of Schism or to discover on which side the Schism lies or to avoid it without renouncing all Communion with the Church which course soever they take I leave all such Cases to God who knows when it is fit to dispence with his own Laws and will take care of my own Duty according to Scripture-Rules and not hope to justifie the ordinary breach of known Laws by some extraordinary Cases And yet the Case which you propose is not so unanswerable a difficulty as you imagine Several Councils in Palestine in Rome in Pontus and other places Euseb b. 5. cap. 23. Determine the Celebration of Easter on the day of the Resurrection not on the Fourteenth Day of the Month which was the Jewish Passover which dispute you call a Mistake in Arithmetick but for what reason I know not the Bishops of Asia at the same time decree the observation of Easter on the Fourteenth Day whatever Day of the week it fell on according to the Ancient Observation of the Asian Churches Pope Victor upon this writes to several Bishops very bitterly against them and was very desirous to have them Excommunicated and did as much as in him lay denounce the Sentence against them cap. 24. But this was ill resented by other Bishops in Communion with him and particularly Ireneus wrote a Letter to him about it and earnestly disswades him from it and did prevent it from taking effect if we will believe Eusebius So far is it from being true as you assert that Pope Victor in a Council Excommunicated the poor Asians what he did was only his own Act which was displeasing to other Bishops and which he was forc't to undo So that here was a great deal of Heat and Warmth and tendency towards a Schism but no Schism followed upon it among the Catholick Churches But suppose Pope Victor had Excommunicated the Asian Churches and this Excommunication had taken effect this could not make the Asian Churches Schismaticks for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the Communion of a Church and forsaking the Communion of a Church The first is matter of censure the second is our own choice the First is an Ecclesiastical Punishment the Second when it is causeless is Schism So that had the Church of Rome Excommunicated the Asian Churches unless the Asian Churches upon this had made a Separation from the Church of Rome this Excommunication could not make them Schismaticks and therefore any one might safely Communicate with them without partaking in a Schism Nor was it a just reason for the Asian Churches to have renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome though they had been Excommunicated by Victor for this had been to do as ill a thing as Victor had done for no other reason but because Pope Victor had set them an example And therefore we find Saint Cyprian of another temper when he and the African Bishops were threatned in the same manner by Pope Stephen upon occasion of that warm Dispute about rebaptizing Hereticks At that very time in his Epistle to Jubaianus he declares his resolution not to break Communion with any Church or Bishops upon that account and therefore not with Pope Stephen himself notwithstanding his rash and furious Censures And concludes that Patience and Forbearance was the best Remedy in such Cases and therefore upon this occasion he says he wrote his Book de bono Patientiae Well but if the Asiatick Churches were not Schismaticks yet Pope Victor had been a Schismatick had he Excommunicated the Churches of Asia or withdrawn Communion from them And this had made the case of the Roman Christians very hard for they must either have suspended Communion with both these divided Churches and lived without the comfort and advantages of Christian Communion or they must have rejected the Communion of their own Bishop and Churches or have rejected the Communion of the Churches of Asia or have maintained Communion with them both that is with two Separate Churches which according to my Principles is to Communicate in a Schism If they Communicate with their own Schismatical Bishop this is to Communicate in a Schism by Communicating with a Schismatick if they Renounce his Communion when he imposes no new unlawful Terms of Communion upon them this is to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church for the sake of a Schismatical Bishop If they Communicate with the Churches of Asia this is to break Communion with their own Bishop who has Excommunicated them if they separate from the Churches of Asia for no other reason but because they are unjustly Excommunicated this is to Separate for an unjust cause which is a Schism if they communicate with both they Communicate with two Separate Churches and therefore must be Schismaticks on one side or other If you can find any more difficulties in this matter you may And yet after all this I do believe the Christians of Rome might have Communicated both with the Roman and Asian Churches without Schism and this I believe upon these Principles which I shall briefly explain and confirm 1. That the Personal miscarriage of the Bishop in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures cannot involve his whole Church in the guilt of Schism though it may make him a Schismatick and certainly since Bishops are but Men and Subject to the like passions and infirmities that other men are it would be a very hard case if his personal Schism should be imputed to the whole Church Though the Bishop have the chief Authority in the Church yet it is hard to say that every abuse of his Authority is the Act of the whole Church and therefore the Church may not be Schismatical when the Bishop is and it is possible to Communicate with a Church whose Bishop is a Schismatick without Communicating in the Schism And therefore though Victor had Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches the Christians of Rome at that time might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without partaking in Victors Schism For tho a particular Church-Society consists in that Relation which is between the Bishop and his Clergy and People yet it is possible that the Bishop in the exercise of his Authority may violate the Fundamental Laws of Communion on which the Christians of such a Church unite into one Body and Society and when he does so it being an abuse of his Episcopal Authority it is his personal fault which cannot affect the whole Church The case is very plain where there is an Established constitution in a Church as it is in the Church of England which obliges the Bishops as well as People For should any English Bishop require any thing of his Clergy or People which is contrary to the Establish't Laws and Canons of the Church or should exercise any Authority in Censures and Excommunications which is not allowed him by those Canons this can in no sense be called the Act of the Church nor is any one bound
to obey him in it and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act the Church is not Schismatical because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church in what he did but gratified his own Humour and Passion If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles as the Novatians and Donatists did whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution as the Church of England now has yet a Constitution they had which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition and confirmed by long custom and usage or the Canons of particular Councils which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholick Communion So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days was never so intirely in the Bishops Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any farther than as he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be Governed and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church As to shew you this particularly in the case before us The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection which is the first day of the week or the Lords day the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month and therefore the Bishop of Rome according to the Laws of that Church might require all the Members of his Church to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory and this would be accounted the Act of the Church because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it But there was no Canon nor Custom in the Church of Rome to deny Communion to Foreign Churches who observed their own Customs in this matter and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome Nay there was the Practise and Example of Former Times against it for Anicetus Bishop of Rome received Polycarp an Asian Bishop to Communion though they could not agree about this matter And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter it was his Personal Act not the Act of the Church of Rome which had no such Law and owned no such Custom and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatick it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical the guilt went no farther than Victors Person unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty by abetting and espousing the Quarrel So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches none had been guilty of Schism but himself and such as approved and consented to it but the Body of the Clergy and People who had not consented unto it had been Innocent and therefore any Catholick peaceable Christian who lived in Rome in those Days might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms and denouncing Excommunication against each other which cannot make their Churches Schismatical any further than they take part with their respective Bishops For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation than a Church Schism neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church under the Notion of such a Church though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those days which were Catholick Bishops and maintained Communion with the Catholick Church but yet Separated from each other which is a very great fault as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism But you will say can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism I Answer Yes we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism When Schism is his personal fault our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it than of any other Personal fault our Bishop is guilty of While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches And now the only difficulty that remains is whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatick Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them for if they could not then they must inevitably partake in Victors Schism if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches And in answer to this we may consider 2. That those who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches did in so doing own their Communion which is one way and the Principal way of maintaining Communion between Churches at a Distance who cannot actually Communicate with each other 3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome who had the supreme Authority of receiving in or shutting out of the Communion of that Church if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishops Authority and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the publick Offices of Religion though they owned their Communion but this is no more their fault than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was they Communicate with their own Church and would be very glad that the Asians that are among them might be received into Communion but they have no Authority to do it and therefore the fault is not theirs for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians but is only a forc't Suspension of Communion 4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia I doubt not but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia and therefore the Sentence is void of it self and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and therefore must not forbear
nor suspend Communion with the Asian Churches unless they will justifie this Schismatical Excommunication The Jurisdiction of a particular Bishop is confined within the Bounds of his own Church and every Christian is Subject to the Authority of the Church where he is and therefore though the Roman Christians at Rome cannot receive the Excommunicated Asians to their Communion without the Authority of their Bishop yet when they are in Asia where the Bishop of Rome has no Authority over them they may and ought to joyn themselves to the Communion of the Asian Churches during their abode among them if the Asians would receive them without Commendatory Letters from their Bishop which they could not have in such a case as this Thus Sir I have considered the Case you put about Pope Victors Excommunicating the Asian Churches which is not a real but a feigned Case for there was no actual Schism upon it as I perceive some body had told you there was And yet supposing it had been so I have shewn you how the Roman and Asian Churches might have maintained Communion with each other and that the case of private Christians was not so desperate as you represent it Your following exceptions concerning National Communion and National Churches and the possibility Letters 3. p. 22. that there should be several Sound and Orthodox parts of the Church at the same place have been sufficiently considered already and you twit me so often with my repetitions that though I find you want very frequent repetitions to make you understand the plainest sence yet I will for my Readers sake and my own correct that fault Your attempt to prove Congregational Churches p. 24. from 1 Cor. 14. 23. has been so often answered by the Presbyterian as well as Episcopal Divines that to save my self the labour of transcribing I shall refer you to them and particularly to the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separ p. 392. c. where you may find this matter largely debated in answer to Dr. Owen's Original of Churches You say it is evident that one of these Separate Churches must needs be cut off from Christs Body I readily grant it for Christ has but one Body which p. 26. is one Communion and therefore two Churches which are not in Communion with each other cannot both belong to the same Body or the one Catholick Church but the Church which is the Schismatick according to the Language of the Primitive times is out of the Catholick Church extra Ecclesiam foris as is discourst at large in the Vindication of the Defence In the next place you endeavour to make me contradict my self in talking of occasional Communion and occasional Membership and different Relations when else where I assert That the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church But pray Sir where do I assert this I am sure I assert the quite contrary that Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership I say indeed That Church-Communion Primarily and Principally refers to the Vniversal Church not Resol of Cases p. 13 14. to any particular Church or Society of Christians That a Member is a Member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it 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 Vniversal Church And I do as plainly assert that every true Catholick Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and as such is a Member of every particular Church which is a sound part of the Vniversal Church That no Man can properly be said to Communicate with any Church whatever Acts of Communion he may perform in it who does not Communicate with it as a Member and that therefore to talk of Occasional Communion in the sense of our Dissenters is as absurd as to talk of an Occasional Membership these are the very Principles on which I dispute against those absurd Distinctions of p. 30. constant and occasional Communion which I confess to be absurd and a Contradiction to all the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore you are concerned to answer this absurdity not I. I have charged this absurdity upon our Occasional Communicants and let any man take it off that can But are you not Sir admirably qualified to Answer Books without so much as understanding the general scope and design of the Book you Answer without knowing what makes for you or against you As for your next Question How does it appear that it is necessary to Communion with the Catholick Church that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church where we constantly live You ought instead of asking this Question to have shown that what proofs I have alleadged for this are not conclusive or do not sufficiently prove the thing but your Question insinuates that I have said nothing at all about it or at least that you do not know that I have though it be the Principal Design of that discourse and then I am a very careless writer or you a very careless Reader But the Answer to it in short is this That every Christian is bound to live in Communion with the Catholick Church no Man lives in Communion with the Church who does not perform the External visible Acts of Communion when he may do it without sin The whole Catholick Church being but one Communion whoever Communicates with any sound part of it Communicates with the whole no Man can ordinarily Communicate in a Church in which he does not ordinarily live and therefore if he be bound at all to the External and visible Acts of Communion he must perform them in the Church wherein he lives and in so doing if it be a true Catholick Church he lives in Communion with the whole Catholick Church But you attempt to prove That you are not bound to Communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of Ibidâ— the Catholick Church because you live where there is such an one And this you prove from Mr. Chillingworth's Authority who says that if you speaking to the Papists require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to Communion with you ceaseth Now is not this an admirable proof that we are not bound to Communicate with a sound part of the Church where we live because we are not bound to Communicate with an erroneous Church which imposes the belief of her Errours as Terms of Communion Is not this a wonderful sound Church And are not you a very subtil Arguer You produce another passage of Mr. Chillingworth by which I cannot tell what you intend to prove unless it be that there is no need there should be any External or Visible Church-Society so Men do but Profess the Faith of Christ which seems to be the sence of your foregoing Paragraph But
and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations and gave it no Entertainment for the space of 1200 years That Kneeling to receive the Sacrament was not used at the Institution of the Lords Supper nor after in any Age of the Church before the time of Honorius the Third about the year 1220. So also another great Champion for sitting writes Didoclavius maintaineth saith he that which none of our opposites Gillesp Disp against Eng. Pop. Cer. p. 191. Altar Damascen 784. lib. 1. c. 1. are able to infringe viz. That no Testimony can be produced which may evince that ever Kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the Third He further observes from the History of the Waldenses That bowing of the Knees before the Host was then onely enjoyned when the opinion of Transubstantiation got place By the Practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages I conceive they mean thus much That from the Age wherein the holy Apostles lived down to that wherein Transubstantiation was set on foot or that wherein Honorius the Third enjoyned the Adoration of the Host Kneeling in the act of Receiving the Lords Supper was never heard of nor used or as one Author expresly asserts it till the year 1220. Howsoever for sureness sake and in order to the clearing of this matter under our present Consideration I think it will be requisite to fix the time wherein Transubstantiation was first broacht as well as when it was establisht or imposed as an Article of Faith and so too wherein the Adoration of the Host was enjoyned whereby the just bounds and limits will be known beyond which we are not to pass to fetch in Evidence and consequently all extravagancy will be prevented on our part and all cavilling if possible on theirs As for the Time then which we enquire after I think we may safely relie on the judgment of a very Learned Prelate of our own which he delivers after this manner The word Transubstantiation Histori Transub Papal Josian Ep. Dunelm Edit 1675. p. 53 54. is so far from being found in the sacred Scriptures or the Writings of the ancient Fathers that the great Patrons of it do themselves acknowledge it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century Nay that the Thing it self without the Word that the Doctrine without the Expression cannot be proved from Scripture is ingenuously acknowledged by the most Learned Schoolmen who endeavour by other Arguments Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracen Cajetan c. therefore to defend it and allow it to be brought in by the Authority of the Pope and not received in the Church of Rome till 1200 years after Christ The first Authors who mention this new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third about the year 1159 and Stephanus Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful The Pope who first establisht this An. Dom. 1215. An. Dom. 1217 or thereabouts monstrous Doctrine by his own Arbitrary power as an Article of Faith was Innocent the Third And his Successor Honorius was the man who decreed Adoration to the Host The first Council which took notice and approved of the Papal Decree for Transubstantiation was that assembled at Constance which condemned A D. 1415. Wiclif for an Heretick because among other truths he had asserted this That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread an t Wine remain without a Substance and for this Opinion they ordered his Body to be taken out of his Grave and burnt to ashes Thus things stood till the year 1551. when the Council of Trent publisht it to the world for an infallible Truth and imposed the belief of it upon all under the pain of an Anathema As for the Doctrine of Consubstantiation and the Corporal presence of Christ at with and in the Sacrament it was started long before that of Transubstantiation and was much disputed among learned men He who first broacht it in the East was John Damascen in the days of Gregory the Third And about About the year 740. an hundred years afterwards it was set a-foot in the West by the means of Paschasius Radbertus a Monk of Corbie and one Amalarius a Who wrote de Ecclesias Officiis de ord Antiphon c. contemporary with Amalarius Fortunatus Ar. bp of Triers who wrote de Sac. Baptis ad Carol. M. Deacon of Metz. The former taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather enclosed in the Bread and Corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread The latter gives Amalar. de Ecclesi Offic. lib. 3. c. 24. vid. lib. 3. c. 35. it as part of his Belief That the simple nature of the Bread and Wine mixed is turned into a reasonable nature viz. of the Body and Bloud of Christ Moreover he in another place confesseth that it was past his skill to determine what became of his Body after it was eaten When the Body of Christ is taken with a good intention it is not for me to dispute saith he whether it Amalar. Epist ad Guitardum MS in Biblioth Coll. S. Benedic Cantabri Cod. 55. cited by A. Bp. Vsher Ans Jesuits Chall p. 75. Rabanus Maurus John Erigena Wala Strabo Ratramus or Bertramus be invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept in our Body until the day of our burial or exhaled into the Air or whether it go out of the Body with the Bloud or be sent out by the mouth c. For this and another Foolery of the three parts or kinds of Christs Body he was censured by a Synod held at Cressy wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France That the Bread and Wine are spiritually made the Body of Christ which being a meat of the Mind and not of the Belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life From whence we may learn as also from the Writings of several Learned men of that Age who opposed these Dotages of the Corporal presence that the Western Church had not then adulterated the Doctrine of the Sacrament but followed the pure and sound sence of the Ancient Fathers and condemned these Whimseys and gross conceits of the carnal or Oral eating of Christ in the Sacrament Nay in the year 1079. when Hildebrand called Gregory the 7th came to the Papal Chair the Bishops and Doctors were divided in their Opinions concerning the Corporal Presence some maintaining Berengarius his opinion who denied it and some following that of Paschasius as appears from the Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction which was called on purpose to condemn Berengarius Moreover it 's recorded that Hildebrand himself doubted whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion For three
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
Scruples satisfied I think most of the Prejudices against the Church of England might be easily removed and we might all joyn in the same Communion to the Glory of God and the Joy and Comfort of all good Protestants and the Confusion of those that design to swallow us up and have no other hopes of prevailing but by the help of those Differences which for that end they have a long time most studiously fomented amongst us Let not our unreasonable Fears and groundless Jealousies encourage their Attempts with too great a probability of Success It would be a sad addition to our Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to our Charge With what remorse should we reflect upon it when the heat of our Passion was over if the Protestant Profession should be farther endangered and the Agents of Rome get greater Advantages dayly by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintained by our selves With what face should we look to see our Enemies not only triumphing over us but mocking and deriding us for being so far imposed upon by their cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of our own ruin But God Almighty in his wise and gracious Providence so confound all their Devices that tend to the subversion of the Truth and so Unite and Compose our Differences that hereafter we may have no just occasion to fear either their Treachery o their Force This is a Petition I am sure in which no good Christian can refuse to joyn and if we do heartily desire this let us do what we can to promote it if our Prayer be not unsincere and hypocritical we shall make use of our best endeavours to obtain the thing we have prayed for And now if our Vnion be thus desirable and necessary what should hinder but that at last we might be all most happily united under the Discipline and Government of the Church of England A Church that is already Framed and Constituted that has the Countenance and Establishment of the Laws that has been Protected by a Succession of Wise and Pious Princes that was Defended unto Death by our late Martyred Sovereign that was Restored by His Majesty that now is and has been ever since so graciously Cherished by him as if the Care of it were a Quality inherent and hereditary to the Crown A Church that was Reformed by full and sufficient Authority upon mature and serious Deliberation with a perfect submission to the Rule of holy Scripture and a due regard to the example of the most Primitive times A Church that has constantly rejected all the Errours and Corruptions of Rome that admits of neither their Infallibility nor Supremacy that allows no Purgatory nor Indulgences no adoration of Reliques and Images no Praying to Saints nor Angels that does not think that God can be pleased with idle Pilgrimages or a forced Celibacy or any set number of Ave's and Paternoster's or other formal Devotions exactly computed upon a string of Beads and muttered over in an unknown Tongue that does not rob the Laity of half the Communion nor teach them that strange and contradictious Doctrine that the Elements are transubstantiated into the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper that does not only constantly deny these and many more absurd and erroneous Opinions of the Papists but has always sent forth as stout and able Champions to oppose them as any the Christian World affords A Church whose Doctrine is confessed to be Orthodox by the generality of our Dissenting Brethren and whose Discipline and Order of external Worship has nothing in it repugnant to any Law of God And what imaginable ground can there then be to justifie a Separation from such a Church Certainly the use of a few Indifferent things appointed only for Order's sake will not be enough to do it These are not Forbidden and therefore cannot be Sinful in themselves and where God has not Forbidden our Superiours may Command and in all such cases we are bound to Obey Some indeed there are that will not be satisfied with this They tell us that it is not sufficient that a thing be not Forbidden but that it must be Commanded or else it cannot be used in the Worship of God without Sin But if this Opinion be true I must confess that then it is Unlawful to hold Communion not only with ours but with any Church that is or ever was in the World for I do not believe that One can be found amongst them All that has not required the use of some Indifferent thing that was not Commanded Our Dissenting Brethren themselves will allow that the Time and Place of Religious Assemblies may be prescribed by Authority And if these necessary Circumstances may be thus Determined though they be not Commanded by God then it will be as Lawful to prescribe what particular Gestures and Habits shall be there used For these are things of the same Nature Circumstances as necessary as Time and Place and if we have any respect to the Decent and Reverent performance of the Service of God they may be as necessary to be determined too However it must be acknowledged that some things that are not Commanded may be Lawfully Enjoyned and Submitted to and if some then all that are of the same Indifferent nature unless there can be some sufficient reason assigned why some should be excepted and some not which will be very difficult where the Nature of the things is the same And in our present case it will be hard in the general to conceive how the Command of a Lawful Power should make that Unlawful which was not Forbidden and by consequence was Lawful before But if it should be still insisted on that nothing must be Commanded that God has not Commanded they that are of this Perswasion should be very certain that they have clear proof out of the Scriptures for it before they undertake to Forbid that which God has not Forbidden or else they stand condemned by their own Principle Now the Arguments they bring for this out of the New Testament are very few And those very obscure and no way applicable to the matter in hand without being mightily strained Those out of the Old Testament are not many that which has been chiefly urged and seems indeed the most pertinent and material is this The whole Levitical Service was particularly prescribed by God himself and Moses was strictly charged to make the Tabernacle and all the Utensils that belonged unto it After the pattern that was shewed him Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 3. 5 6. in the Mount And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant and so is Christ as a Son over his own House that is the Church Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules to be observed in the Worship of God under the Legal Dispensation so has Christ under the Evangelical and it is as
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
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
saies nothing that the divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Vnity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many Thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other Terms That the Divine Spirit confines his influences ordinarily to the Unity of the Church I do assert but that this is in Conformity to the Church of England I do not assert For Conformity to the Church of England is not Essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church for every Church has authority to prescribe its own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship in Conformity to the general Rules of the Gospel And therefore though the Unity of the Church is necessary to intitle Men to the ordinary influences of Gods Grace and consequently is necessary to Salvation yet Conformity to the Church of England is not necessary to the Unity of the Church because Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Unity of the Church without conformity to the Church of England Obedience indeed and Subjection to Church-Authority in all Lawful things is necessary to the Unity of the Church and necessary to Salvation and consequently it is a necessary Duty to conform to all the Lawful and Innocent Customs of the Church wherein we live but this does not make the particular Laws of Conformity which are different in different Churches to be necessary to Salvation unless you will say the Church has no Authority but only in things absolutely necessary to Salvation which destroys all the external Order and Discipline of the Church and charges all the Churches in the World with destroying Mens Souls if any persons be so Humorsom and Peevish as to break Communion with them for such Reasons But such kind of Cavils as these you may find answered at large in the Vindication of the Defence and thither I refer you if you desire to see any more of it Thus Sir I have with great patience answered your Questions not that they needed or deserved any Answer but that you might not think your self too much despised nor other weak People think your Questions unanswered And now I have given you an Answer I shall take the Confidence to give you a little Ghostly Counsel too which you need a great deal more than an Answer I have not troubled my Head to inquire Scrupulously who you are nor do I use to trust Common Fame in such matters but though I know not you yet I perceive you know me and if as you say you have often p. 1. heard me with great Satisfaction and as you hope not without edifying thereby I think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more Civility than you have done if it be in your Nature to be Civil to a Clergy-Man And I wish more for your own sake than for mine you had done so for I thank God I have learnt not only by the precepts and example of my great Master but by frequent Tryals to go through good Report and evil Report and to bear the most invidious and Spightful Reflections with an equal mind But as contemptible as a Clergy-Man is now these things will be accounted for another day For it is very evident that you have a great Spight at the whole Order whatever personal kindness you may have for some Men they are but a Herd of Clergy-men and you know no other use of a Bishop but to oversee admonish and Censure those who are apt to Preface go beyond their due Bounds I confess this way of Railery is grown very fashionable and I perceive you are resolved to be in the Mode and to be an accomplisht Gentleman but I never knew a man that was seriously religious who durst affront the Servants for their Masters sake But you Sir are in the very height of the fashion and think their Office as contemptible as their Persons generally are thought to be you hope to be saved without understanding the Notion of Church-Government as 't is intreagued by Clergy-men of all sides And I hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides Church-Government or else I doubt your Salvation may be hazardous But this is too plain a contempt of all church-Church-Authority for though the Church of Rome has usurpt an unlimited and Tyrannical Power under the Notion of Church-Government yet what has the Sound Church of England as you own it done What occasion did I give for this Censure who have expresly confined the Exercise of Church-Authority to Church-Communion to receiving in and putting out of the Church And if Resol of Cases p. 39. the Church be no Society I would desire to know what it is and if be a Society how can any Society subsist without Authority in some Persons to receive in and to shut out of the Society But the truth is tho you pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England you make the Church it self a very needless and insignificant thing for you know no necessity of Communicating with any Church you will not allow it to be Schism to Separate from the Church you think it a pretty indifferent thing whether Men be Baptized or not or by whom they are Baptized what your Opinion is about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I do not know though if you are consistent with your self I doubt that is a very indifferent Ceremony too Truly to deal plainly with you I think you have more need to be taught your Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books and let me in time warn you what the consequence of this way you are in is likely to be which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and institute Religion and consequently of Christianity Natural Religion may subsist without any positive Institutions but revealed Religion never did and never can for when God Transacts with Mankind in the way of a Visible Covenant there must be some Visible Ministers and Visible Sacraments of this Covenant And when the Evangelical Ministers and Sacraments fall into contempt Men must think meanly of Christianity and return to what they call natural Religion which is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice which cannot save a Sinner but by uncovenanted Grace and Mercy which no Man can be sure of and which no Man shall find who rejects a Priest and Sacrifice of Gods providing And to convince you of this you may observe that the contempt of the Notion of a Church of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments is originally owing to Deists and Socinians to those who profess to believe in God and to worship him according to the Laws of natural Religion but believe nothing at all of Christ or to those who profess to believe in Christ but believe him only to be a meer Man and a great Reformer of Natural
for not separating the clean from the unclean the precious from the vile the Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26. holy from the prophane yet did they never teach that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty the whole Communion was polluted by it but as many as touch'd the unclean person were unclean so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing 3. When it 's said that the unclean person that did not purifie himself defiled the Tabernacle and polluted the Sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' joyn'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good men go up as a sweet smelling savour and are accepted by him The person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepared may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving Tit. 1. 15. is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd The weakness of this suggestion that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Mans company at and among them being laid open The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinc'd from these particulars 1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons What higher aggravations could there be of sin Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinn'd being the High-Priests Sons or the publick scandal aed impudence of the sin Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle yet did not the People of God not Elkanab and Hannah by name refrain to come up to Shilo and to joyn with them in the publick Worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 1 Sam. 2. 17. 24. those Men They abhorr'd the sacrifices of the Lord ye make the Lord's people to transgress In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and held a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a Miraculous Sacrifice neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bowed their knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that publick Worship perform'd by the Prophet All the People fell on their faces saying the Lord he is God the Lord he is God 1 King 18. 39. All along the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their manners we do not find that the â—rophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continued in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and Exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament In the Apostolick Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members and that if they would be safe themselves they must withdraw from their Communion but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them and if neither private nor publick Admonitions and Reproofs would do then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church till by Repentance and Amendment they render'd themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation sends his Instructions to the Angels that is to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia whose Office it was to Preach Repentance to them and by their Authority to reform abuses but gives them no Command to cease the publick Administration or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest nay altho' those Candlesticks were very foul yet was our Lord pleas'd still to bear with them and to walk in the midst of them Rev. 2. 1. and certainly so song as Christ affords his presence in a Church none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs 3. From our Saviour's own example who notwithanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church and the Members of it very leud and vicious yet kept in Communion with it and commanded his Disciples so to do We read that the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time had perverted the law corrupted Mat. 15. 6 7 8. the worship of God were blind guides devoured widows houses were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion but was made under the Law freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it he was circumcis'd on the eighth day redeem'd by a certain price being a Son and a First-born Luke 2. 22. observ'd their Passover and other Feasts enjoin'd by their Law yea and that of the dedication too tho' Matth. 26. but of humane institution was baptiz'd amongst them preach'd in their Temples and Synagogues reason'd John 17. 37. with them about Religion exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine tho' not to follow their Practice John 10. 6 7. Mat. 6. 7. What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church than was here yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance it They fit in Moses 's chair hear them 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it There were Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1. and contentions amongst them strifes and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols table and coming not so soberly as became them to the table of our Lord yet does the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approves their meeting together and exhorts them to continue it But let 1 Cor. 5. 4.
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting life And the Blood of our Lord c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can But what reason is there for this For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies No Man can shew a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
against the Law of the Land and the common practice of the Church Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or kneels afterwards but somewhat previous to both for we generally rise before we do either But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes Hist Eccles l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425 of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly reformed this that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them And partly from Sozomens History wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us Eccles Hist l. 7. c. 19. p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440 by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people he cites a passage out of the Psalms and applies it home to him after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him Psal 49. in our Transl 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp not in 4 lib. Oâ—tat who fits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you says he are more particularly pointed at in this Text For the people are not licensed to sit in the Church This Text chiefly respects the Bishops and Presbyters who had onely a right and priviledge to sit in the Publick and Religious Assemblies but doth not concern the people who stood all the time Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times as well Heretical as Orthodox to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus as being weak and concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he Again that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit Collon Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam c. of God will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father this was one That they were wont some of them to fit at Prayer A little further in the same Chapter Tertullian hath these words Adde hereunto the sin of Eo apponitur irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi Angelo adhuc orationis adstante factum illud irreligiosissimum est nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit Tertull. de Oratione c. 12. Irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did would take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for How much more irreligious is this Gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us Adde to all this that saying of Constantine the great Euseb de vit Const mag lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612. recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperour with which I will conclude this point It was upon occasion of a Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour delivered by Eusebius not in the Church but in the Palace of the Emperour and the Historian observes to the praise of this excellent Prince that though it was a long and tedious Oration and though the Emperour was earnestly sollicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by yet he refused and stood attentively all the time as the rest of the Auditory did affirming it to be unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be used in time of Divine Service except at the reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was onely practised in some places for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observed in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people Now upon what hath been said I shall onely make this brief Reflection and so proceed If the Apostles of our Lord had in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations in their Travels throughout the World every where taught and established sitting or discumbing which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries not onely as convenient but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be 1 Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles and then 2 Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles the first founders of their Faith and for all that passed under their names it seems to me not onely highly improbable but morally impossible that so many Churches together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries not biass'd by Faction nor swayed by a superiour Authority being perfectly free and independent one upon another should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order and not onely so but 3 to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the
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
Answer to this Argument and the Answer indeed which I mainly stand upon Yet there is another Answer given to it by the Casuists which because it is the Answer that our Learned Bishop Sanderson thought fit to pitch upon I ought not to pass it by without mention nor if I can without some improvement I must confess if we do admit this Answer the Authority and Obligation of a Doubting Conscience will be set higher than I do in this Discourse suppose it But however it may be a good Answer to the Dissenters because it unties the difficulty upon their own Principles The Answer is this 2. In the Second place Allowing that the Man whose Case St. Paul speaks to in this Text was really a Doubting Person and not one that was Perswaded as we have hitherto supposed Yet it doth by no means follow that because this Man was guilty of Sin and Condemned for eating those Meats of the Lawfulness of which he Doubted Therefore a Man that Obeys Authority in an Instance where he Doubts of the Lawfulness of the Command that such a Man Sins and is Condemned for so doing This I say doth not at all follow For there is a vast Disparity in the Cases and to argue from one to the other is to argue from a Particular to an Vniversal or from one Particular to another without respect to the different Circumstances of each Case which is against all the Rules of Logick If St. Paul had said He that Doubteth is Damned if he Act there had been some pretence for making his Sentence an universal Proposition so as to extend to all Doubting Men in all Cases But now only saying He that Doubteth is Damned if he eat it shews that he only spoke to the Particular Case that was before him and that other Cases are no farther concerned in his Proposition than as they do agree in Circumstances with the Case he there speaks to Now the Case the Apostle there treats of and That which we are now concerned about are so far from any way agreeing in the main Circumstances by which a Man is to measure the Goodness or the Badness of an Action that there cannot be two Doubtful Cases put that are more different as â— shall now shew If St. Paul do at all here speak to the Case of a Doubting Man he speaks of one that Acted Doubtingly in a matter where it was in his own Power to Act without a Doubt That is He was in such Circumstances that he knew he might certainly without sin refuse to eat those Meats concerning which he doubted for there was no colour of obligation upon him to eat them But yet in this Case where he was perfectly at Liberty to let alone for the serving some evil unwarrantable ends he would not chuse that side which was safe and where he need fear no sin which was to forbear but would chuse that side that was Doubtful that is would run a needless hazard of transgressing some Law of God It is of such a Man and in such a Case as this that St. Paul speaks when he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat Supposing indeed that his words are at all to be expoundin this Sense But now because it is thus in this Case and in all such like if you please Doth it therefore follow from these words that a Man that is in other Circumstances that is not at Liberty to chuse his own way as not being at his own disposal but under the Direction and Government of Authority That this man sins and is condemned if he obey the Orders of his Superiours when he is Doubtful of the Lawfulness of the thing in which he expresseth his Obedience No by no means For this Case hath a quite different Consideration In the former Case there was only danger on one side and that was in Acting and the Man might forbear if he pleased and that without any danger But in the other Case there is danger on both sides and the man runs at least as great a hazard in forbearing the Action nay we say a much greater as if he should do it So that undeniably unless we will make one Rule to serve for all Cases though never so different which is the absurdest thing in the World For any thing that St. Paul hath here said to the contrary this latter man may not only without sin do the thing he doubts of but is bound to do it Whereas if the other man spoken of in the Text should do the Action he doubts of it might be a sin in him But further That St. Paul meant not to extend his Proposition to all Doubtful Cases but only to such Cases as he here treats of is pretty evident from the Reason that he gives why he that eateth Doubtingly sins in so doing viz. Because he eateth not of Faith He doth not say He that Doubteth is Condemned if he eat because he eateth with a Doubting Conscience If he had said so I grant the Reason of his Proposition would have reached all Doubting men in all Cases but this is that which he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith So that if there be any Doubtful Cases wherein a Man may Act with Faith notwithstanding his Doubt I hope it will be allowed that those Cases are excepted out of St. Paul's Proposition Now that there are such Cases and that our Case of Obeying Authority is one of them I thus prove Whosoever so Acts as that he is satisfied in his own mind that what he doth is according to his Duty in the present Circumstances Such a Man Acts with Faith in reference to that Action This is evident from the very Notion of Faith as it is here spoken of of which I have before given an Account But now it is very possible that a Man may have a Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action and yet be in such Circumstances as that he shall be satisfied that is very reasonable and agreeable to his Duty nay as the Case may be that he is really bound to do that Action concerning which he thus Doubts rather than not to do it Because the not doing that Action all things considered appears to him more dangerous or attended with worse Consequences This now being granted it undeniably follows That wherever a man lights into these Circumstances he is not a Sinner even according to the strictest Sense of these words though he Act with some kind of Doubt because he Acts in Faith That is he is resolved in his own Conscience that thus it behoveth him to act in the present Case and that it would be unreasonable or sinful to act otherwise So that let our Adversaries make the most of St. Paul's words that they can it is a very Illogical Inference to say That whoever Acts with a Doubt upon his Conscience in any Case is guilty of Sin and much more is it so to
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
aspersing what they separated from and so men are inevitably betrayed into envyings and bitter railings into strife and contention and all those evils that such things are naturally productive of And I am sure it is a sore grief and trouble and an offence in the second notion of it to many good men who cannot but be grieved greatly To see the Institutions of Christ so disregarded the great Duties and Services of Religion so slighted and neglected and to behold the Peace and Welfare of the Church which cost the Saviour of the world so dear and is so greatly beloved by him so very little consulted or rather purposely betrayed To behold men allow themselves nay glory in such damnable sins destroy their Souls by the guilt of them and wilfully forfeit the benefit of all that Christ hath done and suffered for them And lastly to see the way of Religion so perplexed with idle Questions and made intricate by needless Disputes and to see so many unreasonable Controversies started and such eager Quarrels amongst Christians which the best men sometimes have much ado to weather and get over so as they should do These are the things that make many sad and aking hearts among those whom God hath not made sad and these are the effects of the sad Divisions and Separations among us These therefore are the Scandal and the things that so much offend and these are the Divisions for which there are such searchings of heart at this day I would to God some men would seriously consider things they might then possibly begin to reflect upon themselves and their own actions and perhaps see cause to take some part of that reproach upon themselves which they are pleased so prodigally to cast upon us 2. But I have another thing yet to shew the errour of applying this Speech of the Apostle to our case For as there is a mistake in the notion of Scandal and Offence so there is too in those things to which the giving offence here relates and they are vastly different from those things in the Church that we conform unto by which the offence is pretended to be given The difference I mean is this that however they may be things in their own nature equally indifferent yet the supervening command from lawful Authority may make a vast difference between them Those things to which this Text relates were indifferent and undetermined too no humane Law had taken cognizance of them but the Institutions or Ceremonies of the Church in which it is pretended we give offence are things already determined by the Laws of men and such as a lawful Authority hath bound us to the practice of I shall not need to have any controversie I hope with any about the nature of them nor will any of the tragical Outcries against them prove them essentially evil Though some men have been taught to call them Rags of Rome Instances of Superstition and Relicks of Idolatry these are words of course and arts of railing which proclaim indeed the rancour and malice of some mens spirits but do not change the nature of things And certainly a stranger that should hear all this outcry and at last find the things declaimed so against are but pure Modes and Circumstances of things he would either greatly question the judgement and honesty of some men or at least conclude that a little thing will serve those men to quarrel with that are resolved either to find faults or to make them 2. Nor secondly shall I need here to dispute whether such things may be injoyned by a lawful Authority in the Service of God This hath been done fully already by a more learned hand to which I have nothing here to adde but that our Brethren and all the several denominations of them do the same thing themselves and sufficiently confute their own Objection So hard is it for them to frame any argument against us which may not like a two-edged weapon wound themselves And time was when some of them found it sadly true the Arguments that they had used against the Church of England others galled their own sides with and they were forced to think those answers good for them which they will not allow to be so for us against them And what dealing that is I leave others to judge 3. No nor thirdly do I think it worth the while to stay to answer that trifling Objection That this command of men alters the nature of the things and sure the Church of England thinks them more than Indifferent or else it would not lay so much weight upon them nor make so very great a stir about them It is a great mistake to think that the commanding of things indifferent makes any alteration in the nature of them it alters them indeed with respect to us and our practice but the things remain the same and the Church commands them as things fitting to be done but Indifferent still in their nature and so the Church of England declares them to be after her commanding them And her publick Declarations and Rubricks sufficiently acquit her from all such thought and if men will not believe her own Protestations but still pretend that she believes contrary to what she solemnly professeth it is but another instance of some mens ingenuity and candour towards her and needs not be counted strange in this Age. Nor is her standing so stiff as men speak for these things any argument of her thinking otherwise of them for however a Ceremony be in it self a small thing yet Faction and Disobedience is a great one and ought with all care to be suppressed and that Church needs not be blamed for its sharpness against Dissentions about these which hath already by sad experience found that gratifying Faction in these hath in the issue been the utter overthrow of her whole Constitution If any Church may be excused in this certainly this may which hath already felt the smart of Indulging in them and cannot but be concerned when it sees the same practices pursued again and that too by those very men who trampled upon her with so much cruelty and scorn in the late time of her visitation The beginning of strife saith Solomon is as when one letteth out a River and so we have found Faction in these things to be also and therefore no wonder if the wisdom of the Church apply it self with so much care and quickness to obstruct the smallest beginnings in that as men do to repair the least breach in those Banks which keep in the waters of the other 4. Nor fourthly do I think I have any pertinent occasion here to assert the obligation of humane Laws or to dispute whether they oblige the Consciences of men in things that God hath left undetermined We need but consult Scripture for this which will be plain so long as the 13 Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and the first Epistle of St. Peter shall remain in the