Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
of the same Church and tho' the Universal Church for Man's conveniency be divided into several parts or Congregations yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches So that two Churches which are not Members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the divider forfeits his interest in it A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation those who separate from the Corporation forfeit their interest in the Charter Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church into which we are admitted by Baptism and therefore if we separate from this one Church we forfeit our interest in it God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva France or England but with the one Catholic Church and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church we have no right to the blessings promis'd to it II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it And this is call'd Communion because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members 'T is true this word Communion is commonly us'd to signify Praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament together but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion but an exercise of Communion Church-Communion is Church-Union for as a member must be united to the Body before it can perform the natural action of a member so a man must be in Communion with the Church before he has a right to Pray c. And therefore tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church shou'd perform those Offices yet the performance of them do's not make him a Member of the Church but an Intruder Such Offices are acts of Communion if perform'd by Church-Members but not otherwise So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promis'd to it and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society viz. obedience to the Churches authority joining in Prayers c. and he that acts otherwise renounces his Communion with it From what has been said I observe 1. That Church-Communion principally respects not a particular but the Universal Church which is but one all the World over For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World if the body whereof we are Members reach so far and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church because it admits us into the Covenant which God made with the Universal Church 2. That every act of Christian Communion such as praying c. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church tho' it must be perform'd in a particular Congregation because all Christians cannot meet in one place Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians for the same Common blessings for our selves and all other Christians Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper but the Common Feast of Christians and an act of Catholic Communion 3. That the only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it So that I have nothing else to do but to consider whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it and if it be I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other are separate Churches because the Catholic Church being but one all particular Churches ought to be Members of it To make this plain I shall lay down some few Rules whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies is to renounce its Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical separation Every particular Church must have its limits as every Member in the Body has its proper place but when there is one Church within the bowels of another it is a notorious Schism This is the case of our Dissenters who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they wou'd naturally unite So that all separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism 'T is true a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches to which they originally belong and that without any danger of Schism For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches while they live in Communion with each other Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her jurisdiction For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules is not to allow separate Communions but to leave them to the Goverment of that Church to which they belong So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho' they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are 2. Those are separate Churches which divide from the Communion of any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Goverment or Worship For in this case they leave the Church because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it Two Churches may be in Communion with each other and yet not actually Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but it is impossible that two Churches which renounce each others Communion or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profess'd dislike shou'd still continue in Communion with each other Because they are opposite Societies sounded upon contrary Principles and acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the ruin and subversion of each other
sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as
3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own The Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatic If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Goverment and different Governours and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship and endeavour to draw away Members from each other they cannot be thought to be one Church And indeed we may as well say that several sorts of Goverment in the same Nation with distinct Governours distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as we may say that such Congregations are but one Church III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixt and by Occasional Communion By fixt Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt Members of it By occasional Communion they mean praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be Members as occasion serves that is either to gratify their own curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the imputation of Schism Now fixt Communion is the only true notion of Communion for occasional Communion do's not deserve the name of Communion For I have prov'd that he who is not a Member cannot perform an act of Communion and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion as of an Occasional Membership Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fix't and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church 'T is true in one sence we may be Members of a particular Church that is we may live under the Goverment of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church but yet every act of Communion perform'd in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church So that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same nature Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is may be call'd fix't Communion and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present may be call'd occasional Communion and all this may be done without Schism because all these Churches are Members of each other but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the establish'd Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation because the case is vastly different For the establish'd Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other but separate Churches Now 't is impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches of which we are no Members they are not properly acts of Communion Having thus explain'd the Three foregoing particulars I proceed to the main business which was to shew that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England This I shall do by shewing First That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty Secondly That constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is lawful is a necessary duty from whence I shall make it appear Thirdly That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England I. Then it is plain that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ and he that is a Member has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member and 't is certain that Communion in Prayers c. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity and that 't is the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices But to put the matter out of all doubt I shall offer Five things to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty 1. 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 is bound to visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Society of Christians For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices therefore some duties and offices must be perform'd by the Society of Christians especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers as Pastors c. Eph. 4.11 which are of no use if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution that is by the hands of the Ministry authoriz'd for that purpose Acts 2.42 and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable yet none but public Prayers offer'd up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of Church-Communion Nay the Lord's Supper which is the principal part of God's worship is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion 4. The exercise of church-Church-Authority which consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the external acts of Communion supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Joh. 2.19 Heb. 10.25 then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties Accordingly to have Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries 1 Cor. 10.20 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion before we have a right to Communicate yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion And a right to Communicate without actual Communion which is an exercise of that right is worth nothing because all the blessings of the Gospel are convey'd to us by actual Communion This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church when it may be had for when it can't be had we are not obliged to it But then the greater difficulty is whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all because the Church is divided into Parties Now a man may as well be of no Religion because there are different Opinions in Religion as Communicate with no Church because the Church is divided into Parties For 't is possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual
Communion with the Church then Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.
circumstances and may be different according to those circumstances That thing may tend to Order Decency and Edification in one Country or Age which in another may tend to the contrary Thus being cover'd in the Church and the Custom of Love-Feasts c. were once thought decent but afterwards the opinions of Men alter'd So that Order Decency and Edification being changeable things as circumstances vary only general rules can be prescrib'd but the particulars must be left to Authority to determine 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did use indifferent things which were not prescrib'd in Divine Worship Thus he join'd in the Synagogal Worship John 18.20 c. tho' if the place it self were at all prescrib'd the manner of that Service was not so much as hinted at Thus he us'd the Cup of Charity in the Passover tho' it was not instituted Luke 22.16 The Feast of Dedication was an human institution yet he vouchsaf'd to be present at it Nay he comply'd with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover which they chang'd to Sitting tho' God had prescrib'd Standing The Apostles also observ'd the hours of Prayer which were of human institution Acts 3.1 Now if Christ and his Apostles did thus under the Jewish Law which was so exact in prescribing outward Ceremonies certainly we may do the same under the Gospel I may add that the Primitive Christians not only comply'd with the Jews in such Rites as were not forbidden but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves Thus they (a) 1 Tim. 5.10 Ambros De Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1. wash'd the Disciples feet in imitation of Christ and (b) Tertull De Orat. cap. 14. us'd Love-Feasts till they thought it convenient to lay them aside From whence it appears that prescription is not necessary to make a Rite lawful 't is enough if it be not forbidden If it be said that these usages of the Christian Church were civil observances and us'd as well out of God's worship as in it and therefore what there needed no institution for might be lawfully us'd without it I answer 1. That this justifies most of our usages for a white Garment was us'd in civil cases as a sign of Royalty and Dignity c. 2. A civil observance when us'd in Religious worship either remains civil when so apply'd or is religious when so apply'd If it be civil then kneeling in God's worship is not religious because 't is a posture us'd in civil matters If it be religious then a rite that is not prescrib'd may be us'd in worship to a religious end 3. 'T is evident that (c) Buxtorf Exere Hist Sâ—c Caen. neither the washing of feet nor the holy Kiss were us'd as civil rites and that the latter is call'd by the Fathers the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation 4. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in Divine worship then any civil rite may be us'd in worship and consequently all the ridiculous practices of the Church of Rome wou'd be warrantable 5. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in worship then how can our Adversaries say that nothing is to be us'd in worship but what is prescrib'd by GOD except the Natural circumstances of action For there are many civil Rites which are not natural circumstances of action Feasting and Salutation are civil usages but Divine worship can be perform'd without them And if these and the like were antiently us'd in worship then we have the same liberty to introduce such customs 3. If things indifferent tho' not prescrib'd may not be lawfully us'd in God's worship then we cannot lawfully join with any Church in the World For all Churches do in some instances or other take the liberty of using what the Scripture has no where requir'd Thus the (d) Vid. August Epist 118 119. Basil De Sp. S. cap. 27. Ambros De Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 3. cap. 1. antients observ'd the Feasts of the Passion Resurrection c. Stood in their devotions on the Lord's Day c. These things they all agree'd in and thought it unlawful to act against an universal practice Besides some Churches had peculiar customs within the bounds of their own Communion The Church of Rome fasted on Saturdays others indifferently on any Day That of Milan wash'd the feet of persons to be Baptiz'd but that of Rome did not Thus in our daies some receive the Lord's Supper kneeling others standing c. So that if we must have an Institution for every thing done in the worship of God and if we must join in nothing which has it not then we cannot be members of any Church in the World Nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good conscience perform any part of God's worship if this principle be admitted for true For habits and gestures are not determin'd in Scripture and God's worship cannot be perform'd without them and if they are unlawful for not being commanded then a man must sin every time he Praies or receives the Sacrament Nay those that condemn the use of such things as are not commanded do in their practice confute their opinion For where I pray are they commanded to sprinkle the Children that are Baptiz'd or to receive the Lord's Supper sitting or to use conceiv'd Prayers or to touch and kiss the Book in Swearing Or to enter into a particular Church-covenant Nay where do they find that the Scripture saith that there is nothing lawful in divine worship but what is prescrib'd or that what is not commanded is forbidden Where are we told that God will be angry with us for doing that which he has not forbidden Our brethren themselves will allow that the time and place of God's worship may be prescrib'd by Authority and why then may not necessary circumstances such as gestures and habits be thus determin'd tho' they be not commanded Certainly the command of a lawful power does not make that unlawful which was not forbidden and by consequence was lawful before They say indeed that Nadab and Abihu sinn'd because they offer'd strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not c. Lev. 10.1 c. and therefore there must be a command to make any thing lawful in divine worship But to this I answer that the phrase not commanded is constantly apply'd to such things as are absolutely forbidden The fire also is call'd strange which phrase when apply'd to matters of worship signifies as much as forbidden Thus strange incense Exod. 30.9 24. is such as was forbidden because it was not rightly made strange vanities is but another word for strange Gods Jer. 8.19 and thus the fire of these Men was strange that is forbidden fire For there was scarce any thing belonging to the Altar of which more is said than of the fire burning upon it Lev. 9.24 6.12 16.12 'T was lighted from Heaven and was to be always burning When atonement was to be
with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms
Carth. 3. c. 12. Concil Milev c. 12. Justin Novel 137. Pref. 1 2 6. Nazian Orat. in Basil 20. saies St. Basil compos'd Orders and Forms of Prayer and St. Basil himself Epist 63. reciting the Manner of the public Service that was us'd in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution saies that nothing was done therein but what was consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God Nay the Council of Laodicea holden about the Year 364 expresly provides That the same Liturgy or Form of Prayers shou'd be alwaies us'd both Morning and Evening Can. 18. and this Canon is taken into the Collection of the Canons of the Catholic Church which Collection was establish'd in the General Council of Chalcedon in the Year 451 by which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies so far as the Authority of the General Council extends And then in the Year 541 these Canons were made Imperial Laws by Justinian Novel 131. c. 1. See Zonar and Balsam on can 18. See also Smectym Answ to the Remonst p. 7. Grand deb p. 11. and Concil Laod. c. 15 19. Thus for near 600 Years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the public use of Forms of Prayer And from henceforth or a little after down to Mr. Calvin's time all are agreed that no Prayers but establish'd Liturgies were us'd Nay Calvin who Pray'd Extempore after his Lecture alwaies us'd a Form before Pref. ad Calv. Prael in Min. Proph. and he compos'd a Form for the Sunday-Service which was afterwards establish'd at Geneva Nay he saies for as much as concerns the Forms of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites I highly approve that it be determin'd so as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administration to vary from it Ep. 87. Nor is there any one Reform'd Church but what has some public Form of Prayer nor was the lawfulness of Forms ever call'd in question before Nay Mr. Ball Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Norton and Mr. Tombes do (i) See Ball 's Trial Pref. c. 1 2 3 8. Baxter's Cure of Ch. Divis p. 175. Owen's Work of the Spirit in Prayer p. 220.222 235. Norton's Answer to Apollon c. 13. expresly own them to be lawful and this is said (k) Clark's Lives of 10 Divines p. 255. to be the tenent of all our Dissenting best and most judicious Divines It is very well known saies (l) Bradshaw's Life in Clark's Coll. in fol. p. 67. one that the flower of our own Divines went on in this way when they might have done otherwise if they had pleas'd in their Prayers before Sermons and we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon (m) See His Doctrine of Fasting and Prayer Anno 1633· Printed This was so universally and constantly practis'd that Mr. Clark (n) Collect. of 10 Lives 4 to p. 38. tells us that the first Man who brought conceiv'd Prayer into use in those parts where he liv'd was Mr. Sam. Cook who died but in the Year 1649. Nay the chief Dissenting writers do not only assert but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms (o) See Ball 's Tri l. c. 2. Rogers's Tr. 223. Bryan's Dwelling with God p. 307. Egerton's Practice of Christianity c. 11. p. 691. Edit 5. from the nature use and ends of Prayer and charge the contrary opinion with Enthusiasm (p) Grave Confut Epist to the Reader Contin Morn Exerc. p. 1006. and Novelty (q) Priest Serm. on Joh. 1.16 They grant also 1. That Forms are not only lawful but that there are Footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament as Mr. Tombes and others have shew'd (r) Theodulia p. 221. Baxt. Cure p. 176. Ball 's Tryal p. 128 129. Grave confut p. 12 13. and Mr. Ainsworth that did otherwise argue against them do's confess (ſ) Annot. on Ex. 12.8 2. That they are very ancient in the Christian Church The Christian Churches of ancient Times for the space of this 1400 Years at least if not from the Apostles Time had their stinted Liturgies saith Mr. Ball (t) Tryal p. 96 106 111 138. p. 80. and (u) Tombes's Theodulia p. 222. they answer Objections to the contrary 3. That in the best reform'd nay in all reform'd Churches they are not only us'd and tolerated but also (w) Ball 's Tryal p. 108 c. Rogers's Treatises p. 224. Tombes's Theod. p. 234. useful and expedient 4. That those amongst us to whom the use of the Common-Prayer has been most burthensome have from time to time profest their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy as Mr. Ball assures us (x) Tryal p. 96 106 12. That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from Churches for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies is not only frequently affirm'd by Mr. Ball (y) Resp ad Apol. c. 13. but little less even by Mr. Norton (z) Sacril desert p. 102. who saies It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in public Worship are in use neither do's it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter (a) Defence part 2. p. 65. See Ball 's Tryal p. 131 Rogers's Tr. p. 224. Is it not a high degree of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ 's Churches in the World for these 13 hundred Years at least to this day have offer'd such worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it And that almost all the Catholic Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms And that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the Old Non-Conformists were unworthy your Communion As for Praying Extempore 't was set up in England in opposition to our Liturgy For in the Ninth Year of Q. Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church and to serve the ends of Popery one Friar Comin began to Pray Extempore with such fervor that he deluded many and was amply rewarded for it by the Pope See Foxes and Firebrands p. 7 c. After him Tho. Heath did the same p. 17. See also Vnreason of sep pref p. 11 c. And I hope when the Dissenters have well consider'd whom they join with and whose cause they advance by decrying our Liturgy and extolling Extempore Prayers they will see cause to think better of Forms of Prayer Secondly I am now to answer the Dissenters Objections against Forms of Prayer 1. They pretend that the Use of public Forms do's deaden the Devotion of Prayer whereas I doubt not to make it appear that they do quicken Devotion much more then Extempore Prayers 'T is plain that Forms of Prayer do fix the Minister's attention more than Extempore Prayers For his matter and words being ready before him he has
nothing can be distinctly heard To this I answer that those who can read may bring Books and those that cannot may attend to those that are near Nay I have been credibly inform'd that some devout People that cou'd never read have attain'd to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited I shall add that for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presum'd that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted Now if the People may join in Vocal Praise why may they not also join in Vocal Prayer If it be said there is some example or warrant in Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of Scripture for the one is an imply'd warrant for the other I have already shewn Chap. 3. that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer was very anciently practis'd and if this was the Primitive way 't is probable that it was the way in the Apostles times I know 't is objected that the People's speaking to God in the Church is disorderly and a breaking in upon the Minister's office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrench'd upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and worshipped the Lord and prais'd him saying for he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7.3 Ecclesiastical Order is secur'd by the Minister's presiding in God's public Worship and guiding the performance of it but not to allow the People to make an Audible confession of sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and â—â—ted by him seems rather to favour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear of the Minister's office being invaded Some urge that Women are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 but this is strangely misapply'd to the Matter in hand For 't is plain that the speaking mention'd by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophesying Interpreting Preaching and Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching implies Authority whereas the Woman's part is obedience and subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the meaning of St. Paul 5. I proceed in the next place to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church Now if Sermons and Catechizing be allowable besides the Word of God why may not some Apocryphal Lessons be read which contain excellent Rules of life Especially since those Writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other human writings also were publicly read as well as the Scriptures and those Chapters of the Old Testament which are omitted do either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or matters of fact deliver'd in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood If it be said that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority 't is more profitable to read any part of that than any other good Lesson I answer that then no place will be left for Sermons which are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons There is no danger of any person 's mistaking the Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical Scripture because the Church speaks so plainly in her Sixth Article nor do we read them otherwise than the antient Church did I shall only add that no Apocryphal Lesson is read upon any Lord's Day in the Year and as for other exceptions I refer the Reader to Dr. Falkener's Libertas Eccles p. 164 c. 6. If any object against our Standing at the Creed Mr. Baxter saies his judgment is for it where it is required and where not doing it wou'd be aivisive and scandalous Nay elsewhere he saies that 't is a convenient praising gesture c. See his Christ Direct p. 858. I proceed now to the Vindication of the Litany against which 't is pleaded 1. That the People utter the Words of invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the matter of it to them But this Objection is of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted If it be said that the People bear too considerable a part to the disparagement of the Minister's office I answer that 't is a great mistake For 1. tho' the People say Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord yet the Minister saies the other and the far greater part of the Prayer 2. They are but these Two short and known Petitions which are excepted against and if the People may be allowed any part in Vocal Prayer I know of nothing more proper than these nor are they repeated but when they are apply'd to new and distinct matter Besides they relieve our attention and cherish our warm affections in Prayer and I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries whether if Good Lord deliver us were apply'd but once in gross to that part of the Litany we shou'd not be more apt to languish in the offering it up than as it is now ordered But 3. 'T is plain that in those Prayers the Minister has the principal and guiding part in that he utters all the distinct matter of the Prayer which the People do not whereas he utters words of invocation as well as they And consider I pray whether if the People were to utter that which is the Minister's part now and the Minister to say that only which is theirs we shou'd not have more grievous complaints that the Minister's authority was slighted in the whole design since he seem'd only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for 2. 'T is Objected that we pray to be deliver'd from all deadly sin which seems to imply that there are some sins which are not deadly Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said that these words do not necessarily imply a distinction between sins that are and sins that are not deadly But admitting that such a distinction were intended yet we must observe that tho' all sin be in its own nature deadly or damnable yet thro' the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ sins of mere infirmity are not imputed and therefore not deadly to us But there are some sins so heinous that he who commits them is thereby put into a damnable state and 't is of such sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication from Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule An example may help to interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a rule no example is a competent warrant and if the example be according to the rule 't is not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by because he was an Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example
God's own Law in the other we only obey Man because God has obliged us in general to obey our Superiours God commands every Subject to pay tribute to whom tribute is due but Human Authority determines out of what goods and in what proportion he must pay Now because Human Authority interposes if a Man can by fraud detain the King 's right do's he incur no other guilt than breaking an Act of Parliament and being liable to penalties if he be detected Yes certainly for Tribute being injoin'd by God's Law the Man is unjust and breaks God's Law and his willingness to suffer the penalties do's not lessen his guilt The Case is the same as to Church-Vnity for tho' Human Laws prescribe particular circumstances and Forms of Worship yet God's Laws oblige us to keep the Unity of the Church as much as to pay the King his due And that Man that paies his just debts by such a method as the Law of the Land declares to be unjust may as well acquit himself from knavery before God as that Man that chuses a way of public worship in opposition to the Church-Laws can acquit himself of Schism before God Nay separation from the Church is so much against the Law of God that shou'd Human Laws grant a Toleration and call no Man to an account for separation from the establish'd Church yet such a separation wou'd still be a Schism and a Sin against God For no Human Law can make that Lawful which God's Law has forbidden V. It remains that I speak of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his actions that is how far we are obliged to act or not act when we are convinc'd in our judgment that the action is commanded or forbidden by God Now our judgment concerning what God has commanded or forbidden or left indifferent is either right or wrong If right we are said to have a right Conscience if wrong we have an erroneous Conscience There is also a doubting Conscience when we know not well how to make any judgment at all but of this I shall Treat in another place Now if our Conscience or judgment be right that is according to God's Law without doubt we are forever bound to act according to it nor can we sin in doing so whatever the consequence be But the great question is what we must do when our Conscience is erroneous and mistaken and to answer this I lay down three Rules which I think may give any Man satisfaction First Where a Man is mistaken in his judgment even in that case it is alwaies a sin to act against it Tho' we take a sin for a duty or a duty for a sin yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be a great crime to act against this persuasion Because by so doing we act against the best light we have at present and therefore our will is as wicked as if it acted against a true light Nothing but Conscience can guide our actions and tho' an eroneous Conscience is a very bad and unsafe guide yet still 't is the only guide we have and if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one instance we may with as much reason reject it's guidance in all What is a wilful sin or a sin against knowledge but acting otherwise than we were convinc'd to be our duty Is not that Man thought sincere that acts as he believes and that Man an hypocrite that acts otherwise whether his judgment be true or false He who being under a mistake acts contrary to his judgment wou'd certainly upon the same temptation act contrary to it were his judgment never so well inform'd And therefore his Will being as bad in the one case as in the other he is equally a sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho' indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the cases Shou'd a Jew turn Christian or a Papist turn Protestant while yet they believe their former Religions to be true we shou'd all believe them to be great Villains and Hypocrites because they did it upon base principles and in contradiction to their judgments Nay we shou'd all think more favourably of a Protestant that being seduced by a cunning Papist did really out of Conscience go over to the Romanists than of such Persons All this put together shews that no Man can in any case act against his judgment but he is guilty of sin in so doing Secondly The mistake of a Man's judgment may be of such a nature that as it will be a sin to act against his judgment so it will likewise be a sin to act according to it For that action is good and a duty which God has commanded and that is a sin which he has forbidden 'T is not our Opinion but his Law that makes things good or evil And therefore we shall be forever obliged to do some actions and forbear others whatever our judgment be because we cannot alter the Nature of things For if the Moral goodness or badness of actions were to be measur'd by Mens opinions then duty and sin wou'd be the most uncertain things in the world and what is good or evil to day wou'd be the contrary to morrow as any Man's opinion alters But such consequences are intolerable and therefore tho' a Man do's follow his judgment yet he may be guilty of sin and be damn'd for it too if his judgment lead him to act against the Law of God But it must be observ'd that I do not say that every action according to a mistaken judgment is sinful but that a Man's mistake may be such that it will be a sin to act either against it or according to it For a Man may often mistake and yet not sin provided his mistakes do not lead him to a breach of God's Law For First if a Man believe a thing to be commanded by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think himself obliged to Pray seven or three times a day he is certainly mistaken because God has bound him up to neither And therefore since God has not commanded the contrary he may safely act according to his mistake nay so long as his mistake continues he is bound to do so Secondly If a Man believe a thing to be forbidden by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think that God has forbidden him to play at Cards in this case he may follow his false opinion without sin nay he is bound to follow it Because since God has not forbidden it 't is no sin to follow his mistaken Conscience but it is a sin to act against it But then in other cases when a Man thinks that to be sinful or indifferent which God commands or that to be Lawful or a Duty which God forbids here the mistake is dangerous and it is a sin to act against his judgment or
If a Man doubt whether the action injoin'd by Authority be sinful or no yet if he think it unlawful to act against his private doubt he cannot do that action without sin But then if this Notion of his be false as I shall shew it is he sins also in disobeying if he be mistaken thro' his own fault Fourthly If a Man has been so extremely careless in learning his duty that he doubts of the plainest matter in such a case a Man is highly accountable for doing that which contradicts the Law of God tho' he did it purely in obedience to that Authority which God has set over him and purely in compliance with this true principle that in doubtful cases we must be guided by our Superiours For certainly if a sinful thing be commanded not only he that commands but he that obeys also must answer for it whether he do it doubtingly or with a persuasion of it's lawfulness Only we must remember First that this is true only in such cases where the Man might have known his duty had he not been careless for if a Man be ignorant or doubtful because he wanted means or opportunities of informing himself he is not guilty of sin before God tho' he break God's Law Secondly that when this case happens the sin doth not lie in obeying his Superiours with a doubting conscience but in his doing that which he wou'd have known to be sinful if he had been so careful as he shou'd have been For obeying his Superiours whether with a doubt or without one is no part of the sin Fifthly I premise that whatever the power of Superiours be for the over-ruling a private doubt it must not destroy the truth or take away the use of the foregoing Rules in the Case of a double Doubt Because the case of obeying Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of their commands is a double Doubt as properly as any other and therefore if it be two to one more probable that the command is unlawful than that it is lawful we must not obey it by the first Rule But then tho' the Authority of Superiours alone will not turn the Ballance yet there are usually such considerations of the greater sin and more dreadful consequences of disobeying as will outweigh all the probabilities on the other side and make it more reasonable to obey However if the command be lawful a man's false opinion that it is sinfiul will not excuse him unless his mistake be such as he cou'd not rectify These things being premis'd the plain question is this whether in the case of a pure doubt about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action where the probabilities are on both sides pretty equal and where likewise the Man concern'd has done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself whether I say in this case the command of a lawful superiour do's not oblige the Man to do that of which he doubteth I affirm it do's oblige him so to do and therefore 2. I shall shew the grounds of my assertion And First Modesty obliges us to pay as much deference to the judgment of our Superiours as this comes to If a doubt shou'd arise about the lawfulness of any civil practice we shou'd without any great difficulty be determin'd by the judgment of a few Learned Prudent and honest Persons whom we think better able to judge of the case than our selves and do's it not argue much self-conceit and great contempt of our Superiours to refuse the same respect to their judgment whose business it is to consult and command for the best Secondly Bishop Sanderson and other Casuists agree that in all disputed cases he that is in possession of the thing contended for has the advantage of the other that contends with him supposing all other things be equal Thus if I am in possession of an Estate which another Claims I cannot justly be dispossessed till the other Man's Title appears to be better than mine Now in our Case the Superiour asserteth his right and commandeth the Subject questioneth his right because he doubts whether the command be not sinful but since the superiour is in possession of the Authority to command the Subject must by no means by his disobedience dispossess him of that Authority till he is convinced that he has greater reason to disobey than to obey But this is impossible because the reasons are suppos'd equal on both sides Thirdly Since in all doubtful Cases it is a common rule that the safer side is to be chosen 't is certain that 't is safer to obey than to disobey in a doubtful case For there is a plain Law of God that commands us to obey Superiours in all lawful things and if the command be unlawful the only hazard we run is of transgressing some Law of God which we did not know and which perhaps we were not bound or had not means to know but in a doubtful case it is very uncertain whether the Law of God forbid the thing or no and if the command be lawful then we run the hazard of transgressing a plain Law which we cannot but know and which is of the greatest importance to Mankind Fourthly Since in all cases we must do as we would have others do to us let us consider whether we should not think it unreasonable for our own inferiours to contradict our Rules upon pretence of doubting about their being lawful If a Parent should command his Son to sit uncover'd before him or a Master command his Servant to dress a Dinner on the Lord's-Day and either of them should refuse to do so because he is not satisfy'd that the thing is lawful would not a Parent or a Master say I am to judge what is fit for you to do and you must not think by your foolish doubts and scruples to controul my commands I dare say most Men will think this a very just reply And if so then our Superiour also is to be obey'd in purely doubtful cases notwithstanding our doubt And if we think otherwise it is because our own Liberty and Interest are concern'd and we are prejudiced in favour of our selves Fifthly If Superiours may not determine in merely doubtful cases their authority signifies nothing nor can it secure the public happiness For there is no indifferent thing but some Person or other will doubt whether it be lawful and if such a doubt be a just reason to deny obedience what will be the consequence of such a principle but perpetual confusions For instance if a Prince make War and every ignorant and unexperienced Subject may lawfully withdraw his assistance in case he doubts whether that War be lawful or no what a sad case wou'd that Kingdom be in But these consequences are intolerable and therefore the principle from whence they flow must needs be thought intolerable also 3. Having thus prov'd my assertion I come now to answer the arguments that are brought on the other side
by their curiosity about some external Observances They therefore who are so Scrupulous about little indifferent matters ought to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate diligence in the practice of all other Duties of Religion which are plainly and undoubtedly such They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men must know that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Dealings the calmness of their Tempers their Behaviour in their several Relations their Modesty Humility Charity Peaceableness and the like If in all these things they keep the same Tenor use the same caution and circumspection and be uniformly conscientious then it must be acknowledg'd that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples and not any vicious Principle and the condition of those who are under the power of such Scruples is much to be commiserated But when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form and yet living without any sense of God or fear of him afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin of Coveteousness rash censuring his Brethren of Hatred and Strife Faction and Schism and disobedience to Superiours when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament and yet dares totally neglect the Communion who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother but can freely speak evil of Dignities and despise his lawful Governours it is not then uncharitable to say That it is not a dread of displeasing God but some other End or Interest that acts and moves him and that in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite 3. 'T is excessively troublesome and vexatious It robs a Man of that Peace and Satisfaction which he might otherwise find in Religion and makes his Condition continually uneasy and restless 4. It 's scruples are infinite and endless for there is hardly any thing to be done but some small exceptions may be started against it Scrupulous Men go on from one Thing to another till at Length they Scruple every thing This is notorious amongst us for those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church and have thereupon separated from us and associated themselves with a purer Congregation have soon dislik'd something amongst them also and then they wou'd reform themselves farther and after that refine themselves more still till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism Popery or Atheism 5. This Needless scrupling has done unspeakable mischiefs to the Church of Christ especially to the Reform'd Church of England In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed We all worship the same God believe in the same Lord and Saviour have the same Baptism the same Faith the same Hope the same common Interest our Sacraments as to the main are rightly administred according to our Saviour's Institution our Churches are acknowledg'd to be true Churches of Jesus Christ but there are some Constitutions which chiefly respect outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship against which Men have receiv'd strange Prejudices on the account of them have rais'd a mighty noise and clamour against the Church and have openly separated from her Communion as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another About these Skirts and Borders the dress and circumstances of Religion has been all our quarrelling and contention and these Differences have proceeded to such an height as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities to break and crumble us into little Parties and Factions whereby mutual Edification is hinder'd our common Religion suffers Reproach the Enemies of it are strengthen'd and encouraged public Peace endanger'd and brotherly Love the Badge of Christ's Disciples quite lost amongst us and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts is a matter of sad consideration and forebodes great Evils in Church and State I doubt not to say that the Devil has fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer than under any other disguise whatever Thirdly I shall offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of a Scrupulous Conscience 1. We shou'd Endeavour to have the most Honourable thoughts of God for accordingly as we Conceive of His Nature so shall we judge what Things are most Pleasing or most Offensive to Him Now consider I pray Do's not God principally Regard the Frame of our Minds in Prayer or will He refuse to hear us because He dislikes the Garment of the Minister Do's God regard any particular Gestures or Habits which are neither Dishonourable to Him nor Unsutable to the Nature of the Religious performance so far as that the acceptance of our Worship shou'd depend upon such Circumstances To surmise any such Thing is surely to Dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursom Being like a Father that shou'd disinherit his Dutiful Child only because he did not like his Complexion or the Colour of his Hair The Wiser and Greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilioes Mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it has been truly observ'd that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God has no where forbidden than there is in doing that which God has not commanded A Man may certainly do what God has not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God has not forbidden and is by lawful Authority requir'd of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. We shou'd lay out our Great Care and Zeal about the Necessary and Essential Duties of Religion and this will make us less Concern'd about Things of an Idifferent and Inferiour Nature St. Paul saies Rom. 14.17 The Kingdom of God is not Meat nor Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost What needs all this stir and bustle this censuring disputing and dividing about Standing or Kneeling These are not the great matters of our Faith they are not worth so much Noise and Contention The great stress and weight in our Religion is laid upon the Duties of a Righteous and Holy Life and a Peaceable Spirit and Conversation For saies St. Paul ver 18. he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd of
we must not omit our duty for it I shall only add that this very Rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent ought to have some restrictions but I think there are no unalterable Rules to be laid down in this affair For it being an exercise of Charity must be determin'd by the measure of Prudence according to Circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain Rules for Men's Charity in other Cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his Estate towards the Relief of the Poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own Liberty for the sake of his Brother This whole matter saies Dr. Hammond disc of Scand is to be referr'd to the Christian's Pious Discretion or Prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that Piety and that Prudence shall represent it to be most Charitable and Beneficial to other Mens Souls Secondly To avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of Persons And if this matter were rightly consider'd we shou'd soon fâ—â—d our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal to join with our Church than to sâ—parate from it For 1. Our separation hardens other Dissenters in their persuasion of the unlawfulness of Conformity For they will think we separate upon the same reason with themselves and this is true Scandalizing them or Confirming them in an evil cause 2. Whatever Sect we join with we Offend all the other Parties who sometimes speak as hardly of one another as of the Conformists 3. Hereby great Offence is given to the Conformists For this separation is a public condemning of the Church and is apt to breed Scruples distast and prejudices in the well-meaning but least-knowing Members of it 4. Scandal is thereby given to Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt And if it be so sinful to Offend a little one what shall we think of Offending a Prince a Parliament c No Scandal taken at an indifferent thing can be so great as both the sin and Scandal of confusion and contempt of Authority 5. Hereby Scandal is given to the Papists who are harden'd in their own way because they only have Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists The Papists alwaies hit us in the Teeth with our Divisions whereas by our hearty Uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest this Weapon out of their hands 6. Separation is a Scandal to Religion in general It prejudices Men against it as an uncertain thing and matter of endless dispute when they see what dangerous Quarrels commence from our Religious differences and all the disorders they have caus'd shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless separations open a wide door to Atheism and all kind of Profaness and Irreligion The CONCLUSION Containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England AND now having shewn the Necessity of Maintaining constant Communion with the Church of England and answer'd those pleas by which the Dissenters endeavour to excuse their Separation from her nothing remains but that I add an earnest Persuasive to the practice of that which I have prov'd to be a Christian Duty I beseech you therefore with all the Earnestness that becomes a Matter of so great Importance and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian to suffer the Word of Exhortation duly consider what I offer to you I have shewn you in the first Chap. of this Discourse that Nothing but sinful Terms of Communion can justify a Separation and therefore you must charge our Church with sinful terms of Communion or else you cannot possibly defend your practice Suppose that there were some things in our Constitution that might be contriv'd better yet every defect or suppos'd Corruption in a Church is not warrant enough to tear the Church in pieces The question is not Whether there be any thing in our Constitution which a Man cou'd wish to be alter'd but whether any thing unlawful be appointed which will make an alteration not only desirable but necessary Whether you are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made We separate from the Church of Rome because She has corrupted the Main Principles of Religion and requires her Members to join in these Corruptions but this Charge cannot be fasten'd upon the Church of England and therefore Separation from her must be unlawful Mr. Caâ—â—â—â— (a) Institut lib. 4. sect 10 11 12. saies that Wherever the Word of God is duly preach'd and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject it's Admonitions or resist it's Counsels or set at nought it's Discipline much less separate from it and violate it's Vnity For that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a separation is a denyal of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true Vse of the Word and Sacraments This is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly design'd it against your own practice Nay the Ministers of New-England tell you that To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceiv'd or indeed in the Church which might and shou'd be tolerated and heal'd with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced tho' perhaps your self be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from public Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful If you say that the Governours may as well come down to you by forbearing what you dislike as you come up to the law by doing what it requires I beseech you to consider Whether our Case will bear this Wantonness and Whether such Expressions be consistent with your Duty I do not think it hard I confess to make out the prudence of their Determinations but I think it hard that a Public Rule shou'd not be thought Reason enough to justify things of this sort and to oblige the People to Complyance without more ado Certainly there is no prospect of Union till Men learn Humility and Modesty and are contented to be Govern'd What is the Duty of Superiours in our Case I cannot determine but sure I am that a Change tho' in
things perfectly indifferent is no indifferent thing and 't is infinite odds but if once they begin to change without necessity there will never be an end of changing But farther I desire you to consider that the most eminent even of your own Writers do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England For they acknowledge her to be a true Church and (b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gov. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-Câ—m Newcomen 's Iren. Epist to the Read â—all's Tryal c. 7. Jeâ—uâ—baâ—l p. 28.30 Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful of Hear p. ult hold that You are not to separate farther from a true Church than the things you separate for are unlawful or conceiv'd so to be that is they hold that you ought to go as far as you can and do what you lawfully may towards Communion with it They (c) See Tombes 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas p. 78. Owen 's Evangel Love p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist of John p. 156. Baxter's Cure dir 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaâ—l p. 12. hold also that You are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church or are not impos'd as necessary Terms of Communion Nay they (d) See Brownists Confess art 36. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen's Life p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer Serm. 4 14 16. Ball 's Tryal p. 74 c. 132 c. 159 c. 308. Platform of Discipl c. 14. sect 8. Hildersham on John Lect. 35 82. Brian 's Dwell with God p. 293 294. Bradshaw's Unreason of Sep. p. 103 104. Non-Conf no schismat p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep a great schism p. 192 195. Owen 's Evang. Love c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100. Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas p. 78 89. Davenport's Reply p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist of John p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark Epist Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion p. 122 127. Bâ—ins on Ephes 2.15 Contin Morn Exer. serm 16. Baxter's Cure dir 35. Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 47. part 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton 's Memorial p. 78 c. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes's Theodul answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy p. 12 13. Calamy's Door of Truth open'd p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful of Hear p. 19 23. Nye's Case of great pres Use p. 10 16 18. produce several arguments to prove that Defects in Worship if not essential are no just reason for withdrawing from it 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects wou'd be to look after a greater Perfection than this present state will admit of 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches and so ought we 4. To separate from such defective Churches wou'd destroy all Communion Nor 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture Nor 6. is it necessary because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions Nay 7. they urge that 't is a duty to join with a defective Worship where we can have no better And as for our Injunctions in particular they (e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwell with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68. Owen's Peace-Off p. 17. Misch of Impos Epist Ded. own them to be tolerable and what no Church is without more or less that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion and that they are but few Nay farther several of the old Non-Conformists zealously oppos'd Separation from the Church of England and join'd with it to their dying Day tho' they cou'd not conform as Ministers and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it and have in print (f) See Baxter's Sacril Desert p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life p. 111. Collins's Doctr. of Schism p. 64. Lye's Reas Account c. Hickman's Bonas Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. declar'd it to be their Duty and Practice But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers there is greater Authority to be urged against you For in those things wherein you differ from us you are condemn'd by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse but I shall only hint at a few Particulars 1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any setled Church that was without Episcopacy till Calvin's time The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant that it obtain'd in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age and we are sure we can carry it higher even to the Apostles themselves There are but two Passages and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority That of (g) In Epist ad Tit. cap. 1. St. Jerom when improv'd to the utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings that he often wrote in hast and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and overtop the Presbyters which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood For at other times when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ'd nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error merely thro' Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aim'd at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius who was his Cotemporary represents him as very little better than a Mad-man 2. We desire you to name any Church that did not constantly use Forms of
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament
those that consult the Ecclesiastical Histories of the best Authority cannot but be convinc'd and that those conceits of the Fathers concerning this sign which perhaps may be too fanciful do confirm the ancient reception of it into the Primitive Church If it be said that the antient Christians us'd this sign because they liv'd amongst Jews and Heathens to testify to both that they made the Cross the Badge of their profession and wou'd not be asham'd of it tho' 't was a stumbling-block to the one and foolishness to the other whereas we have no such occasion for it who do universally profess Christianity I Answer 1. That this Objection supposes the sign to be lawful and that it may be us'd upon weighty Reasons and surely then the command of Authority may justify the practice of it 2. That we have as just reason to use it as the Primitive Christians because of the blasphemous Contempt that is generally cast upon the whole Scheme of Christianity particularly the Merits of our Saviour's Cross and Passion by the pretended Wits of our Age. So that St. Cyprian's (e) Epist 56. ad Thiber words are now pertinent Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept safe as if he shou'd have said Remember the Badge you took upon you in Baptism and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads never be asham'd or laugh'd out of countenance as to the Memory of our Saviour's love and the foundation of your hopes laid in his Death and Passion I grant indeed that the use of the Cross is an indifferent Ceremony and that Baptism is as our Church declares compleat without it but what I contend for is fully prov'd viz. that the Cross was us'd in the first Ages of Christianity from whence it follows that tho' 't is not necessary yet 't is warrantable 2. Our use of this sign is not in the least like the Popish use of it For 1. we admit of no visible Crucifixes nor has any of our Writers ventur'd to say (f) Christian Direct Eccles Cas p. 113. p. 875 876. with Mr. Baxter that a Crucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a Believer and that it is not unlawful to make an image of a Crucifix to be an Obiect or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to worship God The sence of our Church is truly exprest by Mr. Hooker who (g) Eccles Pol. l. 5. p. 348. says That between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of remembrance there is as plain and great a difference as between those Brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore Ours is a mere transient sign which abides not so long as to be capable of becoming an Object or Medium of worship any more than any words we use in worship may do 2. Our use even of this transient sign is nothing like the Popish use of it For the Papists use it upon all occasions and at Baptism they use it much oftner and so differently from our way that 't is not us'd at the same time and with the same words that we use it with This is evident from the Roman Ritual 3. Tho' the Church of Rome has notoriously abus'd this sign yet 't is not unlawful for us to continue the use of it as I shall fully prove in the Eighth Chapter As to the Second pretence that the sign of the Cross is a new Sacrament I answer that we all agree that a Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us Ordain'd by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a Pledge to assure us thereof And therefore since we never suppos'd that the use of the Cross in Baptism cou'd confer Grace nor have ever made the least pretence to any Divine appointment for it we ought not to be charg'd as introducing a New Sacrament If it be said that we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith and Christian Courage because we apply it in token that hereafter he shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith oâ— Christ Crucify'd c. and that therefore we make it an outward sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace I answer that we own it to be a significant Ceremony as all other Ceremonies are for we do not account a Ceremony innocent because 't is insignificant and impertinent but yet we deny it to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace For our Ceremonies are not seals and assurances from God of his Grace to us but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to him and this kind of significant Usages has ever been taken up without any imputation of introducing a New Sacrament For 1. the Jewish Church chang'd the posture of eating the Passover from Standing to Sitting in token of their Rest and Securiâ—y in the Land of Canaan There was also an Altar of witness rear'd on the other side of Jordan and the Synagogue-Worship Rites of Marriage Form of taking Oaths c. were significant and yet they were all receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church and comply'd with by our Saviour himself 2. The Christian Church of the first Ages us'd the same liberty as appears by the customs of the Holy Kiss and the Feasts of Charity Tertullian de Orat. speaks as if the public Service were imperfect if it concluded not with the Holy Kiss which was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another The Feasts of Charity also signify'd the mutual Love and Communion of Christians and the equal regard that God and our Saviour had towards all sorts and conditions of Men when they were all to eat freely together at one Common meal I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation which was us'd as a sign of Breathing into them the good Spirit and the Baptiz'd Person 's stripping off his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man and the trine immersion at the Mention of each Person of the Trinity to signify the Belief of that great Article Now all these things were anciently practis'd without any jealousy of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting New Sacraments 3. All the Reformed Churches nay the very Dissenters themselves do use some Symbolical actions in their most Religious Solemnities For 1. Their giving to the Baptiz'd Infant a New Name seems to betoken its being made a New Creature Nay the Dissenters generally give it some Scripture-name or one that betokens a particular grace and this is an outward and visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward and spiritual grace and yet they do not think it a New Sacrament 2. The Dissenters plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper because 't is a