are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his church-Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
far and in what instances we are bound to consider the weakness of our Brother First For the resolution of this Question it is necessary to know what is the true notion of a weak Brother Now a weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither thorowly instructed in the principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3. 1. Conversion to Christianity is often called our new birth and consequently at Mens first entrance into the Christian Church they were for a while reckoned as in an Infant state and accordingly were to be most tenderly handled and nursed and gently used with all favour and indulgence not driven faster than they were able to go till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age as the Apostle expresseth it Heb. 5. 14. They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines against which least exceptions could be made as our Blessed Saviour himself would not at first tell his Disciples of the shame and sufferings he was to undergo and when he did speak of them it was covertly and obscurely so that they did not perfectly understand him lest they should by it have been presently discouraged and tempted to have forsaken him no unnecessary burdens were to be laid upon them which might render their new Profession grievous to them every Stumbling-block and prejudice was to be removed out of their way that might occasion their falling the grown Christians and proficients were Charitably to condescend to the capacity of these Novices and make allowances and for a time bear with their Ignorance and many mistakes and Childish humours and deny themselves their own Liberty and become even as Children with them as if themselves were of the same mind and understood no better than these raw beginners Now these fresh Disciples little ones or Babes are the same with those St. Paul Rom. 14. calls weak Brethren weak for want of Age or Growth or as the Original word rather signifies Sickly and Feeble like a Man beginning to recover from a wasting Disease his distemper tho cured yet hangs a long time upon him the Dregs of it still remain He must for a while be carefully attended and watched since every little thing discomposes him and hazards a relapse So was it with these first Converts As soon as ever they were brought to acknowledg Jesus to be the Son of God and were willing to become his Disciples they were immediately Baptized tho as yet they understood but little of the Nature or design of the Gospel The Apostles and first Preachers of our Religion were in hast to make more Proselytes and therefore presently Baptized all that were willing to it without that previous Instruction and Preparation which afterwards when Churches were setled was made necessary before Heathens or Jews could be admitted by Baptism Thus the same day the Apostles Preached Christ to the Jews Acts 2. they Baptized about three thousand of them and Philip without any delay Baptized the Eunuch as soon as he professed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Jaylor and his Household were Baptized the same hour at midnight at which Paul and Silas spake unto them the word of the Lord. After their Baptism they were to be tutor'd and train'd up in their new Religion where great care was to be taken great prudence and caution used towards them lest they should suddenly flie back and repent of their change for having been bred up and so long lived Jews or Gentiles and then of a sudden turn'd Christians they retain'd still a great love and kindness for many of their old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable the stronger and wiser Christians would not stand rigidly on any little matters would for the present tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be better taught and be brought off those mistakes they now Labour'd under Had the Apostles in the beginning plainly told all the Jews of the ceasing of their Laws the abrogation of their Ceremonies and Worship the no necessity of Circumcision the taking in of the Gentiles they would never have born such Doctrines they would never have become Christians upon such terms nor ever endured those Teachers who seem'd to make so little account of Moses and their Temple Now to gain these St. Paul became weak himself tied up himself while amongst these Jewish Converts to such observances which he was really free from as if he had the same doubts and were of the same opinion with those weak Christians and advises all others who did understand their Liberty yet to oblige their Brethren by the same inoffensive carriage This then was the difference between the strong and the weak the strong were the well-grounded understanding Christians that knew it was lawful for them to Eat all kind of Meats that Christ had set them free from the burdensome Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies the weak tho Brethren that is believers in Christ yet abstained from some Meats judging them unlawful or unclean and observed days and Zealously retained the Mosaical rites not being yet sufficiently instructed in that Liberty our Saviour had purchased for them or in the nature of his Kingdom which consisted not in Meat or Drink but in Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Hence I observe 1. That the rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning weak Brethren principally respect those times when our Religion made its first appearance in the World and were temporary provisions for the easier proselyting men to the Faith of Christ or the better securing and fixing those that were already come into the Church They are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suited to the Infant state of the Church or rather to its condition whilst it was but an Embryo till Churches were formed and setled and our Christianity had got firm Footing and Possession in the World Thus St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 9. 19. For tho I be free from all Men yet have I made my self servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak I am made all things to all men that I
but yet I presume they will not say he was Circumcised in vain although he was under the very same incapacity as to the ends of Circumcision that Infants are of Baptism now The best way that I know they have of evading the force of this Argument is by saying that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism because it left a significant Mark and Character in their Flesh whereas Baptism is a transient Sign and leaves no significant Impression behind it whereby to instruct Men and Women what was done unto them in their Infancy But this is a meer shift First Because the Mark and Character which Circumcision left in the Flesh of the Child was as insignificant to him during the time of his Non-age as Baptism is to Christian Infants neither afterwards could he tell but by the instruction of others what the meaning of that Character was and for what ends it was imprinted in his Flesh And therefore according to their way of reasoning against Infant-Baptism it ought to have been deferred till the full years of discretion when the Circumcised Person might have understood the Spiritual Signification thereof Furthermore in answer to this Objection I must remind them that the Mark and Character which Circumcision left behind it was of no force or signification unless it did appear from the * * * Ezrah 2. 62. Nehem. 7. 5. 64. Registers of the Tribes that the Person circumcised was a Jew I say the Character which Circumcision left behind it was merely of it self of no force nor signification without the Registers or written Genealogies because without them neither the circumcised Person himself nor the Church could know in many Circumstances whether he were a true Son of Abraham or an Egyptian Ismaelite or Samaritan who were all Circumcised as well as the Jews If Baptism then be a Transient Circumcision was an Equivocal Sign and therefore these pretended circumstantial Differences signifie nothing nor make any substantial difference betwixt Circumcision and Baptism as to the capacity of Infants unto both They are capable of contracting a Spiritual Relation unto God by this as formerly they were by that they are capable of having their Spiritual attaindure removed they are capable of receiving the Blessings of the Covenant tho' they cannot perform the duties of it and God may solemnly bind himself unto them tho' they cannot as yet personally bind themselves unto him But Secondly Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism yet this difference is wholly avoided by referring the Practice of Infant-Baptism not only unto Infant Circumcision but unto the Original Practice of Infant-Baptism in the Jewish Church which understood very well that it was but a transient rite and left no Character upon the person who was initiated thereby Those therefore who take upon them to argue against Infant-Baptism from this or any other pretended reason take upon them to censure and condemn the Jewish Church which for many Ages Baptised Infants and Minor Proselytes into the Covenant as well as actual Believers and yet were never censured or reproved for it by any Prophet which we may presume they would have been had Baptismal Initiation of Infants into the Covenant been so absurd insignificant and abusive a practice as the Professors against Infant-Baptism vainly pretend it is Having now I hope sufficiently proved that Infants are not uncapable Subjects of Baptism Let us proceed to state the next Question which is this Quest II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ Where in the first place I must observe that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms and not Whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized For as a good * * * Herodot lib. 2. Author observes of the River Nile that we ought not to ask the reason Why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer-solstice But rather Why it doth not overflow all the Year long So in the Controversie about Infant-Baptism the enquiry ought not to be whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized But whether he hath excluded them from Baptism Because considering the practice of the Jewish Church as to Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism too it must needs be granted that a Command from Christ to initiate Proselytes out of all Nations into the Christian Religion must without an exception to the contrary be understood to comprehend Infants as well as Men. As for Example suppose our Saviour had not changed the Seal of the Covenant but instead of Baptizing had said unto the Apostles Go and make all Nations my Disciples Dr. Stillingfleets Vindication of the A. C. p. 100. Circumcising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I appeal to any Impartial Man's judgment whether the Apostles receiving such a Commission to Circumcise Proselytes of all Nations would not have presumed without directions to the contrary that it was Christ's Intention that the Infants of adult Proselytes should be Circumcised as well as Proselytes themselves according to the Commandment of God under the Old Testament and the Practice of the Jewish Church And if a command to Proselyte and Circumcise all Nations would without an exception have comprehended Infants as well as Men why should it be imagined that the command to Proselyte and Baptize all Nations should not likewise comprehend them seeing that Infant-Baptism as well as Infant-Circumcision had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church This is so true that supposing our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Old Testament and the Custom of the Jewish Church he need not have expressed his meaning in any other manner than by saying unto the Apostles Go Proselyte all Nations Circumcising and Baptising of them c. Nay he could scarce have expressed his Intentions in a more emphatical or intelligible manner unto them who being Jews must needs have the same Apprehensions as to the Subjects of Initiation and Church-Membership under the Gospel that they had under the Law They had lived under a Dispensation where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church and without they had been instructed to the contrary they must naturally have understood their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants as well as actual Believers as if for instance God should now extraordinarily call twelve Men of any Christian Nation where Infant-Baptism had been a constant and universal Practice and bid them go and Proselyte the Indians baptizing them c. None of these Men could possibly imagine that Infants were excepted out of their Commission but common â—ense on the contrary would oblige them to understand it according to the usage of their own Church Besides abstracting at present from the Controversie Whether Christ did or did not exclude Infants from Baptism What reason can any Man give why he who fetched so many of his Institutions from Jewish usages should
more perfectly informed in some necessary Duty or more efficaciously moved to the practice of what they Know but when they are 2 Tim. 4. â— more gratified and pleased at the hearing of a Sermon or the like This is nothing but one sort of those itching Ears the Apostle speaks of And they that are troubled with this disease instead of being Edified as they pretend are commonly the most ignorant of all and as blamable as any in their ordinary Conversation I wish we had not too many examples of the truth of this For besides that it is great odds but that they make an unwise choice in the Teacher they set up to themselves at last they likewise provoke God to leave them to the vanity of their own Minds when they depend rather on the supposed abilities of a man than the blessed influences of the holy Spirit and look more at Paul that plants and Apollos that waters then at God that gives the increase If we have all things necessary to the building us up in our most holy Faith in the Communion of the Church it will be but a poor excuse for our Dividing from it that we hoped to be better Edified when we had no incouragement at all to hope it as long as we continued in the state of Separation upon this pretence For it is the blessing of God alone and not any mans skill in dispensing them that can make the Word and Ordinances any way beneficial unto us With the help of his Grace those means of instruction which we sometimes undervalue the most may be profitable to our Salvation Without it our Ears may be tickled and our Fancies pleasantly entertained for the time but we cannot be truly Edified by the most fluent and popular Tongue nor the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World I have briefly examined the chief Objections that are brought against the established Order and Constitution of our Church and do not find that any or all of them together are of force enough to move an unprejudiced Person to forsake her Communion It may not be done upon the account of Liturgy Ceremonies Scandal mixt Communion or out of hopes of greater Edification I might have easily inlarged upon all these particulars but the compass of my present Design would not allow it And I have some hopes that these and other points in difference may be handled by others to better advantage and to the satisfaction of those that are not yet convinced and to the happy settlement of a lasting Peace and Vnion among all the Members of this divided Church God grant that all our indeavours may tend this way and that the Divine Goodness may make them Successful If these Papers should chance to fall into the hands of any one of those that have Separated from us I would intreat him not to be Offended at them but to look upon the Author as a well-meaning Man that was willing to throw a little Water upon the common flame that is like to consume us They were not written I am sure with any bitterness of Mind or Expression but out of meer pitty to see a poor lamentable distressed Church languishing away and ready to perish by desperate Wounds and Convulsions within her own Bowels Such sad and Melancholy thoughts as these apprehensions must needs occasion could scarce be vented in angry and provoking Language But some are so tender of the Opinions they have taken up that whether true or false they cannot endure to have them touched They are impatient of the calmest Opposition and when you offer any thing to perswade them though it should be to brotherly Love and Peace among Christians they suspect you for an Enemy and think that you come to set traps in their way to insnare their Consciences But I hope this short Discourse will not be incountered by any such Prejudice but that it may be perused with the same Impartiality that it was written On this presumption I shall be bold to exhort all those that now Dissent to a Brotherly Vnion upon such motives and arguments as the Gospel suggests and make for the Credit and Safety of the Protestant Religion It will be readily acknowledged by every sober and intelligent man that Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary that the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions does mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling Block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hinderance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errours that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and imboldened to an open and professed Atheism These are some of the most usual Fruits which the unhappy Differences in the Church are wont to produce over and above the particular Unkindnesses and Uncharitable Feuds which they commonly beget among Christians of the same Perswasion as to all substantial and weighty matters of Belief And it were a thing very desirable in all respects that these at least should be all firmly United in the same holy Communion They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven through the Merits of the same Lord should not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which we have unto this our Saviour Died Joh. 11. 52. that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scattered abroad And should we not then contradict this end of his Death if we should set those at Strife and Variance which he intended to Vnite Nay might we not be said in some sort to Crucifie the Son of God afresh if we should Mangle and Divide any sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require us to make profession of any false and erroneous Opinions if in the external Order and Worship we were injoined to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command we are bound in such Instances to withdraw from her But if her Doctrine be highly approved by most of our Dissenting Brethren and her Discipline and Service such as is not any way inconsistent with any
things injoined We must Separate at this time from all the Reformed Churches in the World for there is none of these which does not require the use of such things as we should judge cause enough to depart from them Nay when we have once Separated from the Church of England upon this account we must then Separate from one another and every man must be a Church by himself for it is impossible that any Society whether meerly Humane or Christian should subsist without the orderly determination of some Indifferent things And sure we can never hope to maintain our Separation upon such a Principle as would not only part us from all the Churches that are or ever were and tear Christendom into ten thousand pieces but scarce leaves us so much as the Notion of a Church and makes Christian Communion absolutely impracticable Let us not give those of Rome the pleasure of seeing that Church which has always opposed them with the greatest Vigor and been the constant mark of their Envy quite Ruined or extreamly Weakned by a pernicious Mistake that would Divide and Divide us again and again and never make any end of Dividing Let us shew at least that well are we inclined unto Peace by coming as far as we can and if there should be any thing that we may possibly suspect to be Unlawful let not this hinder us from joining in those other holy Offices in which we have not any pretence of a Doubt Let not our groundless Scrupling at a Ceremony or two fright us from the whole Worship of God against which we have not any Exceptions And for those that esteem our Communion in all particulars utterly Unlawful which I suppose are but very few and I know they have but very slight Arguments for the severe Judgment they pass upon us if they will meet let them do it in the most private manner that they can without any vain Ostentation of their Numbers which cannot be any Satisfaction to their Consciences but may make their Adherents over forward and bold and tend to the creating of Jealousies in the Government And while they are upon these terms they cannot reasonably expect any Connivance They might sooner hope for it from his Majesties wonted and often experienced Clemency when they shall make it appear that their Dissent is modest and humble and such as has no other but a Religious Design in it Than when they assume a high degree of Confidence and think to extort Indulgencies by Clamors and Discontents and resolve to Assemble openly in Opposition to a Royal Command as if it were a piece of Christian Fortitude to outbrave Authority These are but ill Methods of courting the Favour of a Prince But I hope for the future we shall all upon all Occasions behave our selves as becomes good Subjects and sober Christians and make no Disturbances neither on a Civil nor Ecclesiastical account Let it Pity us at last to see the Ghastly Wounds that are still renewed by the continuance of our Divisions Let us have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to Faint and in eminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that should Support and Defend her Why should we leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require our most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow we might forsake her that had forsaken him But since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no Forbidden thing of us Let us strengthen her Hands by our unanimous Agreement and since we do not Condemn her Doctrine let us not Despise her Worship since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably Defeat the subtle Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the losses she has suffered by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all Wicked Purposes unsuccessful and the blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the Charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen FINIS A RESOLUTION Of some CASES OF CONSCIENCE Which respect Church-Communion VIZ. I. Whether to Communicate with some Church especially in such a divided State of the Church be a necessary Duty Incumbent on all Christians II. Whether Constant Communion be a necessary Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful III. Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two Churches which are in a State of Separation from each other The Second Edition LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Jun. for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A RESOLUTION Of some CASES of CONSCIENCE Which respect Church-Communion IN order to state such cases as particularly relate to Church-Communion with all possible clearness it will be necessary to premise a brief explication of some words which must be used in questions of this nature but are not so commonly understood As 1. What is meant by a Church and a Christian Church 2. What Church Communion is 3. What is meant by Fix't Communion and by Occasional Communion First What is meant by a Church Now the plainest description I can give of a Church is this That the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World and Vnited to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant I shall briefly explain this description to fit it to the meanest understanding 1. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men for I speak only of the Church in this World and therefore shall not enter into that dispute in what sense Angels belong to the Church And when I call the Church a Body or Society of Men I oppose a Body to single Individuals or particular Men and to a confused Multitude without any order or Union among themselves For tho the Church consists of particular Men and when their Numbers are encreased of great Multitudes yet the Church consists of such particular Men not considered in a private and separate capacity but as United into a regular Society which is called a Body in allusion to the natural Body in which all the parts and members are United in an exact Order Eph. 4. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 15 16 c. For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace as in all the Churches of the Saints And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without Order wherein their strength and beauty and usefulness consist much less the Church of God which is a Society Instituted for the most spiritual and Supernatural Ends. And therefore we find that God ordained a most exact Order and Government in the Jewish Church which for the greater strength and Unity he formed into a
religious Common-wealth And our Blessed Saviour ordained the Apostles and committed the Government of his Church to them and their Successors with a promise to be with them to the end of the World And the Christian Church with respect to the firm and close Union and orderly Disposition of all its Eph. 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Parts is not only called a Body but a Spiritual Building and Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is a Body or one Body in opposition to many bodies for Christ has but one Body and one Church and he is the Saviour of this Body The Jewish Church was but one and therefore the Christian Church is but one which is not a new distinct Church but is grafted into the Jewish stock or Root Believing Jews and Christians being United into one Church built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Rom. 11. 17 18. corner stone Who unites Jews and Gentiles into one Church as the corner stone unites both sides of the House and holds them together Upon the same account the Church is called the Building the House the Temple of God and we know the Temple was but one and was to be but one by the express command and Institution of God And for the same reason Christ tells us that there should be but one Fold under one Shepherd And indeed it is extreamly absurd and unreasonable John 10. 16. to say that the Christian Church which is built upon the same foundation which worships the same God and Saviour which professes the same Faith are Heirs to the same promises and enjoy all priviledges in common should be divided into as distinct and separate bodies tho of the same kind and nature as Peter James and John are distinct Persons tho they partake of the same common nature That is it is very absurd to say that where every thing is common there is not one Community Peter and James and John tho they partake of the same common nature yet each of them have a distinct essence and subsistence of their own as it must be in natural Beings otherwise there could be but one Man in the World and this makes them distinct Persons But where the very nature and essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common there can be but one Body and therefore if one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all be common to the whole Christian Church if there be no peculiar Priviledges which belong to some Christians and not to all to one part of the Church and not to another then by the Institution of Christ there is but one Church one Body one Communion one Household and Family For where there is nothing to Distinguish and Separate no Enclosures or Partitions of Divine Appointment there can be by Divine Institution but one Body 2. I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World or called out of the World as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence Ecclesia is derived may signifie and is so expounded by many Divines upon which account the Christians are so of ten called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Called and Chosen or Elect People of God which signifies that the Church is distinguished from the rest of the World by a peculiar and appropriate Faith by peculiar Laws by peculiar rites of Worship and peculiar Promises and Priviledges which are not common to the whole World but only to those who are received into the Communion of the Church But there is no controversie about this matter and therefore I need add no more about it 3. The Church is a Body of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant The Church is united to God for it is a Religious Society instituted for the Worship of God and they are united among themselves and to each other because it is but one Body which requires a union of all its parts as I have already shewed and shall discourse more presently But the chief thing to be observed here is this that this union with God and to each other which constitutes a Church is made by a Divine Covenant Thus it was in the Jewish Church God entered into Covenant with Abraham and chose him and his Posterity for his Church and Peculiar People and gave him Circumcision for a Sign and Seal of this Covenant And under the Gospel God hath made a new Covenant with mankind in and by his Son Jesus Christ who is the Mediator of a Better Covenant founded upon better Promises and this Gospel Covenant is the foundation of the Christian Church For the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as is in Covenant with God through Christ I suppose all men will grant that God only can make or constitute a Church For such persons if there were any so absurd are not worth disputing with who dare affirm the Church to be a human Creature or the invention of Men. And I think it is as plain that the only visible way God has of forming a Church for I do not now speak of the invisible operations of the Divine Spirit is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and investing some persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant Rites and Forms of Admission as he is pleased to institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision To be taken into Covenant with God and to be received into the Church is the very same thing For the Church is a Society of Men who are in Covenant with God That can be no Church which is not in Covenant with God he is no member of the Church who is not at least visibly admitted into Gods Covenant and whoever is in Covenant with God is made a member of the Church by being admitted into Covenant Now before I proceed I shall briefly observe some few things which are so plain and evident if these Principles be true that I need only name them and yet are of great use for the resolution of some following cases As 1. That a Covenant-state and Church-state is the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is received into Covenant as such is a Church member 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us members of the Christian Church but only Baptism which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Covenant For if Baptism which gives us right to all the Priviledges of the Covenant does not make us Church members then a church-Church-state is no part of the Covenant then a man may be in Covenant with God through Christ and yet be no member of Christ or he may be a member
of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no church-Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true church-Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and church-Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by Church-Communion Now Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper together they are said to be in Communion with one another and to live in Communion with that Church with which they joyn in all Acts of Worship Now we must acknowledge that Publick Acts of Worship performed in the Communion of the Church are an Exercise of Christian Communion but Church-Communion is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion For no Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion but he who is in a State of Communion with the Christian Church What natural Union is in natural Bodies that Communion is in Bodies Politick whether Civil or Religious Societies a member must be vitally united to the Body before it can perform any natural Action or Office of a member before the Eye can see or the Feet can walk or the Ears can hear and the union of the Eye or Foot to the Body does not consist in seeing or walking but seeing and walking are the effects of this Union Thus in a Body Politick when Men by any common Charter are United into one Society they become one common Body or one Communion and this gives them right to all the priviledges of that Body and obliges them to all the Duties and Offices which their Charter requires of them but should any Man who is not regularly admitted into this Society pretend to the same Priviledges or do such things as are required of those who are members of this Body this would be so far from being thought an Act of Communion with them that it would be censured as an unjust Usurpation Should a Man who is no Citizen of London open his Shop and drive a trade as other Citizens do or give his Vote at a Common-Hall and in all other cases Act like a Citizen this would not make him a Citizen but an Intruder He is a Foreigner still and his presuming to Act like a Citizen when he is none is no Act of Communion with that Body of which he is no member but justly exposes him to censure and punishment Thus it is in the Christian Church which is one Body and Society united by a Divine Covenant Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church which we are made by Baptism The exercise of this Communion consists in all those Offices and Duties which all the members of the Church are obliged to and which none have any right to perform but they such as praying and receiving the Lords Supper together c. Now should any Man who is no member of the Church nor owns himself to be so intrude into the Church and Communicate in all holy Offices this can be no more called an Act of Communion than it can be said to make him a member of the Church of which he is no member and resolved not to be Prayers and receiving the Sacraments c. are Acts of Communion when performed by Church-members in the Communion of the Church but they are no Acts of Communion when performed by those who are no Church-members tho to serve a turn they thrust themselves into the Society of the Church As for Instance suppose a member of a Presbyterian or Independant Conventicle should for reasons best known to himself at some critical time come to his Parish Church and there hear the Common-Prayer and Sermon and receive the Lords Supper according to the order of the Church of England does this make this Man a member of the Church of England with which he never Communicated before and it is likely will never do again If it does not all this is no Act of Communion which can be only between the members of the same Body So that to be in Church-Communion does not signifie meerly to perform some such Acts which are Acts of Communion in the members of the Church but since the decay of Church Discipline may sometimes be performed by those who are not members which is such an abuse as would not have been allowed in the Primitive Church who denyed their Communion to Schismaticks as well as to the Excommunicate upon other accounts but to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church to be Embodyed and Incorporated with it and I suppose what that means every one knows who understands what it is to be a member of any Society of a City or any Inferior Corporation which consists of Priviledge and Duty and requires all those who will enjoy the benefits of such a Society to discharge their respective trusts and obligations To be in Communion with or to be a member of the Church includes a Right and Title to all those Blessings which God hath promised to his Church and an obligation to all the Duties and Offices of Church Society as Subjection to the Authority Instructions Censures of the Church a Communion in Prayers and Sacraments and other Religious Offices and he who despises the Authority or destroys the Unity of the Church renounces his membership and Communion with it These things are extreamly plain and though Men may cavil for disputes sake yet must needs convince them that no Man is in Communion with a Church which he is not a member of tho through the defect of Discipline he should sometimes be admitted to some Act of Communion with it and I shall observe some few things from hence of great use 1. That Church-Communion primarily and principally respects the universal Church not any particular Church or Society of Christians For to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church or Body of Christ which is but one all the World over Church Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion which can be performed only among those who are present and Neighbours to each other but in membership now a member is a member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it how large soever the Body be All the Subjects of England those who live at St. Davids and those at Tarmouth who never saw nor converst with each other are all members of the same Kingdom and by the same reason this membership may extend to the remotest part of the World if the Body whereof we are members reach so far And therefore we may observe that Baptism which is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us members of any particular Church as such but of the Universal Church and I observed before that a church-Church-state which is the same thing with Church-Communion is founded only on a Divine Covenant and therefore since there is no other Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches as distinguisht from the Universal Church such particular Church-membership is at best but a human Invention and indeed nothing else but a Schism from the Universal Church which alone if well considered is a sufficient confutation of Independency which is a particular church-Church-State as distinguisht from all other
in the Communion of the Church which it cannot be unless it be performed in the Communion of some particular Church And this is the only obligation I know of to Communion with any particular Church that as I am a Christian I am a member of the Body and Church of Christ and in a State of Communion and therefore am bound to maintain Actual Communion with the Christian Church where-ever I find it and by Communicating with the Church wherein I live if it be a Sound and Orthodox Member of the Christian Church I maintain Communion with the whole Catholick Church which is but one Body So that here is no choice what Church we will Communicate with for there is but one Church all the World over with which we must Communicate and therefore we have nothing else to do but to judge whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so Sound and Orthodox that we may Communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion and if it be we are bound to Communicate with it under Peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not 4. From hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a Separate Communion and Separate Church For some Men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of Schism and Separation but then they use great art so to confound the notion of Separation as that neither they themselves nor any one else shall ever be able to understand what it is whereas if they will allow that there is or ever can be any such thing as Separation from the Church it is as easie to understand what Separation is as what it is for a member to be divided from the Body For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches are or ought to be members then those Churches which are not members of each other are Separate Churches It is not enough indeed to prove a Separation that two Congregations meet in several places for Worship for this is done by all the Parish-Churches of England who are in the same Communion but yet hold distinct and Separate Assemblies as to Local Separation Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is no Separation because these differing Churches agree in all the Articles of Faith and essentials of worship For thus the Novatians and Donatists did who yet were Schismaticks from the Catholick Church But where there are two Churches which are not members of each other there is a Schism tho they agree in every thing else but in one Communion and where Churches own each others Communion as members of the same Body there is no Schism though they are as distant from each other in place as East and West And it is as easie to understand what it is for two Churches to be members of each other but to make this as plain as I can and as far as it is possible to prevent all Evasions and Subterfuges I shall lay down some few rules according to the Principles of Catholick Communion whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Separate and Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place according to that Ancient Rule of the Catholick Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City and this was observed in the Apostolical times that in the greatest and most Populous Cities and where there were the greatest number of Converts yet there was but one Church such as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus c. this is acknowledged by the Independents themselves who endeavour hence to prove that there were no more Christians in any of those Cities than could meet together in one place for Acts of Worship which is a mighty groundless Surmise and not much for the credit of the Christian Church as has been often shewn by learned Men both Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines And there is an evident reason why this should be so because there is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for private Christians but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live for to renounce the ordinary Communion of any Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into distinct and Separate Societies for Worship is to renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation So that distinct and particular Churches which are in Communion with each other must have their distinct bounds and limits as every member has its Natural and proper place and situation in the Body But when there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and Separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism These Churches cannot be members of each other because they ought to be but one Church and therefore to form and gather a new Church is to divide and Separate the members of the same Church from each other This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us they are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to Worship God in the same Assemblies and have bitter Envyings and Contentions for the Honour and Purity of their several Churches If all Christians are members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the great Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline and all holy Offices and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering of a Church out of a Christian Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Churches at a distance may be distinct Churches under their distinct Bishops but yet in the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they would Naturally Unite and Cement into one There must either be Antibishops or Schismatical Presbyters set up in opposition to their Bishops under different and opposite Rules of Worship and Discipline which makes them Rival and opposite Churches not members of each other From hence I think it plainly appears that all Separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism and we cannot justifie such distinct Churches within one another from the examples of other distinct Churches whose bounds and limits and jurisdiction also are distinct and separate 2. It is plain those are Separate Churches which divide from the Communion of
any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Government or Worship for in this case it is plain they leave the Church and form themselves into a new Church out of the Communion of the Church from whence they went because they did not think it safe to continue one Body with it This has often made me wonder what those Men mean who take all occasions to quarrel at our Constitution and assign a great many reasons why they cannot Communicate with us and yet at the same time will not own that they have made any Separation from us What middle state now shall we find for these Men who will neither continue in the Church nor allow themselves to be out of it It is possible for two particular Churches to be in Communion with each other and yet not Actually to Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but for two Churches to renounce each others Communion or at least to withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a professed dislike and yet still to continue in a state of Communion with one another is a down right contradiction To be in Communion is to be members of the same Body and Society and he that can prove and he that can believe two opposite Societies founded upon contrary principles and Acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the Ruin and Subversion of each other to be the same Body and the same Society are very wonderful Men to me 3. Those are Separate Churches who do not own each others members as their own Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place must be confined to that particular Church in which we live if it be a sound part of the Christian Church but Church-membership is not confined to any particular Church I am no otherwise a member of any particular Church then I am of the Universal Church which gives me a right of Membership and Communion in all the particular Churches of the World Now I would ask whether every Baptized Christian who by Baptism is made a member of the Catholick Church and has not forfeited this right by a Scandalous life be ipso facto a member of an Independent Church if he be not as it is plain by the constitution of Independency he is not for Independent Church-membership is not founded on Baptism but on a particular Church-Covenant then Independency is a Separate Communion from the Catholick Church for the members of the Catholick Church are not by being so made the members of an Independent Church and therefore an Independent Church is a distinct and separate Body from the Catholick-Church Nay I would know whether a member of one Independent Church by being so becomes a member of another Independent Church if he does not as it is plain he don't for every Independent Church is founded upon a particular Church-Covenant between such a particular Pastor and particular members then every Independent Church is a distinct and Separate Body from all other Independent Churches and so they are all Schismaticks to each other as not preserving the Unity of the Body And tho Independent Churches should be so civil to each other as to admit each others members to some Acts of Communion yet this is matter of courtesie not of right and therefore their constitution is Schismatical It is like two Neighbour Families which hold good correspondence with each other and often visit one another and Eat and Drink together but yet remain very distinct Families and have all their concerns apart and separate But the Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatick Thus let me ask whether the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in the same Christian Kingdom be one Church and members of each other and own each others members as such to be members of their own Body and Church If they do not as it is evident they don't from their holding distinct and separate Assemblies under a distinct kind and species of Government which both of them assert to be instituted by Christ and to be essential to the constitution of the Church from their forming themselves into distinct Bodies under different Governors which have no Communion as such with each other which yet is essential to the Communion of particular Churches that their Governors should be in Communion with each other from their Condemning each others constitution and particular modes of Worship and their great endeavours to draw away members from each other which necessarily supposes that they do not look upon each others members as their own I say if from these considerations it appears that they are not and do not think themselves to be one Body nor members of each other then they are two separate Churches and the Church which makes the separation is the Schismatick And indeed we may as well say that a Monarchy and Aristocracy and Democracy in the same Nation with their distinct Governours and distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as to assert that the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in England are but one Church 3. The last thing to be explained is what is meant by fixt or constant and by occasional Communion Now this is a question which would grievously have puzl'd St. Cyprian and St. Austin and other Ancient Fathers who never heard but of one sort of Communion For indeed there is no place for this distinction of constant and occasional Communion according to the Principles of Catholick Communion To be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and I take it for granted that a member signifies a fixt and constant not an occasional member not a member which is one day a member and the next day upon his own voluntary choice is no member which is a member or no member just as occasion serves And if Church-membership be a fixt and constant relation in it self considered then the Duties of this relation are fixt and constant also And therefore for the understanding of these Terms which were unknown to Antiquity we must consult the meaning of our Modern Authors who were the first Inventors of them Now by fixt Communion they mean an Actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt members of it occasional Communion is to Pray and Hear and receive the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be members as occasion serves that is either to gratifie their own Curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the Imputation of Schism Now this distinction is owing to such Principles as I have evidently proved to be very great mistakes For if to be in Communion with the Church signifie to be a member of it and that not of any particular Church as distinguisht from the whole Catholick Church but to be a member of the one Body of Christ
and of every sound part of it then our Communion with the Church is as fixt as our relation and membership is and I think no Man who understands himself will talk of an occasional member If no Man can perform any Act of Communion with a Church of which he is no member since all Acts of Communion have a necessary relation to a state of Communion and that which is an Act of Communion in a member is no Act of Communion when performed by him who is no member as I have already proved then it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional Act of Communion as of occasional membership and there can be no place for occasional Communion with a Church of which we are no members unless we will say that a Man who is not in Communion may exercise Acts of Communion with the Church If all the Acts of Christian Communion which respect Christian Worship such as Prayer receiving the Lords Supper c. tho performed in a particular Church be not Acts meerly of a particular Church-Communion but of Catholick Communion with the whole Christian Church and every sound part of it then every true Catholick Christian is not only in a fixt state of Communion with the Catholick Church but lives in as constant an exercise of Christian Communion with all Sound and Orthodox Churches as he does with that Church in which he lives for every Act of Worship which is an Act of Communion with that particular Church in which it is performed if that Church be in Catholick Communion is an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church and therefore the very exercise of Christian Communion is equally fixt and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholick Church There is a sense indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church considered as distinct from all other particular Churches but that principally consists in Government and Discipline every Christian is a member of the whole Christian Church and in Communion with it but he is under the immediate Instruction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters and is bound to Personal Communion with them and this constitutes a particular Church in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the direction and conduct of a particular Bishop And when Neighbour Bishops unite into one Body and agree upon some common Rules of Government and the Administration of Religious Offices this makes them a Patriarchal or National Church and thus by submitting to the Government and Discipline of such particular or united Bishops we become members of a Diocesan or National Church considered as distinct from other Diocesan or National Churches But this does not confine our Church-membership and Communion to such a particular Church tho it strictly oblige us to conform to the Worship and Discipline and Government of that Church wherein we live while it imposes nothing on us inconsistent with the Principles of Catholick Communion But tho particular Christians are more peculiarly obliged to observe the Rites and Usages and to submit to the Government and Discipline of the Church wherein they live and to maintain Personal Communion with it and upon this account may in a peculiar manner be called the members of that Church yet every Act of Communion performed in this particular Church is an Act of Catholick Communion and an exercise of Christian Communion with the whole Church and every sound part of it Baptism makes us members of the whole Church and gives us a right to Communion with every sound part of it every Act of Christian Communion in a particular Church is a vertual Communion with the whole Church with all particular Churches which live in Communion with each other and notwithstanding my relation to a particular Church by my constant Abode and Habitation in it when ever I travel into any other Church I Communicate with them as a member so that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same Nature that is I Communicate as a member of the Church and it is Impossible I should Communicate otherwise for I have no right to Communion but as a member and nothing I can do can be an Act of Communion if I be not and do not own my self to be a member And yet this is the occasion of this mistake about Fixt and Occasional Communion that according to the Laws of our Church which are founded on great and wise reasons and indeed according to the Laws of Catholick Communion every Christian is bound to Communicate with that part of the Church wherein he lives now Men may have Houses in different Parishes or distinct Diocesses or may Travel into other parts of the Country and Communicate with the Churches which they find in those places where they are or they may sometimes go to Prayers or hear a Sermon or receive the Lords Supper at another Parish-Church now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant Abode is may be called constant Communion and our Communion with those Churches which we accidentally visit and Communicate with may be called occasional Communion and all this without Schism because we still Communicate either with the same National Church or which is often the case of Travellers with some other sound part of the Catholick Church of which we are also members and so still keep in the same Communion and Communicate with no Churches but those of which we own our selves members as being all in the same Communion as being either sincere members of the National or Catholick Church From hence our Dissenters Conclude that their Communion with an Independent or Presbyterian Church of which they profess themselves fixt members is as constant with their occasional Communion with the Church of England when to serve some present turn they hear the Prayers and receive the Sacraments with us as our fixt Communion with our Parish-Churches is with our occasional Communion with other Parish-Churches which no Body accounts Schism tho when it is too frequent and causeless it is a great disorder But the difference between these two is vastly great for in the First case we only Communicate with such Churches which are all in Communion with each other and therefore he who is a member of one is a member of them all and Communicates with them wherever he is as a member But he who is a fixt member of a Presbyterian or Independent Church cannot Communicate so much as occasionally with the Church of England as a member because he is a member not only of another particular but of a separate Church and it is impossible for any Man who is one with himself to be a member of two separate Churches and whatever Acts of Worship we joyn in with other Churches of which we are no members they are not
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
with the Sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick Church which he finds in that place But this does not reach the case of those who are constant Inhabitants of the place where the Schism is for they must not live in a Sceptical suspension of Communion all their days And there is one plain Rule to direct all Men in this Inquiry That wherever there is a Church Establisht by publick Authority if there be nothing Sinful in its Constitution and Worship we are bound to Communicate with that Church and to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians For the advantage always lies on the side of Authority no publick establishment can justifie a Sinful Communion but if there be nothing Sinful in the Communion of the National Church which is Establisht by publick Authority to Separate from such a Church is both disobedience to the Supreme Authority in the State and a Schism from the Church But it will be convenient to consider what these Men mean by suspending Communion For is it Lawful for an English Man during these Church divisions among us never to Worship God in any Publick and Religious Assemblies Never to Pray nor Hear nor receive the Lords Supper together If this were so it were the most Effectual way in the World to thrust out all Religion But this they will not they dare not say and therefore by Suspending Communion they mean that in case of such divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and setled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already observed how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is For no Act of Religion is an Act of Communion not so much as of occasional Communion which is not performed in the Communion of the Church and no Man is in Communion with the Church who is not a Member of it and whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and whatever Church he Communicates with tho it may be it is but once in a Year or once in his life as he occasionally Travels that way yet he Communicates as a fixt Member of the Catholick Church and of every Sound part of the Catholick Church for a fixt Member does not signifie our fixt abode or constant Acts of Communion in any particular Church but our state of Communion and fixt and permanent relation to the whole Christian Church and every part of it and therefore tho a particular Act of Communion may be performed upon some particular occasion with such a particular Church yet it is not an Act of occasional but of fixt Communion because tho I Communicate but once and that occasionally yet I Communicate as a Member of the Church which is not an occasional but a fixt Relation So that when Men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or Communicate with all of them If they perform these Acts of Communion without owning their relation to them as Members then they are in Communion with none of them notwithstanding all these pretended Acts of occasional Communion and so they live in Communion with no Church which yet I hope I have made it appear to be the Duty of every Christian to do if they Communicate with all these divided Parties as Members then they are in Communion with many Separate Churches are Members of Separate and Opposite Bodies that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismaticks but this will appear further from considering the two following Cases Case 2. The Second Case is this Whether constant Case 2 Communion be a Duty where occasional Communion is Lawful I have already made it appear that the very notion of constant and occasional Communion is absurd and a Contradiction to all the principles of Catholick Communion and therefore there is no place for this distinction nor for this question every Christian as a Christian is a fixt Member of the whole Christian Church and of every Sound part of it and for Men to talk of being Members of any one particular Church in distinction from all other particular Churches of which they will not own themselves Members is a Schismatical notion of Church-Membership because it divides the Christian Church into distinct Memberships and therefore into distinct Bodies which makes the one Church and one Body of Christ not one but many Bodies for if every particular Church has such a number of Members which are Members only of that particular Church wherein they are fixt and are not Members of any other particular Church then every particular Church is a distinct and entire Body by it self which has particular Members of its own which belong to no other Body just as every particular Man has his own Body which consists of such a number of Members united to each other and distinct from all other Bodies The plain state of the Case in short is this Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church but he must perform the Acts of Communion in some particular Church and the only allowable difference between constant and occasional Communion is this that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church in which we constantly live and Communicate occasionally with that part of the Church in which we are occasionally present and therefore there never can be any Competition between constant and occasional Communion in the same place I cannot Communicate constantly with that Church in which I Communicate occasionally unless I remove my Habitation and turn an occasional presence into a constant and setled abode nor can I without sin Communicate only occcasionally with that Church with which I may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there for this is only to do that sometimes which I ought to do always This is like a Mans living occcasionally in his own House which signifies that for the most part he is a stranger at home There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for occasional and another for constant Communion without Schism For it is evident these are two distinct Communions and that our relation to them is as different as it is to a House we live in and to an Inn where we lodge for a Night So that there is no foundation for this Inquiry among Men who understand the true Principles of Catholick-Communion It never can be a Case of Conscience whether I should Communicate constantly or occasionally with such a Church unless it be a Case of Conscience whether I should live constantly or occasionally within the bounds and jurisdiction of such a Church for where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the catholick-Catholick-Church
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
one Church in one Place Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Vnity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into p. 21. distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to Renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation And a little after I added If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but onely such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline And therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a Church out of a Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Now then let us consider what follows 1. You say either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not Communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that it is not the Duty of of every one though a licensed Stranger to Communicate with this Church Ans If any Foreign Church among us which by Royal Favour is allowed the Observation of their own Discipline and Rules of Worship Renounce Communion with the Church of England or Communicate with our Separatists she is Schismatical her self as the Protestant Churches in France Geneva or Holland would be should they do the like But if there be any reason to allow those Foreigners which are among us to Form and Model their Congregations according to the Rules of their own Churches to which they originally belong this is no more a Schism than there is between the Protestant Churches of France and England which own each others Communion A bare Variety of Rites and Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches our Church pretends not to give Laws to other Churches in such matters but leaves them to their Liberty as she takes her own and why an Ecclesiastical Colony may not for great reasons be Transplanted into another Church as well as a Civil Colony into another Kingdom while they live in Communion with each other I cannot tell It is a different thing to gather a Church out of a Church and to Transplant some Members of one Church into another maintaining the same Communion though with some peculiar and different usages with the consent of the Church to which they come The case of Strangers and Natives has always been accounted very different both upon a Religious and Civil account Every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to direct and Govern her own Communion and prescribe the Rules of Worship but as she does not Impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her Jurisdiction without breach of Communion for tho the Communion of the whole Christian Church is but one and all true Catholick Churches are Members of each other yet the Authority and Jurisdiction is different every Church challenging a peculiar Authority which it exerciseth in its own Communion and therefore for the Church of England to suffer Foreign Churches to observe their own Customs and Usages is not to allow of distinct and separate Communions in her own Bowels which were Schismatical but onely to exempt such Congregations of Strangers from her particular Jurisdiction and to leave them to the Government and Authority of the Church to which they belong There was no such thing indeed allowed in the Primitive Church as distinct Congregations of Foreigners under a different Rule and Government and it were very desirable that all Christians who have occasion to live in other Countries would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the Church where they sojourn which seems most agreeable to Catholick Communion but yet distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the Separate Conventicles of Dissenters are 2. But does it not follow from the obligation to communicate or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church Ans This is a great Mastery of Wit to turn my own Artillery upon me I prove the Dissenters to be Schismaticks because they set up a Church within a Church whereas there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place every Christian being bound to Communicate with the sound part of the Catholick Church in the place wherein he lives for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual Communion Hence you conclude that we must Communicate with Schismaticks if there be any among us or so near to us that distance does not hinder our Communion But you should consider that our obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks whether at home or abroad and tho we should allow them to be true Churches yet if Schismatical they are not Catholick Churches and therefore not the objects of Catholick-Communion But however we may lawfully Communicate with the French Church that is among us as occasion serves Yes no doubt we may because they are in Communion with us But then follows the Murdering consequence that a Member of the Church of England is not bound to a constant Communion with her I pray why so every Member as a Member is in constant Communion for to be in Communion with Resol of Cases p. 10. a Church is to be a Member of it as I proved at large but then Church-Communion does not primarily respect a Particular but the Universal p. 13. Church and therefore it is no interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to Communicate actually with any Church which is in Communion with her for as all Christians who are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church so they are in Communion with the Catholick Church and every sound part of it The State of Communion is constant with the whole Catholick Church the acts of Communion are performed sometimes in one part of it sometimes in another as our presence abode or occasions require and thus it is possible actually to Communicate with the French Church either in England or
out of England without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches which are in Communion with each other though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church then Constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful I suppose because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church though we may occasionally Communicate with it But certainly Sir Had you ever considered what I discourst about constant and occasional Communion you would not have made such an Objection as this For this is a Modern distinction which has no sence at the bottom as I plainly shewed But however by constant Communion our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion always or ordinarily in the same Church and by occasional Communion performing the Acts of Communion sometimes or as occasion serves in another Church now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion as it signifies the constant and ordinary or the Occasional Acts of Communion must that question be understood whether Constant Communion he a Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful the meaning of which question is this whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it and there being no other reason to justifie non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate but onely Sinful Terms of Communion and there being no Colour for such a Pretence where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful I hence conclude that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally or sometimes with it But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question as you now do not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition to say that constant Communion by that meaning presential and personal Communion is always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful For at this rate if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France Geneva Holland Germany be Lawful it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time which no man can do who can be present but in one place at a time But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin I am also bound to Communicate constantly with whenever such reasons as are necessarie to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Dutie to do so And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense But this you think cannot be my meaning For accorcording to me no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may Communicate with both It is wonderful to me Sir how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me and I would desire of you for the future if you have no regard to your own Reputation yet upon Principles of Common Honesty not to write so hastily but to take some time to understand a Book before you undertake to confute it Where do I say that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another I assert indeed that no Baptized Christian is a Member of any particular Church considered meerly as particular but is a Member of the universal Church and of all sound Orthodox Churches as parts of the Universal Church This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another The first supposes that every Christian whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in is a Member of the whole Christian Church and of all particular Sound Churches the second supposes the quite contrary that Christians are so Members of one Church as they are not of another that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate So that the question is not what Church I must be a Member of for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church not meerly of this or that particular Church but what particular Church I must Communicate in now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church results from the place wherein we live The Church in which we were Born and Baptized and have our Ordinary abode and Residence the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects if it be a true and sound Christian Church Challenges our Communion and Obedience Now in the same place there never can be any Competition between two Churches because there must be but one Church in the same place and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate which must be the Church in which we live But is there not a French and a Dutch as well as an English Church in London and since distance of place does not hinder may we not choose which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with I answer no we have onely the Church of England in England The French Church is in France and the Dutch Church is in Holland though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches and are under their Government and Censures but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England but only of the Church of England and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience one particular Church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate Communion which is Schismatical but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live can onely Challenge our Communion and I suppose
and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans The promise is that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any Church on Earth which is all I cited it for and so much it certainly proves The Second Proposition you raise Queries on is this 'T is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians This I do indeed assert that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant and to be in Covenant with God and to be Members of his Church is the same thing therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church also and this makes it very absurd to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptized Christians which supposes that they were not a Church before instead of considering the reason whereon this is founded as every honest Writer should do you onely put a perverse Comment on it By which say you I suppose you mean That Men ought not to Separate from such and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptized Christians which I conceive needs explaining But if this were true it were plain enough but the fault is that it is not true for we may Separate from any Church of Baptized Christians if their Communion be Sinful which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome and answers your two first Queries But indeed the Proposition as asserted by me does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church let the cause be what it will just or unjust For the Independents who are the Men for gathering Churches do not own that they Separate from any Church but that they form themselves into a church-Church-State which they had not before and which no Christians according to their Principle have who are not Members of Independent Churches Baptism they acknowledge makes Men Christians at large but not Church-Members which I shewed must needs be very absurd if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant for then Baptism which admits us into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church and they may as well rebaptize Christians as form them into new Church-Societies This I suppose may satisfie you how impertinent all your Queries are under this head Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome which was not made upon Independent Principles because they were no Church but because they were a corrupt Church 3. Whether every Bishoprick in England be not so many Churches within the National Ans Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church and the Union of them in one National Communion makes them not so many Churches within a National but one National Church which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separation 4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National Churches within a Church which is Schismatical but not one National Church as Bishopricks are 5. And therefore tho we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church which is a very liberal grant yet they are not in Catholick Communion because they are Schismaticks 6. And this is all I am to account for that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine I can hope as Charitably as any Man but I dare not be so Charitable as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing which is the great Bond of Christian Charity 3dly You take occasion for your next Queries from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant you say I suppose that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new contract no part of the Baptismal vow I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicite Covenant between Pastor and People that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians for no other Christians which are not in Covenant with them are Members of their Church nor can they be Members of any other Church And I proved that those are Separate Churches Resol of Cases p. 10. 32. which are not Members of each other and do not own each others Members for their own For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member and if no Man can be a Member of a Church but by such an explicite Independent Covenant then he is a Member of no Church but that with which he is in Covenant and consequently is in Communion with no Church but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant And if those be Schismaticks and Schismatical Churches which are not in Communion with each other then all Independents must be Schismaticks for they are in Communion with none but their own Independent Congregations Let us now hear your Queries Q. 1. Whether any Obstacle to Catholick Communion brought in by Men may not be a means of depriving Men of it as well as Covenant or Contract Ans Yes it may but with this Material difference Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up Encloses and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions as there are Independent Congregations Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion but there can be no
Catholick Unity or Communion in the Church under Independency Q. 2. If it may which I suppose you will not deny will you not then upon this account make the Church you live in more guilty than the Independents Baptism you own is the onely thing which admits into the Catholick Church but they require no new Covenant at Baptism Ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of humane Inventions Ans Pray what comparison is there between the Church of England and Independency Whatever fault the Church of England may be charged with as to its Rites and Ceremonies which I will not now dispute with you yet all this is capable of a Remedy she may give occasion to Schism if she imposes any unlawful and Sinful Terms of Communion but yet the Frame and Essential constitution of the Church is not Schismatical but Independency is Schism in the very notion of it and an Independent Conventicle is never capable of becoming a Member of the Catholick Church But you say I own that Baptism is the onely thing which admits into the Catholick Church i. e. which makes us Members of the Universal Church and all sound parts of it and that nothing else is necessary to make a Church-Member Very right I do own this but what is my owning this to the Independents For they do not and will not own it they admit into their Churches not by Baptism but by a Human and Voluntary Covenant and will own none for Church-Members but such Baptism at most gives Men onely a disposition to be Church-Members but does not make them Members of any Church But they require no new Covenant at Baptism ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of human Invention that is they admit to Baptism without any new Covenant because Baptism does not as they believe admit into the Church ergo they admit into the Church without any clog of human Invention And yet Sir I perceive you do not understand this matter neither for though what their practise is now I cannot tell yet according to their Principles and former Practise though they required no new Covenant of the Child to be Baptized yet they would Baptize no Children but of such Parents as were in Church-Covenant with them which is the same thing and a much greater clog to Baptism than the Sign of the Cross which when I know your exceptions against I will consider them And now Sir nothing remains of your First Letter but some few Queries relating to the meaning of my Text. Your Three first Queries come onely to this whether every particular Church may not be called the Body of Christ I answer no doubt but it may and yet Christ has but one Body and all the sound Churches in the World are but one Body and must be but one Communion As you may see proved at large in the Defence of Dr. Still and the Vindication of that Defence and thither I refer you But what you mean by Christs Metaphorical Body I confess I cannot tell and therefore cannot answer that Question Your Fourth Query concerns the nature of Schism which you would not have consist in dividing Communion through difference of Opinions but through want of Charity because the Apostle says that the Members have the same care one of another Now methinks in the natural Body should the Members divide from each other though they should pretend to love one another dearly they would not be thought to have such care of one another as the Members of the same Body ought to have The Application is easy and you may find this matter plainly stated in the Defence to which I have so often referred you Thus Sir I have honestly answered all your Queries which you sent me in your First Letter and which you challenge me and conjure me as a Protestant Divine to answer Categorically in your Second whether they were so very considerable as to deserve either to be Printed or Answered I leave the Reader to consider Your Second Letter though it be somewhat Peevish yet creates me but little trouble It has brought forth but one Query and half of that is already Answered Whether if the nature of Catholick Communion requires a readiness to Communicate with any sound Church and yet a Church obliges us to Communicate with that alone while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent Communion with others is not that Church guilty of Schism in such an Injunction contrary to the nature of Catholick Communion Ans No Church can be so supposed to forbid Communion with any Church which is in Communion with her and as for Schismatical Conventicles which you are pleased to call sound Churches it is the Duty of the Church to forbid all Communion with them how near soever they be For Catholick Communion obliges us only to Communicate in the Catholick Church from whence Schismaticks have withdrawn and separated themselves and whoever Communicates with Schismaticks is in so doing a Schismatick Or at least as you proceed is it not impossible that he who Communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another can be a Schismatick or any more than an Offender against a positive human Law Ans If such true Churches be Schismatical he that Communicates with a Schismatical Church is Guilty of a Schismatical Act and how is it possible it should be otherwise Should a Man sometimes joyn with his Princes Forces and sometimes with his Enemies and Fight sometimes on the one side and sometimes on the other were he a Rebel or not To be sure he is a Rebel when he Fights against his Prince though sometimes he Fight for him We may and ought as occasion serves to Communicate with any Church which is in Catholick Communion but where there are two opposite and separate Communions to Communicate with both is like taking part on both sides and if one be in the right and the other in the wrong such a man cannot be in the right always Well but however he is no Schismatick but only an Offender against a positive human Law Yes certainly he is a Schismatick and an Offender not meerly against human positive Laws but against the Unity of the Church and the Evangelical Laws of Catholick Communion But this mention of Law puts me in mind of a passage or two at the beginning of your Preface You say perhaps it 's no absurdity to suppose that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws made for the outward management and ordering of it though not Fundamental and necessary to its being as he who incurs the penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil affairs may however be a sound Member of the State if he keep from Treason and other Capital Crimes Very right Sir While Men continue in the Communion of the Church they are Church-Members though they may be irregular and guilty of some Acts of
Disobedience but methinks it is a little absurd to say that those continue Members of the Church who separate from it Schism and Separation from the Church is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members You add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Ans Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient But Mr. Humphry's project which I perceive you are nibling at of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament which should declare Presbyterians Independants c. to be Parts of the National Church is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism that ever was thought on but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play Letters 3. p. 16. with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague p. 12. between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick p. 17. Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular p. 18. Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholick Church and bound to Communicate with that part of it in which he lives In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not p. 19. to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated p. 21. the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty
Religion but make nothing at all of his Priesthood and Sacrifice If Christ be our great High Priest and we must hope for Salvation only in vertue of his Sacrifice There must be some way appointed to apply his Merits and Salvation to us and this will convince us of the necessity of Church-Communion and a visible Confederation by Sacraments See Vindic. of the Def. cap. 3. of divine appointment But if Christ came only as a great Prophet to instruct us more perfectly in the Rules of Vertue and to give us more certain Hopes of a future State there can be no more necessity of a Church now than there was in a State of Nature Christians may associate if they please for Acts of publick worship and they may break Company when they please without any danger and the Evangelical Sacraments can be only significant Ceremonies which may be used or let alone as every one likes best At this Rate you every where discourse and I believe so well of our Dissenters that though they would be glad to be excused from the guilt of Schism yet they will not thank you for excusing them upon such Principles as tend to undermine Christianity and I believe so well of you that though you affect to talk in the modish way yet you do not understand whither it tends and I hope this timely Caution may prevent your embracing those Principles whereon your Conclusions are Naturally Built Another thing I would warn you of is that these loose Principles of Church-Communion do not tempt you to Schism and State-Factions which usually go together You pretend indeed to be in constant Communion with the Church of England but according to the Principles of your Letters no Church in the World can have any hold of you every Man is a Communicant at his own pleasure who thinks he may part without Sin And it is much to be suspected that no Man who is a hearty lover of the Church of England can make such a Zealous Defence for Dissenters who has not some private reasons for his Zeal and when Men are not Endeared to each other by one Communion it is to be feared they are linked together by some other Common Interest Now should you prove a Schismatick to say no worse it will not excuse you how many Fine Questions soever you can ask about it And that which will greatly endanger you is that great Opinion you have of your self for some men are so wanton as to espouse a Schism or Faction only to shew their Wit in Defending it and to make themselves considerable by espousing a Party I will not so much wrong you as to say that you have shewn any great Wit or Judgment in this Cause but it is evident to every impartial Man who reads your Letters that you have betrayed too great a conceit of both and that is a great deal the more dangerous of the two for true Wit and Judgment will secure Men from those mischiefs which a vain conceit of it betrays them to And now Sir all that I shall add concerns your way of Writing which neither becomes a wise Man nor a fair Disputant you have not offered any Argument to disprove any one thing I have said you have no where shewn the weakness of my Arguments to prove what I undertook but have at all Adventures askt a great many Questions and generally nothing to the purpose Now it had been easie to have askt you as many cross Questions which had been as good an Answer to your Questions as your Questions are to my Discourse and thus People might have gazed on us and have been never the wiser For to raise a great many difficulties onely tends to Scepticism and will never end a Dispute I am loth to mind you of the Proverb because I do not think the application belongs to you but yet it should make any Man of Wit ashamed of such Methods of Dispute wherein he may be out-done by a Man of no Wit I confess I have with some regret stole time from better Employment to answer your Letters but do not think my self bound to do so as often as you think fit to give a publick Challenge This Controversie if you had pleased might have been ended more privately which had been less trouble to me though it may be you thought it might have been less glorious to your self which I presume was your reason of first spreading your Letter in Writing and then of Printing it I shall not envy your Glory I had rather continue mean and obscure in a humble Obedience to Church and State than to raise the most Glorious Triumphs and Trophees to my memory by giving the least disturbance to either And that you and all sober Christians may be of the same mind is the hearty Prayer of SIR Your very Humble Servant W. S. FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer 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 Englands 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 Communions 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 of 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 taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 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
old in their calm mood who declare We testify to all Brownists Apol p. 7. An. 1604. Men by these Presents That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true ancient Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them See more in Baily's Disswasive cap. 2. p. 20 33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Part 1. § 9. p. 31. The Presbyterians if I may so call them for distinction sake do own it So Mr. Corbet The Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments by Discourse § 21 p. 43. Law established is heartily received by the Non-conformists So Mr. Baxter As for the Doctrine of the Church of England Preface to 5 Disp p. 6. the Bishops and their Followers from the first Reformation begun by Edw. 6. were sound in Doctrine adhering to the Augustan Method express'd now in the Articles and Homilies they differ'd not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritans The like is affirmed by the Independents The Confession of the Church of Peace-Offer ing p. 12. See Mr. Baxter's Defence of his Cure Part 1. p. 64. and Part 2. p. 3. and Wadsworth in his Separation yet no Schism p. 60 62. Mr. Throughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists cap. 3. p. 106. England declared in the Articles of Religion and herein what is purely doctrinal we fully embrace 2. As to the Worship they own it for the Matter and Substance to be good and for Edification So the old Non-Conformists as Mr. Hildersham There is Lecture 26. on John p. 121. nothing in our Assemblies but we may receive profit by it c. And again There is nothing done in God's Publick Worship among us but what is done by the Institution Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. So among the present it is owned by both Presbyterians and Independents by the former in the Morning Exercise Continuat Morning Exercise Serm 4. p. 91. Why may it not be supposeable that Christians may be moved by reasonable Considerations to attend the publick Forms the substantial Parts of them being thought agreeable to a Divine Institution though in some Circumstantials too disagreeable So it is acknowledged That in Throughton's Apol. p. 104. private Meetings the same Doctrine and Worship is used as in the Parish Churches only some Circumstances and Ceremonies omitted By the latter We know full well that we Peace-Offering p. 17. differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion established in England but only in some few things in outward Worship But I shall have further occasion to treat of this under the third General 3. As for the Ministry of the Church 1. It is acknowledged to be true and for substance the same which Christ hath established So Mr. Bradshaw I Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 16. affirm That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies howsoever it may in some particular parts of the Execution haply be defective in some Places is for the Substance thereof that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church This he speaks as he saith of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State 2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office so the grave and modest Confutation maintains The preaching of the whole Truth of God's Word Grave and modest Confutat p. 28. and nothing but it the Administration of the Sacraments and of Publick Prayer as they are of all parts of the Ministers Office prescribed in the Word so they are all appointed to our Ministers by the Law 3. They own That all the Defects in it whether in their Call or Administration do not nullify the Office Thus much Mr. Bradshaw doth contend for So many of our Ministers Unreasonableness of Separation p. 27 37. who in the Book of Ordination are called Priests and Deacons as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry are qualified according to the intent of the Laws have their Offices Callings Adminstration and Maintenance for the Substance thereof ordained by Christ And yet I deny not but there may be some accidental Defects or Superfluities in or about them all yet such as do not or cannot be proved to destroy the Nature and Substance of any of them This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England c. p. 86 87. And the like is also affirmed even by those of the Apologet. Narration p. 6. Congregational Way so the Brethren in their Apology The unwarrantable Power in Church-Governours did never work in any of us any other Thought much less Opinion but that the Ministry thereof of the English Churches was a true Ministry So Mr. Cotton The Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. Power whereby the Ministers in England do administer the Word and Sacraments is either spiritual and proper essential to their Calling or advantitious and accidental The former they have received from Christ c. The latter from the Patron who presents or the Bishop who ordains c. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordination defended may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici part 2 p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Divinum Regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism pag. 116. and his Defence of it pag. 35 37. Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed that the Church of England is a true Church in its Doctrine Worship and Ministry But when we come to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true there we shall find that they do differ The Presbyterians generally own a National Church and have writ much in the behalf of it as may be seen in the Books quoted in the * * * Jus Divinum Minist Evang. p 12 c. Brinsly's Church-remedy p 41 42. Cawdry Independ a great Schism p. 60 89 172. Margin Others look upon it as a prudential thing and what may lawfully be complied with So Mr. Tombs | | | Theodulia or just Defence § 15 16. Preface c. 9. § 3. It is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England the Church of England than it is to term Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any Institution of our Lord more for the one than the other But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a Constitution or that speak doubtfully of it do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches It 's acknowledged by all that the Distribution into Parishes is not of Divine but Humane Institution but withal its thought by some * * * Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh clouded p. 101 c. Cawdrey's Independ a great Schism p. 132 c. Church-Reformation p. 42. agreeable to the reason of the
unlawful And upon the Reasons given in they agreed such Communion to be lawful and meet when it would not do more Harm than Good that is they agreed that it was lawful in it self 2. They hold that they are not to separate further from such a true Church than the things that they separate for are unlawful or are conceived so to be that is that they ought to go as far as they can and do what lawfully they may towards Communion with it For they declare * * * Burrough's Irenic p. 182. That to joyn in nothing because they cannot joyn in all things is a dividing Practice and not to do what they can do in that case is Schism for then the Separation is rash and unjust †††Vindication of Presbyter Governm Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 32. Therefore if the Ministerial Communion be thought unlawful and the Lay-Communion lawful the Unlawfulness of the former doth not bar a Person from joyning in the latter The denying of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer doth not gainsay the Lawfulness of partaking in that Worship it being sound for the substance in the main c. * * * Corbet's Plea for Lay-Communion c. p. 2. as a judicious Person hath observed This was the Case generally of the old Non-conformists who notwithstanding their Exclusion from their Publick Ministry held full Communion with the Church of England We are told by a good Hand That as Irenicum by Discipulus de tempore Junior alias M. Newcomen Epist to the Reader Friendly Tryal c. 7. p. 121. heretofore Mr. Parker Mr. Knewstubs Mr. Vdal c. and the many Scores suspended in Queen Elizabeth and King James's Reign So also of later times Mr. Dod Mr. Cleaver c. were utterly against even Semi-Separation i. e. against absenting themselves from the Prayers and the Lord's Supper So it 's affirmed of them by Mr. Ball They have evermore condemned voluntary Separation from the Congregations and Assemblies or negligent frequenting of those Publick Prayers And * * * Hildersham Lect on John R. Rogers's 7 Treatises Tr. 7. c. 4. p. 224. some of them earnestly press the People to prefer the publick Service before the private and to come to the beginning of the Prayers as an help to stir up God's Graces c. And others did both receive the Sacrament and exhort others so to do as I shall afterwards shew 2. Again if in Lay-Communion any thing is thought to be unlawful that is no reason against the things that are lawful This was the Case of many of the godly and learned Non-conformists in the last Age as we are told that Vindicat. of the Presbyt Govern p. 135. were perswaded in their Consciences that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England in receiving the Sacrament kneeling without Sin yet did they not separate from her Indeed in that particular Act they withdrew but yet so as they held Communion with her in the rest And thus much is owned by those of the present Age as one declares The Church of England Jerubbaal p. 28 30. being a true Church so that a total Separation from her is unwarrantable therefore Communion with her in all parts of real solemn Worship wherein I may joyn with her without either Let or Sin is a Duty So another saith of them Throughton's Apol. p. 107. They are ready and desirous to return to a full Vnion with the Parishes when ever the Obstacles shall be removed And again They hold Communion with the Parishes not only in Faith and Doctrine but also in Acts of Worship where they think they can lawfully do it This those of the Congregational-Way do also accord to that they ought in all lawful things to communicate with the Churches of England not only in Obedience to the Magistrate in which case they also acknowledg it to be their Duty as well as others but Mr. Nye's Case of great and present use p. 4 and 5. Mr. Read's Case p. 14. also as they are true Churches and therefore plead for the Lawfulness of hearing the established Ministry and undertake to answer the Objections brought against it whether taken from the Ministers Ordination * * * Burrough's Irenic p. 183. Lawfulness of hearing the publick Ministers of the Church of England Nye's Case p. 24 25. or Lives or the Church in which they are Ministers c. as you may find them in Mr. Robinson's Plea for it of old and Mr. Nye's of late as they are printed together Upon the Consideration of which the latter of these thus concludes In most of the Misperswasions of these latter Times by which Mens Minds have been corrupted I find in whatsoever they differ one from another yet in this they agree That it 's unlawful to hear in publick which I am perswaded is one constant Design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on Foot by Jesuits amongst us Let us therefore be the more aware of whatsoever tends that way Of this Opinion also is Mr. Tombs though he continued Theodulia Or a just Defence of Hearing c. c. 10. § 15. p. 369. c. 9. § 8. p. 319. an Anabaptist who has writ a whole Book to defend the hearing of the present Ministers of England and towards the close of the Work hath given forty additional Reasons for it and in opposition to those he writes against doth affirm Sure if the Church be called Mount Sion from the preaching of the Gospel the Assemblies of England may be called Sion Christ's Candlesticks and Garden as well as any Christians in the World I shall conclude this with what Mr. Robinson saith in this Case viz. For my self thus Treatise of the Lawfulness of Hearing c. p. ult I believe with my Heart before God and profess with my Tongue and have before the World that I have one and the same Faith Spirit Baptism and Lord which I had in the Church of England and none other that I esteem so many in that Church of what State or Order soever as are truly Partakers of that Faith as I account thousands to be for my Christian Brethren and my self a Fellow-Member with them of that one Mystical Body of Christ scattered far and wide throughout the World that I have always in Spirit and Affection all Christian Fellowship and Communion with them and am most ready in all outward Actions and Exercises of Religion lawful and lawfully done to express the same And withal that I am perswaded the hearing of the Word of God there preached in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned both lawful and upon occasion necessary for me and all true Christians withdrawing from that Hierarchical Order of Church-Government and Ministry and the uniting in the Order and Ordinances instituted by Christ Thus far he From what hath been said upon
this Head we may observe That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons according to the Principles they espouse they agree not in the Constitution of Churches c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be as I have observed before true Churches of Christ that Communion with such Churches is lawful and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing as whether it be an Act of Communion and about the Call of those they hear yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches are equally condemned by all 3. They hold that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church and affect the Vitals of Religion or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion 1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church or affect the vital Parts of Religion So saith Mr. Tombs Not every nor many Corruptions Theodulia Answer to Preface § 23. p. 47 48. of some kind do unchurch there being many in Faith Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia Aid Blake 's Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 229 c who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of Errors in Faith as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith to wit Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man and Salvation by him Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in Life by evil Manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched For till then the Corruptions are tolerable and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church or to depart from it So Mr. Brinsly Arraignment of Schism p. 50. Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us yet are they tolerable If so then is Separation on this ground intolerable unwarrantable in as much as it ought not to be but upon a very great and weighty Cause and that when there is no Remedy So Mr. Noyes Private Brethren may not Temple measured p. 78. separate from Churches or Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners Heresy or Prophaneness To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen and Mr. Cotton The former asserts That many Errors in Evangelical Love p. 76. Doctrine disorders in sacred Administrations irregular walking in Conversation with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers may fall out in some Churches and yet not evacuate their church-Church-state or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion and separate from them The latter saith Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 156. Unless you find in the Church Blasphemy or Idolatry or Persecution i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion there is no just Ground of Separation This is universally own'd But if any one should yet continue unconvinced let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture collected by Mr. Baxter and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable Observe saith he that no Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 5. p. 40 c. one Member is in all these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful And therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were 2. They are not to separate if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these On the Sacrament p. 239. The Church may be corrupted many ways in Doctrine Ordinances Worship c. And there are degrees of this Corruption the Doctrine in some remote Points the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom How many Churches do we find thus corrupted and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth c. to separate I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption hold the Communion But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed the Worship is become idolatrous and what is above all if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful in that Case Come out of Babylon The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature nor thus strictly required then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful and may be a Duty So saith Mr. Corbet in the name of the present Nonconformists We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33. true Church as no Church for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof while our personal Profession of some Error or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more for he saith Irenicum c. 23. p. 162 163. Where these Causes are not viz. the being constrained to profess believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith or being deprived of Means altogether necessary or most expedient to Salvation but Men may communicate without Sin professing the Truth and enjoy all Ordinances as the Free-men of Christ Men must not separate from a Church tho there be Corruption in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion yet if not actually imposed upon us our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue So Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 103. though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation as it is also own'd for saith one When the Corruptions of a Church are such as Jerubbaal p. 12. that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably that seems to me to be a just Ground though not of a Positive yet of a Negative though not of a total yet of a partial Separation i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser but is not so for the greater Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion
they may not lawfully joyn together with whom shall the Faithful joyn at all Is not this to fill the Conscience with Scruples and the Church with Rents Such as these must if they will be true Sacriâ—eg defer p. 95. to their own Principles renounce Communion with all the World and be like those that Mr. Baxter tells us he Defence of his Cure part 1. p. 47. knows That never communicate with any Church nor ever publickly hear or pray or worship God at all because they think all your ways which he directs to Mr. Bagshaw and other Non-conformists of Worship to be bad With this there can be no continuance in any Communion so much Mr. Burroughs doth maintain There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship Irenic c. 23. p. 163. if this a Separation from a Church for Corruptions in it were admitted for what Church is so pure and hath all things so comfortable but within a while another Church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there Upon the mischievous Consequences of this did Mr. R. Allein ground his last Advice to his Parishioners Destroy Godly Mans Portion p. 127. not saith he all Communion by seeking after a purer Church than in this imperfect State we shall ever attain According to this Principle no Communion at all if not in all where shall we rest In all Society something will offend With this lastly there can be no Order Union or Peace in the Church So Mr. Baines a Person of Comment on â—phes c. 2. 15. p. 297. great Experience This seeking the Peace of Sion reproveth such as make a Secession or Departure from the Church of God our visible Assemblies either upon dislike of some Disorders in Administration Ecclesiastical or disallowed Forms and manner of procuring things which the Communion of Saints for full Complement and Perfection requireth This is not in my conceit so much to reform as to deform to massacre the Body and divide the Head c. and will end in the Dissolution Morton's Memorial p. 78 c. Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure part 2. p. 171. of all Church-Communion if it be followed as is notoriously evident in the case of Mr. R. Williams of New-England that for the sake of greater Purity separated so long that he owned no Church nor Ordinances of God in the World and at his motion the People that were in Communion with him dissolved themselves as we have the account from thence This therefore is one of the Doctrines we are to avoid according to the prudent Advice in a Book above-cited Doctrines crying up Purity to the England's Remembrancer Serm. 14. p. 371. Ruine of Unity reject for the Gospel calls for Unity as well as Purity Fifthly They argue That to separate upon such Arg. 5 an account is not at all warranted in Scripture Thus Mr. Cawdrey It is no Duty of Christ's imposing no Independ a. Schism p. 192. Priviledg of his purchasing either to deprive a Mans self of his Ordinances for other Mens Sins or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some Reformation in lighter Matters Saith Mr. Blake Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 228. We read not of Separation in his way for the sake of Abuses and Corruptions approved nor any Presidents to go before us in it we read a heavy Brand laid upon it Jude 19. These be they who separate themselves sensual not having the Spirit So the Congregations in New-England declare The Faithful in the Church of Platfoâ—m of Discipline in New-England c. 14. § 8. Corinth wherein were many unworthy Persons and Practices are never commanded to absent themselves from the Sacrament because of the same therefore the Godly in like Cases are not presently to separate It should rather have been inferr'd are not to separate for so much must be concluded from the Premises if any thing at all This is accordingly infer'd by Mr. Noyes For Brethren to separate from Temple measured p. 78. Churches and Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners in Heresy or Prophaneness is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice both of Christ and his Apostles Unto whom I shall add the Testimony of Mr. Tombs Separation Theodulia Answ to Pref. § 25. p. 48. from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in Worship or Conversation c. is utterly dissonant from any of the Rules or Examples which either of old the Prophets or holy Men or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed is for the most part the Fault of Pride or bitter Zeal and tends to Strife and Confusion and every evil Work Sixthly They argue That there is no necessity Arg. 6 for Separation for the sake of such Corruptions because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions It was the Opinion of the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy-Conference Confer Savoy p. 12 13. Mr. Baxter's Defence of the Cure p. 34 35. that not only the hearing but the reading a defective Liturgy was lawful to him that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none And if there was a Possibility of thus separating the substance from the circumstantial Defects in the Ministerial Use of such Worship much more may this be supposed to to be done by those that only attend upon it and are not obliged by any Act of their own to give an explicite Consent to all and every thing used in it 1. This Separation of the good from the bad in Divine Worship they grant possible So Mr. Ball If Trial of the Grounds c. p. 308. some things human be mixed with divine a sound Christian must separate the one from the other and not cast away what is of God as a nullity fruitless unprofitable defiled because somewhat of Men is annexed unto them In the Body we can distinguish betwixt the Substance and the Sickness which cleaveth unto it betwixt the Substance of a Part or Member and some Bunch or Swelling which is a Deformity but destroyeth not the Nature of that Part or Member c. So Mr. Calamy It 's Door of Truth opened p. 7. one thing to keep our selves pure from Pollution another to gather Churches out of Churches 2. They grant that what is faulty and a Sin in Worship is no Sin to us when we do not consent to it So Mr. Corbet My Non-conformists Plea c p. 6. partaking in any Divine Worship which is holy and good for the Matter and allowable or passable in the mode for the main doth not involve me in the blame of some sinful Defects therein to which I consent not and which I cannot redress So another in his Farewel Sermon While all necessary fundamental Truth is England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94. publickly professed and maintained in a Church is taught and held forth in publick
us what they really were for amongst those Saints were found strange immortalities altogether contradictory to the sacredness of their Vocation But does not the Apostle say Christ loved the Church Eph. 5. 25. and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish I answer Holiness in this place must be confest to be meant a real and inward holiness but then by Church is not to be understood the whole complex Body of the Universal Church in this World but either that part of it that in this World is really tho' imperfectly holy and is every day pressing forwards to higher degrees of it or else that Church which shall be in the future state when all the corrupt and unsound Members shall be by death and the final decision of God for ever excommunicated out of it and all the Members that remain in it only such as were in some acceptable degrees holy here and shall then be perfected in holiness Neither is this to make two Churches of Christ as the Donatists objected one in which good and bad are mingled together and another in which there are good alone but only to assign two different states of the same Church the one in this World compos'd of good and bad externally holy in respect of all by vocation and internally holy in respect of some in it by sanctification the other in the next World where there shall be a separation made betwixt the Sheep and the Goats and all remaining in the Church such as shall at once be perfectly holy and compleatly happy This is that Church which Christ shall present to himself glorious not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but holy and without blemish This being spupos'd all that will be needful to say in answer to this Question may be comprehended under these three Propositions 1. That an external Profession of the Christian Faith is enough to qualifie a person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church 2. That every such Member has a right to all the external Priviledges of the Church till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he has forfeited that right and by the just censures of the Church he be for such behaviour actually excluded from those Priviledges 3. That some corrupt and scandalous Members remaining in the Communion through the want of the du◠exercise of discipline in it or the negligence and connivance of the Governours and Pastors of it gives no such cause to any to Separate from her I begin with the first That an external Profession of the Christian Faith c. This Profession in grown and adult persons is to be made by themselves Thus it was at the first erection of the Christian Church when Persons by the Preaching and Miracles of the Apostles were converted from the Pagan Superstition and Jewish Religion to the Christian Faith they were to believe and with the Eunuch Acts 8. 27. to declare their belief I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God In Infants and Children not grown up to years of discretion by their Parents and those who at the request of their Parents do together with them undertake for them So great an interest and propriety have Parents in their Children so intire an affection and concern for their good and happiness so unquestionable an authority over them so binding and obligatory are all their reasonable commands upon them that we have good grounds to believe that they that are born of Christian Parents will be brought up in the Christian Religion and at years of understanding take upon themselves what their Parents and Sureties promis'd for them and upon this account that profession of Faith made by others at their Baptism in their behalf may in a favourable sense be reckon'd as made by themselves so God accounted it in the Jewish Church upon the account of their Parents being in covenant with God were the Children of the Jews esteem'd an holy Seed and at eight days old admitted by Circumcision into the same Church and Covenant with them And the same reason holds for admitting Children born of Christian Parents into the Christian Church by the Rite of Baptism which is the Sign and Seal of the Covenant under the Gospel as Circumcision was of that under the Law Now that this external profession without any farther signs of saving Grace is ground sufficient for those with whom God hath entrusted the Keys and Government of his Church to admit persons into it will appear from these particulars 1. This is the qualification prescrib'd by our Lord he is the Head and Founder of his Church to him therefore does it appertain to appoint the terms and conditions of admission into it and what these are we may learn from that commission he gave his Apostles when he sent them out to gather a Church under him viz. the becoming his Disciples Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations Now a Disciple is properly one not that has already attain'd to the full Mat. 28. 19. knowledg and saving effects of the Gospel but only understands so much of it as to be willing to be admitted into the Christian Church in order to his being farther taught the one and to have the other more throughly wrought in him Whether men are sincere in their profession of the Christian Faith and in their desires to be admitted Members of Christ's Church and whether this great Priviledg and Blessing of Church-membership will be effectual to produce in them that regeneration and new creature for which it was design'd the Pastors and Governours of the Church cannot know This their bare profession and desire is enough to give them a title to it and qualification for it By this rule the Apostles of Christ walkt as to this particular even when they liv'd with him here on Earth and were under his immediate direction The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and Baptiz'd more Disciples than John tho' Jesus himself did not Baptize John 4. 2. but his Disciples Now if as it was fam'd abroad and is not in the Text contradicted Jesus's Disciples Baptiz'd more than John it follows that they baptiz'd more than were sincere when we read that so few not above an Hundred and Twenty continued with Christ to the last Acts 1. 15. 2. It appears from the Apostles practice afterwards in admitting persons into the Church Nothing but a profess'd willingness to receive the Gospel tho they receiv'd it not from the heart was requir'd by them in order to it The Text tells us that they that gladly receiv'd St. Peter 's words were baptiz'd
meant by external Priviledges 2 What kind of Offenders those are that forfeit their right to them and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from them 3. Upon what the right of those Members that have not so offended is grounded 1. What 's meant by external Priviledges As there are two sorts of Members in Christ's visible Church so there are two sorts of Priviledges that belong to them each sort having those that are proper and peculiar to it according to the nature of that relation they bear to the Head and their fellow Members 1. There are Members only by foederal or covenant-holiness such as are only born of water when by Baptism they were united to Christ and the Church and took upon them the Profession and Practice of the Christian Religion Now the Priviledges that belong to these are of the same make with their Church-membership external and consisting only in an outward and publick Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances 2. There are Members by real and inherent holiness such as are not only born of Water but of the Spirit also when by the inward operations of the Holy Ghost their Souls are renew'd after the Image of God and made partakers of a Divine Nature And the Priviledges that belong to these are not only the forementioned ones but together with them others that are sutable to their more spiritual relation inward and such as consist in the especial and particular care and protection of God the pardon and remission of their sins by the Blood of Christ and the gracious influences and comforts of the Holy Ghost All comprehended in that Prayer of the Apostle for his Corinthians The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be 2 Cor. 13. 14. with you all Amen Now t is of the first sort of Members and that sort of Priviledges that belong to them that the Proposition is to be understood 2. What kind of Offenders those are that have forfeited their right to and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from those Priviledges This the Apostle hath plainly told us and our own Church in its Exhortation to the Sacrament fairly intimates I have wrote unto you says St. Paul not no keep company 1 Cor. 5. 11. if any Man that is call'd a Brother be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner no not to eat Not only as much as can be to have no familier conversation with ver 10. him in civil matters tho' some must be had whilst we are in this World but also and more especially to avoid communion with him in religious exercises and how that is to be done the Apostle tells us viz. not by forsaking the Church our selves but by doing our utmost endeavours to have him cast out of it So it follows Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked ver 13. person And In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one ver 4 5. unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may bo sav'd in the day of the Lord Jesus Agreeable hereunto are the words of the Exhortation If any of you be a blasphemer of God a hinderer and slanderer of his Word an Adulterer or be in malice or envy or in any other greivous Crime repent you of your sins or come not to that holy Table Such sinners as these have in a manner undone and made void what was done in their behalf in Baptism They by not performing what was then promis'd for them but living directly contrary to it do virtually renounce that Covenant they then entred into with God in Christ and fall back again into the state of Pagans and Infidels Their Sureties engag'd for them that they should believe the Christian Faith keep God's Commandments and renounce the World the Flesh and the Devil But such habitual notorious Offenders as these say by their Practice what had they to do to undertake such things for us we will stand to no such engagements but we will be at large to believe what we please and to practice what we fancy and to worship whom we think fit And thus as it were breaking off from being in Covenant with God and virtually renouncing their Church-membership they at the same time lose all right and title to those Blessings and Priviledges that were due to them upon the account thereof and in this sad state and condition did the Primitive Christians reckon all that had hâ—ghly and notorâ—ously sinn'd amongst whom especially were the lapsed that had offer'd Sacrifice they staid not for a formal Sentence to be pronounc'd against them by the Church but lookt upon them as ipso facto excommunicate and tho' till that was past they could not actually be shut out yet they began before to avoid their Company and to forbear all religious commerce towards them But so long as Men keep in Covenant with God and abide in his Church which may be done by holding that profession of Faith that they made at their first entrance into it their right to the external franchises of it remains inviolable and their title without question As may appear from these particulars 1. From the Tenour of that Covenant they in their Baptism enter'd into with God which consists of Promises on God's part as well as Conditions on Mans. The Promises on God's part are exprest in these general 2 Cor. 6. 61. words I will be their God The Conditions on Mans in those and they shall be my People Now so far as Men perform the Conditions so far will God make good his Promises In what sense they are a People to God in the same he 'll be a God unto them If a bare faederal holiness can give Men a relation to God and God upon that account owns them to be a People unto him the same gives them some kind of interest in God and a claim to the blessings that belong to that relation Not that such Members as these are to expect those special and particular favours that are the portion of those that are more nearly and by a kind of spiritual consanguinity allied to God in Christ but yet being of God's houshould are to be allowed the liberty to partake of those external blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole Family 2. From the nature of Church-membership Church-membership necessarily implies Church-Communion or else it signifies nothing for to be admitted a Member of the Church and not to have a right in common with the rest to Church-Priviledges is to be taken in with one hand and to be thrown out with the other 't is to be put back into the state of those that are no Members and virtually to be cut off from
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
Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punnish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that even Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of Place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Batipzed VVhere do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Prerbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not VVorship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the VVorship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly VVhere do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a position can render things not Commanded to be unlawful And now I am come to that which must put an Issue one way or other to the Dispute for if there be no such position in Scripture either expressed in it or to be gathered by good consequence from it we have gain'd the point but if there be then we must give it up And this is indeed contended for For it s Objected That it s accounted in Scripture an hainous Crime Object I to do things not commanded as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange Fire before the Lord which he Commanded Levit. 10. 1 c. them not c. From which form of expression it may be collected that what is not Commanded is Forbidden and that in every thing used in Divine Worship there must be a Command to make it lawful and allowable To this I answer that the Proposition infer'd that all Answ I things not Commanded are Forbidden is not true and so it cannot be the Sence and Meaning of the Phrase for 1. Then all things must be either Commanded or Forbidden and there would be nothing but what must be Commanded or Forbidden but I have before shewed and it must be granted that there are things neither Commanded nor Forbidden which are called Indifferent 2. If things not Commanded are Forbidden then a thing not Commanded is alike Hainous as a thing Forbidden And then David's Temple which he designed to Build would have been Criminal as well as Jeroboam's Dan and Bethel and the Feast of (a) (a) (a) Esth 9. 27. Purim like Jeroboam's Eighth Month (b) (b) (b) 1 King 12. 32 33. and the Synagogal Worship like the Sacrificing in Gardens (c) (c) (c) Isai 65. 3. and the hours of Prayer (d) (d) (d) Act. 3. 1. like Nadab's Strange Fire The former of which were things Uncommanded and the latter Forbidden and yet They were approved and These condemned 2. The things to which this Phrase not Commanded is applied to give no encouragement to such an Inference from it for its constantly applied to such as are absolutely Forbidden This was the case of Nadab and Abihu who offered Fire not meerly Uncommanded but what was prohibited which will appear if we consider that the Word Strange when applied to matters of Worship doth signify as much as Forbidden Thus we read of Strange Incense that is other than what was compounded Exod. 30. 9 according to the directions given for it which as it was to be put to no common uses so no common Ver. 34. Ch. 37 29. persmue was to be put to the like uses with it So we also read of Strange Vanities which is but another Jer. 8. 19. Word for Graven Images and of Strange Gods And after the same sort is it to be understood in the case before us viz. for what is Forbidden For that such was the Fire made use of by those Young Men will be further confirm'd if we consider that there is scarcely any thing belonging to the Altar Setting aside the Structure of it of which more is said than of the Fire burning upon it For 1. It was lighted from Heaven (a) (a) (a) Lev. 9. 24. 2. It was always to be burning upon the Altar (b) (b) (b) Ch. 6. 12. 3.
Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attemps to discribe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion it 's likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judg of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful or unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things then they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head c. for that though Indifferent in another case is not in that as being unsutable to it 3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent are therein also Indifferent and may be lawfully used It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves as some unwarily do and therefore presently they may be used For by the same reason a Person may Spit in anothers Face may keep on his Hat before the King c. the Spitting and being Covered being in their Nature Indifferent But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation and which even in that case do tye us up in the use of things otherwise Indifferent So it is as reasonable and must be much more allowed that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship And as in Common matters the Nature of the thing in Actions the end in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. Time Place Persons as when where before whom we are Covered or Uncovered c. So in Sacred matters the Nature of the thing in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory Security of that in its Order are to be respected And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things are we to judg of the Indifferency Lawfulness or expediency of things used in the Service of God and as they do make for or against and do approach to or recede from these Characters so they are to be rejected or observed and the more or less esteemed But yet we are not come to a conclusion for 1. These are general Rules and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to 2. Decency and Edification and Order are as was observed before Variable and Uncertain and depend upon Circumstances and so in their Nature not easily determined And 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome some were for and others against the Observation of Days and in the Church of Corinth some doubtless were for being Covered others for being Uncovered in Divine Worship And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction
in the point and by which we may be able to Judg what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as well as we are by what is Decent c. to Determine what is fit to be used in Religious Worship And this we may be help'd in by considering 1. That some things make so Eminently for or are so Notoriously opposite to these Rules that Common Reason will be able forthwith to Judge of them and to declare for or against them So when the Love-feasts and the Lords Supper were appointed for the testifying and increase of mutual Charity if one took his Supper before another it was to make it rather a private 1 Cor. 11 20 21. Meal than a Religious Feast and so was a Notorious Breach of Order and Christian Fellowship So a Tumultuous speaking of many together is less for Edification and hath more of Confusion than the Orderly speaking of one by one And Service in an Unknown Tongue doth less conduce to Edification than when it it is in a Language Vulgarly known and Understood 1 Cor. 14. 16. 17 26 27. this is a case that Reason as well as the Apostle doth Determine to our Hands and which Mankind would with one consent soon agree to were it not for a certain Church in the Wotld that carries those of its Communion against sense Reason and Nature for its own advantage 2. But there are other things which are not so Clear and Evident and so the case needs further consideration For the clearing of which we may observe 1. That we are not so much to Judge of Decency Order and Edification asunder as together these having a mutual Relation to and dependance upon each other So it s well observed by St. Chrysostom That Chrys in 1 Cor. Ch. 14. 40. 1 Cor. 14. 26. nothing doth so much Edify as Order Peace and Love And the Apostle when he had reproved the Disorders of their Service in the Church of Corinth concludes it Let all things be done to Edifying The not observing of this is the occasion of very great Mistakes in this matter For Persons when they would Judge of Edification consider presently what they conceive doth most improve them in Knowledge or any particular Grace and having no further consideration for the sake of this throw down the Bounds of Publick Order and bring all into Confusion and for Edifying as they apprehend themselves do Disturb if not Destroy the Church of God and render the means used in it ineffectual to themselves and others Thus again they Judge of what is Decent and Indecent and conclude that there is no Indecency in Sitting suppose at the Sacrament or the Prayers but they mistake in such a conception whilst what is against publick Order and Practice is for that reason Indecent were there no other reason to make it so So that if we would Judge aright of either of these we must Judge of them together and as Order alone is not enough to make a thing Decent which is in it self Indecent so Decency or particular Edification is not enough to recommend that which is not to be Introduced or Obtained without the Disturbance and Overthrow of publick Order and Peace 2. When the case is not apparent we should rather Judge by what is contrary than by what is agreeable to those Rules We know better what things are not than what they are And if Christians should never agree to any thing in the External Administration of Divine Worship till they agree in the notion of Decency Order and Edification or till they can prove that the things used or required to be used in a Church do exactly agree to the Notion and Definition of it Worship must never be Administred or the greater part of Christians must Exclude themselves from it And yet this must be done before it can be positively said unless in things very manifest that this is Decent or that is Orderly c. These things as I have said are variable and depend upon Circumstances and so Persons must needs be Wonderfully Confounded if they come to Niceties and insist upon them And therefore as we better know what is Indecent than Decent Disorderly than Orderly against than for Edification so it s better to take the course abovesaid in Judging about it As for instance if we would enquire into the Decency of the Posture to be used in the Lord's Supper or the Edification that may arise from it some will say its best to receive it in the Posture frequently used in the Devotions of the ancient Church of Standing or Incurvation others would choose Sitting as the dissenting Parties amongst us and some Forreign Churches others be for the Posture of Kneeling used in ours and many more and all with some shew of Reason In these different cases it may not perhaps be so easy for a Person Educated in a different way from what is practised and Prescribed to Judg of the Decency or Edification but if he find it not Indecent or Destructive of Piety and of the ends for which the Ordinance was Instituted he is therewith to satisfy himself St. Austin puts alike case and gives the like answer Some Churches Fast on the Saturday Epist 118. because Christ's Body was then in the Grave and he in a State of Humiliation Others do Eat on the Saturday both because that Day God Rested from his Work and Christ Rested in the Grave And how in such a case to Determine our selves both in Opinion and Practice that Father thus directs If saith he what is joyned be not against Faith or good Manners it is to be accounted Indifferent And I may add if it be not Indecent Disorderly and Destructive of Piety its lawful 3. If the case be not apparent and we cannot easily find out how the things used and injoyned in a Church are Decent c. we are to consider that we are in or Obliged to be of a Church and that these things do respect such a Society and therefore are to be Cautious how we Condemn this or that for Indecent Confused and Inexpedient when we see Christians agreeing in the Practice of them and such whom for other things we cannot Condemn When we find if we argue against it they argue for it and produce Experience against Experience and Reason against Reason and that we have a whole Church against our particular conceptions of things of this Nature we should be apt to think the Fault may be in our selves and that it s for want of Understanding and Insight for want of Use and Tryal and by Reason of some Prejudices or Professions that we thus differ in our Judgment from them We see what little things do Determin Men ordinarily in these matters how addicted some are to their own Ways and Customs and forward to Like or Condemn according to their Education which doth form their conceptions and fix their inclinations how Prone again others are to Novelty and Innovation So St.
no Communion with it is to us a New Assertion And so it is to me who only did maintain these two things That there Case of Indifferent things Pag. 15. was no Church or Society but would be found guilty if things uncommanded were unlawful and if the having such uncommanded things would make Communion with a Church unlawful then no Church could be Communicated with So that all that I affirmed was there could be no Communion Lawful to such as held it unlawful to communicate with a Church for the Sake of things uncommanded And who are concerned in this our Author very well knows such I mean as plead this as an argument for their present Separation But though the Assertion as he words it is neither mine nor true yet I dare affirm there are some things uncommanded which every particular Christian must practise or else he can be said to have no Communion with the Churches where such things are practised Such are Forms of Prayer and receiving the Sacrament in the Forenoon and without sitting where there is no provision made for them that would use that posture as well as where it is not allowed And this was the case in the ancient Churches To which he replies Their practices are great uncertainties and their writings depraved or it cannot be made appear that none could have any Communion with those Churches unless he did eat the Lord's Supper fasting or prayed toward the East That their writings are depraved is very true But that they are so depraved as that there is nothing certainly theirs is what no one will assert And that they are not depraved in the passages or things I quoted from thence is very evident from the concurrence of the Fathers therein and the general consent of learned men of all sides As to what he saith that it doth not appear that none could have Communion with them unless c. It were easy to refute it and to shew it in the Instances I gave and to make it out in one for all viz. That of receiving the Lord's Supper Fasting of which St. Austin saith thus Liquidò apparet c. It plainly appears that our Saviour and Epist 118. ad Januar. his Disciples did not receive it Fasting but shall the Vniversal Church be therefore reproached because it receiveth Fasting And this pleased the Holy-Ghost that in Honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of Christ should First enter into the mouth of a Christian For therefore is this custom observed through the universal Church And more to the same purpose may our Author read in that Epistle Now when this was the practice as they say of the Universal Church and that they so practised upon the score of an Apostolical Precept as St. Austin there saith how truly is not my business to enquire can we think that it was not required Or that there could be any Communion with those Churches if any did otherwise I added to the ancient Church the State of the Reformed Churches abroad and shewed how they do use things uncommanded in the Worship of God and how impossible it is upon the principles of those that dissent from our Church to hold Communion with theirs To this he replies we have not heard of any thing used among them in Worship c. but what is prescribed excepting only some Forms of Prayer relating to the Sacrament 2. None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling 3. They compel not any to receive Standing or Sitting I would be loth to charge our Author with want of diligence or integrity but how reconcilable this is to it that he saith I must leave to the impartial Reader Supposing however the first to be true yet if they have some Forms they have somewhat not prescribed But have they only some Forms relating to the Sacrament What then shall we say to Capellus that saith diverse Thes Salmur part 3. p. 307. of them have set Forms of Liturgies What to their Formularies as those of Holland and Switzerland What to the Bohemian Churches that have also Forms in Singing Comen de bono unit Annot. cap. 3. of Humane Composure Have they nothing but Forms of Prayer what then thinks he of Anniversary Festivals observed in the Helvetick and Bohemick Churches And Confes Helvet Comen ibid. c. 7. c. 3. §. 2. of God-Fathers in Baptism As much mistaken is he when he saith None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling as appears from the Petricovâ—an Synod that I quoted Case of Indiff Things p. 9. Case examined Pag. 13. in the foresaid Tract But to this he answers it is not at all to be wondred that the Lutherans in that Synod should determine as they did c. Doth he hereby mean that there were none but Lutherans in that Synod or that the Lutherans in that Synod only determined it Which way soever he would be understood it 's a wretched mistake For the Synod was composed of those of the Helvetick Augustan and Bohemick Confession and subscribed by all of them and was indeed but one of several Synods they held in Common together If he had but looked into this Synod all this discourse might have been saved and he might have answered his own Question We desire to know what more receive Sitting except the Lutheran Churches What he produceth the 3d. for I cannot well understand for it 's all one if those Churches forbid any one particular posture as if they required another And yet some do forbid Sitting as the Synod above V. Case of Kneeling p. 14. 15. quoted and one Church Kneeling I proceeded further to shew that they themselves could not then be Communicated with since they do things without prescription as in administring the Sacraments conceived Prayer Swearing and Church-Governments and order He saith we do not make Sitting necessary but that is not the point in dispute for he by his principles should shew where it is commanded For conceived Prayer he argues How this is prescribed he and others have been told elsewhere and those that have told it have had a sufficient answer Laying the hands on the Book he saith is a civil no sacred usage as if the invoking God and a solemn testimony of our so invoking him by some external Rite were meerly civil Such then was lifting up the hand which was anciently used in swearing and so appropriated to it that it was put for swearing it self Gen. 14. 22. Ex. 6. 8. They that can affirm such things as these may affirm any thing As for the things relating to Church-order he saith Ten times more is allowed to matters of Government than Worship But he undertakes not my argument taken from the parity of reason betwixt the Kingly and Priestly offices of our Saviour And which the Presbyterian Vindicat. of Presbyt Gov. p. 4. Brethren so approve of as to use the same Arguments for Government as Worship The Third general was to enquire how we might
§. 3. know what things are indifferent in the Worship of God The main things he herein objects against respect Edification In handling of which he thus sums up my sense of it Our Author would not have us judge of Edification from what most improveth Christians in Case examined Pag. 33. knowledg and grace but from what tendeth most to publick Order as if I spoke of Order in opposition to and as exclusive of a Christians improvement whereas I plainly say and he acknowledgeth it that we are not so much to judge of them asunder as together The meaning and design of what I said was to shew that Christians are to consider themselves as members of a Church and so to have a tender regard to Communion with it and not to think their own Edification a sufficient reason to break the Peace and Order of it To this he saith several things In Answer to which it will be convenient to give a clear representation and state of the Case which I shall do in these Propositions 1. We must consider that Edification is not the laying a Foundation but a building upon it and so there is not the same reason for the breaking Order for the sake of Edification as there is for the sake of things absolutly necessary to Salvation and that which will warrant and doth oblige to the one will not warrant nor oblige to the other This will serve to shew the little force there is in what this Reverend Author confidently asserts We know and are assured that no man to keep up any such human Pag. 34. bounds of Order ought to omit means by which he may improve his own Soul in the knowledge of Christ or the exercise of his habits of Grace by which assertion of his he makes Edification and improvement in knowledge c. as necessary as the knowledge of the Fundamentals of Religion 2. We must consider as I then observed that Order is a means of Edification and therefore if there happens Case of Indifferent things P. 36. a dispute betwixt observing Order and improvement in knowledg or grace it 's 'twixt means and means 'twixt what is for Edification in one way and what is for it in another and not betwixt what is for and what Case examined Pag. 35. is against Edification as he would have it understood 3. We must observe that when there is a dispute betwixt means and means the less is to give place to the greater and what is most for Edification is to yield to that which is least 4. That for that reason the Edification of the Church and the welfare of the whole is to be prefer'd before the spiritual advantage of any particular member for what the less is to the greater that is a member to the Church and if a person cannot serve and improve himself without damage to the Publick he is rather to sit down without that improvement than to do mischief to the Community for the obtaining it And as long as he is not without means sufficient for Salvation he is in that Case to recede from some further attainments in doing which for so good an end he is acceptable to God and approved of men So that however our Author may Rom. 14. 18. seem to shelter himself under the phrase of Human Order yet as long as no Church can subsist without it and he Case Examined p. 34. 35. that takes away Order takes away the Church and he that saith a person ought to throw it down to improve his Soul takes away Order he must pardon me if I think that he talks without consideration for he that talks of Edification of particular Souls in a distinct notion from the building them up as members of a Church or of members of a Church without being united as a Church or of a Church without any means to unite it doth to return him his own words but discourse of building Castles in the Air and what he would be loth his own Congregation if he hath one should at every turn put into practice Of all which if this will not Case of Indifferent things p. 41 42. Case of Lay-Commun p 39. c. convince him I shall desire him impartially to view the places of Scripture quoted by himself from the Apostle as also what was said before in the controverted Tract and he hath not yet answered or has been since discoursed of in another Case The 4th enquiry in the Tract aforesaid was How §. 4. we are to determine our selves in the use of Indifferent Things in the Worship of God Under which head I shewed what respect is to be given to Authority whether Ecclestiastical or Civil In Answer to which our Author takes up the Case of Case Examined p. 39. Imposition and propounds Two Questions which in effect are these Q. 1. Whether there be any Authority in Church or State to determine the things which God hath left Indifferent to his people Q. 2. Whether in Case they make any such Law the people may without sin obey them As for the First he saith there and elsewhere We Pag. 5. 9. 17. 32. 40. cannot conceive how it is possible that in things of Divine Worship things of an Indifferent nature should be the matter of any human determination and again that in matters of Worship no Superiours may restrain what God hath left at liberty We are not immediately concerned in this First Question for our business was to consider not so much the extent of our Superiours power in what Cases they may lawfully command as in what we may lawfully obey But yet because he hath herein offered somewhat like an Argument and because the clearing of this will make way for the Second I shall take it into consideration To render his Argument the more compleat I shall repair to a foregoing part of his Book and make use of that in conjunction with what he saith here and he thus represents it We cannot be fully of our Brothers mind that in the Pag. 9. Worship of God Superiours may determine circumstances which God hath left at liberty God left it at liberty to the Jews to take a Lamb or a Kid Turtle-Doves or Young-Pigeons c. We offer it to the judgment of the whole reasonable World whether Moses after this might have made a Law commanding the Jews to use none but Kids and only Turtle-Doves c. for it had been a controulment of the Divine Wisdom If not let not our B. think it strange if we judge the same of words in Prayer which God hath left at liberty c. This is an Argument I find offered long since by Dr. Ames (a) (a) (a) Fresh suit part 2. p. 300. and which is so considerable in our Authors opinion that he often repeats it elsewhere (b) (b) (b) Pag. 17. 30. 32. 39. 41. In Answer to this 1st I shall consider the Case under the Law
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 pâ—omiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayer 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. in Two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommenced to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument to Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled c. 17. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England Considered 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. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in Matters of Faith with respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such an one as is Infallible A DISCOURSE CONCERNING Conscience WHEREIN An Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it AND The Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established upon this Pretence that it is Against their Conscience to joyn in it is stated and discussed LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-Street 1684. A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE With Respect to those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon the Pretence of it c. THere is nothing more in our Mouths than Conscience and yet there are few things we have generally taken less Pains to understand We sit down too often with this that it is something within us we do not know what which we are to Obey in all that it Suggests to us and we trouble our selves no further about it By which means it frequently comes to pass that though we have espoused very dangerous Errors or happen to be ingaged in very Sinful Practices yet believing and Acting as we say according to our Conscience we do not only think our selves perfectly Right and Safe while we continue in this State but are Effectually Armed against all sorts of Arguments and Endeavours that can be used for the bringing us to a better Mind This is too Visible in many Cases but in none more than in the Case of those that at this Day Separate from the Communion of the Church as it is Established among us Though the Laws of the Land both Ecclesiastical and Civil do oblige them to joyn in our Communion though many Arguments are offer'd to convince them not only that they Lawfully may but that they are bound to do it though they themselves are sensible that many-fold and grievous mischiefs and dangers do ensue from this breach of Communion and these unnatural Divisions both to the Christian Religion in General and to our Reformed Religion in particular yet if to all these things a Man can reply that he is Satisfied in his Conscience that he doth well in refusing his Obedience to the Laws or that he is not satisfied in his Conscience that he ought to joyn with us upon such Terms as are required this single pretence shall be often thought a sufficient Answer both to Laws and Arguments A strange thing this is that Conscience which among other ends was given to Mankind for a Preservative and Security of the Publick Peace for the more Effectually Obliging Men to Unity and Obedience to Laws yet should often be a means of setting them at distance and prove a Shelter for Disobedience and Disorder That God should Command us to Obey our Governours in all Lawful things for Conscience sake and yet that we should Disobey them in Lawful things for Conscience sake too It is the Design of this Discourse to examine what there is in this Plea that is so often made by our Dissenters for their not complying with the Laws viz. That it is against their Conscience so to do and to shew in what Cases this Plea is justly made and in what Cases not and where it is Justly made how far it will Justify any Mans Separation and how far it will not And all this in order to the possessing those who are concerned with a Sense of the great Necessity that lyes upon them of using their most serious endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in these matters before they prefume to think they can Separate from us with a good Conscience which is all we desire of them for it is not our business to perswade any Man to conform against his Conscience but to convince every Man how Dangerous it may be to follow a misinformed Conscience But before I enter upon this disquisition it will be necessary in the first Place to prepare my way by laying down the Grounds and Principles I mean to proceed upon And here that I may take in all things that are needful to be known before-hand about this matter I shall treat distinctly of these Five Heads 1 Of the Nature of Conscience 2 Of the Rule of Conscience And under that 3 Of the Power of Humane Laws to Oblige the Conscience 4 And particularly in the instance of Church Communion 5 Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his Actions I. And first as for the Nature of Conscience the truest way to find out that will be not so much to enquire into the Signification of the word Conscience or the several Scholastical Definitions of it as to consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to make use of it for if it
be his Duty And for the matters in question most earnestly imploring the Assistance of Gods Spirit to guide and direct him Well but supposing a Man has endeavoured to inform his Judgment as well as he can and hath used all those Prudent means that were in his Power to satisfie himself of the Lawfulness of our Communion But yet after all he is of the same perswasion that he was viz. That he cannot joyn in our Worship without Sin what will we say to such a Man as this Will we still say that this Man must either Conform though against his Conscience or he is a Schismatick before God This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it In the first place we do heartily wish that this was the Case of all or of the most of our Dissenters viz. that they had done what they can to satisfie themselves about our Communion For if it was I do verily perswade my self that there would presently be an end of all those much to be lamented Schisms and Divisions which do now give so much Scandal to all good Men and threaten the Ruin of our Reformed Religion And this poor Church of England which hath so long Laboured and Groaned under the furious Attacques that have been made upon her by Enemies without and Enemies within her own Bowels would in a little time be perfectly set free from all apprehension of Danger at the least from the one sort of her Adversaries If all our Brethren of the Separation would most seriously follow after the things that make for Peace and walk by the same Rule as far as they were able and in things where they were otherwise minded would Religiously apply themselves to God for direction and to the use of Prudent means for Satisfaction I doubt not but the Face of things would presently be changed among us and we should near no more of any Division or Schism in our Nation that was either dangerous to the Church or to the Salvation of the Men that were concerned in it But alas we fear we have too great reason to say that the generality of our Dissenting Brethren even those of them that Plead Conscience for their Separation have not done their Duty in this matter have not heartily endeavoured to satisfie their Minds about the Lawfulness of Conformity in those Points which they stick at If they had one would think that after all their endeavours they should before they pronounced Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text of Scripture for the proving it so either in the whole or in any part of it but this they are not able to do They do indeed produce some Texts of Scripture which they think do make for them But really they are such that if they had not supinely taken up their meaning upon trust but would have been at the pains of carefully examining them and using such helps as they have every where at hand for the understanding them It would have been somewhat difficult for them to have expounded those Texts in such a sense as would infer the unlawfulness of our Communion But further I say it is not probable that the generality of our Dissenters who condemn our Communion as unlawful have ever anxiously applied themselves to the considering the Point or gaining Satisfaction about it because they do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair and much less those of our way If they had they would have been disposed to think better of our Communion than they do For not to mention what the Churchmen do teach press in this matter the most Eminent of their own Ministers are ready thus far to give their Testimony to our Communion That there is nothing required in it but what a Lay-Person may Honestly and Lawfully comply with though there may be some things incovenient and which they wish were amended Nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to afford us their Company in all the instances of Lay-Communion But I desire not to enlarge upon this Argument because it is an Invidious one All that I say is that we wish it was not too apparent by many Evidences that most of those who separate from us are so far from having done all they can to bring themselves to a complyance with our Church Constitutions that they have done little or nothing at all towards it But have taken up their Opinions hand over head without much thinking or enquiring and having once taken up an Opinion they adhere to it without scarce so much as once thinking that it is possible for them to be in the wrong If you speak of a Man that may with reason be said to have done his endeavour to satisfie himself about the Points of his Duty in this matter Give us such a one as hath no end no interest to serve by his Religion but only to Please God and to go to Heaven and who in the choice of the way that leads thither hath the Indifference of a Traveller to whom it is all one whether his way light on the right Hand or on the left being only concerned that it be the way which leads to his Journeys end Give us a Man that concerns himself as little as you please in the Speculative Disputes and Controversies of Religion But yet is wonderfully Solicitous about the Practice of his Duty and therefore will refuse no pains or trouble that may give him a right understanding of that Give us a Man that in the midst of the great Heats and Divisions and different Communions of the Church is yet modest and humble and docible That believes he may be mistaken and that his private Friends may be mistaken too and hath such an Esteem and Reverence for the Wisdom of his Governours in Church or State as to admit that it is probable they may see farther into matters of State and Religion than he doth And that therefore every Tenent and Opinion that was inbibed in his Education that was infused by private Men of his acquaintance or that was espoused upon a very few thoughts and little Consideration ought not to be so stifly maintained as to control or to be set in Opposition to the Publick Establishments of Authority Lastly give us a Man that where the Publick Laws do run counter to his private Sentiments and he is at a loss to reconcile his Duty to Men with his Duty to God Yet doth not presently upon this set up a Flag of Defiance to Authority but rather applies himself with all the Indifference and Honesty he can to get a true Information of these matters And to that end he Prays to God continually for his assistance he calls in the best helps and consults the best guides he can his Ears are open to what both sides can say for themselves and he is as willing to read a Book which is writ against his Opinion as one that defends
are not discovered by our Governours either in Church or State No nor by as Learned and Religious Divines of all Perswasions as any in the World The most Divines by far the most and those as Pious and as Able as any are clearly of Opinion that there is nothing Vnlawful in our Worship but that on the contrary all things therein prescribed are at least Innocent and free from sin if not Pure and Apostolical So that if it should at last prove that they are all mistaken Yet the Law of God which forbids these things being so very obscure and the Sense of it so hardly to be found out it is a great Presumption that a man may very innocently and inculpably be Ignorant of it And if so it will be a very little or no sin at all in him to act against it Because if it was not his Duty to know this Law it cannot be his Sin that his Practice is not according to it And if it was his Duty to know it yet it being so obscurely delivered and only to be gathered by such remote Consequences it can at most be but a Sin of Ignorance in an ordinary Person where so many of the best Guides are mistaken if he should transgress it And then farther This must likewise be considered That if Conformity to our Liturgy and Worship should prove a sin in any Instance Yet the Evil Consequences of it extend no farther than the Mans Person that is guilty of it There is no damage ariseth either to the Christian Religion or to the Publick Interest of the Kingdom by any mans being a Conformist But on the contrary as things stand with us Vnity and Conformity to the Established way seem to bring a great advantage to both as I hinted before and to be a probable means to secure us from many Dangers with which our Reformed Religion and the Peace of the Kingdom is threatned Well but now on the other hand Let us suppose the contrary side of the Question to be true viz. That our Governours in this matter are in the Right and we are in the Wrong That there is nothing required of us in the Church of England as a Term of Communion but what is very Innocent and Lawful however it be our misfortune to Doubt that there is and in a zealous Indulgence to these Doubts we take the liberty to live in open disobedience to our Lawful Governous and to break the Unity of the Church into which we were Baptized I say admitting the thing to be thus what kind of Sin shall we be guilty of then Why certainly we are guilty of no less a Sin than causlesly dividing the Body of Christ against which we are so severely cautioned in the New Testament We are guilty of the Breach of as plain Laws as any are in the Bible viz. Of all those that oblige us to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace that Command us to Obey those that are over us in the Lord to be subject to the Higher Powers to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake to be subject not only for Wrath. but for Conscience sake I say these plain Laws we disobey for Conscience sake and we disobey them too in such Instances where we have the whole Catholick Church of old and far the greatest and the best part of the present Church of a different Perswasion from us Well but as if this was not enough What are the Consequences of this our Sin For by the Consequences of a sin the greatness of it is always to be estimated I speak as to the Material part of it with which we are here concerned Why they are most Terrible and Dreadful both with respect to our selves and others By this unnatual Separation we do for any thing we know put our selves out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the enjoyment of the ordinary means of Salvation We maintain and keep up Divisions and Disorders in the Church and lend a helping hand to all those Animosities and Hatreds all that bitter Contention and Strife and Uncharitableness which hath long torn the very Bowels of Christs Church and given occasion to that Deluge of Atheism and Profaneness and Impiety which hath over-spread the Face of it We put Affronts upon our Lawful Governours who should be in the place of God to us We give Scandal to all our Brethren that make a Conscience of living Peaceably and Piously And lastly as we offer a very fair Handle and Pretence to all Discontented and Factious men to Practice against the Best of Governments So we take the most effectual course to Ruine the Best Constituted Church in the World and with it the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom This now being the Nature and these being the Consequences of our Separation from the Established Church among us I leave it to any indifferent man to Determine whether any Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Communion though that Doubt be backed with greater Probabilities than do appear on the other side nay if you will with all the Probabilities that can consist with the nature of a Doubt can have weight enough to Ballance against such a Sin and such Consequences as Separation in our Case doth involve a man in I think there is no unconcerned Person but will pronounce that supposing where there are Doubts on both sides a man is to chuse that side on which there is the least appearance of Sin he is in this Case certainly bound to chuse Communion with the Established Church rather than Separation from it And that is all I Contend for But now after all this is said it must be acknowledged that if there be any man who hath other apprehensions of these matters and that after a Consideration of all things that are to be said for or against Conformity it doth appear to him upon the whole matter both more probable that our Communion is sinful than that it is a Duty and withal that to Communicate with us will involve him in a greater sin and in worse Consequences than to continue in Separation I say if any man have so unfortunate an understanding as to make such an estimate of things we must acknowledge that according to all the Rules of a Doubting Conscience such a man is rather to continue a Nonconformist than to obey the Laws of the King and the Church But then let him look to it for his acting in this Case according to the best Rules of a Doubting Conscience will not as I said before at all acquit him either of the Guilt or Consequences of Criminal Schism and Disobedience Supposing that indeed he is all along under a mistake as we say he certainly is and that there is nothing required in our Communion that he might not honestly and lawfully comply with as there certainly is not Unless in the mean time the man fell into these mistakes without any fault
Uncleanness To be so concerned about little things whilst we make no Conscience of the greater is the most evident sign that can be given of a false Christian And hath it not often hapned in the World that such a mighty Scrupulosity about our Duty hath proved a very successful way of growing great or raising an Estate by giving Men so fair an opportunity of imposing upon the credulous and unwary So that I have known it advised as an useful Caution to those who would live in the World always to stand upon your Guard and look to your Pockets when you deal with those who pretend to greater Tenderness and Exactness than other undoubtedly sober and honest Christians generally do 3. Where Persons are truly honest and mean well there is nothing more troublesome and vexatious than such unreasonable Scruples about things lawful This must needs be an intolerable disturbance to a man's Mind and breed great Anxiety and Inquietude when Persons are continually shivering and trembling lest by every thing they do they incur the Divine Displeasure and it certainly disables a man from performing his necessary Duty He is likely to make but a slow Progress in his Journey who instead of going on cheerfully in his way is frequently at a stand doubting which foot he should set forward or what particular Path he should choose This robs men in a great measure of that Peace and Satisfaction which they might otherwise find in Religion whilst they are daily perplexing themselves with untying Knots which themselves only have fastned Scruples about things indifferent when once we attend to and entertain them like the Plague of Flies amongst the Egyptians will be constantly buzzing in our Ears and tormenting us with their Impertinency till at length we come to distrust every thing and there is nothing that belongs to ordinary Civility no recreation we can use no cloaths we can wear no discourse we can hold with others no conversation we can maintain or business which we transact in the World but we shall raise some trifling Objections or Scruples about it which will make our Condition continually uneasie and restless For 4. These Scruples are infinite and endless for being grounded upon some very little and inconsiderable Reason there is hardly any thing to be done but some small Exceptions may be started against it which may soon puzzle and confound the more ignorant sort of Christians Thus he that scruples a Minister's officiating in a white Garment may easily be brought to doubt of the fitness of his doing it in Black and then he proceeds against any solemn distinct Habit and at last against the Office of Ministers it self and tells you all Gods People are holy and that all Christians are a Royal Priesthood and we have no need of Teachers for we are all taught of God From scrupling the Sign of the Cross after Baptism Men have soon come to question Infant Baptism it self they have at first perchance disliked only some significant Ceremonies in God's Worship of Humane Appointment but thence they have gone on to deny all outward bodily Reverence and thought it not expedient to pull off their Hats in Churches then not to do it before Magistrates at last not at all and thus by giving place to such little Scruples they become afraid of speaking looking or doing any thing like other Men. This is notorious amongst us Those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church and have thereupon separated from us and associted themselves with a purer Congregation have soon disliked something amongst them also and then they would reform themselves farther and after that refine themselves more still till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism Popery or Atheism This doth not only now and then happen in the World but is the probable effect of embracing and cherishing such Scruples that men go on scrupling one thing after another till at length they doubt of every thing 5. Lastly This needless scrupling of lawful things hath done unspeakable mischief to the Church of Christ especially to the Reformed Church of England a Church reformed according to the most Primitive and Apostolical Pattern by the best and wisest Rules in which even by the Confession of the soberest and most considerable of our Dissenters nothing is required as a condition of Communion that is sinful yet how is she rent and torn mangled and divided how hath she been assaulted undermined and in danger to be the second time overthrown upon the Account only of Habits and Gestures and particular Forms Rites and Modes of Discipline and Worship with which some Men are not well satisfied or pleased which they judge might be better done and ordered another way or which they rather would have left at liberty that every man may do therein according to his own Discretion or Opinion In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed We all worship the same God believe in the same Lord and Saviour have the same Baptism the same Faith the same Hope the same common Interest our Sacraments as to the main are rightly administred according to our Saviour's Institution our Churches are acknowledged to be true Churches of Jesus Christ but there are some Constitutions which respect chiefly outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship against which men have received strange Prejudices on the account of them have raised a mighty noise and clamour against the Church and have openly separated from its Communion as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another About these skirts and Borders the dress and circumstances of Religion hath been all our quarelling and contention and these Differences have proceeded to such an height as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities to break and crumble us into little Parties and Fractions whereby mutual Edification is hindred our common Religion suffers Reproach the Enemies of it are strengthned and encouraged publick Peace endangered and brotherly Love the Badge of Christ's Disciples quite lost amongst us and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts if compared with the Interests of Peace and Charity is a matter of sad consideration to all lively Members of Christ's Body and forebodes great evils impendent over our Church and State I doubt not to say that the Devil hath fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer than under any other disguise whatever The grand Enemy of Mankind hath by various ways and means all along contriv'd and endeavoured to defeat the designs of Heaven for the Good and Happiness of Men and as the Divine Wisdom hath in several Ages of the World manifested it self for the encouraging and promoting of true Righteousness and Holiness so hath the Devil always been at work to oppose what he could find most proper for the hindring the good effect of God's Kindness towards us When the fullness
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
favourable Interpretations upon things to take them by the best handle and not strain things on purpose that they might cavil the more plausibly and raise more considerable Objections against them We must not make personal accidental Faults nor any thing a pretence for our leaving the Communion of our Church which ariseth only from the necessary condition and temper of all humane Affairs that nothing here is absolutely perfect 6. And lastly if you cannot by these and other the like considerations not now to be mentioned get rid of and conquer your Scruples then be advised to lay them aside to throw them out of your Minds as dangerous Temptations and act positively against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you perswade us to conform to the Orders of the Church tho we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this the best Advice that can be given to such scrupulous Persons It would be an endless infinite thing and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joyning himself to it till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required or was in use in that Church for indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Government Discipline or publick Worship no more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Common People generally have neither Patience to consider nor Judgment to weigh all Circumstances nor Wisdom to choose that which is best these things of a Publick Nature belong only to our Superiours and Governours and if they appoint what is unfit indecent or inconvenient they only are accountable for it It is not the fault of those that joyn with such Worship or yield to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I know therefore no better Rule for the directing and quieting Mens Consciences than this that as to all such Matters as relate to Publick Order and decent Administration of God's Worship they should without any superstitious Fearfulness comply with the Customs of the Church they live in never troubling themselves nor curiously examining what is best and fittest as long as there is nothing enjoyned or done which after due enquiry appears to us contrary to any Law of God Thus St. Augustin directs us in that often quoted place where he tells us He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take in matters of Rites and Customs than to follow the Churches Example where he is for whatsoever is prescribed neither against Faith or Manners is a matter in its self indifferent and to be observed according to the Custom of those he lives among This was agreeable to the Counsel St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave him when he was sent by his Mother to enquire his Judgment about the Saturday Fast When I am at Rome saith the Bishop I fast on the Sabbath but at Milan I do not So thou likewise when thou comest to any Church observe its Custom if thou wouldest neither be an offence to them nor have them be so to thee Which St. Augustin ever after looked upon as an Oracle from Heaven I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and Objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easie consequence contrary to the revealed Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens Minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Should all those that have some little Arguments against the Sign of the Cross puzzle themselves with the Objections usually urged against Infant Baptism and defer baptizing their Children till they were fully satisfied about it I doubt not but the baptizing of Infants would soon be as much scrupled at as the crossing them now is But there is no apparent Evil in it it is the Practise of the Church we live in it is no where forbid in Scripture this ordinarily is sufficient Warrant for what we do Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with its Orders we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded of the Unlawfulness of what is required that it is forbid by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful causes but there is not the same necessity that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise The Judicious and Learned Bishop Sanderson thus expresseth it in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum The Law taketh every Man for a good Man and true till his Truth and Honesty be legally disproved and as our Saviour sometimes said He that is not against us is for us so in these matters he speaks of those Ceremonies that for Order's sake and to add the greater Solemnity to sacred Actions are appointed in the Church we are to believe all things to be lawful for us to do which cannot be shewn by good Evidence either of Scripture or Reason to be unlawful If any one be afraid that this Principle once imbibed would introduce Popery make People greedily swallow and without any Examination submit to every thing their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only consider which we all agree in that there are many things in the Popish Worship and Religion manifestly evil and forbidden by the revealed Will of God which renders our Separation from them necessary and so consequently justifiable whereas the things objected against in our Church are at worst only doubtful and suspicious or rather not so good and expedient as might be devised and this surely makes a wide difference in the case But doth not St. Paul say Rom. 14. 19. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean it is unclean Doth not he expresly tell us That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin that is Whatever we do without a full Persuasion of the lawfulness of it tho it be not so in it self yet is a Sin in him that doth it against his Conscience And doth not the Apostle say He that doubteth is damned if he eat before he is convinced that it may be done I desire here therefore only to be rightly understood and then these things are soon reconciled 1. When I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well perswaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he
doth not like or approve of it he hath some little Reasons and Exceptions against it it is not the best and fittest all things considered This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes to save themselves from the severity of the Laws joyn in our Worship and communicate with us which we presume they would never do did they judge it absolutely sinful and forbidden by God So that though it should be granted that a man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be lawful or not yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not unlawful though upon some other Accounts he scruples the doing of it 2. If the Question be about things wherein we are left wholly to our selves and at Liberty having no very weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things we scruple at Of such cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned Places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was required by any Law Eating was no instance of Duty nor was it any ways forbid Christians where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that of which he hath some suspicion tho he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-Plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any Detriment to our selves or others though we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfie himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interposed their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischief 1. When our Superiours either Civil or Ecclesiastical whom by the Will of God we are bound to obey in all lawful things have interposed their Commands our Scruples will not excuse or justifie our Disobedience If indeed we judge what is commanded to be absolutely unlawful tho it be a false erroneous Judgment yet whilst we are under such persuasion we are by no means to do it upon any Inducement whatever If I only doubt of the lawfulness of any particular Action and it be an instance wherein I am at liberty I am still bound not to do it For Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I am certainly innocent when I forbear I may commit a Sin If I do it Wisdom would therefore that the safer part be chosen But now if I am by the command of my Superiours obliged to it my choice is then determined it then becomes my Duty and it can never be safe or advisable to neglect a plain Duty for an uncertain Offence Thus most and best Casuists do determine about a doubtful Conscience particularly the forenamed reverend Bishop in the same Sermon Whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us either in Church Commonwealth or Family quod tamen not sit certum displicere Deo saith St. Bernard which is not evidently contrary to the Law and Will of God ought to be of us received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it because God himself hath commanded us to obey the Higher Powers and to submit our selves to their Ordinances But now this is more plain concerning Fears and Scruples only about the conveniency and expediency of things these ought all to be despised when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Would men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves they would soon see the reasonableness of such submission For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it was thereby exempted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according to this principle no publick Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great evil a general mischief They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our publick way of Worship is not the best that can be devised that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we could invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the inconveniences of any Alteration till it comes to be tryed yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determined some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere expressed like knocking a man on the head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all such Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of publick Order and divine Charity for better surely it is to serve God in a defective imperfect manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and brotherly Communion For this we have the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour who lived and died in Communion with a Church where there were far greater Corruptions both as to Persons and Practises than can be pretended to be in ours at this day yet though he was the great Reformer of Mankind he forsook not the Jewish Church but assembled with them in their publick Synagogues which answer to our Parish-Churches preached in the Temple though they had made it a Den of Thieves observed their Festivals tho some of them of humane Institution nay commanded his Disciples to continue to hear the Scribes and Pharisees tho they were a most vile and wretched Generation of Men. Great were the Pollutions and Misdemeanours in the Churches of Rome Corinth
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
for fear of Offence and again in the same place Hic Charitatis rationem haberi decet sed usque ad aras Our charity to our Brother ought to be limited by this that we do not for his sake displease God The very best things and actions may be perverted by Men of ill-disposed or weak minds false consequences and unjust inferences may be strained from them as we know the grace of God in the Gospel was abused into an argument for licentiousness and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many St. Luke 2. 24. but still this doth not Cancel our obligations to universal obedience to Gods Law nor can it alter the nature of good and evil duty and sin which are no such uncertain contingent things as to depend upon the constructions others shall make of our actions or the conclusions they shall draw from them God Almighty in the making of his Laws hath a perfect comprehension of all the accidental events that may happen either through the weakness or wickedness of Men and we must not think our selves to be wiser than God taking upon our selves to dispense with his Commands without any allowance from him as if himself had not foreseen those inconveniences which may arise from our doing our duty it can therefore never be that obedience to God should give any real Scandal and whatever Offence may be taken at my doing of my duty it is a contradiction to imagine it imputable to me as a sin or fault for it is to suppose one to disobey God in obeying him but they alone are chargeable who are Offended by it Now by the express Command of God we are obliged to obey the lawful injunctions of our Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and if any are so hardy as to deny this they must seek for another Bible out of which to judge of Gods will for there is hardly any one duty of Religion more plainly Commanded more frequently and earnestly pressed in the New Testament than quiet and peaceable subjection to Authority both in Church and State in all things lawful and that not only to avoid punishment but for Conscience sake and to refuse obedience in such things is a sin against the fifth Commandment That the Conformity required by our Church contains not any thing in it unlawful must be granted as I have already observed by all those who make use of this Plea of Scandal from all which the necessary Conclusion is Since we may not redeem a Scandal by disobedience to God since God hath plainly required our submission to those whom he hath set over us in all things lawful since it is acknowledged by those I now discourse with that Conformity to the Church is enjoyned by a competent Authority and is lawful I say the necessary conclusion is that no Man can with a good Conscience refuse to conform only for fear of Scandal Our Dissenting Brethren when they are urged with this Argument neither do nor can deny any of the Premises they must confess that no sin may be committed upon any account whatsoever and that a Man is not bound to provide for his Brothers safety by wounding his own Soul they cannot deny but that God hath Commanded us to be subject to Lawful Authority in all things lawful but then to evade the force of this reasoning they have endeavoured to load the conclusion with some seeming difficulties and absurdities which they pretend follow from this principle that we are bound to obey notwithstanding the Scandal that may ensue upon it The chief of these I shall mention and briefly return an Answer to them 1. It is pleaded that those precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brothers Soul so that when both together cannot be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter That this is true even of some Commands given by God himself to which purpose our Saviour doth produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now if Sacrifices prescribed by God himself which were so considerable a part of the Divine Worship under Moses's Law yet were to give place to acts of mercy how much more are the positive injunctions of Men that concern only the externals and circumstantials of Religion to yield to the Royal and indispensable Law of Charity of which this duty of not giving Offence to others is such an Eminent part Thus saith Mr. Jeans in his Second Part of Scholastical Divinity What Laws of any Earthly Wight whatsoever concerning Ceremonies can be more obligatory than the Commands of God touching the externals of his Worship and Service and yet it is his will and pleasure that these externals of his Worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy If therefore the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of Men surely then much more is the trash of human inventions to yield unto a work of mercy to the Souls of Men. In answer to this it is readily acknowledged that when there doth happen any such interfering between two Commands of God the one Positive the other Moral the Positive ought always to give place to the Moral and by the same reason the positive Commands of our Superiours ought certainly to give way to the Moral Commands of God which are of eternal and immutable obligation They cease to bind us either in case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder our performance of any Moral duty to God or our Neighbour and the Church is presumed to dispense with its orders as God Almighty doth allow the neglect of his own positive Institutions in such circumstances But then this is only where the necessity is urgent and extream the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our Obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time Thus in a case of necessity Our Saviour St. Matth. 12. 5. acquits David and his followers of all blame who being ready to perish for hunger did eat of the Shewbread which otherwise was not lawful for them to eat but had they taken a particular fancy to that Bread and refused to have eaten of any other because that best agreed with their Stomacks and was most pleasing to their Palate can we think our Saviour would have so easily excused them Or which is nearer to our Case because God did prefer acts of Mercy before Sacrifices where both could not be done yet this would not have justified any mans wholly leaving off Sacrificing or refusing to do it at Jerusalem inventing another way of Worship as more expedient than Sacrificing or choosing another place to Sacrifice in which might be more convenient for all the Jews than that City was We may leave our Prayers forsake the Church to save
one in this Question a lawful command of our Superiours for fear of some evil that may by chance happen to some others through their own fault and we prove it by this reason which our Dissenting Brethren must own for true and good because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others Salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren If it be here asked as it is by some whether any human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such Command had been criminal upon the account of the Scandal that followed it I Answer that no Authority whether divine or human can secure that others shall not be Offended by what I do out of obedience to their Commands but then it doth free me from all guilt and blame by making that to become my duty to do which if I had done needlesly without any great reason and my Brother had been hurt and his Conscience wounded by it might have been justly charged with uncharitableness greater or less according as the Scandal was more or less probable to follow This must be granted that the Laws of God or Man otherwise obligatory do not lose their binding force because of some Scandal that may possibly happen from our Complyance with them or else all Authority is utterly void and insignificant and every Man is at liberty to do all things as himself pleaseth for to borrow the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Man or other either did or might take offence thereat Whether such a Constitution or Command of our Superiours be Scandalous or no every one must judge for himself and so according to his own private opinion of the goodness or hurtfulness of what is required he is free to obey it or not which is directly to dissolve all Government and to bring in certain disorder and everlasting confusion every one doing what is good in his own Eyes 3. It is said that Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity May Superiours therefore at their pleasure appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brothers Soul then surely an inferiour Earthly Court may cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven This Mr. Jeans urgeth also out of Amesius but it is easily replyed That here is no Crossing the determinations of God since it is his express will that in all lawful things we should obey our Governours and he who hath made this our duty will not lay to our charge the mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault through the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it and certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours should appoint how far I shall exercise my charity towards my Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set bounds to their Power and Authority Cancel the publick Laws or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determin how far we shall be obedient to those whom God hath set over us either in Church or State But to give a more full Answer to this we must know that tho charity be the great duty especially of the Christian Religion yet duties of justice as they are commonly called are of stricter obligation than duties of charity and we are bound to pay our debts before we give an alms Now obedience to Superiours is a debt we owe to them which they have right to exact of us so that they may accuse us of injury if we perform it not But a great care to hinder sin in others or not to Scandalize them is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged unto as far as we can but not till after we have given to every one what is his due and right It is therefore no more Lawful for me saith the forenamed most Judicious Bishop Sanderson to disobey the lawful Command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few Brethren then it is lawful for me to do one man wrong to do another man a courtesie withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to relieve an Hospital According to that known saying of St. Austin Quis est qui dicat ut habeamus quod demus pauperibus faciamus furta divitibus Who is it that saith it is lawful to steal from the rich what we may bestow on the poor or to refuse to pay Taxes on pretence that you know those who have more need of your money To this Mr. Jeans replies Suppose saith he the care of not giving offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Here I grant indeed that both are required by God at our hands that we should be obedient to our Superiours and that we should be always ready to shew charity to our Brethren but then I say this is not the charity which God requires when I give to those in want what is none of mine own This is not an instance or expression of that love and kindness which by the Law of God we owe to our Brother to do him good by wronging our Superiours God hath obliged Servants to be merciful to the poor to their power as well as to be true and faithful to their Masters but that is no part of the mercy which God requires from them to give away their Masters goods without his leave tho it were to those who stand in great need of relief God hath Commanded all Christians to have a great care of being any occasion of their Brothers sin or fall but then this must necessarily be understood only of things subject to our own ordering and management In all cases wherein we are at our own disposal we are bound charitably to regard our Brother But in instances where our practice is determined by Authority our Superiours only are to consider the danger of Scandal we must consider the duty we owe to them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours It remains then in the words of another great Bishop in what case soever we are bound to obey God or Man in that case and in that conjunction of circumstances we have nothing permitted to our choice and consequently there is no place for any act of charity and have no Authority to remit of the right of God or our Superiour and to comply with our Neighbour in such
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
the Jews and St. Paul enlargeth their reason in this Chapter because it was a confederating with Devils and being partakers at the table of Devils which he condemns as hugely unbecoming them that eat at the Lords Table vers 20 21. Grotius is so exact in this matter as to tell us there were two ways by which men might eat of things sacrificed to Idols in the sence that the Apostles mean 1. Vel aliquid a Tabulâ c i. e. when at their publick Feasts they sent some part off the Table to be offered solemnly to the Idol and to entitle him to the whole Feast 2. Vel ab Aris ad Mensam defertis or when they took some considerable portion from the Altar and fed upon it at the Table as part of the Idols portion as was hinted before Now for the Christians to be present at and to partake of these things was that which the Apostles forbid in that Canon and which St. Paul also is so sharp upon from 14 to 24 of this Chapter But that which he speaks of afterwards is vastly different from it and plainly means either that part of the Offering which they afterwards spent in their ordinary meals or which was publickly sold afterwards in the Shambles The first of these is easily understood and was common among them to offer some part of the Sacrifice to their Idols and to reserve the rest for their own common use not looking upon it as sacred and the Idols portion as in some great and solemn Sacrifices they did but that which was truly their own and at their own disposal especially having given a part of it to their Gods The other i. e. what was sold in the Shamble◠Criticks give two accounts of 1. It was either that which the Butcher sold part of which he himself had offered to the Idol before he brought the rest to the Shambles Vel à Mà cellario qui ante quam ad marcellum carnes ferret aliquid de Aram in dedisset 2. Or that part which belonged to the Priests and which they often sold having it's probable either more than they could spend themselves or perhaps having a mind to exchange it for other meat which they might purchase with the money they sold it for Vel à Sacerdotibus qui partes quae ipsis cederent venderent saith the same Author Now these were the meats about which the Apostles had made no order at all So that men were at their liberty to buy and eat them if they pleased without asking any questions or troubling themselves with any scruples of Conscience about them And which the Apostle commands them to abstain then onely from when knowing what they were their eating them might wound the Conscience of another and they might give offence thereby either to the Jews or to the Gentiles or to the Church of God To the Jews by seeing them make so little a matter of Idolatry to the Gentiles by encouraging and confirming them in that Idolatry which they ought by all means to seek to wean them from and to the Church of God by seeing them so careless and regardless of the good and benefit of others and without all charity to them By all which I hope it is sufficiently clear that these things to which this Speech relates were not onely indifferent in their nature but undetermined also as to their use no Law having passed one way or other upon them Now this makes them vastly different from the things scrupled among us and by conformity to which Offence is pretended to be given For the use of these is already determined and several Laws both of the Church and State both of the Spiritual and Temporal power have passed upon them So that how indifferent soever they may be in themselves yet it is not indifferent to us whether we observe them or not but it is now matter of Obedience and plain Duty and these things are tied upon the Conscience as strongly as any matter of humane command is or can be And therefore in these we cannot shew favour and indulgence to others if we would for we our selves are under Authority and bound up by the Laws of those above us We have not the power of doing or forbearing nor can we now abstain for fear of offending another man's Conscience without grievously wounding and worse offending of our own and whatever may be the consequence of our Conformity as to another man yet we certainly Know the neglect of it will be a downright sin and a grievous guilt unto our selves So that in this matter the fear of giving offence to others is impertinent a Snare and a direct Temptation and as improperly urged against Conformity as it would be against any other Duty how necessary soever to tell us that there are a great many men that will be offended with our doing of it In this and all such cases we stand immediately responsible unto God and may justly retort that so much abused and mistaken Apology of the Apostles Whether it be not right to obey God rather than regard men judge ye 2. But there is a second thing yet incumbent upon me and that is to shew that supposing the Text were pertinently urged against Conformity and there were a real possibility of giving offence by it yet it would not serve that purpose that it is produced for by our Dissenting Brethren but on the contrary make very much against them And this I shall endeavour to make good by considering who the persons are that the Apostle here cautions us against giving offence unto not onely the Jews nor onely the Gentiles nor both these onely but the Church of God From whence before I come to the main Improvement of this place against the purpose and practice of our Dissenting Brethren we may take occasion to consider what the object of Scandal is and who they are that men ought especially to regard in their cares not to give it At the time of the Apostles writing this there were three different sorts of men that might be offended with eating things offered to Idols the Jews the Gentiles and the body of Christians which he here calls the Church of God In analogy to which there are and always will be different Parties among which men converse Upon which account it will concern us to enquire what our respects to them in this matter ought to be and whether we ought to make any difference among them And this we may resolve our selves in by considering the Cases that concern us which I think are onely these two 1. When we perceive or have reason to think that what we are going to do will offend all Parties equally then no doubt but we ought to forbear it This was plainly the case here The Jews might be prejudiced against Christianity by this practice seeing its Professors make so little a matter of Idolatry which their Law so strictly prohibited and God had always declared himself so
of the same thing they cannot both proceed from the nature of the thing but one or t'other must necessarily arise from the disposition and temper of those who are conversant about it Now I have shew'd that Forms of Prayer are in themselves real advantages to publick Devotion and that they are so there are many thousands of good Christians can attest by their own experience and therefore if our Brethren do not experience the same the fault must lie in their own prejudice or temper and there is no doubt to be made but would they heartily indeavour to cure their own prejudice and to dispossess their minds of those groundless Piques they have entertain'd against our Liturgy would they but peruse it with impartial eyes consider the contents and labour to affect their minds with the sense and matter of it they would quickly find the same experience of its advantageousness to publick devotion as those blessed Martyrs did who compos'd it us'd and at last died for it and valued every Leaf of it as an inestimable treasure and as we should consent in our experience so we should also in our communion and with one heart and one mouth glorifie our Father together FINIS CERTAIN Cases of Conscience RESOLVED Concerning The Lawfulness of Joyning WITH Forms of Prayer IN Publick Worship PART II. VIZ. IV. Whether the common wants of Christian Congregations may not be better represented in conceiv'd Prayers than in Forms V. Whether there be any warrant for Forms of Prayer either in Scripture or pure Antiquity VI. Whether supposing Forms to be lawful the imposition of them may be lawfully complied with LONDON Printed by J. C. and F. C. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. CASE IV. Whether the common Cases and Wants of Christians can be so well express'd in one Constant Form as in a Conceiv'd Prayer IT is objected That not onely the Cases of particular Christians but the common Cases of Christian Societies and Assemblies are subject to infinite Changes and Alterations that they have many times new Judgments to be humbled for new Blessings to return thanks for new Dangers to deprecate and new Hopes to pursue and sollicit which the Composers of our standing Forms could not foresee and for which by consequence they could not provide sutable Petitions and Thanksgivings besides which particular Churches may at one time be more pure and reform'd and at another time more deprav'd and degenerated and certainly such different states require different Confessions and Prayers and therefore to sute and adapt one common Form to common Cases and Necessities which are so very variable and alterable seems as vain an attempt as 't would be to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all its changes whereas were the publick Prayers left to be conceived and worded by the Ministers sufficient provision might be made for all these alterations and changes by their varying their Confessions Petitions and Thanksgivings according as the common Cases and Exigencies of their People vary and therefore since conceiv'd Prayers are most fit to represent the publick Cases and Necessities they think it very unlawful that the publick Prayers should be perform'd by a Form In order to the full and plain resolution of this Case therefore I shall lay down these following Propositions 1. That the common Cases and Necessities of Christians are for the main always the same and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form than in an extempore Prayer for publick Prayers ought not to descend to particular Cases and Necessities because they are the Prayers of the whole Congregation and therefore ought to comprehend no more than what is more or less every man's Case and Necessity They ought to confess sin in no other particular instances or aggravations than such as are justly chargeable upon a Congregation of Christians nor to petition or return thanks for any other Mercies but what a Christian Congregation may be supposed either to stand in need of or to have receiv'd because the Confession Petition and Thanksgiving is in the name of the whole Congregation and therefore ought to comprize nothing in them but what is the common Case of all and what every one may truly and sincerely joyn with Now as for these matters of Prayer which are common to Christian Congregations they are for the main always the same the same sins and aggravations of sin which were fit for a common Confession of Christians one thousand years ago are for the main as fit for our common Confessions to this day and the Mercies which we need and receive in common now are for the main the same with what all Christians before us have needed and receiv'd in common As for instance the Mercies which in publick Prayer ought to be petition'd for are such as all Christians have a common need of and ought to have a common concern for such as the forgiveness of our sins the peace of our Consciences the assistance of Divine Grace to deliver us from the power of sin and Satan and make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light redemption from Death and Hell protection and success in all our honest Concerns and Undertakings and the dayly supply of our bodily Wants and Necessities and in general the preservation and direction of our Governours the peace and welfare of our native Country the prosperity of the Church the propagation of the Gospel and the success of its Ministers in the work of the Lord. And these were the main matter of the common Petitions of Christian people a thousand years ago and will be so a thousand years hence Since therefore the matter of publick Prayer is for the main always the same I can see no reason why so far as it is the same it may not be more comprehensively express'd in a Form than in an extempore Prayer which depending on the present invention and memory of the speaker it is impossible almost but of so many particulars some should be many times omitted or at least not so fully and distinctly express'd as it might be in a well-consider'd Form the Composer of which hath much more time to recollect the matter and may supply whatsoever was omitted at first upon a second or a third revisal and I dare appeal to any impartial Judge whether in our Churches Litany how meanly soever our Brethren may think of it there be not a much more distinct enumeration of the main particulars of publick Petitions than ever he met with in any extemporary Prayer 2. That such alterations of the common Cases and Necessities of Christian Churches as could not be forâ—seen and provided for at the first forming of their Liturgies may for the most part be provided for in new Forms when they happen for so our Church we see hath done in all such new Cases as are of
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
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
comparatively few but you much doubt whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world unless he means Popery at its full growth for that Mystery of Iniquity as to Rituals began to work very early To this I answer that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Fathers and Christians were for the most part Papists though not fully grown Papists And as to those words of St. Paul The Mystery of iniquity doth already work if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity which began to work in his days the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church I will engage for our Author that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist You say in your Third Page that you cannot well understand how our Author saith that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary you found he did if you read the whole Sentence which runs thus pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome does her's as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article c. And why Sir did you conceal this part of the Sentence and thus stop at a Comma You thus proceed Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of them is made sinfull and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church c. And I assure you that I do as little understand if this be good arguing how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects or a Master of his Servants is not made by them necessary to Salvation since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each is acknowledged to be sinfull by all that believe these Precepts binding viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake c. And Servants obey in all things your Masters c. And as to the Penalty you mention of being cast out of the Church and cut off from the Body of Christ which is the same thing it amounts to thus much That those who will by no means be prevailed with to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members shall be cast out of it which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever have ever thought fit to have inflicted upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws in order to the preservation of themselves and the upholding of Government amongst them And our Author I am certain will readily grant that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed oughâ— to be cast out of the Church and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them but as the last Remedy As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender as well as for example to others never his Destruction But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority and when this Penalty is never according to the Rules of our Church to be inflicted but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity who are humble and modest and peaceable and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons not of our Constitution But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page wherein our Author is concerned hath been replied to And there you thus speak As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles but this is but Ecclesia Muta How many have we that will tell us We are Ecclesia Loquens the Living Church of England and we tell you c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens contradictory to the 39 Articles But 1. You have given us we thank you the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens But why do you expect unless we knew you better that we should take your bare word for it Nay we have hardly that for you do not in express terms affirm but ask this Question How many have we that will tell us we are Ecclesia Loquens And therefore it might suffice to give you onely this short answer Do you tell us how many or whether there are any if you know Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church or if not none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it But the truth of it is 't is a mere Figment and the very Dream of a Shadow But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question you cannot well be otherwise understood than as asserting that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies as Articles of Faith and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church except you will separate from and bid adieu to the Old And in good earnest if this be so Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England as by Law Established and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may
of the thing 2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle who was of the Seed of Abraham an Hebrew of the Hebrews and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church and as a Common-wealth First I say there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before and after its Union with the Empire Before its Union with the Empire it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years in a State of Persecution from Christ unto Constantine the Great and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the Law But Secondly As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing so is it in effect made by the Apostle Gal. 3. 17. This I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God with Abraham in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise to Abraham of none Effect Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed when he separated him from the World unto himself and that Political one which he afterwards made with the Jews when he gave them the Law And this difference is also observed Rom. 4. 13. The Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise is of no effect From these words which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham or the Promise which he made unto him and the Law it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore in the second place the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical or pure Jewish Church is to consider the nature of the Covenant or Promise upon which it was founded and if we examine the Scriptures we shall find that it was an Evangelical Covenant For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with * * * Fide autem stare justitiā illic esse vitam praedictā est apud Habbaccuc Justus autem ex fide vivet Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit In Genes credidit Abraham Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Item Paulus ad Galatas Abraham credidit Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide c. Cyprian advers Judaeos Judaeos à Deo recessisse successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes de omnibus Gentibus ac toto orbe venientes Cyprian ad Quirin Testim L. 3. Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers with his Spiritual as well as Carnal Seed proceeding from him by Spiritual as well as Natural Generation and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans from the 9th to the 15th Verse Cometh then this Blessedness of Justification by Faith upon the Circumcision only or upon the Uncircumcision also For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckon'd When he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Promises made to the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that so believing before Circumcision he might be the Father both of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also as his Children and the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World in his Posterity was not to Abraham or his Seed through the Righteousness of the Law but through the Righteousness which cometh of Faith For if they only which are of the Law be Heirs his Faith so much celebrated is made void and the Promise made to it of no effect So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse He therefore that ministreth unto you the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the works of the Law or by the Faith which you have heard preached even as it is written of * * * Quoniam autem in Abraham praefigurabatur fides nostra quoniam Patriarcha nostrae fidei velut propheta fuit plenisfimè Apostolus docuit in eâ Epistolâ quae est ad Galatas dicens Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum operatur virtutes in vobis Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 38. Abraham he believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness know ye therefore that they which are the Children of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed So then they which be the Children of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham or his Seed or Race were the Promises of God made He i. e. God or Moses his Pen-man saith Not to Seeds or Races as if there were divers of them but to thy Seed i. e. to one of thy Seed which is Christ And this I say that the Abrahamical Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise made unto Abraham of none effect From all these Texts put together it is plain that the Abrahamical Covenant upon which the Jewish Church as such was founded was of a Spiritual Evangelical Nature and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ who was made of the Seed of Abraham and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed and whose Day Abraham himself saw and rejoyced It is farther evident from them that this Covenant was made with Abraham as the Father
eight days shall be circumcis'd among you God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental Initiation upon the account of natural incapacity that he limited the time for the administration of it beyond which he would not have it deferr'd And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist and Christ who were both Circumcised the * * * Luke 1. 59. 2. 21. eighth day Nay when any Gentile turned Jew they immediately Circumcised his Children if he desired it always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents Thus saith God unto Abraham I will establish my Covenant between thee and me and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and of a religious Consideration and differed from the Children of Unbelievers as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents and look upon them as Holy upon their account it is no wonder that he should oblige them to dedicate and devote them betimes unto him by solemn initiation into his Church I say he called and elected them in their Parents and with them separated them unto himself from the World and agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call and separation he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church by the initiating Ordinance which the Children of Heathens were not capable of because they were not so called and chosen and separated of God This was ground enough for their admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers though they could not make open Profession of their Faith as Abraham did before he was Baptized and it is certain after the example of Abraham all * * * Selden de Synedr l. 2. c. 3. adult Proselytes did But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Circumcised Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circumcised before he professed or could profess his Faith because if he lived he was as sure to profess it by vertue of his Calling and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father or if the Child had none of the Susceptor or God-father 1 Maccab. 2. 46. and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be †††Seld. de jure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c 3. imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant when they were not circumcised as it is written Every uncircumcised Male whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant and therefore if the Act of Parents Cassand de Baptism Infant p. 732. in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs much more their Act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their Act and Deed. Thus in Numb 3. 28. we find the keeping of the Sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards because their Fathers actually kept it and they were to be trained up unto it and in Deut. 29. 11 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into Covenant with God because the Men of Israel did so and thus also our Blessed Lord who took upon him the Seed of Abraham although he healed * * * Matth. 9. 29. grown Persons for their own Faith yet he healed †††Mark 9. 23. Matth. 8. 13. Joh. 4. 50. Vid. Cassand de Baptismo Infant p. 729. Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants Great Exemplar Part. 1. Sect. 9. Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents or others who besought him for them as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith Having now briefly discoursed of the Original and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church and the Initiatory Sacrament of it and the persons that were initiated thereinto I now proceed to make a few Observations upon the Alteration of it from the Mosaical into the Christian Oeconomy or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament into the Evangelical under the New For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel that it was under the Law The Foundation is the same tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different For Abraham is still the Father of the Faithful and we that believe under the Gospel are as much his Seed and Children in God's prime Intention and the true meaning of the Words as those that were Believers under the Law Hence it comes to pass that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament the New and Supernal Jerusalem to let us know that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism the same City new reformed constituted upon a new Charter blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly and every way better built and more August than it was Thus in Rev. 3. 12. Unto him that overcometh saith the Son of Man I will write the Name of my God and the Name of the City of my God which is New Jerusalem which is come down out of Heaven from my God that is I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly and for a true Member of the pure Catholick Christian-Church which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband meaning Jesus Christ So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above or the Supernal Jerusalem is a free City which is the Mother of us all Hence also it comes to pass that St. Peter in his first General Epistle calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews as unto his peculiar People viz. a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an Holy Nation a peculiar People which must needs imply that the Christian Church is fundamentally and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild
not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * * * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * * * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †††Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of | | | Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a a a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b b b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c c c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d d d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the
Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and
allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on oftensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as tehy are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Governmenr is necessary because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason and
a a a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b b b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enâ—â—â— them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * * * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gâ—ntilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * * * Heb. 13. 17. Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †††Act. 16. 4. Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of
the Church in this Particular by shewing First That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants And Secondly That the Baptizing of them conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church First then Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants because they are capable of the Benefits and Priviledges of Baptism This I shewed in general before under the first Question and now I will shew it in a more particular manner of Induction by insisting upon the several Ends for which Baptism was ordained First then Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God and dedicated to his Service and I hope I need not prove that Children are capable of this benefit since Jewish Infants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision and the Scripture tells us that * * * Judges 13. 15. Sampson was a Nazarite from the Womb and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning was dedicated unto the Lord. Secondly Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Body which is the Holy Catholick Church This is a great and honourable Priviledge and no Man can deny but Infants are as capable of it under the New as they were under the Old Testament Nay so far are they from being under any Natural Incapacity as to Church-Membership that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms Cities and Companies and therefore why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them as the Jewish Church was and Civil Societies usually are I profess I cannot tell Thirdly it was ordained That the Baptized Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath into a State of Adoption or Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath. But by our Second Birth in Baptism we are made Children of God And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual as well as from one Temporal State to another or be Solemnly Adopted by God as well as Man or Lastly Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel as well as under the Law I am confident those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants would be puzzled to give any rational account In the Fourth place Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptized Persons the pardon of their Sins and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life but Baptism hath this Effect upon Infants as well as upon adult Persons for it washes them clean from * * * De hoc etiā David dixisse credendus est illud qui in peccato concepit me mater mea pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen in Ep. ad Lous l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Nativitate contraxit Cyprian in Ep. ad Fidum Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin before the time of the Pelagian Controversie may consult Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14. 17 21. and many more cited out of Just Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar Athanasius c. by Vossius in his Hist Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil Carthag 112. Original as it doth Men and Women both from Actual and Original Sin I say it washes them clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the assurance of God's favour unto them and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natural vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God they become reconciled unto him and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life upon their justification as any actual Believer in the Word I cannot deny but they may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God and so may actual Believers who die unbaptized if they did not contemn Baptism but then the hopes which we ought to have of Gods Mercy in extraordinary Cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed means unto which they are annexed But in the Fifth place Baptism was ordained That being admitted into the Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body we might acquire a present Right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto te promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner and measure as they are capable thereof This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true that they called Baptism by the names of * * * Heb. 6. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. 94. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 40. †Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Donatum Illumination Grace and Unction and we need not doubt but they talked as they felt and for this reason they Baptized Infants because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism who would be sure to preside and watch over them and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity and prevent them in their very first doings with his gracious helps Wherefore though it should be granted that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural incapacity as Anabaptists rashly assert yet the Baptizing of them is not frustraneous as to this great End of Baptism because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances and Illuminations of the Holy Spirit which they shall receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes This distinction betwixt having the Spirit and having a Right unto the Spirit holds not only in Infant-Baptism but in the Baptism of Hypocrites and secret Sinners who by submitting unto the Ordinances of Baptism acquire an actual Antecedent Right unto the Spirit although they are in a moral incapacity of receiving the Graces of it till their Hypocrisie is removed Nevertheless their Baptism is not ineffectual as to this End but is a means of conferring the Holy Ghost upon them without re-baptization because though they cannot receive it at the moment of their Baptism by reason of their Hypocrisie as sincere Penitents do in whom there is no such Moral
Lord Jesus Christ whereunto you are now called through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit Amen I received Yesternight from you Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel a Letter wherein you gently require my Judgment concerning the Baptism of Infants which is the effect thereof And before I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word and of his true Infallible Church touching the same I think it not out of the matter first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend Being in the midst of my sweet rest it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure and white four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof yea the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy And as Charity is no Churle but would have others to be Partakers of his delight some thought I called to others I cannot tell whom and whilst they came and we together beheld the same by and by to my great Grief it vaded away This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ and the appearance of it in the Sky signifieth the Heavenly State thereof whose Conversation is in Heaven and that according to the Primitive Church which is now in Heaven Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth for as the Prophet David saith The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World as the Prophet affirmeth saying God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost and Peace which passeth all Understanding as it is written in the Psalms As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision and to behold this wonderful City I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me musing on your Letter to the end that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith and to conform your self in all points to the same which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments and having with a greater fulness than we have now the first fruits of the Holy Ghost did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter which should teach them all truth And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church which is our Mother let us all that be obedient Children of God submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture Let us not go about to shew in us by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had lest we deceive our selves For there is but one Faith and one Spirit which is not contrary to himself neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures and be at peace with them according as the true Catholick Church is at this day And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss through our Obedience to Faith with them Therefore God commandeth us in Job to ask of the Elder Generation and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers For we are but Yesterdays Children and be Job 8. ignorant and our days are like a Shadow and they shall teach thee saith the Lord and speak to thee and shall utter words from their Hearts And by Solomon we are Prov. 6. commanded not to reject the direction of our Mother The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her and to abhor contention with her For as St. Paul writeth If any Man be contentious neither we neither the 1 Cor. 11. Church of God hath any such custom Hitherto I have shewed you good Brother S. my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable and then doubtless you cannot err but boldly may be glad in your Troubles and Triumph at the hour of your Death that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only and not after God's Word I will take the ground of your Letter and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful commendable and necessary whereof you seem to stand in doubt Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Auxentius one of the Arrians Sect with his Adherents was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up
betoken our being made new Creatures and entred into a new State or Condition of Life which still they seem to aim more expresly at in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name or some name that should signify some excellent vertue or Grace some Religious duty owing to God or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him Here we have an outward Visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament or a Sacrament within that of Baptism than we do our Sign of the Cross and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other and no more 2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper do shew that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other for some of them plead for the posture of sitting as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs Now in this matter let us consider our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him so that we see this gesture of sitting by the Tenor of their Argument made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace and this not from any antecedent express institution of Christ which notwithstanding this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper 3. Lastly Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant which they insist upon that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches must engage themselves in this is of that importance amongst them that they call it the Constitutive Form of a Church that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church Apol. for Church-coven Yea and as another expresses it that wherein the Vnion of such a Church doth consist We will suppose then this Covenant administer'd in some form or other and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other such as holding up his Hand or the like Let me ask them What must they of that Church think of this Rite or Ceremony of holding up the hand will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member Here then is an outward Visible sign of What of no less according to their apprehension of things than a perfect new State and Condition of Life that is of being embody'd in Christ's Church engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it Will they say that this way of admission either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred or the Ceremony of holding up the hand by which this Covenant is taken and assented to was originally ordain'd by Christ or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament or did the Presbyterian-Brethren in all their Arguments against this way charge them with introducing a new Sacrament So that from all instances imaginable both of the Jewish and Christian Church and that both Primitive and later Reformations even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren it is very Evident how unreasonable a thing it is that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi d c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But then they tell us secondly we seem to own it our selves when in an entire Representative of our Church such as we suppose a Convocation to be it is actually determin'd that by the Sign of the Cross the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross and what can be more immediate saith one of our Brethren than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating Signification It is confest that the 30th Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is because the Sacrament of Baptism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant and Dedication to God and the Christian Religion therefore by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross we have made a new Sacrament and added to that of Baptism to dedicate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted 1. To this I answer that surely the word dedication is of a much larger Signification than that it should be confin'd meerly to the Interpretation that our Brethren would put upon it The meaning of dedication properly is the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service such as a Church or Temple for the Worship of God any Person to the profession the true Religion to the Ministry or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars This is the strictest sense of dedication but then in a larger sense we may suppose it apply'd to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties and answering all the ends of the first dedication Thus suppose a Man ordain'd to the Ministry whereby he is properly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel he may by some solemn act of his own dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office and this after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been committed to him This cannot be call'd in any sense a new ordination but it may with reason and sense enough be stil'd a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordain'd to And therefore 2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood when they in explaining the intention of the Cross tell us it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross c. And yet I must needs say it seems hard measure upon the Church of England that if those in a Convocation should not have apply'd the word dedication to what might be most strictly the sense of it that this should be so severely expounded that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of than what meerly the strict and critical sense of that word will bear Surely
Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language called the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they Stiled the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. The Primitive Bishops and Holy Fathers advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and downcast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-Gesture contend for as the Priviledge of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table For a conclusion of this whole matter I desire our Nonconforming Brethren seriously to consider two or three Questions which I shall propound to them and endeavour to frame an Honest and Impartial Answer as in the Presence of God who searches our Hearts and tryeth our Reins They are not of a Captious Nature started to puzzle the Cause or for the sake of Contention God knows my Heart I have no such designs through this whole Discourse but they are plain and easie to be resolved almost at first sight Qu. I. Whether of two or three Gestures which are all agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament any one is not to be chosen and used by us when we can't use another without breaking the Peace and Vnity of that Church wherein we live Qu. II. Whether it can consist with Piety or Prudence to Expose your Selves and Families to Danger and the lash of the Law when nothing is Commanded but what is consistent with the Law of God and agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament though not to your Phansies and desires Qu. III. Whether we are not as Christians obliged by the Law of God and the example of our Saviour to deny our Selves many things that are otherwise Lawful for us Rom. 15. 2. 3 8. to do and use and are highly pleasing and grateful to us for the Good and Edification of our Neighbour If so How much more when the publick good and welfare of both Church and State depends upon such self-denyal Qu. IV. Whether it be Piously done of you to chuse never to Receive the Sacrament and so deprieve your Selves of the Spiritual Benefit of that Heavenly Feast rather then part with a Civil Circumstance such as a Table-Gesture is It is the Custom of our Country to Sit at Feasts but few men are so mad as to refuse to Eat Standing and go Hungry away when they have no room to Sit down Why should we not be as Prudent at this Spiritual Feast in the Concerns of our Souls as we are in those of our Bodies Put the case we were strictly prohibited by the Law of the Land the use of a Table or a Table-cloth at this Holy Feast and we could not receive with that Convenience as now we may would you end your days in a continual refusal and never receive the Sacrament I don't know how far Passion and Prejudice and the heat of Disputation may blind and transport Men but if they will calmly consider this matter and hearken to Reason they will find nothing to justify the total neglect of this Ordinance by I am very apt to think they will be of my mind for I declare to all the World rather than not Receive at all the Comfortable Sacrament of our Blessed Saviours Body and Blood I will Receive it on a Tomb-stone on the ground in a Church or in a Field if all other things that are Essential to it be rightly observed and performed If any of our Dissenting Brethren shall upon this Question think as I do viz. that there is no absolute necessity of a Table in this case which the Custom of our Country requires at Ordinary Feasts He will also at the same time see there is no absolute necessity of a Table-Gesture and that we may Receive worthily without either the one or the other FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 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 Englands 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 Communions 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. In two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation 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. Some Seasonable Reflections on the Discovery of the late Plot being a Sermon preached on that occasion by W. Sherlock D. D. Rector of St. George Buttolph-lane London King David's Deliverance or the Conspiracy of Absolon and Achitophel defeated in a Sermon Preached on the day of Thanksgiving appointed for the Discovery of the late Fanatical Plot. By Thomas Long B. D. one of the
to Idolatry But here a few things must be premised to prevent Cavils and Mistakes 1. I take it for granted that indifferent things may be lawfully See the Case of Indifferent Things used in the Worship of God This is supposed in the present Question for otherwise it would be sinful in us to Kneel whether that Gesture had been ever used or abused by Idolaters or no. 2. I grant that the Worship of God is to be preserved pure See Dr. Fal. lib. Eccles p. 443. from all sinful Mixtures and Defilements whatsoever whether of Idolatry or Superstition and that things otherwise indifferent which either in the design of them that use them or in their own present tendency do directly promote or propagate such Corruptions do in that case become things unlawful To follow Idolaters in what they think or do amiss to follow them generally in what they do without other reason than onely the liking we have to the Pattern of their Example which liking doth intimate a more universal approbation than is allowable in these cases I think with the Reverend Mr. Hooker Conformity Hook Ecles Pol. l. 4. p. 165. with Idolaters is evil and blame-worthy in any Christian Church But excepting these Cases it is not sinful or blame-worthy in any Society of Christians to agree with Idolaters in Opinion or Practice and to use the same Rites which they abuse And consequently our Church is not to be blamed or charged with Idolatry for her Agreement with the Church of Rome in using the same Ceremonies unless it can be proved that the Church of England doth abuse the said Ceremonies to sinful ends or that the Ceremonies used and appointed by our Church naturally tend to promote the Corruptions practised in the Church of Rome and were ill designed or that she did not follow the general Rules of Gods Word the Directions of the Holy Ghost in appointing and enjoyning the use of Ceremonies as being godly comely profitable but overlooking all this had an eye purely to the Example of Idolatrous Papists in what they did amiss Now this I am sure can never be made good against our Church who hath sufficiently vindicated her self by the open declarations she hath printed to the World from all accusations of this nature Let but any man consult the Articles of Religion Art 20. Art 34. Canon 18. the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer just after the Act of Vniformity the two excellent Discourses that follow it concening the Service of the Church and Ceremonies and the Reasons she hath publisht at the end of the Communion-service for enjoyning her Communicants to receive Kneeling I say let any man peruse these and he will receive ample satisfaction that our Governours in Church and State in appointing the use of Ceremonies did not steer by the Example of Idolaters nor enjoyn them out of any ill design or to any ill ends but were conducted by the light of Gods Word the Rules of Prudence and Charity the Example of the holy Apostles and the Practice of pure Antiquity These things being premised I proceed to prove this Assertion That it is not sinful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Or which is all one That to Kneel in the Act of Receiving according to the custom of the Church of England is not therefore sinful because it hath been and is notoriously abused to Idolatry for these Reasons 1. In general No abuse of any Gesture though it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be used in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in its own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abused by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be used at all then the Jews sinned in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observed in the Worship of their false Gods No say the Dissenters we except all such Rites as were commanded or approved of by God and such are all those fore-mentioned But say I it 's a silly Exception and avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be used at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what hath been once abused must ever remain so that is an infinite power can't undo what hath been done and clear it from ever having been abused And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare Conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practice in the Worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry for if it had God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position would plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This Position That the Idolatrous abuse of any thing renders the use of it sinful to all that know it is attended with very mischievous consequences and effects First It intrenches greatly upon Christian liberty as dear to our Dissenting Brethren as the Apple of their Eyes and I wonder they are not sensible of it At other times they affirm that no earthly power can rightly restrain the use of those things which God hath left free and indifferent and that those things which otherwise are lawful become sinful when imposed and enjoyned by lawful Authority and yet these very men give that power to Strangers both Heathens and Papists which they take away from their own rightful Princes and lawful Superiours An Idolater may yoke them when a Protestant Prince must not touch them And what more heavy and intolerable Yoke can be clapt on our necks than this That another mans abuse of any thing to Idolatry though in its own nature indifferent and left free by God renders the use of it sinful Whether this be not a violation of Christian Liberty let St. Paul determine who tells us that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offered to Idols and to eat whatsoever was 1 Cor. 10. 25 27 28 29. sold in the shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture should be more defiled by Idolaters than Meat which they had offered up in Sacrifice to Idols and why should one be sinful and idolatrous to use and not the other Certainly St. Paul would never have granted them
Remark The pretence of their convenient usefulness would be no better Excuse on their behalf than was that Plea for sparing the best of the Antalekites Cattel that they might be a Sacrifice when God had devoted them to Destruction For if God as they say hath commanded that all such Things and Rites should be utterly abolished as were of mans devising and had been abused to Idolatry then the convenient usefulness of such Places and Things will never bear them out 4 If it be sinful to Kneel at the Sacrament because that Cesture hath been and is notoriously abused by Papists to idolatrous ends so also is Sitting which is contended for with so much shew of Zeal For the Pope himself sits in the Act of Receiving as was before noted and if any credit be to be given to a Doctor of the Church of Rome for the same reason which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution and Celebration of the Sacrament If any enquire why the Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa Sedendo Communicat potest dici quod hoc sit in recordationem quod Beatus Petrus alii Apostoli sedendo Corpus Domini in Coena ultima acceperunt Alex. Hales Tract de Missa par 2. Quest 10. par 4. Pope Receives Sitting it may be rereplied that he useth that Gesture in remembrance of St. Peter and the o-other Apostles who Received the Body of our Lord at the last Supper Sitting To conclude If Kneeling be unlawful because it hath been abused to Idolatry then we must never Receive the Holy Sacrament For we must Receive in some convenient Posture such as Kneeling Sitting Discumbing Standing and yet every one of these either have been or is notoriously abused by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I have now finisht what I undertook and endeavoured all that in me lies to satisfie all honest and peaceable Dissenters that they may lawfully and innocently Kneel in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament What Success this Discourse will have I know not but this I am sure of it is well meant and if it be read with the same Charity as it was written with an honest teachable mind a mind not pleased with its Scruples I hope by Gods blessing it will do some good in the World And really if any of our Dissenting Brethren shall Receive thus much satisfaction from what I have written That by Kneeling in the Act of Receiving they transgress no known Law of God nor act contrary to our blessed Saviours Example That they do nothing but what becomes them and is very sutable to the nature of the Lords Supper nothing but what is agreeable to the practice of the universal Church in the first and purest Ages I don't see what other Scruples about Kneeling should block up their way to the Lords Table and hinder them from communicating with us There are a sort of men I confess who separate from our Church upon whom I despair of doing good by any attempts of this nature and they are such whose Scruples arise from a vitious Principle not from the weakness of their understandings but the obstinacy of their wills not from a great fear of offending God which keeps pace with all their actions for such I have as tender a compassion as any man but from Humour Self-Conceit Affectation of popular Applause and the being thought the wiser and better men for finding fault with every thing enjoyned by lawful Authority and every thing that is written in defence of it Nor upon men whose Scruples against Government by Bishops the Liturgie and Rites of the Church arise not from their Consciences but their Stomachs from Pride and Ambition from private piques disappointments in the State from Hypocrisie and Interest when the more they rail and except against Ceremonies the better Trade they drive in the World From such as these I expect nothing but Contempt and Derision and that the Medicine will be turned into Poison For as a great man observes on Prov. 14. 6. He Lord Bacon Advan of Learn fol. p 230. that comes to seek after Knowledge with a mind to scorn and censure shall be sure to find matter enough for his Humour but no matter for his Instruction FINIS For Kneeling I never yet heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful If there be any thing it must be either some Word of God or the nature of the Ordinance which is supposed to be contradicted But 1 there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ's Example can never be proved to oblige us more in this than in many other circumstances that are confessed not obligatory As that he delivered but to Ministers and but to a Family to Twelve and after Supper and on a Thursday-night and in an upper Room c. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours And 2 for the nature of the Ordinance it is mixt and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a sealed Pardon from Christ by his Embassadour upon our Knees Mr. Baxter 's Christian Directory par 2. p. 111. Quest 3. §. 40. A DISCOURSE ABOUT Edification IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION Whether it is Lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England and go to the Separate Meetings because he can better Edifie there The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. A DISCOURSE About EDIFICATION In Answer to a Question WHether it is lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England and go to the separate Meetings because he can better Edifie there Answer It is Unlawful To make this plain two things must be consider'd First What sort of Person this is who asks this Question Secondly What he means by Edification As to the Person he is suppos'd to be one that is fully satisfied that he may lawfully Communicate with the Church of England That there are no Terms of Communion put upon him but which he can comply withal with a good Conscience That there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God natural Reason or plain Consequences fetcht from both or either And therefore he who thinks that there are some things unlawful in the Communion of the Church of England is not concern'd in the Question for he separates upon the Account of Unlawfulness and not Edification onely as is suppos'd in the Question Secondly By Edification is meant an Improvement of his Spiritual Condition in the full latitude whereinsoever it may truly consist whether in the Articles of his Faith which in the separate Congregations are better taught more clearly prov'd more fitly appli'd to his practice and to support his hopes of Heaven or whether in the Rules of Life which are there more exactly laid down and more
many times is no more than a bright or a lowring day can do acting upon the Animal Spirits and a Dose of Physick will do the same And if they carry the men no further improve no virtue in them they are nothing else but downright flesh and blood And they are hot and cold high and low very changeable and uncertain according as the humours flow and as is the bodily temper of the men Upon this account some are melted into Tears and others are fired into Rage and Zeal their Spirits like Tinder easily catching the flame and these have happened in the worst of Men serving onely the Designs of Fury and Hypocrisie and can no more be called Edification than the Fire from the Altar that may consume the Temple Zeal Yet such mistakes as these have been too common Anger and Revenge have been called Zeal for God Trade and Interest have been Baptized Christianity Fury and Fumes of the Stomach have been thought the Divine Spirit ridiculous Looks and unmanly Postures have been fanci'd true Acts of Devotion and when they themselves were pleas'd and in the good humour God was reconcil'd and when they were dull and heavy the Spirit was withdrawn and according as these heats and bodily passions were stirr'd so the Ministry was Edifying or unprofitable pale Cheeks and hollow Looks have been Matth. 6. 16. counted signs of Grace and the Diseases of their body pass'd for the Virtue of their mind And when a Doctrine hath been so insinuated as to hit and favour these they were strangely improv'd and had obtain'd a good degree in Religion Many of these may be beginnings or occasions leading unto Religion and may serve some good purposes in men that can manage them well but to cry up these for Edification and going on unto perfection is to betray their People into the power of every Cheat and Impostor who hath the knack to raise these heats which pass for reason and conviction of mind and most commonly are great hindrances to solid and sound reasoning plain discourses the true way to Edification to make firm and lasting impressions upon the mind while the silly and the weak who are most subject to these heats and colds the uncertain motions of their Spirits are fickle and inconstant turning round in all Religions such men being all Sail are more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine 3. Argument to confirm the Answer is That pretence of better Edification will cause endless Divisions in the Church This Question doth suppose that every man must judge and so great a part of the World being ignorant and vicious partial and prejudic'd false and insincere to themselves and others they may run from Teacher to Teacher from Presbyterian to Independent from Independent to Anabaptist or Quaker and never stop till they come at their Grave to find out better Edification ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth ever seeking and 2 Tim. 3. 7. never satisfi'd till they find the Pattern upon the Mount or the new Jerusalem be come down from above till they meet with such a perfect Church as perhaps will never be here upon earth till her great Master comes The ignorant will easily mistake and who can know the heart and intention of the false and the Hypocrite And the Governour hath nothing to do here to retrench this liberty which as they pretend is either born with them or given them by God At this rate may not every single person be a Church leaving all other Christian Societies fancying that he can better Edifie at home with the workings of his own mind and some pretended infusions of the Spirit that he shall better meet with in his privacies and retirements than in an external and carnal Ministry and Crowd When once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces and set up their more Edifying Meetings in comes whole shoals of Vices Envy and Detraction Strife and Emulation Murmurings and Complainings Fierceness and Wrath and a great number of things more prejudicial to the State of the Kingdom the interest of Families the good of Friendship and all civil Conversation a wonderful Edification destroying the very Soul of Christianity The same Principles that divide them from this Church will crumble them into endless Parties and every little Chip may call it self a Building and so destroy all good Government and Discipline so necessary to propagate and preserve Christianity in the World And should I live to see that fatal day when the Government in our Church should be dissolv'd and liberty given to every man upon pretence of better Edification to chuse his Pastour and his Church so many Mischiefs and Confusions would follow from it that if there was any regard to common Christianity or sense of temporal happiness left within their Breast they would too late repent their Schism as once in a great degree many of them did and beg upon their Knees that the Pale of this Government in Church might be set up again and they would receive it with all its pretended load of Impositions This will certainly follow from dividing from the Church to the laughter of Rome and joy of all the Enemies of our Christian Religion All this would be avoided if men were sensible of the hainous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in such black colours though others think our Divisions in the Church are no more than variety of Companies and Liveries in a City 4. What great discouragement this is to an honest and truly Christian Ministry When a Pastour of our Church shall diligently and faithfully plainly and devoutly unfold the Articles of Faith and lay down Rules for Practice which will certainly bring him to Heaven yet his Flock or Charge one after another upon pretence of greener Pastures greater Knowledge better Elocution Delivery Tone or the like to be had elsewhere shall run from him will it not cool his Zeal check his Labours and affront his Person and Office This may be done to the painful as well as idle to the judicious and learned as well as imprudent and Ignorant Pastour where the People shall have liberty of Separation for the sake of Edification The ill effects of this have turn'd upon their own Ministers and new Government and the most judicious among them have sadly complain'd of it Formerly they Petition'd for a painful and preaching Ministry but this pretence of better Edification gives denial to their own request such Discouragements as these happening severely sometimes to the best of Pastours as well as the worst And they have no cure for this having put a power into the Peoples hands which they cannot recal for neither King Parliament Bishop or Pastour can tell them what is Edification so well as themselves And are the Pastours of the Church to be so treated and trifled with who derive their Offices and Authority from God to Command and
did offend which moved him to set out the sins of those Men in several Respects and Considerations Which it would be too long for me to mention nor is it needful if this that I have discoursed already be laid to Heart And if Men will lay nothing close to their Consciences all that can be said or wrote or preached will do them no good but they will be only hearers or readers not doers of the Word deceiving their own Souls Wherefore laying aside as St. Peter speaks I. II. 1. 2. all malice and all guile or deceit and hypocrisies and envies and all evil speakings as new born babes desire the sincere milk of the Word or that rational sincere milk the pure food of your mind and understanding and not of your fancy that you may grow thereby As certainly you will when you become of the same disposition with little Children void of hatred of guile of wraths of dissimulation and such like evil affections and are of an humble teachable and submissive Spirit For if every one had but such an increase of grace as to hear meekly Gods Word and to receive it with pure affection they could not easily fail to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit So we pray in our Litany And may it please God as it there follows to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived for Jesus Christ his sake Amen FINIS AN ARGUMENT FOR UNION Taken from the True Interest OF THOSE DISSENTERS in ENGLAND Who Profess and call themselves PROTESTANTS LONDON Printed for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet-street Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard and F. Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CONTENTS DIssentions are dangerous to the Church Page 1. If the Church should be dissettled by such means our Dissenters would not obtain their Ends. p. 2. Their First or Subordinate End is the Establishing of themselves p. 3. The first Branch of it is the Establishing themselves as a National Church which cannot be hop'd for either First by all of them p. 4. Or Secondly by the Prevalent Party amongst them p. 5. This is prov'd First from several Reasons p. 5 6. Secondly from the History of our late Revolutions p. 6. to 10. After which it is shewed That if they could not then gain their point they can much less do it now p. 10 c. The second Branch of their Subordinate End is the settling of themselves by mutual Sufferance p. 12. This is proved still more improbable p. 12 13. Also it is shewed that Parties tolerate each other no longer than one gets Power to suppress the rest with publick safety p. 14. to 18. The Second End of the Dissenters is more Principal and the first part of it is the keeping out of Popery p. 18. That this End cannot be obtained by Dissenting from our Church is shewed From Reason p. 18. to p. 25. From the History of the late Times p. 25 c. From the Judgment and Methods of the Papists themselves p. 28 29. The second part of the more Principal End of the Dissenters is the advancing of Pure Religion p. 30. But there are Reasons to perswade us that upon the Dissettlement of this Church Religion would not be advanced but embased p. 30 34. to 37. And the History of the late Troubles sheweth this to have been so in Fact p. 33 34 38 39. By virtue of the Premisses Dissenters are perswaded to consider seriously the state of things in this time of Prosecution and to hold constant Communion with our Church with which the wisest and best of them hold occasional Communion that the blessed Ends of Truth Holiness and Peace may be obtained p. 40 41 42 43. AN ARGUMENT FOR UNION c. I Take it for granted seeing a Truth so very plain The Introduction needs no formal Proof that the ready way to overthrow a Church is first to divide it It is also too manifest that our Dissentions are Divisions properly so called or Publick Ruptures It is true notwithstanding these Ruptures the Church still lives and in some good measure prospers But how Mortal these Breaches may at last prove through their Continuance and Increase a Man who has but a Competency of Judgment may easily fortel It is therefore the business of every Good Man as far as in him lies to disswade with Prudent Zeal from these Divisions which are in their Nature so uncharitable and so perillous in their Consequence Now one way of moving Men to desist from their Undertakings is the shewing of them with calmness of Temper and plainness of Reasoning that their Ends are not likely to be obtain'd As also that by the Means they use they will bring upon themselves those very Evils which they fear and of the removal of which they have Expectation Wherefore I have chosen an Argument of this Nature in order to the persuading of Dissenters to joyn in the Exercise of Constant Communion with the Church of England And I have here endeavoured to make it evident to them that in attempting to pull down this Establish'd Church they unwarily turn their own force against themselves and prepare Materials for the Tombs of their own Parties This Argument is here offer'd to them in the Spirit of Christian Charity and without any design of exposing or exasperating any person who differs in his Notions from the sense of the Writer For he had rather lie at the Feet of the meanest Man who is overtaken with an errour than spurn insolently against him Now in the managing of this Argument it is necessary The Argument itself It s Partition and Method to shew two things First What those Ends are which are proposed by the Dissenters I mean those which seem with any tolerable colour of Reason fit to be proposed and which are designed by the better and wiser of that number Secondly What Reasons may make it manifest that the Ends which they propose can never be procured by the Dissâ—ttlement of the Church of England These things being shewed there shall follow such a Conclusion as is suitable to the Premisses First For the Ends proposed by the more Prudent The Ends of the Dissenters Dissenters they are of two kinds The First End is Subordinate The Second is Principal Or the End to which the former serveth in the quality of the Means The Subordinate End is the Establishing of themselves And it hath two Branches Either the setling themselves First as a National Church Or Secondly as several distinct Churches giving undisturbed Toleration to one another For I am not willing to believe all of them to be given up to such a degree of Infatuation as to be intent only upon beating down without considering what is fit to be set up That is the way of Tempests and not of Builders The Principal is the further Advancement of the Reformed Religion This also hath two parts 1. The Removal
of Popery 2. The Introduction of the Protestant Religion in greater Purity and Perfection than the Church of England is in their Opinion as yet arrived at or can probably attain to by vertue of its present Constitution If there be amongst them Men disturbed in their Understandings by the heat of Enthusiasm if there be amongst them any Men whose Wisdom is sensual and worldly who presumptuously make Heaven stoop to Earth and conceal their private and secular Designs under the venerable name of Pure Religion I do not concern my self with them in this Persuasive to Vnion The former cannot and the later will not be convinc'd For there is no Ear so deaf as that which Interest hath stopp'd And there is a great deal of earnest Truth suggested in the Jocular Speech of James the fifth of Scotland who when his Treasurer desired liberty to be plain with him * * * Melvil 's Memoirs p. 2. drew out his Sword and said merrily to him I shall slay thee if thou speak against my profit The First Branch of the first or Subordinate End of The first Branch of the first End of the Dissenters viz. Vnion in a National Church the Dissenters is the Establishing of themselves as a National Church This is either designed by All of them or by a Party which believeth it self to be most sober and must numerous and most likely to prevail over the rest so far at least as to become the State-Party For All of them to expect to be united in one Uniform Body is to hope not only against the Grounds of Hope but of Possibility For the Parties are very many and very differing or rather very contrary and they cannot frame amongst them any common Scheme in which their Assents can be united What Communion for Example sake can the Presbyterians have with Arians Socinians Anabaptists Fifth-Monarchy-Men Sensual Millenaries Behmenists Familists Seekers Antinomians Ranters Sabbatarians Quakers Muggletonians Sweet-Singers These may associate in a Caravan but cannot joyn in the Communion of a Church Such a Church would be like the Family of Errour and her Daughters described in Mr. Spencer's Fairy-Queen of which none were alike unless in this that they were all deform'd And how shal the Christians of this present Church be disposed of to their just satisfaction They will never Incorporate with such a Medly of Religions and they are such both for their Quality and their number as not to be beneath a very serious Consideration For the Prevalent Party there seemeth to be both Reason and Experience against their hopes of Establishing themselves as a National Church These Reasons amongst others have moved me to entertain this Persuasion concerning them First Such a Party not maintaining Episcopal Government which hath obtained here from the Times of the Britains who in the Apostolical Age received the Christian Religion and which is so agreeable to the Scheme of the Monarchy It is not probable that they shall easily procure an exchange of it for a newer Model by the general consent of Church or State I may add the Body of the People of England whose Genius renders them tenacious of their Antient Customs Again All the Parties amongst us have of late declared for Mutual Forbearance They cannot therefore be consistent with themselves if they frame such a National Constitution by which any Man who Dissents from it shall be otherwise dealt with than by personal Conference which also he must have liberty not to admit if he be persuaded it is not fit or safe for him And such a Body without any other nerves for its strength and motion for the Encouragement of those who are Members of it and the Discouragement of those who refuse its Communion will not long hold together Nor hath it means in it sufficient for the Ends to which it is designed And indeed by this means the Spiritual Power of Excommunication will be rendred of none Effect For what Punishment what Shame what Check will it be to Cross and Perverse Men if being shut out of the National Church they may with open Arms and with Applause due to real Converts be received into this or the other particular Congregation as it best suiteth with their good likeing Furthermore it is commonly said that since the Presbyterians have gathered Churches out of Churches there are not many true and proper Disciplinarians in England If it be so then Independency is amongst Dissenters the prevalent side and I know not how a National Church can be made up of Separate Independent Churches for each Congregation is a Church by it self and hath besides the general Covenant of Baptism a particular Church-Covenant and therefore it is difficult to imagine how all of them can be by any Coherence of the Parts united into one intire Society But be it supposed that the Disciplinarians are of all Parties the most numerous and prevalent yet Experience sheweth how hard a Work it is for all of them to form themselves into a Church of England In the late times of Publick disquiet they had great Power they had in humane appearance fair and promising Opportunities and yet there grew up at their Roots another Party which in conclusion over-dropped them and brought their Interest into a sensible decay it being the nature of every Faction upon Victory obtain'd over their Common Adversary to subdivide In the Year 1640 * * * July 17. 1640. Whitelock's Memorials p. 45. The Commons had a debate about a new form of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And they agreed that every Shire should be a several Diocess That there should be constituted in each Shire a Presbytery of Twelve Divines with a President as a Bishop over them That this President with the Assistance of some of the Presbyters should Ordain Suspend Deprive Degrade Excommunicate That there should be a Diocesan Synod once a Year and each third Year a National Synod A while after * * * A. 1644. Id. ibid. p. 117. it was voted by them that to have a Presbytery in the Church was according to the Word of God Many other Steps were made in favour of the Discipline The Common-Prayer-Book was removed an Assembly of Divines was Established Their Directory was introduced they were united in the Bond of a solemn League and Covenant There was sent up * * * Iâ— Sept. 15. 1646. Diurnal p. 1313. from the County of Lancaster a Petition signed with 12000 Hands for the settling of Classes in those parts A Petition of the like importance was framed by divers of the Common-Council of London They seemed Whitlock's Memoirs p. 187. nigh the gaining of their Point yet they widely missed of it There was in the Assembly it self a ferment of Dissension Mr. Sympson and some others favoured an Independent Mr. Selden and some of his Admirers an Erastian Interest There was a Party in the Nation who were then called Dissenting Brethren and to these the Directory was as offensive as
the Canons and Liturgy had been to those of the Discipline They drew up Reasons * * * Id. ib. p. 116. A. 44. against the Directory of Church Government by Presbyters They afterwards Printed an open Remonstrance against Presbytery of which the Assembly complain'd to Ib. A. 45. p. 189. the House as of a Scandalous Libel And there were those who Reproach'd the Presbyterians in the same Phrases in which they had given vent to their displeasure against the Liturgy of the Church of England The Ministers of Lancashire * * * Harm Consent p. 20. complain'd concerning them That they had compared the Covenant to the Alcoran of the Turks and Mass of the Papists and Service-book of the Prelates As likewise that they said it was a Brazen-Serpent fit to be broken in pieces and ground to Powder rather than that Men should fall down and Worship it Amongst the Disciplinarians some were confident of Success One of them * * * Mr. S. Symp. in Serm. of Reform A. 1643. p. 29. for he was not then gone over to the Part of the Independents expressed his assurance in these most unbecoming Words before the Commons It will said he bring such a Blot on God as He shall never wipe out if your poor Prayers should be turn'd into your own bosoms that Prayer for Reformation A Speech not fit to have been repeated if it were not necessary to learn Sobriety of Wisdom from the Remembrances of Extravagance in former Times Others accknowledg'd their hopes but did not dissemble their Fears Six years ago said a person eminent * * * D. John Arr. in Ser. call'd The Great Wonder c. before the Commons A. 1646. p. 36. amongst them after this Parliament had sate a while it was generally believ'd that the Woman the Church was fallen into her Travel but she continues still in pain Insomuch as they begin to think she hath not gone her full time and earnestly desire she may because they fear nothing more than an abortive Reformation Others did openly confess that their hopes were not answer'd and that the State of Religion was much declined The Ministers of the Province of London * * * Testim to Truth of Jesus Christ subscribed Dec. 14. 1647. p 31. used upon this occasion these passionate words Instead of a Reformation we may say with Sighs what our Enemies said of us heretofore with scorn we have a Deformation in Religion Those Independents who adher'd to that part of the House which joyned with the Army prevailed for a Season but they also were disturb'd by those who went under the Names of Lilburnists Levellers Agitators * * * See Hist of Indep 2 part p 168. Then likewise Gerard Wynstanly * * * In Mystof Godlin c. Anno. 1649. Wynst in Saints Paradise C. 5. p. 54. c. publish'd the Principles of Quakerism discoursing or rather repeating the Dreams of his Imagination in such Expressions as these If you look for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ you must know that the Spirit within the Flesh is the Jesus Christ Every Man hath the light of the Father within himself which is the Mighty Man Christ Jesus Then Enthusiasm excited in part by the common pretence of an extraordinary Light revealed as of a suddain in those days in England brake forth into open distraction Then Joseph Salmon a present Member of the Army publish'd his Blasphemies and defended his Immoralities He justify'd himself and those of his way saying * * * Whitl Memoirs A 1649. p. 430. That it was God who did Swear in them and that it was their Liberty to keep Company with Women for their Lust Wyke his Disciple * * * Id. ibid. kissed a Soldier three times and said I breath the Spirit of God into thee Salmon himself printed a Pamphlet call'd a Rout in which he set forth his villainous self as the Christ of God saying * * * Salmon 's Rout. in Pref. and p. 10 11 c. I am willing to become Sin for you though the Lord in me knows no Sin We love to sweat drops of Bloud under all mens offences We shall see of the Travel of our Souls Enthusiasm tho' not in this rankness of it was now openly favour'd by Cromwell himself who together with six Soldiers prayed and preached at Whitehal * * * On Sund. after East day Ann. 1649. H. of Indep part 2. p. 153. His own temper was warmed with fits of Enthusiasm * * * See View of the late Troubles p. 366. And he confess'd it to a Person of Condition †††E. M. I. C. from whom I receiv'd it as did others yet living that he pray'd according to extraordinary Impulse And that not feeling such Impulse which he call'd Supernatural he did forbear to pray oftentimes for several days together In Process of time his House of Commons and he himself were publickly disturb'd by that wild Spirit in the rasing of which they had been so unhappily instrumental A Quaker came to the door of the House * * * Whitl Memoirs A. 1654 p. 592. and drew his Sword and cut those nigh him and said He was inspir'd by the Holy Spirit to kill every Man who sate in that Convention And he himself was not only conspir'd against by those who call'd themselves the Free and Well-affected People of England * * * See their Declar. in A. 1655. in Whilt Me. p. 606. but openly bespattered by the Ink of the Quakers in several Pamphlets * * * See Ed. Burroughs Trumpet of the Lord sounded p. 2. A. 56. and by their Clamours affronted in his own Chappel where before his face they gave bold interruption to his Preachers †††Whilt Memoirs p. 62. 4. Other Historical Memorials might be here produced relating to the hopeful Rise and mighty Progress and equal Declension of the Disciplinarian Party But in such cases I choose rather to take off my Pen than to lean too heard upon it Yet the nature of my Argument did necessarily lead me to the former Remarks and if useful Truth smarts let Guilt suffer a Cure and not kick against the Charitable Reporter In Sum the longer the Church of England was dissettled the greater daily grew the confusion and the division of Sects was multiplyed not unlike to that of Winds in the Mariners Compass in which Artists have increas'd the Partitions from four to two and thirty Insomuch that the very Distractions which were among us did in some measure prepare the way for the return of the King and the Restitution of the Church men finding no other common Bottom on which the Interests of Religion and civil Peace might be established Now if the Dissenters could not then when so fair Opportunities were in their hands carry on their cause to any tolerable Settlement much less
may they now hope to do it For there are now many hinderances which did not then lie cross their way First The Platform of Discipline so highly applauded so earnestly contended for during the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James hath now been in part tryed and the presence of it to omit other Reasons hath abated the Reverence some had for it Secondly There is not at this time such an Union amongst Dissenters as appeared at the beginning of our late Troubles The number of those Dissenters who were not for the Discipline was then very inconsiderable But in a few years they brake as it were into Fractions of Fractions Insomuch that the Ministers of the Province of London expressed the Estate of things in the Year 47 on this manner * * * Testim to the Truth of J. Chr. p. 30. Instead of Vnity and Vniformity in Matters of Religion we are torn in pieces with Distractions Schisms Separations Divisions ano Subdivisions Thirdly Those who then favoured the Discipline are much departed from their former Scheme of Government inclining to Independency which they once denyed to be God's Ordinance * * * Mr. Herl c. and pleading for Toleration which they once called The last and strongest hold of Satan * The Title of Mr. Edwards 's book 1647. See Testim of Min. p. 20. Fourthly At the beginning of our Disturbances many Men of Quality and such who had a Zeal of God favour'd the Settlement of the Discipline in the simplicity of their hearts They had not then seen any Revolutions they had not discovered the secret Springs of publick Motions nor the vile Interests of many men which lay concealed under the disguise of Pure Religion They saw what all Men may see in all times abuses in Church and State and the very name of Reformation was sweet to them Now notwithstanding the sincere zeal and the power of these Men the Discipline could not long be carried on much less could it be perfected by them There is therefore at this time a much greater Improbability of Success in the like design For many consiberable men Piously inclin'd have seen their error and will not be a second time engaged And they will not say of our late changes as the Protector did * * * Oliver 's Speech in the Painted Chambâ—r Jan. 22. 54 at the Dissolv of the Parl. p. 29. 33. That they were the Revolutions of God and not humane designs That they were the Revolutions of Christ upon whose Shoulders the Government was stayed They are not of the same mind with him who told the Commons * * * Mr. Caryl in Ep. Ded. bef Ser. called the Arraign of Unbelief A. 45. That if they acted Faith then the Records of those Times on their side should bear thus to all Posterity the Book of the Wars and Counsels of God Also since those days through the luxation of Discipline during the licence of the War the discovery of great and black Hypocrisies the multiplication of Parties and Opinions the publishing of many lewd and irreligious books from Unlicens'd Presses Atheism hath made very formidable Advances And they say that some undisguised Sceptics and Atheists have some times since the King's Return been much used in the Cause of our Dissenters Now if well meaning zeal could not establish the Discipline it is not likely to be promoted much less settled by the help of such hands of which the outsides are not washed by so much as an External form of Godliness The Second Branch of the first End of Dissenters The second Branch of the 1st End of the Dissenters viz. Vnion by mutual forbearance seems more improbable than the first viz. The settling themselves as several distinct Parties giving undisturbed Toleration to each other This seems not probable upon many accounts First Some Dissenters believe some of the Parties to be incapable of Forbearance as maintaining Principles destructive of Christian Faith and Piety This Opinion they still have for instance sake of Antinomians Quakers and Muggletonians And they formerly declamed against the Toleration of divers others They publish'd here by Authority so called an Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh * * * A 1647. Act of Assemb p. 2. Against Erastians Independents and Liberty of Conscience bearing as they speak their publick Testimony against them not only as contrary to sound Doctrine but as more special Letts and Hinderances as well to the Scottish received Doctrine Discipline and Government as to the Work of Reformation and Uniformity in England and Ireland The Ministers of the Province within the County Palatine of Lancaster in their Harmonions Consent * * * Harmon Consent A. 1648. p. 12. with the Ministers of the Province of London publish'd their Judgments in these zealous Words A Toleration would be a putting of a Sword into a Mad man's hand An appointing a City of Refuge in Mens Consciences for the Devil to fly to A proclaiming Liberty to the Wolves to come into Christ's Fold to pray upon his Lambs A Toleration of Soul-murther the greatest murther of all others and for the establishing whereof damned Souls in Hell would accurse Men on Earth Neither would it be to provide for tender Consciences but to take away all Conscience If error be not forcibily kept under it will be Superior It seems they were not then of the later Perswasion of the Protector who said * * * Protect Speech Jan. 22. 54. p. 28. concerning the People of several Judgments in this Land That they were All the Flock of Christ and the Lambs of Christ though perhaps under many unruly Passions and Troubles of Spirit whereby they gave disquiet to themselves and others And that they were not so to God as to us Again There is no firmness or social influence in the nature of this Union It is the Union of a multitude who meet and disperse at pleasure And he who proposeth this way as the means to knit Men into Christian Communion is like a Projecter who should design the keeping of the stones together in the strength of a firm and lasting House by forbearing the use of Cement The Union that lasteth is that of the Concord of Members in an Uniform Body Moreover It is to be consider'd that there are no Parties in this or any other Nation so exactly poised that they have equal Numbers and Interests There is always one of them which over-ballanceth the rest And one of the several ways must always be favoured as the Religion of the State And it is natural for the strongest side to attempt the subduing of the weaker And though this be not soon effected yet 'till one side getteth the mastery the Parties remain not as distinct Bodies settled in peace within themselves and towards each other but as Convulsions in the common body of the State Some think this Inclination to the swallowing up of all other Parties to be
of Antient Friends * * * See Spirit of the Hart. p. 12 13 c. George Fox declar'd he had Power to bind and loose whom he pleased †††p â—7 and said in a great Assembly * * * p. 41. that he never lik'd the Word Liberty of Conscience and would have no Liberty given to Presbyterians Papists Independents and Baptists From the Subordinate End of the Dissenters I pass The Principal End of the Dissenters the first part of it to the Principal and begin with the first part of it the removal of Popery A very good and commendable end And I heartily pray to God to prosper all Christians who persue it by fit and lawful ways But the Methods of Dissenters do not so well lead to it as those of the established Church Bare Reason maketh this manifest It may be also proved to us by Historical Inference This likewise is the Judgment of the Papists themselves who take their measures from this Principle that they shall enter in through the Breaches of the Church of England First Common Reason sheweth that the Interruption which may by Dissension be given to this Church will rather weaken than improve the Protestants Interest both at home and abroad Abroad the Protestant Interest will suffer much in the overthrow of this Church For by such means a principal Wheel is taken out of the Frame of the Reformation Nay Signior Diodati * * * Florentissima Anâ—lia Ocellus ille Ecclesiarum Peculium Christi singulare c. was wont to praise it in a more excellent Metaphor and to call it the Eye of the Reformed Churches and it is plain to considering Men that the Church of England which had greater regard to the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation can give a more full and unperplexed answer to all the Objections of the Romanists than some other Churches who are cramped in a few points unwarily admitted If therefore Dissentions put out this eye of the Protestant Churches the dark Doctrines and Traditions of Popery will the sooner spread themselves over Reformed Christendom At Home the Dissettlement of the Church of England will sooner introduce than root out Popery I am constrain'd thus to judge by the following Considerations First the design of keeping out Popery by the Ruine of this Church is like the preposterous way of securing the Vineyard by pulling up of the Fence or of keeping out the Enemy by the removal of our Bullwark Under that name this Church is commonly spoken of and they do not flatter it who give it that Title â—ts Constitution is Christian and it is strong in its Nature and if such a Church hath not ability with God's assistance to resist the assaults of Romish Power much less have they who dissent from it And it is Fanaticism properly so called or Religious Frenzie to lay aside a more probable means and to trust that God will give to means which are much less probable supernatural aid and success God supporteth a good Cause by weak means if they are the only means he hath put into our power against a bad Cause though externally potent But he who in cases of emergence assisteth honest Impotence and Infirmity will never work Miracles in favour of Mens Presumptions and Indiscretions The Romanists are a mighty body of Men and though there are Intestine Fewds betwixt the Secular and Regular Clergy as likewise betwixt the several Orders yet they are all united into one common Politie and grafted into that one stock of the Papal Headship They are favoured in many places by great Men they have variety of Learning they pretend to great Antiquity to Miracles to Martyrs without number to extraordinary Charity and Mortification they have the Nerves of worldly Power that is banks of Money and a large Revenue They have a Scheme of Policy always in readiness there are great numbers of Emissaries posted in all places for the conveying of Intelligence and the gaining of Proselytes they take upon them all shapes and are bred to all the wordly Arts of Insinuation There is given to their way in the Jargon of Mr. Coleman * * * Coll. of Lett. p. 8. c. a very fit name of Trade Traffick Merchandize Against all this Craft and Strength what under God can Protestants oppose which is equal to the Power of the Church of England A Church Primitive learned pure and nor embased with the mixtures of Enthusiasm or Superstition A Church which is able to detect the Forgeries and Impostures of Rome which hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extream which is a National Body already formed a Body both Christian and Legal a Body which commendeth it self to the Civil Powers by the Loyalty of its Constitution a body which hath in it great numbers of People judiciously devout and who are judged only to be few * * * See L. de Moulin's Advances c. p. 26. because they are not noysie but prudent though truly exemplary in their Religion And there is in the Church of England something more considerable than number for Union is stronger than Multitude Take the Character of this Church from Monsieur Daille * * * De Confess Advers H. Hammond c. 1. p. 97. 98. a Man whose Circumstances where not likely to lead him in this matter into any partiality of judgment and who at that time was engag'd in a learned Controversy with one of our Divines The Character is this As to the Church of England purged from Forein wicked Superstitious Worships and Errors either Impious or dangerous by the Rule of the Divine Scriptures approved by so many and such illustrious Martyrs abounding with Piety towards God and Charity towards Men and with most frequent examples of good works flourishing with an increase of most learned and wise men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time I have always had it in just esteem and till I die I shall continue in the same due Veneration of it And indeed it is to me a matter of astonishment that any men who have been beyond the Seas and made Observations upon other Churches and States should be displeased at Ours which so much excel them Now is it probable that such a Church as this is should have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery than an inferior number of divided Parties of which the most Sober and most Accomplish'd is neither so Primitive nor so learned nor so united nor so numerous nor so legal And against which it will be objected by the Romans that it is of Yesterday Amongst these Parties there are some who have not fully declared themselves And who knows whether they have not a Reserve for the Romish Religion against a favourable Opportunity though sometimes they speak of Rome as of Babylon I mean those People who are called Quakers who speak in general of their Light
lay it upon the Jesuits thereby tacitly acknowledging that they had so great a power over some of them as to make them to become their Instruments for the cutting off the Lord 's Anointed For if they will not allow Cromwell and Ireton and some others of that Order to have been Dissenters properly so called yet certainly they must not deny that Name to Mr. Peters Mr. John Goodwin and many like to them who appeared publickly in that very black and insolent wickedness How far it is true that the Jesuits influenc'd those Counsels I do not now examine nor do's my Talent lie in Mysteries of State But that in the late Revolutions Popery was not routed out no Man can remain ignorant who is of competent Age and had not perfectly lost the use of his memory though he has made the most negligent Observations Robert Mentit de Salmonet * * * Hist des troâ—bles de la grand Bret. a Parâ—â— 1661. lib. 3. p. 165 See sport view of the late Troubl p. 564. a Scotchman and a Secular Priest in actual exercise of Communion with the Church of Rome hath publickly taken notice of the many Priests slain at Edge-Hill and of two Companies of Walloons and other Catholicks as he is pleased to style them in the Service of the States It hath been commonly said * * * Arbitr Government p. 28. that Gifford the Jesuit appeared openly in the Year 47 amongst the Agitators and that his Pen was used in the Paper drawn up at a Committee in the Army and call'd the Agreement of the People * * * See Whitl Memoirs p. 279 280 282. K. Charles the Martyr speaketh of such things as notorious in one of his printed Declarations * * * Exact Col. p. 647. All Men know said he the great number of Papists which serve in their Army Commanders and others In the Year 49 * * * Id. ibid. p. 405. Those in the House were acquainted with divers Papers taken in a French Man's Trunk at Rye discovering a Popish Design to be set on foot in England with Commissions from the Bishop of Chalcedon by Authority of the Church of Rome to Popish Priests and others for settling the Discipline of the Romish Church in England and Scotland Mr. Edwards * * * Gangrena p. 1â— p. r. 2 reports from Mr. Mills a Common-Council-man who was so informed by a knowing Papist that the Romanists did generally shelter themselves under the Vizor of Independency It is certain that a College of Jesuits was established at Come * * * Narr sent up to the Lords from the Bishop of Heâ—eford p. 7. in the Year 52. And in a Paper found there mention was made of 155 reconcil'd that year to the Church of Rome Oliver himself used these words in a Declaration publish'd by the Advice of his Council * * * Prot. Declaration Octob. 31. 1655. It is not only Commonly observed but there remains with Us somewhat of Proof that Jesuits have been found among some discontented Parties in this Nation who are observed to quarrel and fall out with every Form or Administration in the Church or State Dr. Bayly * * * In the Life of Bish Fisher p. 260 161. the Romanist openly courted Oliver as the present hopes of Rome and with a Flattery as gross as the Jingle was ridiculous call'd him Oliva Vera And one of his Physitians * * * V. Elench Mot. par 2. p. 341. hath said of him that he was once negotiating with the Romanists for Toleration but brake off the Bargain partly because they came not up to his price and partly because he feared it would bâ— offensive to the People It is also publickly told us * * * H. Indep part 2. p. 245 c. that an Agreement was made in 49 even with Owen ô Neal that bloody Romanist and that he in pursuance of the Interest of the State so called raised the Siege of London-derry A great door was opened to Romish Emissaries when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were by publick Order taken away For they were Tests of Romamism Likewise the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath revived in those days by Roger Williams * * * See Mr. Cotton's Lr. Exam. A. 44. p. 4 5 Simplicit defence A. 1646. p. 22. Min. of Prov. of Lond. Testim p. 18. Samuel Gorton and others helped equivocating Papists to an evasion as I fear it may do at this day among the Quakers So we may be induced to believe by comparing present with former Transactions For we are informed that in the Reign of King James * * * Gee's Foot out of the Snare p. 58 59. A. 1621. Thomas Newton pretended to have had a Vision of the Virgin Mary who said to him Newton See thou do not take the Oath of Allegiance And being of this publickly examined at the Commission-Table and asked how he knew it to be the Virgin Mary which appeared He answer'd I know it was she for she appeared unto me in the form of her Assumption It was the Church of England which in our late Troubles principally fortify'd and entrench'd the true Protestant Religion against the Assaults of Rome This Church was still in being though in Adversity She had strong Vitals and did not die notwithstanding there was some Distemper in her Estate There was still a Constitution where Primitive order and decencie might be found and in which Men of Sobriety might be fixed And great numbers of the Church-men by their constant adherence to their Principles under publick contempt and heavy pressure gained daily on the People and convinced the World that they were not so Popish and Earthly-minded as popular clamour had represented them Also their learned Books and Conferences reduced some and establish'd many and we owe a part of the stablity of Men in those times to God's blessing on the Writings of Arch-bishop Laud Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Bromhall Dr. Cosins Dr. Hammond and others Last of all It is the Opinion of the Papists themselves that their Cause is promoted by our Dissensions and according to these measures of Judgment they govern their Councils This was the Opinion of the Jesuite Campanella in his Dâ—scourse touching the Spanish Monarchy written about the Year 1600 and in 54 publish'd at London in our Language * * * Campan Disc of Span. Mon. c. 25. p. 157 Concerning the weakning of the English says that Jesuit there can no better way possibly be found out than by causing Divisions and Dissentions among themselves And as for their Religion it cannot be so easily extinguished and rooted out here unless there were some certain Schools set up in Flanders by means of which there should be scattered abroad the Seeds of Schism c. And whether these kinds of Seeds have not come from hence to us as well as those better ones of the
Brabant Husbandry remaineth not now any longer a question It was the Advice of the Jesuit Contzens * * * Contz Polit. l. 2. chap. 18. Sect. 9. To make as much use of the Divisions of Enemies as of the agreement of Friends After this manner it is that they manage themselves they endeavour to widen the Breach in order to the introducing of Popery into a divided Nation They will have hopes as long as we have Divisions They will believe whilst they see the humours are in conflict that the Body will be at last dissolved If they will hope for Resettlement as they declare they do upon such inconsiderable grounds as the Printing of a Monasticon * * * Journal des Scavans de l' Ann. 1665. p. 140. or the Provincial * * * Journ c de l' An. 1666. p. 2â—0 233. c. of Lynwood amongst us though in the Quality of History rather than of Title or Law what will they not expect from our un christian Distempers and from our forbearing of Communion with the establish'd Church as if it were the Synagogue of Satan By this Artifice it is that they gain Proselytes They expose the Protestants as a dis-unitâ—d People They demand of injudicious Men how they can in Prudence joyn with those who are at variance among themselves Though at this time in the Church of England it self there is much more agreement than in the Church of Rome in which they say there are great numbers of more private Deists * * * V. Polit. of France and Socinians and some we are certain who publish it to the World * * * Moyens Surs. c. pour la conversian dtous les Heretiques that the Primacy is Antichristian in which there are Solemn and Publick Assemblies who declare openly against one another in the great point of the Papal Supremacy and shew by so doing that in their Opinion their common head cannot certainly tell the nature of his Head-ship There remaineth to be considered the second more The second part of the second or more Principal End of the Dissenters principal End the advancing Christian Religion in these Kingdoms to greater Purity and Perfection But neither in this is their expectation likely to be answer'd For First The means towards the settling of themselves is the Dissettlement of that which is well fixed And this is the way not to a greater purity in Religion but to the corruption of it For it removeth Charity which is the Spirit of the Chirstian Religion It letteth loose great numbers who cannot govern themselves it moveth men to live Atheists and Idolaters to pour Contempt upon the Church of Christ and confirmeth them in their evil course It exposeth the Church as a Prey to the Common Enemy Thus the Divisions in Affrica gave encouragement to the Arms of the barbarous Nations and those in the Aegyptian Churches made way for the Saracens And the Proposal of the maintenance of Charity and pure Religion by the overthrow of a tolerable Ecclesiastical Constitution is as improbable a Project as that of Flammock who in Henry the 7th's time * * * L. Bac. H. 7. p 164. proposed a Rebellion without a breach of the Peace And it is here to be considered that those who dissent from a National Church do generally make use of such Junctures as are apter to debase than refine Religion They often move for Alterations in the Church when there is a great heat and ferment in the State And in such Seasons the Form of a Church may be pulled in sunder but there is not temper enough and coolness of unbyass'd consideration to set it together to advantage Such times are the Junctures of State Dissenters and amongst them Revolutions generally begin though without the pretence of reforming Religion they are not carried on amongst the People For it will not serve their purpose to say plainly they are against the Government because the Government is against their Interests Now when well meaning Dissenters are in the hands of such worldly Power they will not be able to establish what they think is surest but that which pleaseth their secular Leaders A change in the Church naturally produceth some change in the State and in such changes who can secure the Event for the better The words of Bishop Andrews * * * Ser. 6. on Nov. 5. 1614. about the midst of the Reign of K. James touch this Point and they doubtless are worth our observation When said he they have made the State present naught no Remedy we must have a better for it and so a change needs What change Why Religion or the Church-Government or somewhat they know not what well stand a while ye shall change your Religion said they of this day the Gun-powder-Traytors and have one for it wherein to your comfort you shall not understand a word not you of the People what you either sing or pray and for variety you shall change a whole Communion for an half Now a blessed exchange were it not What say some others You shall change for a fine new Church-Government a Presbytery would do this better for you than an Hierarchy and perhaps not long after a Government of States than a Monarchy Meddle not with these Changers Now when a State is either disturb'd or dissolv'd men cannot foresee all the ill Consequences of it When the Vessel is stirr'd the Lees come up which lay before undiscerned in the Mass of the Liquor and so it is in Religion it is not fined but rather render'd less pure by motions in the Body Spiritual or Civil Then Politicians use conscientious Instruments no further than they serve a present purpose and for new Purposes they find new Instruments One of the Assembly of Divines * * * D. J. L. on Psal 4 4. Feb. 24. A. 1647. discoursed on this manner at a publick Fast Have not these Trumpets and these poor Pitchers had their share and a good share too in bringing down the Walls of Jericho and the Camp of Midian and have not they like the Story in Ezekiel if I may so express it Prophesy'd you up an Army The Witness of these things is in the whole Kingdom and a Witness of them is in your own Bosoms Yet the Preacher was very sensible at the same time that those whom they had helped to Power were turning it against them and breaking them to pieces by dashing Independency against them Aspiring Men make fair Promises till they have gained their point but when that is once secured they take other Measures They say * * * Melvil's Mem. p. 33. that Maximilian for the gaining of Votes in order to the Empire used secret Preachings to please the Protestant Princes the Elector Palatine the Dukes of Saxony and Brandenburgh and went openly to Mass to please the Popish Bishops of Mentzs Triers and Collein Also the claims of
Printed Licensed dispersed up and down in City and Country openly a Quarter of these Errours Heresies Blasphemies which have been all these ways vented by the Sectaries the People would have risen up and stoned them and pulled down their Houses and forced them to forbear such Doctrines O how is the Scene changed within these few Years and not long after he tells us that These are Risen Increased Reign and Prevail so far under a Parliament Sitting not under the Bishops Corrupt-Clergy Court-party but under a Parliament And in his Epistle to the Lords and Commons before the first part of his Gangraena he tells them That the Errours Heresies Blasphemies and Practices of the Sectaries of this Time had been Broached and Acted within these Four last Years in England and that in Your Quarters and in the places under your Government and power for which I tremble to think least the whole Kingdom should be in Gods Black Bill that together with their Reformation come in a Deformation and worse things were come upon them than ever they had before they had put down the Book of Common-Prayer but there were many amongst them that had put down the Scriptures slighting yea Blaspheming them he tells them they had cast out the Bishops and their Officers and they had many that had cast down to the ground all Ministers in all the Reformed Churches they had cast out Ceremonies in the Sacraments and they had many that had cast out the Sacraments themselves with many more sad complaints which he there makes To sum up all in the words of my Author Vbi supra p. 73. In this Catalogue the Reader may see great Errors and yet may turn himself again and behold greater namely damnable Heresies and yet turn himself again and read Horrid Blasphemies and a third time and read Horrible Disorders Confusions strange and unheard of Practices not only against the Light of Scripture but Nature as in Women's Preaching in Stealing away Men's Wives and Children from Husbands and Parents in Baptizing Women Naked in the Presence and Sight of Men c. And thus we see by what means it was that the Nation came to be Pestred with Opinions and Practices Impious beyond the Example of former Ages and such as were not once named among the Gentiles to the A Letter from a Noble Venetian to Card Barbarino translated and Printed 1648. p. 19. Infinite Prejudice and dishonour both of our Religion and our Nation It being the Observation which an Ingenious Foreigner who resided at London in those times made upon this occasion one of the Fruits says He of this Blessed Parliament and of these two Sectaries Presbyterians and Independents is that they have made more Jews and Atheists than I think there is in all Europe besides I doubt not but that the greatest part of our Dissenters do from their Souls detest the Heresies Blasphemies and Wickednesses that have been mentioned but then the Consideration ought to oblige them to double their diligence to prevent the like dismal Effects for the time to come and not to open the Gap again at which they must necessarily flow in upon us By what has been done they may see what a Blessed Reformation they may expect by the Ruin of this Church for the thing that hath been is that which shall be the same causes set on foot by the same Principles will Eternally produce the same Effects and though Men at first may mean never so well yet Temptations will insensibly grow upon them and Accidents happen which in the Progress will carry them infinitely beyond the Line of their first Intentions and engage them in Courses out of which when they come to discern their Errour it may be too late for them to Retire In the beginning of the long Parliament I make no question but the far greatest part of them met together with very honest and good Intentions and designed no more than to Correct some little Irregularities which they apprehended to be in Church or State But wee see how these very Persons where cariied from one passage to another and in time transported to those very things which at first they had so vehemently protested and declared against till at length Horrid Enormities came to be acted by and under them which no age can Paralel which ought to be a Sufficient Caution to all how they shake the least Stone that belongs to the Foundation least by picking out one after another the whole House tumble about their Ears when it is beyond their own Power to support it I shall shut up this Head with a brief Recapitulation of some of those Inferencs which Mr. Edwards makes from the State of those Loose and Licentious times we have been speaking of and then leave the Reader to judg whether they be not as Applicable to present Circumstances under which we are He infers thus First we may hence see how dangerous it is to Cat. and Discov Part 3 d. p. 52 53 57 70. Further Discov p. 195 203. despise and let alone a small Party Secondly That it is more than time fully and Effectually to settle the Government and Discipline of the Church Thirdly What the Mischief Evil and Danger of a Toleration and pretended Liberty of Conscience would be to this Kingdom and what it would Prove and Produce Fourthly That it sufficiently Justifies in the Sight of the World those Ministers and People who are Zealous for setling Religion and cry out for Government who Preach Petition speak often one to another of these things Fifthly what a great Evil and Sin Separation is from the Communion of the Reformed Churches and how highly displeasing to God for Men to make a Rent and Schism in the Church of God Sixthly That all such who have been deceived and drawn away under pretence of greater Purity Holiness c. and have any Fear and Awe of God and his Word be Exhorted to leave and forsake them and return to the Publick Assemblies and Communion of this and other Reformed Churches And God grant we may hearken to this Counsel and may seriously lay these things to heart VIII Eighthly We desire it may be considered what plain and apparent Advantages Separation gives to the Common Enemy of the Protestant Religion in these Nations The Church of England is notoriously known to have been the most strong and standing Bulwark of Protestancy ever since the Reformation for being Founded on Scripture-grounds and the Practice of True Genuine Primitive Antiquity and having been reformed by the most wise regular and justifiable Methods it stands like a Rock impregnable against all the Assaults which the Church of Rome makes upon it This has engag'd them to Plant all their Batteries to beat it down as being the only Church considerable enough to stand in their way and when not able to effect it by any other Arts they have betaken themselves to the old Artifice of Ruining us by dividing us In
several of them lost their Lives Barrow and Greenwood were Executed for their Scandalous and Seditious Writings Penry and Vdal Indicted and Arraigned for Defaming the Queens Government in a Scandalous Book Written against the supposed Governours as they called them of the Church of England for which they were both Cast and Condemned to be Executed as Felons but Arch-Bishop Whitgift interposing they were Reprieved and Vdal suffered to Die as he did soon after in his Bed The truth is the wise and wary Queen beheld Schism growing on apace and needed not to be told what ill Influence it was like to have both upon Church and State and therefore Resolved to carry a Streight Hand as well over Puritanism on the one side as Popery on the other and in order hereunto She charged Arch-Bishop Whitgâ—ft Sir G. Paul Life of A. B. Whitgift Numb 53. p. 29. to be Vigilant and Careful to Reduce Ministers by their Subscription and Conformity to the setled Orders and Government Adding That She would have the Discipline of the Church of England formerly Established of all Men duly to be Observed without alteration of the least Ceremony But nothing more fully discovers her Judgment and Resolution in this matter then what She gave in Command to the Lord-Keeper-Puckering to tell the Parliament part of his Dr. Peirce New Discov against Mr. Baxt. 1659. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. p. 109. Speech Transcribed and Published some Years since from the Original Copy under his own Hand Writing by an Eminent Divine of this Church was as followeth And especially you are Commanded by Her Majesty to take heed that no Ear be given or Time afforded to the wearisome Sollicitations of those that commonly be called Puritanes wherewithall the late Parliaments have been exceedingly Importuned Which sort of Men whilst in the Giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership they do nothing else but disturb the good Repose of the Church and Common-wealth which is as well grounded for the Body of Religion it self and as well guided for the Discipline as any Realm that professeth the Truth And the same thing is already made good to the World by many of the Writings of Learned and Godly Men neither Answered nor Answerable by any of these new fangled Refiners And as the present Case standeth it may be doubted Whethey they or the Jesuits do offer more Danger or be more speedily to be repressed For albeit the Jesuits do impoison the Hearts of Her Majesties Subjects under a Pretext of Conscience to withdraw them from their Obedience due to her Majesty yet do the same but closely and only in privy Corners but these Men do both Publish in their Printed Books and Teach in all their Conventicles sundry Opinions not only dangerous to the well-setled Estate and Policy of the Realm but also much derogatory to Her Sacred Majesty and Her Crown as well by c. In all which Things however in many other Points they pretend to be at War with the Popish Jesuits yet by the Separation of themselves from the Unity of their Fellow-Subjects and by abusing the Sacred Authority and Majesty of their Prince they do both joyn and concur with the Jesuits in opening the Door and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is Threatned against the Realm Thus far he by her Majesties most Royal Pleasure and Wise Direction as he there speaks To which let me add That the Speech took such effect that the Parliament passed the Act of 35th of Eliz. the Severest Act against Dissenters in the whole Body of our Laws And indeed so Jealous was the Queen of the least appearances of Innovation that Arch-Bishop Grindall only for giving too much encouragement to Prophesyings which were beheld as likely to prove Nurseries of Schism and Faction as indeed they did fell under Her Displeasure and was Sequestred from his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction and though great intercession was made in his behalf yet could he never be restored to his Dying Day This was the State of things then and yet these were the Proceedings of those Days which our Dissenters at another time are wont so much to Magnifie and Extol nothing of late having been so much in their Mouth as the Wisdom and Prudence the Care and Diligence the Zeal and Piety of Good Queen Elizabeth I speak not this to cast any reflexion upon the Memory of that incomparable Princess whom we have all the reason in the World to own to have been the Glorious Instrument of Perfecting and Setling the Reformation in this Kingdom and whose Memory will be dear and pretious as long as the Protestant Name has a Being in England But I only take notice how extreamly partial People are and how apt to be prejudiced against the present Government under which they live and to be always Crying out That the former Days were better then these whereas supposing their Circumstances were really harder than they are and harder then those of the Puritans in former times yet they have no reason to accuse the Government of Rigor and Severity towards them if three Things be farther taken into Consideration First That the Dissenters of old especially the first Race of them were generally much more Modest and Peaceable then those of latter times more Conformable to the Laws less Turbulent and Offensive to the Government when they could not Conform as Ministers they yet did as private Christians and quietly acquiesced in their Suspension or Deprivation and as one truly says of them When they could not be Active without Sinning as they judged they could be passive without Murmuring They medled not with things without their Line nor mixt themselves with matters of State Declared that Kings have See a Book called The Protestation of the Kings Supremacy 1605. Numb 8 9. 11. power by the Law of God to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as tend to the good Ordering of the Churches in their Dominions that the Churches ought not to be Disobedient to any of their Laws that if any thing were Commanded contrary to the Word they ought not to resist the King therein but peaceably to forbear Disobedience and sue to him for Grace and Mercy and where that cannot be obtained meekly to submit themselves to the punishment They generally came to Church and did not run into Separate Congregations nay writ stoutly and smartly against those who began then to attempt a Separation But whether our Modern Dissenters have observed the same Course and be of this Spirit and Temper let the World judge yea let themselves be Judges in the Case Secondly Sad Experience of the Evil Consequences of Schism and Separation have made it necessary for the Government to take all just and lawful ways for preventing the like for the time to come Men first began to be dissatisfied with the Rites and Orders of the Church then discontented that they were not presently gratified with an Alteration Discontent brought on
Sedition Sedition Rebellion and Rebellion the Ruine of Church and State And what wonder if the Laws bear a little hard there where there are the same Appearances and where there seem to be the same Tendencies and Inclinations to the same Dismal State of Things Whoever considers by what Ways the most flourishing Kingdom in the World and the best Church that ever was since the Primitive Times were miserably Harrassed and Destroyed cannot think that those who sit at the Helm should be content to have them Ruined again by the same means especially after the King for several Years together has in vain tryed by all the Methods of Favour and Indulgence to win upon them Thirdly Let those who now complain so much consider How little Favour themselves shewed to others when they were in Power How the Loyal and Episcopal Party were Plundered Sequestred Decimated Dungeoned Starved and often stunk to Death What Oaths and Covenants were Rigorously Imposed upon them what Restraints laid upon their Liberties both Civil and Ecclesiastical though all this while they had Law and Right standing for An Ordinance for putting in Execution the Directory August 11. 1645. them In the Year 1645 an Ordinance of Parliament was published That if any Person hereafter shall at any Time use or cause to be used the Book of Common-prayer in any Church or publick place of Worship or in any private Place or Family within the Kingdom every Person so offending should for the first Offence pay the Sum of Five for the second ten Pounds and for the third should suffer one whole Years Imprisonment without Bail or Mainprize This one would think was very hard but there is something harder yet behind For Cromwel being got into the Throne Published a Delaration 24 November 1655. at that time Equivalent to a Law That no Person who had been sequestred for delinquency or had been in Arms against the Parliament or adhered unto or had abetted or assisted the Forces raised against them should keep in their Houses or Families as Chaplains or Schoolmasters for the Education of their Children any sequestred or ejected Minister Fellow of a Colledge or Schoolmaster nor permit any of their Children to be taught by such upon pain of being proceeded against as was directed and that no Person who had been sequestred or ejected for delinquency or scandal shall hereafter keep any School either publick or private nor preach in any publick place or at any private Meeting of any other Persons then those of his own Family nor Administer Baptism or the Lords Supper or marry any Persons or use the Book of Common-Prayer or the Forms of Prayer therein contained upon Pain that every Person so Offending in any of the Premisses shall be proceeded against as by the said Order is provided and directed There needs no Comment upon these Proceedings they do not only Whisper but speak aloud to the present Generation of Dissenters to tell them how little reason they have to complain X. Lastly We beg of them that before they pull down any further Trouble or Suffering upon themselves they would Consider Whether the Cause they engage in be such as will bear them out with Comfort before God another Day 't is not Suffering or refusing to comply with the External Circumstances of our Religion that can be said to be a Persecution for Righteousness sake it not being the Suffering but the Cause that makes the Martyr Then I suffer as a Christian when the Honour of Christ or something that offers Violence to my Religion and Christianity is concerned in it when I suffer for that which I cannot avoid without disowning my self to be a Christian and making Shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience But where the Case is not evidently this a Man may draw Miseries upon himself and yet not suffer as a Christian because it may proceed from Humour or Interest or the Conduct of a misinformed Judgment mistaking things for what they are not Men very often place Religion in doing or not doing what is no part of it and then think they may safely Suffer upon that account when there is more it may be of Passion or Prejudice of Fancy or Opinion of Humour or Mistake then of the real Concerns of Piety or Religion I am very sure neither the Ancient Christians would have passed through the Fiery-Tryal every Day nor the Holy Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days have thought themselves obliged to Forfeit their Estates much less their Lives had no more been required of them then there is of us to come to Khurch or to Kneel at the Sacrament but would rather have Blessed God and thankfully owned the Favour of the Governours under which they lived might they have enjoyed both upon the same Terms as we do In Cases that only concern indifferent things and meer Circumstances of Worship stiffly and obstinately to stand out is rather for a Man to be a Martyr to his own Humour and Opinion then to the Cause of Christ Whether this be not the Case of our Dissenting-Brethren they themselves might quickly see would they but lay aside the unreasonableness of their Prejudices and lay no more stress upon things than they Obed. Patience p. 79. ought to bear Let us hear what Mr. Baxter in a late Book says to this matter I am One that have been first in all the Storms that have befallen the Ministry these Twenty Years past to look no farther back and yet my Conscience commandeth me to say as I have oft done that many through mistake I am persuaded now Suffer as Evil-doers for a Cause that is not Good and Justifiable I shall leave with them the Wise and Excellent R. Bernard's Christian Advert Counsels of Peace 1608. Counsel which was given by one in the time of the Elder Puritans Follow true Antiquity and the general Practice of the Church of God in all Ages where they have not Erred from the evident Truth of God If thou Sufferest let it be for known Truth and against known Wickedness for which thou hast Example in Gods Word or of the Holy Martyrs in Church-Story But beware of far-fetched Consequences or for Suffering for new Devices and for things formerly unto all Ages unknown seem they never so Holy and Just unto Man All that now remains is to call upon our Dissenting-Brethren by all the Considerations of Love and Kindness to themselves of Tenderness for the Honour of Religion the Edification of their Brethren and the Peace Security and Welfare of the Church and State wherein they live that they would duely and impartially Weigh and Consider things put a stop to the Separation wherein they are engaged return to and hold Communion with us and keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace Let them bethink themselves what a mighty Evil Schism is and will be so found before God at the last Day and whether any thing can be meet to be put in the Ballance with the Peace and Unity of the Church and those vastly-important Consequences that depend upon it Let us consider a little what a deep Sense the best and most pious Christians that ever were had of it It 's better to Suffer any thing than that the Church of God should be Rent asunder it is every whit as Glorious and in my Opinion a far greater Martyrdom to dye for not Dividing the Church than for refusing to Sacrifice to Idols says Dionysius the good Bishop of Alexandria in his Letter to Novatian Ap. Euseb lib. 6. c. 45. Epist 52. ad Antonian de Vnit Eccles fol. 181 184. c. And St. Cyprian speaks very severe things to this purpose That a Person going from the Church to Schismaticks tho in that Capacity he should dye for Christ yet can he not receive the Crown of Martyrdom And how oft elsewhere doth he tell us That such a one has no part in the Law of God or the Faith of Christ or in Life and Salvation that without this Unity and Charity a Man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and that although he should deliver up himself to the Flames or cast his Body to wild Beasts yet this would not be the Crown of his Faith but the Punishment of his Falshood not the Glorious Exit of a Religious Courage but the Issue of Despair such a One may be Kill'd but he cannot be Crown'd He rents the Unity of the Church destroys the Faith disturbs the Peace dissolves Charity and Profanes the Holy Sacrament And were it necessary I could shew that the Ancient Fathers generally say the same thing And can we now be such degenerate Christians if we can be said to be Christians at all as to make nothing at all of Schism and Separation Are not the Glory of God the Peace of the Church and the Good of Souls things as considerable as necessary and indispensable now as they were of old I beseech you Brethren return from whence you are fallen and let us all with one Shoulder set our selves to Support that Church with whose Ruine we are all likely to sink and fall Let us lay aside Envying and Strife Confusion and every Evil Work and let us follow after the things which make for Peace and things wherewith one may Edifie another FINIS
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Ballance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes clothed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Vsury and Law Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it was to any purpose If this now be admitted for Truth we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us and that is this There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom and to a mans self to be obtained by Worshiping God in the way of the Church and likewise so many both Publick and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Over-ballance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case And that man who is not swayed by them doth not Act so reasonably as he might do For my part I should think it very foolishly done of any man that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong as every one that Doubteth is should be so confident of his Point as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives and the Security of the Religion Established and withal his own Ease and Liberty and lastly the Fortunes also of his Posterity And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfuless of the things enjoyned in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this was well considered by our Doubting Dissenters They are wise enough as to the World in other matters it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this And if they were I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run to have it said of them that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Publick Peace and Vnity they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruine by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about But this will appear much clearer when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt as indeed it is in its own Nature Which I come now to do In the Second place There are other Dissenters who as they have good reason do Doubt on both sides of this Question As they Doubt on one hand whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful So on the other hand they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it because the Laws of the Church and of the Land do require them so to do And of these as I said there are likewise two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally That is to say of the Two it appears more probable to them that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty Now as to the first of these Cases The Answer is very short and it is this We have before proved by many Arguments that in a Case of a Pure Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Ballance on its own side so as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth but it is his Duty to do it he sins if he do not For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case where the Doubt is unequal And here the Case is this As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church and obey the Laws So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do Because it doth appear more probable to him that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty And a greater Probobility caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this where the Ballance is so far inclined one way the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side Yet in this Particular Case of Church Communion there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them as will with any Impartial Conscientious Man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a Perswasion and make it reasonable for him rather to Conform how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity so long as it is but a Doubt than to continue in Separation Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt pag. 27. This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us and I refuse no indifferent Man that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say to be Vmpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren as to this Controversie In the first place let us suppose and admit that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship doth really Doubt on the true side and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God if he should Conform to it But then it must be admitted likewise that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute is wonderfully obscurely declared There are no direct Prohibitions either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences And those Consequences likewise are so obscure that the Catholick Church from Christs time till our Reformation was wholly ignorant of them For though it doth appear that either these or the like Usages have always been in the Church Yet it doth not appear in all that compass of Time either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful Or indeed that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them And even at this Day these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful