the Protestant Religion amongst us at Home and that according to the noted saying of Mr. Egerton The withdrawing totally from it would more effectually introduce Popery than all the Works of Bellarmine It becomes them when this is the Bulwark of it abroad and all the Reformed Churches in the World Brinsley's Healing of Israel's Breaches p. 62. have a Venture in this Bottom which if compar'd to a Fleet the Church of England must be acknowledged to be the Admiral And if it go ill with this Church so as that miscarry there is none of the Churches of Christ this day under Heaven but are like to feel it as Mr. Brinsley discourses Lastly It becomes them when Divisions and Separations draw down the Displeasure of God and lay us open to his Judgments Therefore Dr. Bryan after Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 313. 314. he hath largely insisted upon the Argument and the present Case amongst us doth thus apply himself O that I could prevail with you to lay sadly to heart the greatness of the Sin of Divisions and grievousness of the Punishment threatned against it and hath been executed for it and that the Leaders and Encouragers of private Christians to make this sinful Separation would read oft and meditate upon St. Jude's Epistle to vers 20. and that the Multitudes that are willing to be led by them would follow the prescription of the means here to preserve or recover themselves from this Seduction vers 20 21. And that both would leave off their reviling the Government Ecclesiastical and the Ministers that conform and submissively behave themselves by the Example of Michael c. I shall conclude the whole with the peaceable and On the Ephes c. 2. p. 297 298. pious Advice of Mr. Baines Let every Man walk within the compass of his Calling Whatsoever lieth not in us to reform it shall be our Zeal and Piety to tolerate and with Patience to forbear especially in things of this nature which concern not so much the outward Communion with God or Man essentially required in a visible state as the due ordering of Business in the said Communion wherein there be many Superfluities and Defects salvâ tamen Ecclesiâ yea and such a Church notwithstanding as wherein the best and truest Members Circumstances considered may have more cause to rejoice than to grieve FINIS THE CASE OF Mixt Communion Whether it be lawful to Seperate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. Many are call'd but few chosen Matth. 20. 16. The Second Edition LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleetstreet B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. THE CASE OF Mixt Communion Whether it be lawful to Separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions THE Foundation of this Pretence seems to be the great mistake of some Men concerning the matter whereof the Church of Christ is to be composed which they will have to be only real Saints and persons endowed with inherent and substantial holiness Accordingly finding in the Communion of our Church many corrupt Members who lived not answerable to their Holy Vocation they for that reason amongst some others alledg'd by them cry her down as no true Church or which is all one deal by her as if she was so totally separating from her Communion and setting up Churches of their own consisting wholly of Persons in their Judgment far more pure that is really holy and Sanctified Into this most false and dangerous conceit concerning the matter of the Christian Church I cannot tell what it is that should mislead them unless it be The not rightly understanding the notion of that holiness that so often in Scripture is applied to the visible Church of God There is a twofold holiness in Scripture Inherent and Relative Inherent holiness and that can be in none properly but God Angels and Men In God essentially and originally as he is the most perfect Being in whom all excellencies do possess infinite perfection As it 's applied to God it does not only signifie a perfect freedom in him from all those sinful impureties wherewith the sons of men are tainted but all the excellencies of the Divine nature as wisdom goodness and power and a super-eminent and incommunicable greatness in them all hence he is call'd the holy One of Israel the Psalm 89. 18. excellency of Jacob said to swear by his holiness that is Amos 8. 7. by himself and there is none holy as the Lord said Psalm 89. 35. Hannah for there is none besides thee none holy besides 1 Sam. 2. 2. thee as the Septuagint renders it none comparable to thee in the heighth and greatness of all thy excellencies In Angels and Men by way of participation and as far as their natures are capable hence there are holy Angels and holy Men. Relative holiness which when it 's applied to persons may be more properly call'd faederal and this is founded in the relation persons and things have to God and the nature of it consists in a separation of them from common uses and in appropriating of them to the peculiar use and service of God hence the Sabbath is call'd an holy day Judea an holy Land Jerusalem an holy City and the Church and People of God an holy Church that is a Body or Society of men call'd and separated from the rest of the World to God to worship him in a way distinguish'd from the rest of the World having Laws and Promises and Rites of Worship peculiar and appropriate to themselves This account God himself gives of it I have separated you Levit. 20. 24. says he to the Israelites from other people that you should be mine and ye shall be an holy people unto me For the same reason do we find that whole â—hurch of the Jews even then when its members had generally Deut. 9. 12. Deut. 9. 7. Deut. 32. 5. very much corrupted themselves were a rebellious people a crooked generation yet upon the account of their being separated to God and in covenant with him stil'd by Moses and other inspir'd men his saints his Deut. 7. 6. Psalm 135. 4. holy people his peculiar treasure For the same reason also did the Apostles dignifie those Churches to whom they wrote with those great and glorious titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saints the sanctified the call'd and chosen in Christ Jesus because they as of old the Jews had entertain'd the profession of a Religion distinct from others of the World whereby they might be excited to the attainment of those excellencies which in the object of their Worship they did admire and adore and those Names being of as large a meaning as that of Christian shew rather what they ought to have been than assure
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-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
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
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
there is nothing Answer Indifferent in the Worship of God for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it All Persons grant this in the latter and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong ought to bear with the Weak and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty and yet is bound so to do in the case of Scandal and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed why may it not be also little infringed when restrained by others How can it be supposed that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced and yet he that is restrained By anothers Conscience 1 Cor. 10. 29. as the Apostle saith should keep intire And if it should be said this is Occasional but the other is perpetuated by the Order perhaps of a Church I answer that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary and are only intended to bond so long as they are for the good of the Community And if they are for continuance that alters not the case For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it yet he did not suppose that could be damnified though for his whole life it was restrain'd For thus he resolves If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the World standeth which certainly he would not have condescended to if such a Practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had before it was restrain'd by particular institution and which is call'd Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law but were restrain'd from the Practice and use of things otherwise and in themselves Lawful by severe Prohibitions Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied was call'd Christian because by the coming of Christ all these former restraints were taken off and all the World both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it it was as the Scope of the Epistle doth shew to warn them against returning to that Jewish State and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind or had the same tendency or were alike necessarily impos'd as those of the Mosaical Law then Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation but where these reasons are not our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them As long I say as they are neither peccant in their Nature nor End nor Number they are not unlawful to us nor is our Liberty injur'd in the use of them And so I am brought to the last General which is V. That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in it self and so necessary to all Christians or else what is indifferent and so may be lawfully used by them By things required I mean such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church and imposed upon the Lay-members of it for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it if the foundation I have laid be good and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things by for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worship as the Church of Rome is in its Half-Communion nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue and in the multitudes of its Ceremonies I think it will be acknowledged that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached the Sacraments intirely and truly Administred the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship and the manner of its performance and I think the things of that kind Objected against refer either to Time or Forms or Gesture To Times such are Festivals or Days set apart for Divine Service to Forms such are our Prayers and the Administration of our Sacraments to Gestures as Standing up at the Creed or Gospels and Kneeling at the Lord's Supper But now all these are either Natural or Moral Circumstances of Action and which as I have shewed are inseparable from it Of the former kind are Days and Gestures of the latter are Forms of Administration and so upon the reasons before given may be lawfully determined and used Again these are not forbidden by any Law either expresly or consequentially and have nothing that is indecent disorderly or unedifying in them and which if any should engage his own opinion and experience in he would be answered in the like kind and have the opinions and experience of Thousands that live in the practice of these to contradict him And if there be nothing of this kind apparent or what can be plainly prov'd as I am apt to beleive there cannot then the Proposition I have laid down needs no further proof But if at last it must issue in things inexpedient to Christians or an unlawfulness in the imposure are either of these fit to be insisted upon when the peace of one of the best Churches in the World is broken by it a lamentable Schism kept up and our Religion brought into imminent hazard by both Alas how near have we been to ruin and I wish I had no reason to say how near are we to it considering the indefatigable industry the united endeavours the matchless policy of those that contrive and desire it Can we think that we are safe as long as there is such an abiding reason to make us suspect it and that our divisions are both fomented and made use of by them to destroy us And if this be our danger and Union as necessary as desirable shall we yet make the breach wider or irreparable by an obstinate contention God forbid O pray for the Peace of Jerusalem they shall prosper that love thee Let Peace be within thy Walls and Prosperity within thy
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
will suggest enough to him Neither God nor Religion can be so much concerned in the one as in the other nor can the Souls of men or the peace of the World be so much endangered by private offences as by those against the publick Church Mens guilts are higher and more injurious to themselves and the effects are more dangerous and mischievous to others which is another good consideration to sway men in this case For a wise man will weigh the probable effects of what he doth and where an honest and uninstructed man is uncertain whether he may do or forbear such things and after his enquiry remains scrupulous and unresolved it is a good means to determine himself by to consider as well as he can what the effects and consequences of what he is going to do or forbear in all likelihood will be and that which he sees attended with a train of the worse and more mischievous consequences disargues it self and pronounceth its own condemnation And by these effects he may make as true a difference as if the plain essence and nature of the things were naked unto his view 3. Offending the Church of God is offending those to whom we owe more duty than we do unto any private party whatsoever I confess charity and respect and all the possible ininstances of it we owe to every private person with whom we converse and to whom we are any way related and God hath made all this matter of plain duty But it is a great deal more than this that we owe those that are over us in the Lord and his whole Church even as much more as we owe of deference and Duty of Obedience and Submission to a Father and a Governour and those that God and Nature hath set above us above that common Charity and Duty that we are to owe to one that is in all respects our equal The Laws of all Nations consider us under greater obligations to our Parents and to our Country than to any single persons whatsoever and make injuring of a Father or our Prince more heinous than doing the same to a common person upon the same level with us And I am sure the Laws of God and Religion too considering us as Members of the Church and calling the Governours of it our Fathers in Christ let us know what great duty we owe to them and of how much greater guilt it must needs be to offend them than our Fellow-christian or any Party in which we can be engaged There is a complication of sins and guilt in the one when there is but the breach of common charity in the other I deny not but men may joyn themselves to such a Party and make another man their Guide and commit themselves to the Conduct of him and thereby oblige themselves to more duty than they owe to others But this is duty of their own choice and the failure in it a sin of their own causing and doth no more supercede their original and primer obligations which God and Nature had layd on them than the being faithful to a company of Banditi will excuse disloyalty to our Prince and Country or than giving a gift to the Corban among the Jews would atone undutifulness to a wanting Parent However men may divide themselves from the Church of which Providence and Religion have made them Members and enter themselves into separate Factions yet they must remember that they owe duty to it still that no voluntary and second Compacts of their own can dissolve their primitive Obligations or their care to continue faithful to the one expiate their regardless offending of the other for they do owe more duty to the one than to the other what they pretend to owe to one is contracted by themselves but what they owe to the other is bound on them by the sacred and strong ties of Religion and Providence And this is another good Argument to determine a scrupulous person in this matter If he be in doubt which he had best to offend the Church of Christ or his own private Party and know not by what considerations to determine his resolution let him in Gods name consider to which he owes most what the Laws of God make his duty to the one more than to the other and then if he be honest and single-eyed he will soon be able to resolve his scruple and know what choice he ought to make 4. Offending the Church of God is truly a grievous Scandal and an Offence in the true Gospel-notion of it but the offending particular persons may possibly not be so That which I mean is this the Church of God we may be sure will not take offence but upon just reason but other men may call that an offence to them which really is not If we do that which grieves and injureth the whole Church then we do properly offend and are guilty of Scandal in the true notion of it But if we onely offend some private persons of our own party they may call that an offence which is not so For every grieving and offending of another in that sense of the word is not a formal Scandal as I hinted before and hath been since this made clear by a better Pen. And to apply this to our present matter in debate this is really so in our Case of Conformity the refusal of it and separating our selves from the Communion of the Church is truly that giving of offence which the Gospel condemns it is laying a snare in the way of men intrapping them into that damnable sin of Schism it is an obstructing the effect of Religion and a direct hinderance of that Concord and Love that Unanimity and Peace that it so strictly calls for among Christians and designes to render the World happy by But you may challenge any dissenting person to shew how angring some private persons and a single party of Schismaticks can be a Scandal to them or to name any one sin that it is temptation to them to commit and to instance that prejudice or disservice that it doth to Christian Religion It is possible I must confess that grief and anger at such a persons Conformity may irritate and provoke men to some things that are evil But then I say that this is the fault of them that are angry and not his with whom they are causelesly offended it may be taking an offence on their parts but not giving it by him For if we must call every thing an offence that any man doth pervert into an occasion of evil there will scarce any no not the best actions of men escape that denomination This methinks is a very material consideration and ought always to sway with men in this Case and if men could not determine themselves in it by other Reasons yet they might by this They should consider which is most likely to judge truest what is Scandal and what is not and when both sides say they are offended
have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house c. Look down from thy holy habitation from heaven and bless thy people Israel and the land which thou hast given unto us as thou swarest unto our fathers the land that flows with milk and honey And as God injoyn'd them these and such-like Forms for particular occasions so David by inspiration from God appointed them the Book of Psalms for their Publick Service for so in the Titles we find several of them particularly recommended to the Choires of the Priests and Levites for parts of their Vocal Service some to the Sons of Korah others to Asaph others to Jeduthun and a great many to the Master of the Musick And though others have no title at all as particularly the 96th and 105th yet 1 Chron. 16. 7. we find that they were deliver'd by David into the hands of Asaph and his brethren for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving to God and accordingly 2 Chron. 29. 30. we are told that Hezekiah the King commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer And this Liturgy was renew'd by Ezra at the laying the Foundations of the second Temple for so Ezra 3. 10 11. the Priests and Levites were order'd to praise the Lord after the Ordinance of David King of Israel and accordingly they sung together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord because he is good for his mercy endureth for ever towards Israel And besides all these instances of Forms of Prayer appointed by God in the Old Testament we have a very considerable one in the New and that is the Lord's Prayer which in Luke 11. 2. our Saviour thus prescribes When ye pray say Our Father c. in which he doth as expresly injoyn them the using of that Form of words as was possible for him to do in any humane Language for if he had said When ye pray say or use this Form of words it could not have been more expressive of his intention to impose it as a Form than his bidding them when they pray'd to say Our Father And if we will not admit that to be the sence of a Text which the words of it do as plainly signifie as they could have done if it were we have no way to determine the sence of any Scripture but may eternally play upon the plainest words of it with quirks of wit and fancy But it is objected by our Brethren That in Matth. 6. 9. where our Saviour also delivers this Prayer to the Disciples instead of bidding them say Our Father he onely bids them pray after this manner Our Father c. which is a plain argument say they that he gave it to them not as a Form but as a Pattern and Directory of Prayer To which I answer 1. That where the same matter is mention'd ambiguously in one Text and plainly and expresly in another it 's a necessary rule of interpretation that the sence of the doubtful and ambiguous Text should be determin'd by the words of the plain and express Text. Now it 's plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray thus is of a doubtful signification and may as well denote Pray in these words as after this Pattern and Direction and he who is bid to pray thus obeys the command whether he prays for the same things in others or in the same words so that had our Saviour express'd himself in no other words but these it might have been doubtful whether he meant to prescribe it as a Form or as a Directory of Prayer but say Our Father is plainly and expresly say these words Our Father and he who is bid to say such words disobeys the command though he should say the same thing in other words so that had our Saviour express'd himself in no other words but these there could have been no doubt but that his meaning was to prescribe those words for a Form of Prayer unless we could have supposed that by this Injunction say Our Father we are not oblig'd to say Our Father and how could we have supposed that without high presumption had it not been for this pretence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray thus Since therefore pray thus is a doubtful expression it is very reasonable it should be interpreted by say Our Father which is a plain and determinate one and if so the sense of both must be this When ye pray use this Form of words which I here prescribe you Our Father c. 2ly I answer that our Saviour gave not this Prayer to his Disciples after the manner of a Directory but after the manner of a Form of Prayer had he given it to them meerly as a direction what they were to pray for in all probability he would have exprest himself after another manner and instead of bidding them say Our Father or pray thus Our Father he would have bid them call upon God by the Name of their heavenly Father and beseech him to cause his Name to be glorified and hallowed in the World and his Kingdom to spread and advance c. instead of which he gives them a form'd Prayer and bids them say it And therefore since he gave it to them after the manner of a Form and not after the manner of a Directory and since we may reasonably suppose that he intended they should use it after the same manner in which he gave it it follows that he gave it to them to be used as a Form and not meerly as a Pattern or Directory 3 ly I answer That supposing that when he bid them pray thus in the sixth of St. Matthew he prescrib'd it onely as a Directory for Prayer yet it doth not follow but that when he bad them say Our Father in the 11th of Luke he might prescribe it as a Form because it is not the same prescription in both but different and given them at a different time and upon a different occasion the first was given them in the Sermon upon the Mount and in the second year after his Baptism the second was given them upon their own request after he had done praying and in the third year after his Baptism and whosoever shall consult both places will soon be convinc'd that the Lords Prayer in St. Luke was delivered at another time and upon a quite different occasion from that in St. Matthew It 's highly probable therefore that the Disciples when 't was delivered in St. Matthew lookt upon it meerly as given 'em by way of a Directory or Copy by which they were to frame and compose their Prayers for if they had thought it given 'em as a Form of Prayer it is not imaginable why they should request him to teach 'em a Form to pray by again when he had taught 'em one before either therefore their request in St. Luke must be very impertinent or it must be to desire him to teach 'em something more
Church imposeth them not as the other doth on the Consciences of her Members as things of Necessity as parts of Religion or meritorious Services And you need not one word more of Answer to what you object against this than you have had already given you viz. pag. 6. In your 25th page you begin as our Author does with the Ceremony of the Surplice and 1. You say he rightly observeth that all are not obliged to wear it And this is sagaciously indeed observed by him if he does observe it but he onely saith that he cannot imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it should be affrighted from our Churches by the mere sight of so innocent a thing as he before had proved it to be as it is used in our Church but shewed it is far from being an innocent thing as it is used in the Church of Rome 2. You say that you are not scandaliz'd at the sight of it But for all that you know that not a few Dissenters do profess to be so 3. You say that you are not sure that they use a Garment of the same form in the Church of Rome though they use some Garment of the same Colour so that you doubt whether in that we do symbolize with the Church of Rome or no. I was in good hope when I had read thus far that there would have been no Controversie between you and our Author about this Ceremony But I presently found my self mistaken for 4. You make us notwithstanding faultily to symbolize with the Church of Rome in that we will not suffer this Garment to be worn but in Acts of Worship So that you say it is neither merely for necessity nor natural decency nor Ornament nor for distinction But I say that this Garment is required both for Ornament and Distinction You say it is not required for either because all Ministers wear it not at other times But I deny your Consequence for it is required as an Ornamental Garment in Divine Worship and for distinction between a Minister officiating and not officiating You may as well say that for the same reason the Judges Scarlet is neither for Ornament nor Distinction And seeing it is such an Offence that this Garment should be appropriated to Divine Worship I desire you Sir at your Leisure to answer our Famous Hooker's Question viz. To solemn Actions of Royalty and Eccl. pol. Book 5th p. 228. Last Edit Justice their suitable Ornaments are a Beauty are they onely in Religion a Stain Time was when putting on a Gown merely for the Desk and Pulpit was accounted no Offence by Non-Conforming Ministers and consequently they did not then espy any Unlawfulness in appropriating a Garment to Religious exercises Nor do we place one jot more holiness in a Surplice than in a Gown or Cloak either But you say may not jealousies of some homage by it intended to God and such thoughts as those you suggested arise in weaker Christians I answer whether these thoughts may arise in them or no you take as effectual a course as you can that they should arise in them And as for Homage intended to God by wearing the Surplice I don't think any Christians so weak as to phansie such a thing if you and others would but let them alone and not fill their heads with objections against innocent things when you might employ your time with them to infinitely better purpose I pray Sir be not offended if I once for all freely tell you that by your possessing these weak Christians with all imaginable objections against the Lawfulness of obeying Governours in things which are made by your selves doubtfull to them and not with one Objection against the Unlawfulness of Disobedience in doubtfull matters is the way to make them everlastingly weak and to make them worse than weak too It saddens the hearts of not a few good people to observe that the fearfull consequents of such doings have not yet made you sensible whose interest you have all along served by the means of them You next object three things against the Ceremony of the Cross in Baptism pag. 26. 1. You say it is an adding to the Divine Institution unnecessarily I answer we add nothing to Divine Institution I mean we add nothing more to Baptism or any other Ordinance as of Divine Institution than your selves do And as to the Vnnecessariness of this Ceremony if it were necessary it would be no Ceremony at least no humane one If you mean there is no necessity of imposing it It is enough for a Ceremony that it is imposed for good and profitable ends and uses And our Church tells you for what ends and uses this of the Cross is required in the 30th Canon If you mean there is no necessity of using it now it is imposed I beg your pardon for being of a contrary opinion till you prove it to be a Transgression of any law of God And when you have done this I will grant that it is necessary not to use it 2. You say we attribute to the sign of the Cross more than is truly due to it as the Papists do But we say we do not and shall persist in saying so till you prove we do 3. You say that to expound Dedicated in the Canon by Declared you should have said declared to be dedicated is a Catachrestical use of the word What care I for that if the word ought so to be expounded You say you will take no private Doctor 's word for it though greater than Dr. Burges But you cannot otherwise understand that word except you will make our Church to speak contradictions in that Canon There is nothing you object or I think can object against the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion but you may find most satisfactorily answered in the Learned Resolution of the Case of Kneeling c. But yet we will not wholly pass by what you say against it Having called the Declaration of our Church concerning it an excellent Declaration pag. 26th you say pag. 27th that it may be it satisfieth you abstracting your thoughts from the Bread while you are upon your Knees And he that cannot with the greatest ease in the world abstract his thoughts from the Bread must be almost starved with fasting But it follows if all cannot be so satisfied shall they therefore be Ruined for their doubt in this thing You shall have no new answer to this besides asking you this Question if there be any danger of Ruine in this case who are most charitable to these Doubters those that doe their utmost to satisfie them that they may not come near the danger or those that use their utmost endeavours to make all means unsuccessfull that are used for their Satisfaction I must needs take notice also of your pleasant answer to this passage in our Author pag. 49. viz. That there being nothing said of the Gesture in our Saviour's Institution of this Sacrament he
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
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