THE Protestant Reconciler PART II. Earnestly perswading the DISSENTING LAITY To joyn in FULL COMMUNION WITH THE Church of England And Answering all the Objections of the Non-Conformists against the Lawfulness of their Submission unto the Rites and Constitutions of that CHURCH By a Well-wisher to the Churches Peace and a Lamenter of Her Sad Divisions Anglicanam Ego Ecclesiam exoticis pravis superflitiosis cultibus erroribusque aut impiis aut periculosis egregiè ex scripturarum coelestium norma purgatam tot támque illustribus Martyriis probatam pietate in Deum in homines Charitate laudatissimisque bonorum operum exemplis abundantem laetissimo doctissimorum ac sapientissimorâ—m virorum preventu jam à Reformationis principio ad hodierna usque tempora florentem equidem es quo debui loco habui hactenus ac dum vivam habebo ejus nomen honos laudes semper apud me manebunt Dallaeus de cultibus Religiosis Latinorum part 2. l. 2. cap. 1. p. 97 98. LONDON Printed for Awnsham Churchil at the Black-Swan near Amen-Corner 1683. THE PREFACE TO THE Dissenting Laity The Contents of the PREFACE Six Arguments from the Book called the Protestant Reconciler to perswade the Dissenting Laity to submit to the conditions of Communion required of them by the Church of England viz. 1. That they stand bound to do what lawfully they may in order to it and that nothing unlawful is required of them § 1.2 Because they are to do to their Superiors as in like case they would be dealt with § 2.3 From the liberty they take of changing a Ceremony of Christ's own institution § 3.4 Because the mischiefs which will follow on their refusal to submit are greater than those which will ensue on their Conformity § 4.5 From the example of St. Paul § 5.6 From the pernicious nature of Schism § 6. Other Arguments produced 1. From that of the Apostle If any man will be contentious we have no such custom 1 Cor. 11.16 § 7. 2. From his command to give no offence to the Church of God § 8.3 Because God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace § 9.4 Because he requires the believing Wife not to desert her unbelieving Husband vice versâ because God hath called us to Peace § 10.5 Because were all things left indifferent the Minister must impose in some cases § 11.6 From the power committed to Church Governours and the necessity of submission to it § 12.7 From the sad result of their refusing this submission § 13. Two propositions conducing to this end 1. That no prejudices or scruples of Dissenters can excuse them from the guilt of Schism in separating from us till they have done all that lawfully they can for the removal of them § 14.2 That their imagination that the Magistrate exceeds or else unduly doth exert his power in commanding any thing will not warrant their refusal of Obedience to it § 15. Requests to them who cannot fully comply with us viz. 1. To comply so far as they declare either by words or actions that they lawfully may do it § 16.2 To refrain from censuring reproaching or speaking evil of their Governours in Church or State § 17.3 To abstain carefully from all Rebellious Principles and Practices and to confess ingenuously and heartily renounce what hath been done by men of their perswasions in that kind § 18. Brethren MY hearts desire and prayer to God in your behalf is this That you may fully be united to the Communion of the Church of England And in pursuance of this passionate desire I have composed the following Treatise containing a full Answer to all the scruples obstructing your Communion with us which I could meet with in the writings of our Dissenting Brethren And let me O my Friends entreat you by the love of God and your own souls of the Church of Christ which is his body and of her union peace edification by your concern for Christian Religion in the general and for the Protestant Religion in particular which I hope is very great by all the motives which Christianity affords to love peace unity by all the blessings it doth promise to the promoters and all the dreadful evils it doth threaten to the disturbers of them by the sad experience you have had already of the most fatal consequences of our Divisions and by your present fears of a more dreadful issue of them lastly by all that you are like to suffer in your souls and bodies by refractory persisting in your Separation let me I say beseech you on my bended knees by all these weighty motives to lay to heart what I have offered in this Book and in this Preface shall farther offer to engage you to conform and seriously to consider of it and act according to the convictions it may minister unto you as you will Answer your neglect to do so at the great and terrible day of the Lord. Now the considerations I would humbly offer to you are either 1. Such as are proper to induce you to the desired Conformity or 2. Such as may tend to keep you peaceable and conscientious though you do not Conform and may preserve you from doing any thing which may reflect on your Religion towards God or Loyalty towards your Soveraign § 1 1. Then to move you to the desired Conformity be pleased seriously to consider what hath been offered in a late Book stiled The Protestant Reconciler to that end In which Book as the Author pleads warmly for an indulgence or mitigation of some lesser things which do obstruct your full Communion with us which nothing but a due sense of the great danger and unsafe condition of your present state could have induced him to do and nothing but his fervent love to souls and his sincere desire of their Salvation can excuse so hath he many passages which seem most strongly to conclude for your desired submission to the injunctions of Superiors For First P. 34 35. He lays down this position That you stand bound in Conscience to do whatsoever lawfully you may for the prevention and removal of our Schisms and the occasions of them and for the healing our Divisions Which is a proposition evident in it self and there confirmed from plain Scripture testimony and the concern we ought to have for Christian Faith the Protestant Religion the welfare of the Nation and for the peace the order the edification of the Church Secondly He adds That nothing can be unlawful which is not by God forbidden 1 John 3.4 sin being the transgression of a Law and the Apostle having told us Rom. 4.15 P. 198. that where there is no Law there is no transgression whence he infers That Dissenters cannot satisfie their Consciences in their refusal to obey the commands of their Superiors unless they can shew some plain precept which renders that unlawful to be done by them which is commanded by Superiors And seeing God in Scripture hath enjoined
appointed a living Judge of Controversies to whom all Jews stood bound to repair in doubtful cases and according to whose word and information they were obliged to Act not declining from it to the right hand or to the left Deut. 17.9 12. And therefore by this Rule of our Dissenters God must have left us Christians such a living Judge or else his care and kindness towards the Christian Church will be less then was his care and kindness to the Jewish Church Answer 2 2ly It is falsly supposed by this Argument that Moses was so exact and full in all his institutions that nothing afterward was to be added to them or ordained by the Rulers of the Church for the better observation of them the Rulers of the Jewish Church did notwithstanding his exactness do many things Sacred and Civil for which they had no precept to direct them nor any other Warrant but the use of reason and prudential discourse and they made many constitutions which were of things very useful and necessary to be decided for the direction of the practice both of Priests and People The instances of this Nature are very numerous and may be seen in Dr. Leightfoots Temple Service from whence I shall Collect these few The Law of Moses appoints no Substitute to the High Priest in case of his uncleanness or any other matter which might render him unfit to do his Office at the great day of expiation or any other Solemnity Provision therefore was made for this and other occasions of like Nature by appointing with him a Sagan or a Substitute who might officiate for him in such cases Leight p. 34. p. 169. And of whose officiating for him in the great day of Expiation we find an instance in Josephus l. 17. cap. 8. p. 597. They had no Command for sounding their Trumpets every Morning at the opening of the Court Gates particularly at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor But tho this practice had no express and literal Command yet was it grounded upon this necessity and reason because that the Levites and Stationary Men might have notice to come to attend their Desks and Service and that the People of Jerusalem might hear Temple Serv. p. 57 58. and take notice and those that would come to the Temple so that this sounding was as the Bells to ring them in to the Service Agreeable to this was also the sounding striking or ringing of their great Bell Migrepha Ibid. p. 111. p. 59. The constant Psalms sung by the Levites every day of the Week with the reasons why they made choice of them The four and twenty courses of the Israelites of the station is no where mentioned or appointed in the Law of Moses and yet it was an excellent constitution p. 63. For there were some sacrifices that were sacrifices of all Israel and particularly the daily Sacrifice now it was impossible that all Israel should be present at the Sacrifices that were to be Offered up for all Israel and therefore it was needful that some Representatives should be chosen who instead and behalf of all the People should be present at every Sacrifice that should be Offered up for the whole Congregation Now because it would be too heavy for one Company of Men to attend continually on this Work as the daily Sacrifice required therefore they appointed twenty four Courses of these stationary Men as well as of the Priests and Levites that their attendance in these vicissitudes might be the more easie for which cause also was made the like division of the Priests and Levites p. 64. There was Sacrificing in the Temple Service twice a day and reading of the Law at least twice and Prayers four times and it became them and behoved them if it had been possible to have been all attending there but because this could not possibly be done they ordained these Courses of Stationary Men to be as the Deputies of all the People and a Representative Congregation in their behalf It had been an open contempt of those ordinances if being daily Administred none of the People had attended at them and it would have been a hazard that in time they might have been neglected by the People if they had been left to their own liberty to come or not come to them as they saw good therefore to prevent this visible contempt that might have accrued and to provide that there might be always a Congregation of the People These Stationary Courses were ordained that if Devotion brought no other of the People to the Service yet these their Representatives might be sure to be there That the High Priest should confess over the Scape Goat all the Iniquities of the Children of Israel and all their Transgressions in all their Sins we read Lev. 16.21 But in the Law of Moses we find no form of Words which the High Priest was to use and therefore the Rulers of the Church appointed him to say Ah Lord thy People the House of Israel have sinned and done perversly p. 173. and transgressed before thee I beseech thee now Oh Lord expiate the sins perversities and transgressions which the House of Israel thy People have sinned done perversly and transgressed before thee c. in the same Chapter the High Priest is Commanded to Offer a Bullock for a sin Offering for himself v. 6 11. to make an Atonement for himself and for his House Atonement for sin could not be made without confession of it provided that the sin were known it was therefore necessary that he should make confession of his sin in order to this Atonement wherefore no Words of confession being prescribed by the Law of Moses p. 171. they ordered him to say Ah Lord I have sinned done perversly and transgressed before thee I and my House I beseech thee oh Lord expiate the sins perversities and transgressions whereby I have sinned done perversly and transgressed I and mine House c. Moreover by every sin and trespass Offering Atonement was to be made and so the sin of the offendor was to be confessed but there being no form of confession mention'd in the Law of Moses the Rulers ordered the offendor to confess in this wise I have sinned p. 69. and done perversly I have rebelled and done thus and thus but I return by repentance before thee and let this be my expiation The Law of Moses in many cases appointed a Meat Offering but neither determined of the quantity of Corn or Oyl to be brought for it and therefore the Rulers determined that no Meat Offering should consist of less than the tenth part of an Ephah of Corn p. 95. and a Log of Oyl Moreover a Man that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem was fallen under such an offence for which a Sacrifice was due by the Law p. 99. the enquiry hereupon was what must he do must he away presently thither to offer his Offering must he
of Tongues in Prayer and pray in words not understood by him that prayed § 2. To the Objection that forms of Prayer do stint the Spirit it is answered 1. That if this be meant of the Spirit of the Minister it may and in some cases must be stinted by Precept Apostolical 2. That Christ did stint the Spirit of his Disciples by prescribing them a form of Prayer 3. That the Directory doth the same by prescribing the matter of Prayer if the Objectors mean that a Form of Prayer doth stint the Holy Spirit 1. That it cannot be proved that the Spirit is injured by prescribing a Form 2. That the Directory and all premeditated Prayers do the same thing § 2. Secondly Because our Blessed Lord hath commanded and approved of a Form of Prayer § 3. Four Corollaries thence ibid. Thirdly Because Forms of Prayers have constantly been used in the Church of God from the third Century § 4. Fourthly Because all premeditated Prayer is in effect a form so that we must either pray without consideration or by form § 5. Six advantages of Praying by a prescribed Liturgy in the publick service of God § 6. THE Ceremonies required by the Church being own'd as lawful and her Festivals approved as such no Exceptions can be farther made against Communion with her besides those which do concern her Liturgy and those I shall consider in handling these two Propositions 1. That a prescribed Liturgy is lawful 2ly That there is nothing in the prescribed Liturgy of the Church of England to which her Lay Members may not yield obedience or which can render their Communion with her sinful or unlawful to them § 1 That a stinted Liturgy containing a prescribed Form of words is lawful Prop. 1 and that Dissenters therefore cannot reasonably scruple to join in Prayer with the Congregation where such a Liturgy is used This I prove Argum. 1 1. Because such a Liturgy is not forbidden in the Word of God now Sin being the transgression of the Law there can be no transgression in doing that which is forbidden by no Law Moreover where there is no command there is no duty and therefore no transgression by neglect of Duty but holy Scripture doth afford no Precept commanding us to Pray without a Form and therefore we cannot transgress by the neglect of Duty though we do not so Pray Now that a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden needs no other proof than this that no such prohibition can be shewed from Scripture but yet ex abundanti I thus argue that which is not sorbidden in general by virtue of the Precept which commands us not to add unto the word of God nor in particular by any Precept which in words direct or consequential forbid us when we Pray to use a form is not at all forbid But thus it is with reference to a stinted Liturgy Ergo. And 1. That the use of stinted Forms of Prayer not prescribed in Scripture is not forbidden by virtue of this Precept which commands us not to add unto the word of God is evident 1. From the exposition I have already given of those words 2ly Because no reason can be given why praying by a Form should be esteemed adding to the word of God rather than Praying without a Form God having in the Old Testament commanded Prayer by Form but never Prayer without it 3ly The Jews to whom this prohibition of adding to the Word was given did as I have observed from Dr. Leightfoot and as the Learned Mr. Selden hath informed us Not. in Eâ—tych p. 43. p. 41 42. use eighteen Prayers or Benedictions called in the Gemara composed or appointed Prayers that these were instituted by Ezra and his consistory to be used by every one daily by Law or received custome and that this remedy was applyed by the men of the great Synagogue Ezra and his hundred and twenty Collegues after the Babylonish Captivity that they might not recede either in the matter of their Prayers or their expressions from the Form of Piety commanded them by God They also prescribed a Form of Confession to be used by the People when they offered their Trespass-Offerings Leight Temple-Service p. 69. p. 173. and by the High-Priest when he confessed over the live Goat the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And lastly it was ordinary for their Teachers to compose Forms for their Disciples as is observed by Dr. Leightfoot In Mat. 6.9 by all which considerations it is evident that they conceived not such Forms forbidden by the prohibition to add unto the word of God And 4ly John taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer and Christ not only joined with the Forms which were appointed to be used in the Jewish Church but did himself prescribe a Form of Prayer for his Disciples by all which instances it is demonstratively evident that Forms of Prayer were not forbidden by virtue of the Precepts commanding the Jews not to add unto the Word of God 2ly That there is no especial Precept in the Old or the New Testament which doth in words direct or consequential forbid the Christian when he prays to use a Form will be apparent from an impartial consideration of what is offered from Scripture by way of objection against the use of Forms viz. that they are contrary to Scripture Precept Promise and Example 1. To Scripture Precept for that say they Jude 20. commands us to pray always in the Spirit Ephes 6.18 and in the Holy Ghost which in the Scripture Language is Praying by the Gift and the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and so is not consistent with Praying by prescribed Forms Answ 1 The same Persons who are here bid to pray in the Spirit are in the foregoing Chapter exhorted to be filled with the Spirit speaking to themselves in Psalms and Hymns Eph. 5.18 19. and spiritual Songs And yet Dissenters dare not hence conclude that they must sing ex tempore and not in stinted Metre why therefore do they plead from the like words in the forecited places that they are bound to Pray ex tempore and not in stinted words do they not sing the Psalms of David as they have been translated into English Metre and other Hymns composed by Pious Men do not these Psalms and Hymns contain Prayers and Petitions as well as thanksgivings yea is not thanksgiving it self in Scripture reckoned as one part of Prayer as is apparent from these words the Pharisee prayed thus God I thank thee that I am not as other men are Luk. 18.11 I will pray with the understanding else how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks 1 Cor. 14.15 16. Now I would gladly know why notwithstanding these Scriptures it should be lawful to use a Form of Prayer in Verse and not in Prose whether the Spirit be not as able to assist them in the first as in the latter or by what passage in these
all persons to obey those that have the rule over them Heb. 13.17 and submit themselves Rom. 13.1.5 1 Pet. 2.13 and to be subject to the higher powers as to the ordinance of God and that for Conscience sake and the Lords sake He that can satisfie his Conscience in his refusal so to do must shew some Law of God as evidently forbidding his obedience to what Superious do enjoin P. 197. as do these Scriptures command obedience to them in all lawful things I having therefore in this Treatise answered all your pretences for such a prohibition of the Holy Scripture forbidding your submission to the Rites and Constitutions of the Church of England enjoined by Superiors have made it manifest that you can never satisfie your Consciences in your refusal to submit unto them nor can you or your Leaders return a satisfactory Answer to the Questions propounded by that Author to you in these words P. 58. Do they prefer mercy before Sacrifice or comply with the forementioned injunctions of Obedience to their Superiors who will not submit to Rites or Circumstances or to the use of things no where forbidden in the word to prevent Schism and all the dreadful consequences of it but rather will give cause to their Superiors to judge them scandalous Resisters of Authority and pertinacious Disturbers of the Churches Peace 59. Do not they scandalize offend and contribute unto the Ruine of Christs little stock who do involve them in a wretched Schism on the account of things which they may lawfully submit to Do not they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men who forbid them to enter when they may Do not they impose heavy burthens also who say to their Disciples Hear not the Common Prayer Receive not the Sacrament Kneeling suffer not your Children to be signed with the Cross Communicate not with that Minister who wears a Surplice or with that Church which imposeth any Ceremonies or any Constitutions but concerning the time and place of performing Publick Worship If nothing doth so scandalize Christs followers as to find their Teachers at discord and divided can they act as becometh his Disciples who are not willing to procure Vnity and Concord and to avoid this scandal by their submission to things indifferent in their own nature and not forbiden in the law of God § 2 Thirdly He pleads for this submission from that great rule of equity which calls upon you to do to others as you would be dealt with putting the Question to you thus p. 187. Do not you expect obedience from your Children and Servants in like cases Should you command them to come at ten of the Clock into your Parlour to Family Devotions requiring them to come dressed and to kneel at their Devotions would you permit them to refuse to come at the time and to the place appointed because all times and places are indifferent to God or in the garb appointed by you because God regards not habits or to refuse to kneel because they may pray standing Would you not rather judge them contemners of your lawful authority and needlesly and sinfully scrupulous in those matters And must not you by the same Rule be guilty of contemning the lawful Authority of your Civil and Spiritual Fathers and of the Masters of Christs Family by your refusal to submit unto their Constitutions in matters of like nature upon the like accounts or can those Principles derive from him who is the God of order not of confusion 1 Cor. 15.33 which would so evidently should they obtain fill Families as well as Kingdoms and Churches with confusion and destroy their order § 3 Fourthly He argues ad hominem thus If notwithstanding the evidence produced p. 289. that Baptism by immersion is sutable both to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles and was by them ordained to represent our Burial with Christ and so our dying unto Sin Rom. 6.4 Coloss 2.12 and our conformity to his resurrection by newness of life as the Apostle clearly doth explain the meaning of that Rite I say if notwithstanding this Dissenters do agree to sprinkle the baptized Infant why may they not as well submit to the significant ceremonies imposed by our Church for since it is as lawful to add unto Christs institutions a significant ceremony as to diminish a significant ceremony which he or his Apostles instituted and use another in its stead which they did never institute what reason can they have to do the latter and yet refuse submission to the former and why should not the peace and union of the Church be as prevailing with them to perform the one as is their mercy to the Infants body to neglect the other And § 4 Fifthly The said Author shews that our divisions do highly prejudice the Christian Faith Chap. 1. that they gratify the Infidel and Sceptick and scandalize the weak and doubting Christian that they minister to the advantage of the Papist and to the prejudice of the true Protestant Religion that they are highly prejudicial to the State that they have a pernicious influence upon our selves by promoting strife enmity carnality and all the evils consequent upon them by obstructing the love peace unity order and edification of the Church and the benefit of our Prayers by hindring the efficacy of the means of Grace by depriving us of all the blessings of love and peace and by endangering our eternal peace And hence he strongly doth infer That if Dissenters do not think it better that all these evils should ensue than that they should comply or bear with those few ceremonies P. 22. and scrupled expressions of our Liturgy then must they in these matters submit to the commands of their Superiours And p. 29. he puts this serious Question to Dissenters Whether those ceremonies and those expressions in our Liturgy which they at present scruple be so plainly evil and so unquestionably forbidden that for preventing all these dreadful evils they may not be complyed with adding That if they be not so clearly and indispensably evil that these great ends of the promoting the salvation of mens Souls and the preventing of the forementioned evils which do inevitably ensue upon them cannot hallow them they cannot be excused from being accessary to those evils which ensue upon their separating from and their dividing of the Church on these accounts Now that Dissenters cannot rationally judge these things to be thus clearly and indispensably evil or think it better that all these mischiefs should ensue than that they should submit unto them he seems convincingly to prove from these considerations 1. Chap. 6. §. 1. from p. 167. to p. 170. That the duties of promoting Christian love peace unity and the edification of the Church and the preventing of Division Schism and the disturbance of the Civil Government are moral and essential duties which will admit no dispensation so that it is the duty
conform with doubting Consciences Or 3ly By grieving them Or 4ly By causing them to separate from our Communion 6ly We are not to abstain from that indifferent action which may Scandalize our Brother when by forbearance of that action as great if not a greater Scandal is Administred to others this proved to be the case in our refusal to comply with the Commands of our Superiors in Lawful matters 7ly The Scandal caused by the Dissenter refusing to do what Lawfully he may is Scandal given the scandal Ministred by the Conformist can be only Scandal received § 1.9 Objections of Amesius and Mr. Jeans Answered § 2. Some unsatisfactory Answers to the Objection from Scandal noted as v. g. 1. That the Scandal which the weak conceive at our Conformity is passive whereas 't is only active Scandal which we are concerned to avoid 2ly That Scandal is an action done with intent to ensnare Men in sin since therefore none can judge that by imposing or submitting to our Ceremonies this is intended they cannot truly be Scandalized 3ly That we can give no sinful Scandal by using of our Ceremonies because we give a reason of our action 4ly That they are to be deemed obstinate who after a reason given are still Scandalized and so their Scandal is Pharisaical and not to be regarded § 3. CHAP. VII Obj. 4 THAT which doth Minister Scandal to weak Brethren must not be done § 1 saith the Dissenter no not at the Command of our Superiors but by submitting to and using the imposed Ceremonies we minister Scandal to weak Brethren And therefore we must not submit unto them To lay foundations of a full and satisfactory Answer unto this Objection I lay down these ensuing Propositions 1. That Scandal is an action whereby occasion is ministred to the sin fall or ruine of our weak Brother it is any thing saith St. Paul by which our Brother stumbleth or is offended Rom. 14.21 it is a stumbling block or an occasion to fall put in our Brothers way v. 13. Where note 1. That under the Word action is comprehended 1. words tending to the same effect And 2ly omissions of actionswhich have the same consequence 2ly This Scandal may be Ministred as well by doing of our Duty as by doing Evil. So the Preaching of the Cross was to the Jews a stumbling block 1 Cor. 1.23 2 Cor. 2.16 the Gospel Preached is to many a savour of death and Christ himself is said to be to many a Stone of stumbling 1 Pet. 2.8 and a Rock of offence and the occasion of their fedling It therefore is erroneously said that our action Coroll tho it may displease yet cannot minister occasion of Scandal to both parties for tho 't is true I cannot give a just occasion of offence by doing or omitting the same action for then I must lie under a necessity of sinning it being necessary for me either to do or to omit the doing of it It is as true that some weak Persons may take offence at my performing and others be as much offended at my omitting the same action Prop. 2 That Scandal sin or fall of others which is occasioned by doing of my Duty cannot be my sin and so I cannot be obliged to avoid it the reason is because I cannot sin in doing of my Duty and because I must not do Evil Rom. 3.8 as the neglect of Duty is that good may come Hence it doth clearly follow Coroll that by obedience to the lawful commands of my Superiors I cannot be guilty of sinful Scandalizing of my Brother because obedience in such cases is my Duty Obj. No human ordinance can take away the condition of Scandal from that action which would otherwise be Scandal that is which being not commanded would be Scandal Answ It is sufficient if it can take away the sin of Scandal and that it doth by making that become my Duty which Scandalizeth my weak Brother We do not say the sin of Scandal is avoided simply by the Lawfulness of the action which we do for tho all meats were lawful in the Apostles time yet this would not excuse the Gentile Christian from sin in eating of those meats which gave offence to his weak Brother but then say we the sin of Scandal is avoided when the action being lawful in it self is necessary in obedience to Superiors and for the exercise of our Ministry and for the peace of the Church and the prevention of Schisms and separations in and from it with all their fatal consequences it being all Mens Duty by all lawful means to prosecute these good ends Prop. 3 They who Object the case of Scandal as the ground of their refusal to submit unto these Constitutions must confess or dispute against them from this Topick upon this supposition that they are in themselves indifferent and that 't is only the mistake of our weak Brother which can lay this restraint upon our practice in such matters because from matters in themselves evil or forbidden we are obliged to abstain tho no such Scandal should ensue upon the practice of them Prop. 4 As far as I am able to discern we cannot Minister occasion of Scandal to our weak Brother by submitting to these commands of our Superiors but either 1st By Ministring occasion to his rash judgment and censure of our action as an Evil deed Or 2ly By moving him by our example to conform even while he doubts the lawfulness thereof and so to do it with a doubting Conscience and therefore to his own damnation Rom. 14.23 which seems to be the Scandal mentioned 1 Cor. 8.10 11. Or 3ly By grieving him to see those things are practised by us which he condemneth in his Conscience which seems to be the Scandal spoken of Rom. 14.15 Or 4ly By causing him to separate from our Communion upon these accounts and by so doing to incur the guilt of Schism Prop. 5 We are not saith Mr. Jeans obliged to abstain from that indifferent action which may Scandalize our Brother when by forbearance of that action as great Scholast dispute p. 102. if not a greater Scandal is Administred to others for as St. Bernard truly saith Prudenter anim advertendum est Scandalum Scandalo non emendari qualis emendatio erit si ut aliis Scandalum tollas alios Scandalizas We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another which kind of emendation we should practise if to take off offence from one party we give offence unto another for in this case we must have as much reason on the account of Scandal to do as to forbear the action Now it is certain that our refusal to comply with our Superiors Command in lawful matters doth Minister occasion of like Scandal in all particulars forementioned For 1. The Magistrate and they who think themselves obliged to submit to his injunctions are as much grieved to see Men stifly to persist in disobedience to
his commands in lawful matters as our weak Brethren can be to see us yield obedience to him in such things 2ly Others will be as prone to censure our refusal of Obedience as Turbulent Sehismatical as disobedience to the Higher Powers and disorderly walking as the weak Brother is to censure our Conformity as Popish Superstitious and the like And 3ly Why may not others be as well tempted by their refusal to conform to separate and to do as they do with a doubting Conscience as the weak Brother may by our conformity be tempted likewise to conform with a doubting Conscience Moreover whosoever doth consider the temper of the Nonconformists will find occasion to believe that there is little fear of drawing them by our examples to conform but rather that they will be apt to censure us for our Conformity and could we do so we should only tempt them to perform their Duty tho against their Conscience Prop. 6 The Scandal caused by the Dissenter on supposition that he refuses where he may lawfully obey which is the case in question is Scandalum datum i.e. Scandal arising from the omission of his Duty the Scandal ministred by the Conformist can be only Scandalum acceptum sed non datum or Scandal arising not from the action of him that doth conform but from the ignorance and weakness of him who is offended at his doing so for certainly by doing of my Duty in things lawful I give to my weak Brother no just occasion to be grieved at what I do or to pass censure on me as an Evil doer or to Separate from Communion with me or to do with a doubting Conscience what he sees me do but by omission of my Duty to Superiors I shall give just occasion both to them and all who peaceably conform to grieve at my action to pass their censures on me as a disobedient Person And if I do by my example occasion the omission of my Brothers Duty and his separation I shall be justly charged with his guilt as Ministring temptation to him by that example to neglect what lawfully he mought and by God is Commanded to perform and so I must offend him more in the Apostles sense by tempting him to sin or to continue in sin The sum is this by refusing to conform in such a lawful case lest we should offend our weak Brother we seem directly to sin our selves to avoid an occasion of sin in him we do as far as I can judge offend God the King the Law the Church and Conscience too by not doing our Duty lest we should offend our Brother by doing it Now sure it must concern us more to avoid a Scandal given with these circumstances then to avoid a Scandal which is only taken Now from these Propositions it is easie to return an Answer to all that is Objected by Amesins Scholast disp p. 42 43. and transcribed by Mr. Jeans to prove the unreasonableness of this Assertion That Authority is to be obeyed in things Lawful even tho Scandal should ensue against this Doctrine which he ascribeth to our Prelates he disputes thus Obj. 1 A Scandal in the nature of it is Spiritual murther § 2 now suppose a Superior should command a thing in it self indifferent whereupon Murther were like to follow as to run a Horse or a Cart in a certain way at a certain time when it may be unwitting to the Commander little Children were playing in the way would any Mans Conscience ferve him to do it Answ Yes if he saw there were more or like danger of as great mischief by running of this Horse or driving of this Cart in any other way which as I have already shewed is the present case with reference to our refusal of Obedience to the Commands of our Superiors concerning things indifferent and Lawful in themselves Obj. 2 Avoiding of Scandal is a main Duty of Charity may Superiors at their pleasure appoint how far I shall shew my Charity towards my Brother then surely an Inferior Earthly Court may cross the determination of the High Court of Heaven Answ This argument I thus retort Obedience to Superiors Civil and Sacred is a main Duty of Christianity and to avoid all Schisms and Divisions of the Church which is Christs Body all disturbance of her Peace all needless Seperations from her Communion are all important Duties of Christianity may then the ignorance and consequential weakness of my Brother appoint how far I shall be obedient to Gods Vice-Gerent or Christs Messengers how far I shall avoid dividing and disturbing of the Churches Peace then surely may my Brothers ignorance and error cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven what if they be offended at my paying Tribute in that Quotum which the Law of our Superiors prescribes will Charity oblige me to refuse to pay it Or is it not as much my Duty to obey Gods Vice-Gerents in all other Lawful matters as in the ease of Tribute Is not the precept as express for the one as for the other 2ly This strongly proveth it our Duty in the present circumstances to conform since by refusal so to do we only exercise our Charity towards our weak Brother but by conforming we exercise like Charity and care to avoid Scandal towards more and more deserving Persons and also do avoid dividing and disturbing of the Churches Peace By our refusal to conform to lawful institutions of Superiors that so we may avoid the Scandal of weak Brethren we disobey them whom God Commands us to obey we harden our weak Brother in his Disobedience and Schism we rob our selves of the benefit of the Publick Ordinances bring Penalties and Excommunications on our selves we rob the Church of her Unity Peace and Love and if we be Ministers we deprive our selves of opportunity to exercise our calling to the good of Souls now to avoid the Scandal of a weak Brother by incurring all this guilt is so far from being a main Duty of Charity that it doth flatly contradict the ground and measure of all Charity Self-Love and seemeth to be only doing many Evils that one good may come Obj. 3 Superiors have no power given them for destruction but for Edification if therefore they Command Scandals they go beyond their Commission neither are we tied therein to do as they bid but as they should bid Answ 1. If they Command us to do that which of its own Nature giveth Scandal by being a direct and an immediate cause of sin 't is true we must not do as they bid but as they should bid or rather as their great Superior bids but not if they Command what only through the sin or ignorance of others proves to them a Scandal especially when our refusal to obey them will Minister an equal Scandal which is apparently the present case 2ly I Answer That it belongs not to private persons to enquire whether their Superiors do go beyond their Commission in Commanding of these
Argument and shewing that their disobedience to the Commands of their Superiors in Lawful things more likely renders them partakers of the sin of others 2ly That our Submission to Superiors in these matters cannot render us partakers of their supposed sin § 1. This farther proved from the consideration of all the ways which render us partakers of the sins of others directly or indirectly Directly 1. By actually consenting to willing or approving the sin of others 2ly By commanding the doing of it 3ly By perswading encouraging warranting or alluring others to the performance of sin by applauding the action or rejoycing in the doing of it 4ly By teaching false Doctrins which do encourage others to sin § 2. Indirectly 1. When we do that which is a culpable occasion of their sin As 1. By neglecting of that Duty or by committing of that Evil action which doth directly give occasion to the sin of others 2ly When by our ill example we minister occasion to their sin 3ly When we do use our Liberty in things indifferent to the offence or sin of our weak Brother § 3. That our submission to things Lawful in themselves commanded by Superiors can neither directly nor indirectly involve us in guilt § 4. Jnst 2. By partaking with you in the Holy Sacrament who do not separate the Precious from the Vile we should approve of your neglect of discipline and by partaking with them become partakers in their sins Answered § 5. CHAP. VII § 1 IN the last place it is objected that their Submission to the imposed Rites will render them purtakers of the sin of others and therfore ought not to be done This they endeavour to make good upon a double ground And 1. We dare not joyn with you say they in Publick Worship or the participation of the Holy Sacraments Because some things are by Superiors required of all those who are permitted to joyn with you in those Ordinances which tho they are not evil in themselves yet ought they not to be required as the conditions of Communion they being things unnecessary now should we say they yield obedience to them in these things we should countenance them in their imposing these unnecessary burthens upon others and harden them in that which we suppose to be their sin and should encourage their persistance in it and so should be partakers in that Guilt Moreover the Rigid imposition of these things say they tends to divide the Church to make men Schismaticks and so it ministers to the destruction of poor Souls we dare not therefore submit unto the practise of them lest by so doing we approve of those Unchristian practices To this pretence I Answer 1. By Retorting of the Argument for the refusal of obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters hath the like and more pernitious consequences and therefore they at least have equal cause to yield obedience to such constitutions of Superiors on this account lest by refusing that obedience they approve the more Unchristian practises of those who rend the Church desert Communion with her Schismatically separate themselves disturb the Unity the Peace the Charity and the Edification of her Members and cast a vile reproach upon Christianity by representing it as that which doth forbid obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters and harden others in these sins all which is manifestly done by their refusal to obey the Constitutions of Superiors in Lawful matters 2. Did our Submission to any thing which our Superiors should not command make us partakers of their sin then every Burthensome and Grievous Act of Parliament which after it is made tends more unto the prejudice then to the good of the Community not only Lawfully might but must be disobeyed for Conscience sake lest by submitting to it we should encourage our Superiors to impose Grievous burthens on the Subject so that this scruple will lead to Faction in the State as well as to Sedition in the Church And 2ly If this were so that by submitting to any thing Commanded by Superiors which we do not approve of or they should not impose we become Guilty of the Sin of the Imposers then must our Lord and his Apostles be Guilty of like sin for they did ordinarily joyn with the People of the Jews in their Publick Service on the Sabbath day and at their other Festivals as I have shewed already altho they who then sat in Moses chair imposed more Rites and Ceremonies to be observed in those parts of Publick Worship then are imposed in our Church 3ly Then also must St. Paul be Guilty of approving those who did impose the Jewish Ceremonies as necessary to be observed by the Jew converted to Christianity because for peace sake he himself submittedto them and to the Jew became as a Jew that he might gain the Jew He also must himself approve and advise others to approve the judgment and the practice of those Jews who thought the Meats forbidden by the Law of Moses unlawful to be eaten the days appointed by that Law still necessary to be observed because he did himself and he advised others to comply with them in their weakness or to abstain from eating of those meats when that would minister occasion of Offence to their weak Brethren and so according to the Grounds of this objection he himself encouraged and hard'ned other persons in their sin and he advised others so to do But § 2 3ly To give more ample satisfaction to this scruple I shall consider all the ways whereby we become guilty of the sin of others and then apply them to the case in hand We therefore may become partakers of the sin of others either directly when we do actually consent unto will or approve the evil action which is done by others or indirectly when tho we do not actually consent unto the sin of others yet do we that which is a culpable occasion of it 1. Directly when we do actually consent unto will or approve the sin of others Now this is done two ways 1. Antecedently to the Evil action as when 't is done by our command direction or perswasion or consequently when tho we had no hand in doing of it yet we do afterwards censent unto approve or do rejoyce in any Evil done by others 2ly Directly we partake with others in their sin and Antecedently are guilty of it when having power over them we do command the doing of it for this Command is a plain evidence that we do will the Evil action and desire that it may be done Thus Absalom slew Amnon because he commanded his servants saying when I say unto you smite Amnon then kill him fear not have not I Commanded you 2 Sam. 13.30.28 thus David numbred the People 2 Sam. 24.10 by commanding Joab so to do v. 4. He kill'd Uriah the Hittite with the Sword 2 Sam. 12.9 because at the command of David he was put into the front of the Battel that he died 3ly We are directly partakers
with another in his sin and Antecedently are guilty of it when we perswade encourage warrant allure or set him on to the performance of it for by all these actions we shew that we are willing and desirous that the sin be done which in the sight of God is to commit it Thus Jeroboam made Israel to sin by providing his two Golden Calves and saying to them it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 1 Kings 12.28 30. and chap. 13.34 1 Cor. 2.8 thus the chief Rulers crucified the Lord of Glory tho the Souldiers did it because they sought false witness against him Matt. 26.59 they pronounced him guilty of death v. 66. they perswaded the multitude to ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus Matt. 27 20. Thus did the People kill the Prince of Peace Act. 3.15 Because they hearkning to these perswasions of the chief Priests cryed out to Pontius Pilate let him be crucified thus also are we guilty of the sin of others upon the same account by counselling or by advising them to what is Evil by consenting to or by approving it before 't is done 4ly We are directly partakers with another in his sin and become guilty of it consequentially when we consent unto or do approve the Evil done when we applaud the action or rejoyce that it is done because in all these cases we shew our willingness that what is Evil should be done Ep. 2. v. 10. He saith St. John who bids the Heretick good speed is partaker of his Evil deeds for by this wish he sheweth his good liking to his Heresie expressing his desire that it may prosper and prevail whence it must follow by like reason that whosoever doth approve or shew good liking to or doth desire or wish that they may prosper or prevail who are engaged in a wicked action become partakers of its guilt Hence is he charged as one who hates instruction and casts Gods Law behind his back who when he seeth a Thief consenteth to him Psal 50.18 and this is made an aggravation of the guilt of Heathens that knowing the judgment of God that they who did such things were worthy of death they not only did the same but had pleasure in them that did them Rom. 1.32 The reason is because he who doth praise an Evil action doth approve it as good and worthy of his commendation and therefore shews that he is willing that it should be done and so doth also he who doth rejoyce at or taketh pleasure in the commission of it 5ly They do almost in all these ways incur the guilt of others sins who teach false Doctrines which do encourage others in a course of sin who plead for that as good and Righteous which is Wicked and teach that to be innocent and harmless which indeed is sinful and so incur the Wo denounced against them who call evil good and good evil Esa 5.20 for that by such erroneous Doctrines Men may in all these ways contract the guilt of others sins is evident from this consideration that if Men call evil good they by so doing must encourage perswade and warrant others to commit it and justifie them in their wicked practices and if they call good evil they must deter them from the performance of their Duty and must encourage them to sin by the neglect of that performance And therefore they who do deter Men from joyning with our Congregations as being guilty of Superstitious Worship or doing things forbidden by the word of God if they prove guilty in this matter of false accusation as I think they are must be partakers of that Schism which others resting on their judgments are encouraged to make for they must then Command them not to do what 't is their Duty in obedience to their Superiors and love unto their Churches Peace and Unity to do and must encourage them in and praise them for that disobedience and Separation which is indeed their sin § 3 2ly We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others when tho we do not actually consent unto or will their sin nor have we any purpose or design to tempt them to it or ensnare them in it yet do we that which is a culpable occasion of their sin and where 't is through our fault that others sin we cannot be wholly excused from the guilt of their iniquity Now thus we may be charged with the sin of others 1. By neglecting of that Duty or by committing of that Evil action which doth directly give occasion to the sin of others for most assuredly that sin which doth immediately happen through my neglect of Duty or is the plain result of my Transgression must be mine offence For even Heathens have declared that qui non vetat peccare cum potest jubet He that when he hath Power to restrain Men from committing Evil and hath Authority from God committed to him for that end neglects to do it he becomes guilty of those sins which through neglect of his Authority and Duty others do commit thus If the Watch-man do not warn the sinner who dies in his iniquity his Blood will be required at the Watch-mans hands Ezek. 33. v. 8. Thus the iniquity of Eli's Sons is charged upon him 1 Sam. 3.13 because they made themselves vile and he restrained them not And since it is the Christians Duty to admonish his offending Brother and not to suffer sin upon him therefore he by neglecting of this Duty becomes guilty of his sin hence we thus Read Levit. 19.17 Thou shalt reprove thy Brother and not bear sin for him or that thou be not punished for his iniquity Now where the Righteous judg doth threaten to punish us for other Mens Transgressions we may be sure that we are truly guilty of them 2ly We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others when by our ill example we minister occasion to their sin and by our freedom to commit an Evil action we encourage others tho we do not intend it to commit the like for hereby we at least if we be persons of Authority and credit do put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in our Brothers way and therefore walk not Charitably nor sutably unto that Precept which Commands us to give none offence to Jew or Gentile 3ly We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others when we do use our liberty in things indifferent to the offence or sin of our weak Brother i. e. when tho we know that our weak Brother is like to be offended or tempted by our practice of that indifferentaction to do evil we will not tho we have it in our power so to do abstain from the performance of it Hence the Apostle doth exhort all Christians to take heed lest by using of their Liberty in matters of this Nature they become a stumbling block to those that are weak 1 Cor.
that account is never in the least insinuated this therefore Principles of love p 44. saith Mr. Baxter to his dissenting Brethren you may observe that no one Member is in these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any one of all these Churches as if Communion with them in Worship were unlawful and therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater reasons for it than any of these recited were And to confirm this Answer it deserves to be considered that we find in the New Testament express injunctions directed to the whole body of the Christian Churches requiring them to refuse Communion in their private conversations with such persons or to renounce familiarity with them not to company with them 1 Cor. 5.9 Not to eat with them v. 11. To mark them who cause divisions and scandals contrary to the Doctrine which they had received and avoid them Rom. 16.17 To withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly Thess 2.3 6. To have no company with them that they may be ashamed v. 14. We also find the Angels or Officers of the Church oft blamed for this neglect by Christ and his Apostles as in the case of the Incestuous Person the case of Pergamos and Thyatira where they were suffered who taught the Doctrins of the Nicolaitans of Balaam and of Jezebel that is both spiritual and carnal fornication This I have against thee O Thyatira that thou permittest Jezebel Vid. Synops in locum quod eam non coerces censuris Ecclesiae that thou doest not execute the censures of the Church upon her this against thee O Pergamos that thou hast those who teach the Doctrine of Balaam whereas thou being the Angel of the Church shouldst have fought against them with the Spiritual Sword as did the Angel who resisted Balaam because his way Numb 22.22 23. Hebr. 12.15 was perverse before God We find them call'd upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to execute the Office of a Bishop by looking diligently that no such persons be among them and warned of the great danger that the Whole lump might be exposed to by such Soure Leaven We lasty find our Saviour praising the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not bear them but never do we find our Lord or his Apostles calling the People to come out from them or to be separate but only in such cases as did oblige them to touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 that is to joyn in their Idolatries or partake with them in their Sins From which Considerations Rev. 18.4 it follows as Estius well notes that the Governors of the Church which tolerate Such Persons in the Church offend and that the People who use familiar converse with them do likewise offend but it by no means follows that they who do perform the publick duties of Religion where they are present do offend and as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Unreas of Sep. p. 217. Stillingfleet well notes There be many Reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to Publick Communion and which may render it the Christians duty to do the first and not the latter For our Communion in Publick is a thing which Chiefly Respects God and is a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his promises and all the Communion we have with other men therein is only that of Christ and his Apostles with Judas at the Paschal Supper joyning together for the performance of a Common Religious duty But private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the persons we converse with it is a thing of meer choice and of much danger it being hardly to be imagined without approbation at least if not imitation of their wickedness And to this the concurrent judgment of the Old Nonconformists who did not think this want of Discipline sufficient cause of separation from Communion with us for having laid this as a foundation that no man ought to separate from a true Church requiring nothing sinful of him Grav confut p. 18. in order to Communion with them they add that altho it were Granted that we wanted both the exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a true Church notwithstanding as there was a true Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline reformed there till the latter end of Jehosaphats Reign The Church of Corinth was a true Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline the Congregation of Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there and even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before Sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were Gathered some Good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that howsoever those parts of the Discipline which we want be necessary to the beauty and well being and perservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a true Church may be without them 2ly They add Ibid. p. 51.52 That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the will and consent of the Christian Magistrate and Governors of the Church yea they declare that in so doing they should highly offend they are bound saith Giffard P. 59 95 100 101 102. by the bands of Conscience and the fear of God from presuming to take upon them publick Authority And if so it is evident that they cannot chuse Pastors for themselves and set up other Churches and Church Governors to exercise the Churches Discipline because they do conceive it is neglected by the Christian Magistrate and other Governors of the Church Yea lastly let me ask our dissenting Brethren if on account of this supposed neglect of Discipline they think themselves obliged to desert Communion with the Church of England whether will they go The Church of Rome they know besides her other errors is more Guilty of this crime than we men may be any thing in their Communion provided that they be not Hereticks and still be owned as Genuine Members of their Church The rest of the Reformed Churches are as loose as we their Members Generally are as corrupt in manners as ours are the same may be affirmed of the Eastern Churches they therfore must acknowledge that they cannot lawfully maintain Communion with any other Church on this account and that there always was even since the reformation a necessity of separation from all Christian Churches in the world for this neglect of Discipline or that they notwithstanding this supposed neglect may hold Communion with the Church of England now have
tho Accidentally and by Performing their own duty occasion to the Sin of Eli's Sons What therefore I may do for the procuring the Spiritual Good of others from whom I am commanded to withdraw may be more certainly performed for the procuring of my own Spiritual Good by my participation of the Ordinances of Christ from Persons authorized by him and his Vicegerents to administer them what may be done in order to their welfare who are unworthy of Communion with us that may much more be done in order to the Churches Good for the promotion of her Peace and Unity and the prevention of those Schisms by which she is so much endangered and if those words I will have mercy and not sacrifice will warrant our Communion with wicked persons with whom we are forbid to eat when it may be a means of their conversion why then may it not warrant our Communion with them in Sacred things when this Communion is a means of our salvation and of the Churches Peace which is one of the chiefest ends of Discipline If Christians were not call'd to separate on the account of those impure Gnosticks who did feast among them and eat at the Lords Table with them why should they separate from the same Ordinances on the account of some profane Professors who are mix'd with our Assemblies And lastly If the People did transgress who came not up to Shilo to offer their accustomed oblations there tho they to whom they were to be presented and by whom they were to be offered were Sons of Belial and they alone did sanctifie and offer the Peace-offerings of which the People were afterwards to eat I fear they also will transgress who upon less pretences will not come unto our Shilo's the places of our publick Worship It may be doubted whether all those men whose presence with us in our Church Assemblies doth so much offend Dissenters Prop. 9. deserve immediately to be secluded from Communion with us seeing they seem not to have been both privately and publickly admonish'd by the Church for how can it be said they will not hear the Church when they have never been admonished by her to reform or threatned with her censures if they will not do it they therefore cannot be esteemed contumacious or such as will not hear the Church and so they are not presently to be excluded by Excommunication from Communion with her Mr. Baxter having cited Principles of love p. 87.88.89 Matt. 18.15 16. Tit. 3.10 Saith thus Note here that no sin will warrant you to cast out the sinner unless it be seconded with impenitency it is not simply as a Drunkard or a Fornicator that any one is to be rejected but as an Impenitent Drunkard or Fornicator Note 2ly That it is not all impenitency which will warrant their rejection but only impenitency after the Churches admonition Note 3ly That no private person may expect that any Offender be cast out either because his sin is known to him or because he is commonly famed to to be guilty till the thing be proved by sufficient witnesses Note 4ly That the admonition given him must be proved as well as the fault which he committed Yea lastly If all The town do know him to be guilty and witness prove that he hath been privately admonished he may not be rejected till he be heard speak for himself and till he refuse also the publick admonition This is Christs order whose wisdom mercy and authority are such as may well cause us to take his way as best Now were this doctrine true without exception it would 1. Answer the Objection by shewing that Dissenters do unreasonably separate for the Non-execution of the Churches Censures upon them who at the present are not the proper objects of them And 2. It would in a great measure cast the blame of this neglect of Discipline on the Complainants for if they know of any such why do they not first privately admonish them and if they cannot by so doing gain their Brother why do they not then tell it to the Church But if they do not know of any such nor ever told the Church of any such that she might know and knowing might admonish them and if they should refuse to Hear her might proceed to censure them why do they then complain But to confess the truth ingenuously this Doctrin contradicts the general practice of the Church of Christ whilst Discipline remained among them more especially the practice of the most Primitive and Purest Ages of the Church when all Notorious Offenders of what degree soever were without farther admonition immediately censured and separated from the faithful See Dr. Cave 's prim christian part 3. cap. 5. p. 367. till by long and strict penances of fasting and mortification by which they evidenced their sorrow for and their reformation of their crimes they were thought fit to be again admitted to the peace of God and of his Church This doctrine therefore must admit of some restriction to make it consonant to truth 1. Therefore if the crime be such as is consistent with Christianity and doth not prove the Author of it to be Carnal this admonition must precede the censures of the Church because in such a case 't is not so much the fact it self as the ensuing contumacy which deserves her censure 2ly If the crime committed be private and brings no infamy to the Church and the offender shew good signs of penitence the crime being not committed before many it seems not reasonable that it should be punished before many unless where such a publick censure may do good to many in which case that of the Apostle seemeth to take place them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear 3ly 1 Tim. 5.20 If it be an act of injustice to some private person for which full satisfaction may be made and admonition may prevail upon him so to do which seems to be the case in which our Lord requires a threefold admonition adding that if our admonition do prevail our Brother is Gained and so the Church hath no occasion to proceed to censures Or 4ly If it be an offence of judgment and not of practice against judgment in which case the Apostles words are plain for a first and second admonition I say in all these cases this previous admonition seemeth reasonable But 2ly If the Crimes committed be of an heinous nature Tit. 3.10 and Christians cannot well be ignorant that they are so as in the cases of Apostasy Murther Incest Adultery c. Or if they be so publickly committed as to give scandal to the Church and the Crime be notorious or confessed then without farther admonition I suppose the Criminal should be excluded from the Communion of the Church till by repentance and mortification they have made satisfaction to the Church and have made reparation for the Scandal of their sin These Propositions do fully Answer this Objection even upon