last by suffering it private Members that are no way neither by consent nor councel nor excuse accessary to their Sin can receive none for sin no otherwise pollutes than as it is in the will not as it is in the understanding as it 's chose and embrac'd not as it 's known I may know Adultery and yet be Chast see Strife and Debate in the City and yet be Peaceable hear Oaths and Curses and yet tremble at God's Name Noah was a good Man in an evil World Lot a righteous person amongst the conversation of the wicked neither is there any more fear of pollution from wicked Men in Sacred than in Civil Society Our Saviour and his Apostles were not the least defil'd by that Society they had with Scribes and Pharisees nor by that Familiarity they had with the accursed Judas tho' he eat the Passover with them and they kept him company after they knew him to be a Traytor What pollution did Abel receive from Cain when they Sacrific'd together Or Elkanah and Hannah from Eli's Debauch'd Sons when at Shilo they Worshipt together The good and bad indeed Communicate together but in what not in sin but in their common duty and tho' to Communicate with sin is sin yet to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sin can be none Communion is a common union many partaking of one thing wherein they do agree now the common union of the good and bad in the Church is not in evil but in hearing of the Word in receiving of the Sacrament and in other holy Ordinances and Exercises when therefore some do evil the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted because evil is no part of the union in common one with another but the error of Man by himself out of the Communion which he himself and they only that have been partakers with him in it shall answer for Obj. But does not the Apostle say A little leaven 1 Cor. 5. 6. leaveneth the whole lump Ans This is a proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading and diffusive nature not that it actually defiles where it is not admmitted A People in one Assembly are as a lump and a wicked person amongst them is as leaven but now altho' the leaven is apt to conveigh it self through the whole lump yet only are those parts actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven so it is with the Church the sinner by his bad example is apt to spread the infection through the whole body but only such as allow or any way communicate with him in his sin are actually infected such as Chloe that reprove the offender 1 Cor. 1. 11. and present him doing their utmost endeavour in their place ro reform him remain in spight of its malignity unpolluted Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees says our Saviour he adviseth not his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them shewing thereby that a good Man that stands upon his gaurd may be where leaven is and yet not be leaven'd The incestuous person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle says at least of some of them ye are unleaven'd ver 7. And why may not the joynt Prayers of the Church and the Examples of Pious and Devout Men in the Communion be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Why should not the holy Ordinances of God and the presence of holy Men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctifie the whole body as the impurities of the bad are to stain and pollute it especially considering that the sins of the 2 Cor. 30. 18. wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked Obj. But were not the pollutions of sin typified by Numb 19 13 20. the legal uncleannesses And was not every thing that the unclean person touch'd made unclean Ans Those legal and ceremonial pollutions concern not us under the Gospel we may touch a grave a dead person a leper and not at all be the less clean it 's not any outward uncleanness but the corruption and depravity of the inner man that incapacitates men for the Worship of God and Communion with him 2. Those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those particular persons whom the unclean person touch'd for 1. There was no sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets many times reproved the Priests
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
Austin Epist 1. 3. observes some warmly contend for an usage because its the Custom of their own Church as if they come suppose into another Place where Lent is observed without any Relaxation they however refuse to Fast because it s not so done in their Country There are others again do like and are bent upon a particular Rite or Usage Because saith he they observ'd this in their Travels abroad and so a Person is for it as perhaps he would be thought so much the more Learned and Considerable as he is distant or doth disagree from what is observed at home Now when Persons are Prone thus to Judg upon such little Reasons and may mistake in their Judgment and do Judg against a Church which they have no other Reason against it would become them to think again and to think that the case perhaps requires only time or use to wear off their Prejudices and that by these ways they may as effectually be reconciled to the things Practised in a Church as they are to the Civil Usages and the Habits of a Nation which at the first they looked upon in their kind as Indecent and Inexpedient as they can do of the Usages of a Church in theirs As suppose the Dispute should be about Forms of Prayer or the use of responsals in it we see that Decency Order and Edification are pleaded by the Parties contending for and against but when a Person considers that whatever Opinion he therein hath yet if he be against them he is at the same time against all formed Churches in the World he may conclude safely that there is a Decency Order and Expediency in the Publick use of them and as St. Austin saith of a Christian living in Epist 86. Casulano Rome where they fasted upon the Saturday that such a one should not so praise a Christian City for it as to Condemn the Christian World that was against it so we should not be so Zealous against a Practice as to Condemn those that are for it and be so addicted to our own Opinion as to set that against a Community and a Church nay against all Churches whatsoever This will give us reason to suspect its a Zeal without Knowledge when we presume to set our Judgment Reason and Experience against the Judgment Reason and Experience of the Christian World Which brings to the Fourth General 4. How are we to determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things with respect to the Worship of God For resolution of which we are to consider our selves in a threefold Capacity 1. As particular Persons solitary and alone 2. As we are in Ordinary and Civil Conversation 3. As we are Members of a Publick Society or Church In the first capacity every Christian may chuse and act as he pleaseth and all Lawful things remain to him as they are in their own Nature Free He may eat this or that chuse this day or another and set it apart for the Service of God and his own Soul In this state where there is no Law of Man to require he may forbear to use what is Indifferent where there is no Law to Forbid he may freely use it In the second capacity as in Conversation with others he is to have a regard to them and to use his Liberty so as shall be less to the prejudice and more to the benefit of those he converses with So saith the Apostle all things are lawful for me but all things are 1. Cor. 10. 23. not expedient all things are lawful for me but all things Edify not In this Capacity Men are still in their own Power and whilst it s no Sin they may safely act and where it s no Sin they may forbear in complyance with those that are not yet advanced to the same Maturity of Judgment with themselves as the Apostle did Though saith he I be free from all Men yet have I 1 Cor. 9. 19 c. made my self Servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became a Jew c. In such a case the strong should not despise affront or discourage the weak nor the weak censure and condemn the strong In the third Capacity as we are Members of a Church and Religious Society so the use of Indifferent things comes under further consideration since then the Practice of a Church and the Commands of Authority are to be respected And as what we may lawfully do when alone we are not to do in Conversation because of Offence So what we may allowably do when alone or in Conversation we must not do in Society if Forbidden by the Laws and Customs of it For the same reason if there was no more that Restrains or Determines us in Conversation is as much more forcible in Society as the Peace and Welfare of the whole is to be preferred before that of a part And if the not grieving a Brother or endangering his Soul makes it reasonable just and necessary to forego our Liberty and to Restrain our selves in the exercise of it then much more is the Peace of a Church upon which the present Welfare of the whole and the Future Welfare of many depend a sufficient reason for so doing and to Oblige us to act or not to act accordingly The Apostle saith Let every one of us please his Neighbour for his good to Rom. 15. 2. Edification that is to his Improvement in Knowledg or Grace or Christian Piety and the promoting of Christian Concord and Charity Now Edification is eminently so with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God and every Christian one of the living Stones of which that Spiritual building is compacted 1 Pet. 2. 5. and so he is to consider himself as well as he is to be considered as a part of it and to study what may be for the Edification of the whole as well as the good of any particular Member of it And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking Care to Preserve it So we find Edification Opposed 2 Cor. 10. 8. 1. Cor. 14. 26. 1 Tim. 1. 4. Rom. 14. 19. 1 Thes 5. 11. Eph. 4. 12 16. to Destruction to Confusion to Disputacity and Licentiousness And on the contrary we find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification joyned together as the one doth promote the other And therefore as the Good and Edification of the whole is to be always in our Eye so it s the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end should comply with its Customs observe its Directions and Obey its Orders without Reluctancy and Opposition Thus the Apostle resolves the case Writing about publick Order and the Custom newly taken up of Worshipping Uncovered if any Man seem or have a mind to be contentions we have no such Custom neither the 1 Cor. 11. 16. Churches of God looking
is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
Theophylact But if any one be not satisfied with this Account of that Business but will further contend that St. Paul here doth not only speak to the Case of Jewish Christians who were zealous for Moses's Law But also takes in the Case of some Gentile Christians at that time who upon a Pythagorean Principle they might have entertained were Averse to the eating any kind of Flesh as thinking all such Food to be Vnclean They may notwithstanding what I have said enjoy their own Opinion For it is indifferent to our Controversie whether the Persons whose Case is here spoken to were Jews or Gentiles Only thus much appears plainly that the most of them were Jewish Christians who together with their Christianity had a Conscientious regard to the Law of Moses Secondly As for what is meant by Doubting in the The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no where either in Scripture or any other Author signifie to Doubt but most usually to Discern or Distinguish or make a Dâ—fference as it is frequently used in the New Testatament Vid. Matt. XVI 3. Acts XV. 9. I Cor. IV. 7. VI. 5. XI 29. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken Actively and then it hath the same Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to make a difference As is plain not only in St. Judes Text here quoted but in St. James Ch. II. 4. Where our English Translation hath indeed very well rendred the Apostles Sense thus Are ye not Paâ—tial But if they had truly rendred his Words they must have thus Translated Do ye not make a difference Again sometimes it is taken Passively and then the Signification of it is this to be Divided or Severed or Distinguished And when it is used in this Sense it sometimes happens that the English word Doubting doth conveniently enâ—ugh express it Doubting being indeed nothing else but a Mans being Divided as to his own mind And accordingly in some places our Translators have thus Englished it though I belive in some of those more proper words might be found out to express its Sense But though in a Few Texts it be thus used in Scripture yet I do not find that any Profaâ—e Author did ever use it in this Seâ—se of Doubting And therefore unless there be evident reason I do not know why we should depart from the natural and usual Signification of the Word in the Tâ—xt we are now upon Text the Reader may be pleased to take notice that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we here translate He that doubteth doth as properly signifie to distinguish or make a difference as to Doubt or Hesitate And thus it is used both by Profane Writers and in Holy Scripture as particularly in the 22 d. of St. Jude's Epistle And of some have compassion making a difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word in the Text. Now considering the Apostles Argument in this Chapter is the Case of the Jewish Christians who were divided in their Perswasions about the Legal Observations some making a difference between clean and unclean Meats and such like things and others making none It seems every whit as proper and natural and more suitable to the scope of the Place to take the Word in this Sense in this place rather than in that other according to which it is usually translated So that the Text is thus to be rendered He that maketh a difference between clean and unclean Meats If he do eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean he is damned or condemned for so doing because he eateth not of Faith And so probable is this rendring that our English Translators took care to put it in the Margin of our Bibles as may be seen by every one Nor doth it want good Authority for the Vulgar Latine thus translates the place and not only so but Erasmus Hentenius and generally all the Latine Expositors if we may believe Estius who yet himself interprets it the Common way Indeed I doubt not but this is the true Version of this Word in this Text However I do not so much stand upon it as to preclude any man from the liberty of taking the other if he likes it better For though this way of rendering doth better serve our Purpose as quite putting an end to the Controversie Yet our Cause doth not so absolutely depend upon it but that we may very well allow of the common Translation as will appear hereafter Thirdly As for the Word Faith which is here used let it be taken notice of that when in the verse before the Text the Apostle speaks of having Faith and in the Text of eating without Faith or not of Faith and that whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin We are not to take Faith here in the large sense as it signifies a Belief in Jesus Christ or an Assent to Gods Revelations particularly those of the Gospel which is the usual Notion of Faith in the New Testament But only for a mans Assent to the Goodness or Lawfulness of any particular Action that he takes in hand So that to have Faith about an Action is to be perswaded that that Action may be Lawfully done in the present Circumstances or at least not to be Conscious of any Reason that should make it unlawful And on the other side to do an Action without Faith or not of Faith as the Apostle here expresseth it is to do an Action of the Lawfulness of which we are no way satisfied but on the contrary think we have good reason to believe that it is an unlawful Action Fourthly Whereas St. Paul saith that he that doubteth or differenceth is damned or condemned if he eat we are to take notice that that expression is not to be understood of the punishment of his eating in the other World which is that which in common speech we call Damnation But only of the guilt of his eating as to his own Conscience Indeed there is no colour why our Translators should here use the Word Damned since Condemned is the natural Word whether we consider the Propriety of the Greek or the English Language So that this is the meaning of the Proposition He that doubteth with such a Doubt as is here spoken of and yet eateth such a Man is condemned for so doing Condemned how why condemned of himself as the Apostle had expressed it in the verse before condemned of his own Conscience because without necessity having free power over his own Actions he doth that which he apprehends to be sinful I dare say the Reader will be satisfied of the Truth of our Interpretation as to both the last named Particulars if he will carefully read the foregoing verse together with the Text as indeed they do but both make one compleat Sentence and judge of one by the other St. Paul hath for a good while been addressing himself to the stronger Christians in order to the perswading them so to use their Knowledge and
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
of what he doth 3. It is truly observed by some that considering the known temper of the Nonconformists it is not very likely any such mischief should ensue viz. that by the example of one or more leaving their Separate Assemblies others should be moved to follow them against their own Judgment and Conscience It is abundantly notorious how they have used to treat those that have deserted them with what irreconcileable enmity they have prosecuted them looking upon them as their worst Enemies passing more grievous censures upon them than upon those who have all their lives long continued in our Communion 4. I proceed in the last place to observe from what I have discoursed concerning giving Offence that if to Offend any one be to lead him into sin then we may Scandalize and give Offence to others as soon by pleasing them and complying with them as by dipleasing them and going contrary to their mind and humour St. Paul who Circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. in favour of the weak Jews that he might insinuate and ingratiate himself into them refused to Circumcise Titus Galat. 2. 3. tho he made the Jews angry by it yet he would not give place by subjection or submission and condescension to them no not for an hour He considered the different states and conditions of the persons he had to deal withal He complyed to Circumcise Timothy lest all the Jews with him should have forsaken the Christian Faith and for the same reason he denied to Circumcise Titus lest those of Jerusalem should think he was of opinion that the Jewish Law held still in force and so the Cross of Christ should become of no effect to them He pleased indeed the former for fear of driving them from Christianity and for the same reason he displeased the latter lest he should give them occasion to think the observation of Moses's Law always necessary He had truly Scandalized them if he had done as they would have had him He had Offended them in the true Scripture sense if he had pleased and humoured them and this is the most ordinary way of Scandalizing Christians amongst us by not plainly telling Men of their faults and mistakes by not speaking freely and roundly to them nor acting couragiously whereby they become hardned and confirmed in their folly and ignorance To this purpose I cannot but repeat the words of Mr. Baxter in the Book I have so often cited Many a time saith he I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the publick Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that called the going to them a Scandal that is for fear of hardning them in a sinful Separation and Error because I knew that was not Scandal which they called Scandal that is displeasing them and crossing their opinions but hardning them in an Error or other sin is true Scandalizing Vnderstand this or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal p. 135. Thus by complying with our Dissenting Brethren we really do them that mischief which we would avoid and fall into the sin of giving Scandal whilest we are running from it We countenance and encourage their sinful Separation and Division we confirm them in their dangerous Errors and Mistakes we by our practice condemn those things which yet in our Consciences we allow and approve of and by our Authority and influence harden others in their unreasonable prejudices and opposition against the lawful Commands of their Superiours They think us of the same mind with themselves whilst we do the same things and that we judge as ill of the Church of England as long as we refuse to Communicate with it as themselves do and thus we give occasion to their sin and those infinite mischiefs which have happened both to Church and State upon the account of our Religious disputes and divisions which surely ought to be well thought of and considered by a sort of Men amongst us who shall go to Church in the Morning and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon who halt between both and would fain displease neither side but indeed give real Offence to both From all this I think it is very plain that he who is satisfied in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity but is afraid of giving Offence by it if he be true to this principle ought to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church that he might not Offend those very Dissenters of whom he would seem to be so tender and thus I have done with the Second thing I propounded to shew what is meant by Offending or Scandalizing 3. It remaineth in the Third and Last place to enquire how far and in what instances we are bound to consider the ignorance or weakness of our Brother In Answer to this that I may proceed with all the clearness I can I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said that our Dissenting Brethren are truly weak persons and that there may be some danger of their being through their own fault Offended by our Conformity yet taking this for granted I shall plainly shew that he who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of coming to his Parish-Church and using the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed ought not to forbear doing the same for fear of giving such Offence to his weak Brethren There are many other things to be considered in this Case besides this matter of private Scandal and if there be greater evil in and greater mischief to others and a more publick Scandal doth follow our forbearing Communion with the Church and withdrawing into private Assemblies than can happen by our leaving them and returning to the Church and complying with its orders we ought then to conform notwithstanding the Offence that is imagined may be taken at it For these two things as I suppose are agreed on all hands one is that nothing which is sinful may be done to avoid Scandalizing others the other is that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Scandal and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons and by these two Rules I shall now judge of the Case at first propounded 1. Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandalized which is directly the Apostles Doctrine Rom. 3. 8. That we must not do evil that good may come nor is any necessary duty to be omitted out of prudence or charity to others lest they through Error or Ignorance be hurt by it We must not to prevent the greatest sin in another commit the least sin our selves nor disobey Gods Law and so run the hazard of our own damnation tho it be to save the Soul of our Brother Thus Calvin tells us Instit lib. 3. c. 19. Quae necessaria sunt factu nullius offendiculi timore omittenda sunt Whatever is necessary to be done by vertue of Gods Command is not to be omitted
Leen offered in Sacrifice by the Gentiles to their Daemons which I shall have occasion to explain at large hereafter to you But it is equally applicable to all things of the like Indifferent nature And there are two Rules laid down by him there which men ought to govern themselves by in the use of such things 1. The First is the Glory of God v. 31. Whatsoever therefore ye do whether ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God i. e. whatever ye do in these things be sure you have respect to the Law and Will of God and take heed that you violate none of the divine Commandments either by what you do or what you refuse to do in things of this nature For this is the true notion and meaning of doing all to the glory of God i. e. Keeping us close to the observance of those Laws and Rules that he hath commanded us For then God is most truly glorified by us when we express a great sense of his Soveraignty and Laws in all that we do But this by the way The 2d Rule is Charity and respect to the benefit and advantage of those we converse with and live among that we neither grieve nor injure them by any thing that we do or neglect to do and this is the meaning of these words so often quoted by our dissenting Brethren Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God This is that Rule of our actions in all indifferent things which I have chosen to consider in this discourse and the rather because we have some contest with our dissenting Brethren about it There hath been great talk about Scandal and giving Offence to weak and tender Consciences by Conformty and Compliance with all those things which the Church of England requires in her Liturgie and amongst all the other Arguments and Pretences against it this hath been prest to serve in the Cause either to add some real weight to the rest or at least to add to their number Though to tell you plainly I think it is onely to make a shew and to render the bulk of their Exceptions the bigger that this is summoned to the Muster and not for any real weight that there is in it to serve the Cause However whatever there is in it a great noise is made with it and as a mighty noise hath been made about Scandal and great pains used to wrest the notion of it to serve mens purposes in these things so great art hath been employed to accommodate it to the present purpose and to fright men with the guilt and danger of it from complying with the Institutions of the Church which as is pretended are so very great a Scandal and Offence to weak Consciences Two great and popular Pleas against the Liturgie of the Church of England and the Ceremonies retained by it have been these tenderness and scruples of Conscience in some and fear of Scandal and giving Offence to such in others Some men have pleaded their own Scruples and want of sufficient Conviction and Information and excused their omission of these things from that saying of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin And some have alledged their fear of Scandal and offending others and pleaded that in bar of their compliance from these words of the same Apostle Give none offence c. How much the sence of the first place is mistaken and how false the consequence that is made from it is I am not now obliged to shew My Province at this time is about the second this place that I have now quoted in order to which I intend to do these two things 1. Shew that this place is not at all concerned in our present Question nor will serve that purpose that the Dissenters from our Church alledge it for 2. That if it were it would conclude against them and their practice in the present Case betwixt us 1. I begin with the first which is to shew that this place is not concerned in our present Case nor pertinently urged by our Brethren against their Conformity to the present Rites and Usages of the Church And this I might do from two things mistaken greatly in the application of this Text. 1. The true notion of Scandal and Offence here mentioned 2. The nature of the things to which it is applied which is vastly different from what men scruple or forbear in our Case 1. From the true notion of Scandal and Offence that is mentioned in this place and in many other places in the New Testament I do not intend here a large Discourse of the nature of Scandal in the general or a removing and rectifying those many common mistakes in the world about it but only to observe so much as will be sufficient to my present purpose 1. Then I observe that as there are onely two notions of Scandal in the New Testament so there are only two Cases in which men are properly and primarily capable of being guilty of it I mean in giving it to others 1. The first notion of Scandal is That it is a Snare or a Gin by which men are intrapped and drawn into some plain sin and wickedness In which sence it is used in many places and particularly in that famous Speech of our Saviours Matth. 18. 6. to 10. And men do then give offence or scandalize others when they do that which directly and in its own nature tends to induce others either to do that which God hath forbidden and is a sin or omit that which he hath commanded and is a plain Duty both which men may do several ways which it is not now so very needful to reckon up singly 2. The second notion of Scandalâ—is That it is some just cause of grief or trouble to others in their Christian course and that which hinders them from walking in it with that chearfulness and security that they otherwise would According to which sence it is rendred Offence in this and many other Texts of Scripture i. e. some just cause of offence of trouble or grief given to another by something that he sees us either omit or do In this sence it is used in many places of the New Testament not for that which is a direct occasion of another mans sin but a just cause of his grief and sorrow and discouragement in the way of Duty So it is used particularly Joh. 16. 1. and Rom. 14. 15. it is expressed by grieving And in this sence men give offence to others when either by doing or neglecting something themselves they give just cause of sorrow or grief to others and discourage them in their Christian course and occasion to them some trouble and grief of mind that otherwise might be free from 2. Having observed this therefore I proceed in the second place to observe that neither of these notions of Scandal can be accommodated to our present case nor can
and a contempt of God to wound and destroy their precious Souls and to provide matter for eternal torments And any thing that discourageth a man in the way of his Duty or renders it more perplexed and troublesome to him may be justly called an offence or grief to him I do not easily understand how this kind of offence can properly be said to be given any other but by some of these ways Now let our debate be determined by these things and let the issue be Whether Conformity can be grieving others upon any of these accounts It cannot I am sure be said or at least nothing like a proof be offered that we offend men hereby because we either do any dishonour to God or to his holy Religion by it It is much truer that we bring honour and reputation to both by it To God by taking the best course we can pitch upon to secure the Solemnity and Decency of his Worship And to Religion by taking care that all the great Services of it be performed decently and to edification and not profaned by the ignorance or temerity of every bold and unskilful undertaker 2. Nor secondly can it be pretended that hereby we let men be spectators of our wickedness and profaneness and so grieve and make sad the hearts of good men while they see us without any fear of God before our eyes I have that charity for the modesty and integrity of our Dissenting Brethren that they will not call our Worship Idolatry and the service of Baal any longer though it cannot be dissembled that a great part of the less-discerning Rabble have been taught by them so to account and think of it But if any have been misled into such an Opinion I would beg them to come and behold our way of publick Worship for their better conviction 3. No nor thirdly do I see how it can be any offence upon its making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome or difficult to others than it would be It would be a hard matter for any to shew where he is hindred from being good by seeing others conformable to the Church or what obstruction that casts in his way of Duty I will at any time undertake to shew that it may be an help and advantage to him and a furtherance to him in the way of Religion and Salvation but let or hinderance it can be none If it be pretended that by this we make Religion cumbersome and clog that with Rites and Ceremonies that is a plain and easie thing I grant the Objection were reasonable and the Charge of giving offence undeniable were it either so as it began to be of old in St. Augustin's time or is at present in the Roman-Church clogged with so many antick and garish Ceremonies that it requires a great deal of study to be an exact Ritualist and is a thousand times harder to remember and observe all the Rites and Modes of any Service and Office in Religion than to do the thing a hundred times over But let me beg men to consider whether this Charge can be just against a Church and its Liturgy which enjoyn but three Ceremonies against which the Dissenters themselves can object and these too not in the same but so many distinct Services and which are little more than barely determining those circumstances of Habit and Gesture which are natural and necessary to all our actions If these things can be thought to make the Practice and Services of Religion burthensome then any of the Postures in which our Brethren perform their Worship will make that so too and then the Directory will be as chargeable and faulty in this as the Liturgy These things will be sufficient upon this first way that I proposed to shew that conforming to the Institutions of the Church is not concerned in any thing the Apostle speaks in this place nor can come under his notion of giving offence to any which he speaks against in it I will not deny but that some may be offended and troubled at it It is too visible how much some men are troubled to see a Church constituted among us to behold it protected by Law and Power and to see so great a deference and respect payd unto it and its way of Worship as blessed be God is at present by multitudes both of great and good men I do not doubt but it is greatly maligned and envyed by men and it is little less than a continual trouble and grief to them It is contrary to their private Interest and so long as it is so their designs and aims will never be effected But so ill men are troubled at a good Government and Thieves and Robbers may be vexed that Honest men are secured from them and these may as well cry out that the Laws and the Government are an offence to them as others may that they are offended at the Church and Conformity Sure we know things better than to call every thing a Scandal that any man is vexed or troubled at If we must acknowledge that an offence or forbear doing every thing for fear of Scandal that every ill designing man is pleased to take exceptions against it is more than probable we must do nothing at all nor venture to undertake any thing till we see whether all persons will be pleased with it or not We must not call every thing an offence that pleaseth not the humour of every man for then nothing can avoid that character But this is not enough to say in this matter for it will serve us much further not onely to justifie our selves from this imputation but to reflect it back upon those that charge us For when we have well considered things we shall find that the Scandal will fall upon our Accusers and not Conformity but Separation will be found to be the giving Offence and that in both the notions of giving it that have been named Separation is indeed the Scandal as being both an evil in it self and that which betrays others into many evils If ever there were such a thing as Schism in the world or if the Separation of the Donatists or any that were ever made from the Communion of a National Church were a Schism I think it hath been sufficiently proved on our behalf that the present Separation from our Church is really a Schism And if Schism be a damnable sin and so it is if we will judge either by the Doctrines of the Apostles or their best Successors yea and few sins greater then we shall need no other argument to prove Separation to be indeed the Scandal and that in the greatest notion of Scandal too And we sadly see what great mischiefs it is introductive of what uncharitableness and railing what pride and censoriousness it betrays men into Schism was scarce ever content to be alone Men think it not enough to separate from the Communion of the Church unless they go to justifie their Separation by
would have ours to be And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of Thus did Jeremiah Nehemiah Ezra c. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and publick Idolatries of the Nation which had brought Gods heavy Judgments upon them or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness and confessed the Common Sins with such humility as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrey-men had done But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin that such extraordinary occasions of Publick Humiliation require and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church But it ought not to be forgot that those particular Confessions of Sin which some Men want in our Liturgie are not properly the matter of that Publick Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining our selves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed and then to humble our selves before God for them with particular Confessions and sutable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin which we make with the whole Congregation we should then have less reason to complain that those Confessions are not apt to move us because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts which commonly are most to blame when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us To conclude this Matter There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation for the satisfaction of the Church and the declaration of a true Repentance This is not properly an Act of Worship but of Discipline but alas almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church a loss never enough to be lamented For so it has fallen out that by quarreling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature that ought to be left to the Prudence of Governours and the Communion of Christians is broken and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern then all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are The second Objection I shall take notice of is that against the shortness of the Collects by reason of which it is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together Now in answer to this I say 1. That the meer shortness of a Prayer is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples it being not much longer than most of our Collects and not so long as some of them 2. That it will be hard to prove That many of these short Prayers being offer'd up unto God one immediately after another is either not so Grave or not so Edifying as one Continued Form I do not believe the difference to be so great as it is made by those that do not approve our way For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while as if there were but one Continued Form Indeed in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often and there is a distinction made between the several Collects by a New Title shewing the Matter of the Prayer and by beginning a New Line But I hope our Brethren do not mean that in this there is a defect of Gravity or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God and without breaking off pass from one Petition or Matter of Invocation to another as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One. And as there is no Interruption of our Praying caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen which this way requires Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection and Godly Disposition of Mind which is the best thing in Prayer But on the other hand this may be kept alive and more effectually secured by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do I know some have said this is done more frequently than is meet But it would be a lamentable thing if there should be any difference about this Matter When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority and to the Judgment of Prudent and Holy Men such as our first Reformers were and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying And I believe others would be of the same Mind if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way but attend a little to those considerations that favour it and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will shew to all Men much more to their Governours Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes does of it self tend to maintain in our Minds a reverent sense of his Majesty and Presence which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord Lord so very often in their Extempore Prayers would think themselves somewhat hardly used if they should not be believed in saying that this was not for want of Matter but for the exciting of a reverent sense of Gods Authority in
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
assert and which occasioned our Author's Resolution of the Case of Symbolizing c. is this That things which might otherwise be lawfully used in the Worship of God do become unlawfull by their having been abused in Idolatrous or Superstitious Services And some of them do understand this in a more limited and restrained sense as our Author hath shewed than others of them do Secondly as this Question is put you are sure to have no Adversaries For who ever doubted whether a thing be unlawfull in the Worship of God that is Vnsuitable to the Ends thereof whether this thing hath been abused or no in Idolatrous Services Now having thus strangely put the Question you proceed to shew that from thence will follow several things as things out of controversie betwixt us And I perceive you are very cautious herein of reviving a certain Old controversie among your selves viz. Whether our Old Churches Bells and Fonts c. may still be used For you thus word your third particular wherein we are agreed viz. That things of mere conveniency for a Religious Action for the Service of the Ends of it may be used though Idolaters have used the like you are shy I perceive of saying the same so as none scruple the using of Churches to meet in c. You say not none scruple the using of the Old Churches which were built by Papists In your next Page you tell our Author that you think that * * * p. 11. Zanchy's Rule is at least Safest and that he knows that in dubiis animae tutior pars est eligenda But I think you might have Englisht it better than thus in matters of Sin the Safest part is always to be preferred For in matters of Sin or sinfull matters in my silly judgment there is no safest part to be preferred Next you positively assert that in matters of Divine Worship if the things used by Idolaters be not necessary both the abuse and the use also ought to be abolished And you say you cannot understand what else is the meaning of the Apostle in that his Application of the words found Psal 24. 1. in 1 Cor 10. 28. viz. If any man say unto you this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake For the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof c. That is you say you shall not need to starve though you do not eat of that meat c. To this I answer that our Author hath freely acknowledged pag. 36. That all things of an indifferent nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People inclined again so to abuse them At least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means But our Author utterly denies that those Rites which our Church retaineth that have been abused and are still by the Church of Rome have been observed to be any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery And therefore there is upon this supposition no Argument to be drawn from that Text against the Sinfulness of using those Rites because the Apostle there forbids the Strong Christian the eating of that meat which a Weak Christian shall inform him was a portion of an Idol-sacrifice for this reason lest he be confirmed in or betrayed to the sin of Idolatry by his example not rightly understood by him And consequently this Christian is supposed to be such a weak one as would be in danger of making this ill use of his Example as being but lately converted from Paganism and not yet sufficiently instructed in the precepts of Christianity It is manifest from the immediately following verse that the Apostle forbiddeth the eating of meat offered to Idols upon this sole account For saying in the former verse Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake he adds in the latter that he means not that he should forbear for the sake of his own Conscience but onely for the sake of the others Conscience If therefore you can prove that these Rites of our Church are Temptations to any of its Members to go over to the Romish Church or to commit Idolatry still continuing therein you shall be so far from being opposed by our Author that he 'll heartily join with you in endeavouring by all lawfull means to have them abolished on supposition that the Temptation cannot otherwise be taken away But I desire you by the way to take notice that it is not the Design of his Book which you could not but see though you would seem not to see it to plead for the continuance of these Rites as innocent and harmless things at least as he takes them to be but onely to perswade Dissenters not to separate from our Church upon the account of such things and to shew that their having been abused is no just ground for Separation And having minded you of this I shall not need to tell you that the other Old-Testament Text which you have added to those which he hath replied to is alledged very impertinently which yet we 'll bestow two or three words in answer to But first let us see what you reply to what he saith to these Texts You say * * * p. 12. you cannot possibly get leave of your self considering under what terms of Divine Abhorrence God every where mentioneth Idolatry in Holy writ c. to be of the mind of our Author that the Texts Lev. 19. 2. Deut. 14. 1. Lev. 19. 19. are merely to be understood of things in themselves evil Nor by the way is our Author of that mind for he acknowledgeth pag. 27. that the things forbidden in the last of these places are things of so indifferent a nature that none can be more indifferent But he asks where it is said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them And he addeth that though Maimonides saith that the Egyptians used these Mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits yet 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many others were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral duties But to this you are perfectly silent But why cannot you be of our Author's mind as to the two other Texts You say The following part of the Chap. Lev. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil yet why are they forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites I answer because they were the doings of those people whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even their greatest Immoralities And this is a sufficient Answer Then you tell us Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Lev. 19. 8. capable of such a sense But our Author saith not a word of Lev. 19. 8. for 't is verse the 19th that he speaks to and as hath been said already he
place of the Type but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments which otherwise are not to be evaded by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Fore-runner of Baptism we must note that strictly and properly speaking there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype as betwixt the Shadow and the Substance or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass * * * Deinde quod maximè advertendum id inter Antitypum Typum interest quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est ea non nisi specie tenus aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit Enimvero quamvis Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo quam in Antitypo semper valet ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species aut tam exilis gradus fuerit ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit Outramus de Sacrif l. 2. c. 18. insomuch that what was really literally and properly in the Antitype and of perfect Efficacy and Power was generally but Symbolically and representatively in the Type and figurative of something which did in a more noble perfect eminent and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype than it did to it Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows and Representations of the Blood of Christ and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood serving to the purifying of the Flesh was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross and the healing Virtue which belonged to it was but a figure or shadow of that more eminent and powerfully healing Virtue which was in Jesus Christ But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism which doth not as literally properly fully and eminently belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For First Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel So was Circumcision before and under the Law Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So was Circumcision then Doth it properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now So did Circumcision then as it is written you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually under the Law This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament as that now is This did then as really initiate true Believers as that now doth It never was an Umbratical Sacrament or shadow of another Sacrament it never did Umbratically initiate Believers or Umbratically and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God and the Seed of Abraham and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but on the contrary the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel are such things which have some Symbolical likeness with it and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof The First Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the * * * Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Dicens nolo enim vos ignorare Et addidit dicens haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt Cyprian Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism their passing through it when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host a Type of our passing through that and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil and his Angels and their Captain and Deliverer Moses a Type of our Saviour Christ The Second Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark the like figure whereunto saith the Apostle even Baptism doth also save us †††Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans c. Cyprian Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani in Firmilian Ep. contra eandem Epist ad Cyprian in Ep. 69. Quod Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Here it is plain that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism the Ark a Type of the Church and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism nor was it an Umbratical but a real Confignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism now is and therefore succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another according to the Apostle who saith unto the Colossians In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in Baptism Col. 2. 11 12. But in the second place if we consider the Original of Baptism as a Jewish Institution we shall find it very improbable that Circumcision should be a Type of it because a Type properly speaking is a * * * Typus quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud praefiguret Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificiis l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of something future or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New But Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament and by consequence could not be Typified and prefigured by Circumcision with which it was coexistent and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continued the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel superadding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
lawful to Baptize them and if I have not erred as I hope I have not in those two Determinations then the Baptism of Infants is lawful and valid and if the Baptism of them be lawful and valid then it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them when they come to be Men and Women Accordingly it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers who had been Baptized in their Infancy whether they were Baptized in perfect health as Children most commonly were or only in dnager of Death as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity or Corruption of Baptism that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger and durst not let them die un baptized Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion and others perhaps according to the private Opinion of a a a De Baptismo c. 18. Ait quidem dominus nolite illos prohibere ad me venire veniant ergò dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Tertullian and b b b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. Nazianzen thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized between Three and Four years old but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health but in case of danger they thought it c c c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary to Baptize them and if they survived the danger looked upon them as lawfully and validly Baptized These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients who never urged this for one that Infant-Baptism was unlawful or invalid No They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children which Christ and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes nor from the want of Precept and Example for it in the New Testament but so understood the Scriptures as to think it as lawful and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers and necessary in case of danger and just so did those who deferred their Baptism for fear of sinning after it think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity in apparent danger of Death But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful and valid but also necessary as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ who did not countermand the practice of it and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy but an exceeding great Sin and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account In a word If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful but necessary what a grievous and provoking Sin must it needs be to disown those for Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such But if it be neither as Anabaptists vainly pretend then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth for Eleven hundred Years nor a Church for above Fifteen hundred with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin This is a very absurd and dreadful consequence and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages while the Church was so full of Saints Martyrs and Miracles and represented as * * * See Dr. More 's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God and the Altar Revel 11. 1 2. THE CONCLUSION ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism as to obviate or answer all the Considerable Pleas and Material Objections which they are wont to make against it yet there are two of their Objections of which I have yet taken no notice thinking it better that I might avoid tediousness and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions to Propose and Answer them a part by themselves The First of these two is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants which they endeavour with all their Art and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of Infant-Baptism although there is not the like Evidence nor the like Reason for the practice of that as there is for the practice of this First There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it St. a a a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi vel attracti amiserunt parvuli quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit dicent Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it to the Communion when he administred it and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turned away her Face from it but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth she fell into Convulsions and Vomitings which the Holy Father looking upon as a Miracle did thereupon discover that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts Vid. August ad Bonifacium Episcop Ep. 23. vol. 2. Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it and after him the b b b Cap. 7. Contemplat 3. p. 360 362. Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and c c c Catechesis 3. isluminat Hierosolym Cyril of Jerusalem are the next who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and then St. d d d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan Epist 23. 106 107. Lib. 1. de peccatorum merit remiss cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14. Augustine in the Fifth who indeed speaks frequently of it as of the practice of the Church in that Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * * * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p.
shews both what was the crime of unworthy receiving and the punishment of it Their crime was their irreverent and disorderly participation of the Sacrament and their punishment was those temporal judgments which God inflicted upon them for this their contempt of the Sacrament Now this being I think very plain we are proportionably to understand the precept of examination of our selves before we eat of that bread and drink of that cup. But let a man examine himself that is consider well with himself what a sacred Action he is going about and what behaviour becomes him when he is celebrating this Sacrament instituted by our Lord in memorial of his body and bloud that is of his death and passion And if heretofore he have been guilty of any disorder and irreverence such as the Apostle here taxeth them withall let him censure and judge himself for it be sensible of and sorry for his fault and be carefull to avoid it for the future and having thus examined himself let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. This I think is the plain sense of the Apostle's Discourse and that if we attend to the scope and circumstances of it it cannot well have any other meaning But some will say Is this all the preparation that is required to our worthy receiving of the Sacrament that we take care not to come drunk to it nor to be guilty of any irreverence and disorder in the celebration of it I answer in short this was the particular unworthiness with which the Apostle taxeth the Corinthians and which he warns them to amend as they desire to escape the judgments of God such as they had already felt for this irreverent carriage of theirs so unsutable to the holy Sacrament He finds no other fault with them at present in this matter though any other sort of irreverence will proportionably expose men to the like punishment He says nothing here of their habitual preparation by the sincere purpose and resolution of a good life answerable to the rules of the Christian Religion This we may suppose he took for granted However it concerns the Sacrament no more than it does Prayer or any other religious duty Not but that it is very true that none but those who do heartily embrace the Christian Religion and are sincerely resolved to frame their lives according to the holy rules and precepts of it are fit to communicate in this solemn acknowledgment and profession of it So that it is a practice very much to be countenanced and encouraged because it is of great use for Christians by way of preparation for the Sacrament to examine themselves in a larger sense than in all probability the Apostle here intended I mean to examine our past lives and the actions of them in order to a sincere repentance of all our errours and miscarriages and to fix us in the steady purpose and resolution of a better life particularly when we expect to have the forgiveness of our sins sealed to us we should lay aside all enmity and thoughts of revenge and heartily forgive those that have offended us and put in practice that universal love and charity which is represented to us by this holy Communion And to this purpose we are earnestly exhorted in the publick Office of the Communion by way of due preparation and disposition for it to repent us truly of our sins past to amend our lives and to be in perfect charity with all men that so we may be meet partakers of those holy mysteries And because this work of examining our selves concerning our state and condition and of exercising repentance towards God and charity towards men is incumbent upon us as we are Christians and can never be put in practice more seasonably and with greater advantage than when we are meditating of this Sacrament therefore besides our habitual preparation by repentance and the constant endeavours of a holy life it is a very pious and commendable custome in Christians before their coming to the Sacrament to set apart some particular time for this work of examination But how much time every person should allot to this purpose is matter of prudence and as it need not so neither indeed can it be precisely determined Some have greater reason to spend more time upon this work than others I mean those whose accounts are heavier because they have long run upon the score and neglected themselves And some also have more leisure and freedom for it by reason of their easie condition and circumstances in the world and therefore are obliged to allow a greater portion of time for the exercises of piety and devotion In general no man ought to doe a work of so great moment and concernment slightly and perfunctorily And in this as in all other actions the end is principally to be regarded Now the end of examining our selves is to understand our state and condition and to reform whatever we find amiss in our selves And provided this end be obtained the circumstances of the means are less considerable whether more or less time be allowed to this work it matters not so much as to make sure that the work be throughly done And I do on purpose speak thus cautiously in this matter because some pious persons do perhaps err on the stricter hand and are a little superstitious on that side insomuch that unless they can gain so much time to set apart for a solemn preparation they will refrain from the Sacrament at that time though otherwise they be habitually prepared This I doubt not proceeds from a pious mind but as the Apostle says in another case about the Sacrament shall I praise them in this I praise them not For provided there be no wilfull neglect of due preparation it is much better to come so prepared as we can nay I think it is our duty so to doe rather than to abstain upon this punctilio For when all is done the best preparation for the Sacrament is the general care and endeavour of a good life And he that is thus prepared may receive at any time when opportunity is offered though he had no particular foresight of that opportunity And I think in that case such a one shall doe much better to receive than to refrain because he is habitually prepared for the Sacrament though he had no time to make such actual preparation as he desired And if this were not allowable how could Ministers communicate with sick persons at all times or persuade others to doe it many times upon very short and sudden warning And indeed we cannot imagine that the primitive Christians who received the Sacrament so frequently that for ought appears to the contrary they judged it as essential and necessary a part of their publick worship as any other part of it whatsoever even as their Hymns and Prayers and reading and interpreting the Word of God I say we cannot well conceive how they who celebrated it so constantly
and use at this day For that was a Discumbing or Leaning Gesture on the left side much after the manner that we lye upon Couches with the upper part of the body almost erect It is agreed by all Learned Men that this was the Ancient Custom of the Jews in our Saviours time and is so to this day at the Passover by which Gesture they distinguish this Festival Night from all others Now if the same Gesture were used by Christ at the Sacrament as was at the Passover and his example makes it necessary and obligatory to all Christians for what Reasons and by what Authority do our Dissenting Brethren change it into Sitting upright according to our Civil way and manner of Feasting When they tell us this it will be very easy to justify Kneeling by the same Authority which they shall alledge for Sitting and our changing the Gesture will be as warrantable as theirs Unless they will say that they alone have the Power and Priviledge to recede from the Example of Christ when and how far they please but our Church hath not nor any other upon the face of the Earth To say Sitting as they do comes nearer to the Gesture used by our Lord at the Passover and consequently as is supposed at the Sacrament then the Kneeling Gesture according to the Custom of our Church will do them no service For there is no Room for this Question Who cometh nearest to the Example they or we when they ought not at all to vary if they keep to their own Rule The Example of Christ as it is urged by them against Kneeling equally Concludes against all other Gestures besides what he himself used And then the supposed Gesture which he observed binds to Lying along For where we have nothing to go by but his Pattern we must cut exactly by it or else we take a liberty to do that of our own heads for which we have no allowance That is we leave the Pattern which we were obliged onely to follow and act at random upon our own heads and then the Pattern cannot be alledg'd for our Justification Though our Church therefore doth not strictly follow the Example of Christ as is objected by requiring all her Communicants to Kneel yet they have no reason to complain and to scruple Communicating with us who do not follow it themselves but receive the Sacrament in their separate Congregations in a Gesture different from what our Lord used at the first Institution of it The Presbyterians if one may Argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For though they generally choose to Sit yet they do not Condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in its self and several are willing to Receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is supposed to have set us whether he Lay along or Sate upright as that which is Injoyned and Practised by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allowed of and Practised by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have changed Immersion or Dipping into aspersion or Sprinkling and Pouring Water on the Face Baptism Mat. 3. 16. Mat. 28. 19. by Immersion or Dipping is sutable to the Institution of our Lord and the Practice of his Apostles and was by them ordained and used to represent our Burial with Christ a Death unto Sin and a New Birth Rom. 6. 4. 6. 11. Col. 2. 12. unto Righteousness as St. Paul explains that Rite Now it 's very strange that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper though a different Gesture from that which was used at the first Institution should become a Stumbling-block in the way of Weak and Tender Consciences that it 's more unpassable than the Alpes and yet they can with Ease and Cheerfulness pass by as great or a greater change in the Sacrament of Baptism and Christen as we do without the least murmur or complaint Sitting Kneeling or Standing were none of them Instituted or used to signify and represent any thing Essential to the Lord's Supper as Dipping all over was why cannot Kneeling then be without any wrong to the Conscience as Safely and Innocently used as Sprinkling How comes a Gnat to use our Saviours Proverb to be harder to swallow than a Camel Or why should not the Peace and Unity of the Church and Charity to the Publick prevail with them to Kneel at the Lord's Supper as much or rather more as Mercy and Tenderness to the Infants Body to Sprinkle or pour Water on the Face contrary to the first Institution 4. They who Kneel at the Sacrament in complyance with the Customs and Constitutions of the Church whereof they are Members do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour complyed with that Passover-Gesture which was at that time commonly and generally observed by the Jews but cannot be pretended to be Altar Dam. 745. 747. the same that was used at the first Institution of that Feast in Egypt For thus the Command runs Exod. 12. 11. And thus shall ye Eat it with your Loyns Girded your Shoes on your Feet and your Staff in your Hand And you shall Eat it in haste it is the Lord 's Passover This say the Hebrew Doctors was but a temporary Law suted to the necessity of that time and served for that Night onely and did not oblige the following Generations in the Land of Canaan For thus they comment upon it Four things were contained in this Law which did not oblige but for that night at the Vid. Mr. Ainsworth Exod. 12. 6. 11. Passover in Egypt 1. Eating of the Lamb in their Houses dispersed in Egypt 2. Taking up of the Lamb from the tenth Day 3. Striking the Blood on their Door-Posts 4. Eating in Haste Here the Gesture in all probability was Standing though it be not expresly mentioned Howsoever it was different from that used by the Jews in our Saviours time which was a Gesture denoting Ease and Rest and their deliverance from Egyptian Bondage And our Lord's Complyance with this Custom may teach us thus much That we should not be scrupulous about Gestures but conform to the Innocent and prevailing Customs of the Church wheresoever we live To this Practice St. Paul's Rule well sutes Not Phil. 4. 8. onely Whatsoever things are True and Just and Lovely and Pure and Honest but whatsoever things are of good report i. e. well spoken of or laudable Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely If there be any vertue but if there be any praise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any thing be much approved of in Common esteem or is made commendable by Custom we are to think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or make account of these things and conform our