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
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
the act of receiving as was before noted and that for the same Reason saies a (b) Alex. Hales de Missâ— p. 2. quest 10. p. 4. Popish Author which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution of the Sacrament And every Priest by the order of the Mass-Book is to partake standing at the Altar and not Kneeling there Nay if Kneeling be unlawful because it has been abus'd to Idolatry then we must never receive the Holy Sacrament For we must receive in some convenient posture such as Kneeling Sitting Discumbing Standing and yet every one of these either has been or is notoriously abus'd by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I hope I need not add that it wou'd be very unjust to say that our Kneeling is an act of Worship to the outward Elements when the Church has declar'd this to be Idolatry to be Abhorr'd of all Faithful Christians I shall conclude this Chapter with the opinions of the Dissenting Writers Mr. Tombes has undertaken to shew that whatever the Gesture of our Saviour was yet we are not obliged to it Theod. p. 168. 'T is granted by Mr. Bains Christian Lett. 24. and Mr. Bayly Disswas c. 2 6. that the nature of the Ordinance do's not make Sitting necessary or forbid Kneeling and Mr. Bains ibid. grants that Kneeling is not Idolatrous and Mr. Cartwright who thought it inconvenient yet did not think it unlawful Harmon on Luke 22.14 Lastly Mr. Baxter Christian Dir. part 2. p. 111. quest 3. sect 40. saies For Kneeling I never heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful If there be any thing it must be either some Word of God or the nature of the Ordinance which is suppos'd to be contradicted But 1. there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ 's Example can never be prov'd to oblige us more in this than in many circumstances that are confess'd not obligatory as that he deliver'd but to Ministers and but to a Family to Twelve and after Supper and on a Thursday night and in an upper-room c. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours And 2. for the nature of the Ordinance it is mixt and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Seal'd Pardon from Christ by his Embassador upon our Knees CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd BUT say the Dissenters there is so great an agreement between your Church and the Church of Rome that we cannot think communion with your Church to be Lawful They tell us that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the times they liv'd in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which wou'd not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or enstrange them from it but we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect amendment is now necessary Now I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment as well as love the Temper of our first Reformers who in their first Separations from Rome were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things Doubtless they were in earnest enough as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church when they Seal'd the well-grounded offence they took at them with their warmest Blood and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that the Primitive Christians signaliz'd their Profession with rather than they wou'd intermix with Rome in any usage of Worship or Article of Faith that had the least favour of Idolatry Superstition or false Religion at all in it And yet these Holy and Wise Men when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming wholly in their hands being equally jealous of Enthusiasm as they were of Superstition wou'd not give themselves up to those fantastic Antipathies as to abolish this or that Ceremony merely because it had been in use among the Papists if some other very substantial Reason did not plead against it And verily had they not alwaies us'd these temperate and unbyass'd methods of Reformation they wou'd not so easily have justify'd themselves to their Adversaries or the World or have made it so evident as by their Wise management they did that what was done by them was from the mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation So that where any mean honestly as I doubt not but many of those do that Dissent from us they ought to have their Reason very well awake that the mere charge of Popery upon any disputed point may not so prejudice them in their enquiries into things as to leave no room for mature Consideration However that I may fully answer this objection drawn from our agreement with the Church of Rome I shall endeavour to shew 1. That there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome 2. That a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing 3. That the agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful I. Then I shall shew that there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome as appears by our Church's having renounced all Communion with Rome and utterly cast off the Pope's Power But I shall descend to particulars and shew the vast distance between them First In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby the Church of Rome deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably enslaves them For 1. She denies them all judgment of discretion in matters of Religion and binds them all under pain of damnation to Believe her infallible but our Church permits us to prove all things that we may hold fast that which is good she disclaims all pretence to infallibility and owns her self to be obnoxious to error in matters of Faith 2. The Church of Rome imposes a most slavish drudgery in the vast multitudes of vain and childish odd and uncouth Rites and Ceremonies which a Man wou'd wonder how they cou'd invent The like may be said of their cruel Penances in imposing of which the Priests are arbitrary But our Rites are exceeding few plain easy grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appear'd in the World Our Sacraments are but two and consequently we are not burden'd with the superstitious Fopperies of the other five Popish ones In short our Rites are agreeable to the Rules of doing things decently and in order and doing all things to
reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the Reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Lastly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in the use of Ceremonies will not justify a separation For ours are scarce the hundredth part of hers nor are ours impos'd as necessary If it be said that Christ severely condemn'd the Jewish Traditions I answer that he condemn'd only those by which they made the commandments of God of none effect and in which they placed special holiness But to descend to particulars 1. The Surplice in the Church of Rome is solemnly hallow'd c. but we use it only for Distinction and Uniformity and place no more holiness in it than in the hoods which denote Degrees Besides in the Primitive Church Ministers did officiate in White Garments and Beza and Calvin were (f) Cont. Westph Vol. 1. p. 55. Epist ad Bull. against contending about the Surplice and I pray why is a Minister 's Linnen Garment more Popish than a Lawyer 's Gown or a Judge's Robes Our famous Hooker (g) Eccles Pol. Book 5.228 saies To solemn actions of Royalty and Justice there sutable Ornaments are a beauty are they only in Religion a stain 2. The Cross in Baptism is not us'd by us as 't is by the Church of Rome She enjoins numberless Crossings in the Administration of that Sacrament but we retain it in Conformity to the ancient practice and have abolish'd all Superstitious abuses of it 3. Kneeling at the Sacrament is requir'd by us only as a reverent Gesture and the abuses of this kneeling in the Church of Rome are perfectly remov'd The Papists indeed kneel to their Host as to their God but we do nothing like them for we kneel not to the Bread and Wine but at our Receiving of them Now what they do on no reason why may not we do on the best especially when our Church declares that Adoration of the of the Elements is Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians As we are not to disuse the Holy Sacrament because the Papists have made it an Idol so we may continue our Reverence tho' they have paid it Adoration 4. The Ring in Marriage is most notoriously abus'd in the Church of Rome as may be seen in their Office but we practise no Superstition about it and use it not as a Sacramental sign but as a token of the Marriage Vow Lastly The Feasts and Fasts of our Church cannot be justly accounted Popish For the time of Assembling is a Circumstance of our Worship that cannot be left to particular choice but must be determin'd in Common and what is to be done at that time must be determin'd too in an Ordinary orderly Assembly so that it must be left to the discretion of the Governours when we are to keep a Festival and when a Fast As to the Keeping of the Lord's-Day our Church was not at Liberty unless she wou'd have rashly departed from Apostolical observation and the continu'd practice of all Ages and Places since the beginning of Christianity As for the Keeping of Easter she was under the like Obligation the Annual Feast of the Resurrection the Great Lord's-Day being known to have been the Chief and the Cause of all the Weekly And as to the Fast of Good Friday it was nigh as early as the Feast of the Resurrection They lamented their Sins our Saviour died for on the Friday before as constantly as they Commemorated His Rising again for our Salvation the Sunday after And in Order to the keeping of those two Great Daies with more Devotion there was likewise in the Church some time before-hand set apart for better Recollection and greater Preparation the number of Daies was in some places more in some less That of Forty had obtain'd in the Western Country and therefore was still kept and wou'd to God it were as Religiously observ'd as it was Piously appointed Whitsunday too the Day on which the Holy Ghost descended was observ'd alwaies and Universally by the Ancient Church Only the Nativity of our Saviour was of latter remembrance but yet before Popery came in 'T was first observ'd in the Western Church and afterwards taken up by the Eastern in St. Chrysostom's time as it stands recommended by him to the People of Antioch Other times besides these have been appointed for our Religious Assemblies in which besides the general Worship of God the Examples of his Saints and Martyrs are gratefully remembred and piously propos'd Those Daies are call'd commonly by the Name of the Person then particularly Commemorated Not that the Worship is to the Saint or that the Day is imploy'd in his Honour but because on the occasion of his Memory or Martyrdom we come together as to pay our other Duties to our God so to thank him for the Graces of his Servant and to be Edify'd and Instructed by the Example It is true the Church heretofore when God had been bountiful to them in the Number of his Saints increas'd in some proportion the Daies of his Worship and it is to be Confess'd that Popery had both acknowledg'd Saints to God which he might not own and gave the true Saints an Honour which they must disclaim but with us the number of those Daies is not greater than what the Affairs of the World may well comply with and as the number of the Apostles is not large so their Sanctity sure is unquestionable and then on those Daies we neither Beseech by their Merits nor recommend our selves to their Intercession You see then how unreasonable the Objection of Popery is here too But see to what absurdity it go's on First it is suppos'd Popery to keep a Day in the Memory of an Apostle and then it is thought as Popish to call him a Saint A Great Person at Geneva it seems presum'd it somewhat Popish to observe Sunday it self and consider'd about changing the Day Nay some are so perversely Superstitious on the other hand as that That day on which all the Christian World Remembers our Saviour's Bitter Passion has seem'd to them the fitter for a Feast and the time Universally now set apart for the Joyful Memory of his Blessed Nativity the more proper for a Fast This indeed is not like the Papists No it is like a Jew or a Heathen To conclude by Popery nothing can be meant but the corruptions and usurpations of the Church of Rome For the Faith of that Church was once as fair spoken of as it's Errors are now and had she continu'd in that purity we ought to have been of her Communion and now we are to depart from her no otherwise than she shall be found to have departed from her self and to have corrupted that Doctrine which was once deliver'd unto the Saints As we must not receive the Evil for the sake of the Good so we must not reject the
Better Edification amongst the Dissenters and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England But First what Purer Ordinances wou'd Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Vertue and Efficacy The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is not any such defect or addition as alters their nature and destroys their Vertue but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which he likes best is guilty of gross Superstition and attributes the Vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution Secondly the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation For this Edification must be understood either of the whole Church or of particular Christians Now Edification is building up and is apply'd to the whole Church consider'd as God's House and Temple This is the true Scripture Notion of it as appears by many Texts 1 Cor. 3.9 10. and 8.1 and 14.5 12. Eph. 2.21 and 4.12 13 15 16. Matth. 21.42 Acts 4.11 2 Cor. 10.8 12 19. and 13.10 Now it 's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other As for the Edification of particular Persons which is also spoken of in Scripture 1 Thess 5.11 it is therefore call'd Edification because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church so that every Christian is Edify'd as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And indeed if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit than to the external administrations as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 3.6 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church there being but one Body and one Spirit Eph. 4.4 then it do's not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christ's Body St. Jude v. 19. seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most Holy Faith and Pray'd in the Holy Ghost and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God if he continue in the Church than if he separate But I shall examine this pretence at large and shew that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings than in our Churches as will appear if we consider First how fit our constitution is to Edify Mens Souls Secondly that this constitution is well manag'd for Edification First then That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls will appear if we consider Four things 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith that are necessary to Salvation but we have no nice and obscure matters in them We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful that is all that Christ and his Apostles taught and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church laies upon a good Life and Works The Articles of her Creed when firmly believ'd do plainly tend to make Men good She declares that without preparatory Vertues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God and that it is but show unless obedience follow Such a Faith she laies down as Fundamental to Salvation as produces excellent Vertues and determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God Her Festivals commemorate the Vertues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent her Prayers are for Holiness her Discipline is to force and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety which her whole constitution aims at She tells Sinners plainly that unless they repent they must perish and saies that plain Vertues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edify'd by such a Church as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion because she gives us true Notions of God and our selves by describing his attributes and our wants Her Prayers are grave and of a due length and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience The Offices of the Lord's Supper Baptism and Burial are extremely good in their kind Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion and they will make the Church a Choire of Angels 4. Her Order and Discipline are such that she makes Religion neither slovenly nor too gay Wise and good Men have judg'd all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful and they are of great Antiquity and fit to make our Services comely And truly whilst we have Bodies these outward helps are very convenient if not necessary Her Goverment is so well temper'd that her Members may not be dissolute nor her Rulers insolent And if all Vices are not chastiz'd the reason is because unnecessary divisions have stopp'd her Discipline upon offenders Her Goverment is Apostolical Primitive and Universal None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her but considering all things she is the best constituted Church in the World If therefore (a) Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 15.2 1 Cor. 14.3 Edification be going on to perfection or growing in grace if it is doing good to the Souls of Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men then it is to be found in this Church Secondly that our Constitution is well manag'd for Edification will appear if we consider 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edify Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these commands are obey'd by our Pastors For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion who have honesty and judgment enough to confess that they have found it true and to say that they are prejudiced and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is uncharitable Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Goverment condemn'd the Separation Magnify'd our Pastors and wish'd they were under such a Discipline and Translated many of our Mens Works to Edify their People Dissenters
Society of Christians you please Which giddy principle if it shou'd prevail wou'd certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errours and Mischiefs that can be imagin'd But our Blessed Lord founded but one Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucify'd for us and pray'd not for the Apostles alone but for them also that shou'd believe in him thro' their Word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst diverse others to the same Purpose was That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me 'T is plain this was to be a Visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an Inducement to move Men to embrace the Christian Faith Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions do's mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the Intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling-block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hindrance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errors that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and embolden'd them to a profess'd Atheism Therefore as you wou'd avoid the hardening of Men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in you lies wholly ineffectual you ought to be exceeding cautious that you do not wilfully Divide his Holy Catholic Church You are often warn'd of this and how many Arguments do's St. Paul heap together to persuade you to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are call'd in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And how pathetically do's the same Apostle exhort you again to the same thing by all the mutual Endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ if any Comfort in Love if any Fellowship of the Spirit if any Bowels and Mercies fulfil ye my Joy that ye be like minded having the same Love being of one Accord of one Mind Phil. 2.1 2. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige you to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing but what is lawful of you They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven thro' the Merits of the same Lord shou'd not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which you have to this Duty our Saviour dy'd that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scatter'd abroad John 11.52 And do you not then contradict this end of his Death in setting those at Variance whom he intended to Vnite Nay may you not be said to Crucify the Son of God afresh by mangling and dividing a sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require you to profess any false Doctrine or to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command you were bound in such instances to withdraw from her but since her Doctrine Discipline and Worship are good and lawful you are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her For as I said before and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Vnlawfulness of joining with us can make a Separation Lawful Let it pity you at least to see the ghastly wounds that are still renew'd by the continuance of our Divisions Be persuaded to have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to faint and in imminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that shou'd Support and Defend her Why shou'd you leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require your most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow you might forsake her that had forsaken him but since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no forbidden thing of you you ought to strengthen her Hands by an unanimous Agreement Since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably defeat the subtil Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the Losses she has suffer'd by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all wicked Purposes unsuccesful and the Blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen THE END
and advancement of the Protestant Religion Fourthly the establishing of contrary parties by a Toleration is not the way to perfect Religion any more than the suffering of divers Errours wou'd be the means of reforming them One principle only can be true and a mixture of Sacred and Profane is the greatest impurity Fifthly Many Dissenters are not like to improve Christianity because they lay aside the Rules of discretion and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means but depend wholly upon immediate illumination without the aids of prudence Sixthly Our Church has already better means to promote Pure Religion than any the Dissenters have propos'd Any Church may be improv'd in small matters but 't were very imprudent to change the present model for any that has yet been offer'd We have all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness Primitive discipline decency and order are preserved We have as many truly pious Members as any Nation under Heaven and such excellent Writers and Preachers as God ought to be prais'd for whereas amongst the Parties the folly and weakness of Preachers is delivered solemnly as the dictate of God's Holy Spirit I may add also that the Dissenters Doctrine of God's secret Decrees their Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop their long unstudy'd effusions their leaving the Creed out of the Directory for public Worship their sitting at the Lord's Supper and that sometimes with the Hat on their alteration of the Form of giving the holy Elements and their forbidding the observation of Festivals were not so conducive to the edifying of the Body of Christ as those things which were in the late Times illegally remov'd by them It is easy enough to alter a Constitution but 't is extreme difficult to make a true and lasting improvement To conclude since it appears that Dissenters are not like to obtain their ends of establishing themselves of rooting out Popery and promoting Pure Religion by overthrowing the Church of England therefore they ought both in Prudence and Charity to endeavour after Union with it CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Establish'd Church of England THAT I may discourse with all possible clearness it will be necessary before I proceed to explain a few things 1. What is meant by a Christian Church 2. What Church-Communion is 3. What is meant by Fixt Communion and by Occasinal Communion I. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is a Body or Society in opposition to particular Men and to a confus'd multitude For tho' it do's consist of particular men yet those men are consider'd not in a private capacity but as united into a regular Society For God is not the Authour of confusion And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without order much less the Church of God which is a Society instituted for the most spiritual and supernatural ends The Jewish Church had exact order and the Christian Church with respect to the Union and Order of it's parts is not only call'd a Body but a spiritual building Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is One body in opposition to many bodies The Jewish Church was but One and therefore the Christian which is grafted into the Jewish is but One. The Church is call'd the Temple of God and the Temple was but One by the command of God Christ also tells us that there should be but one fold under one shepherd Joh. 10.16 And indeed it is extremely absurd to say that the Christian Church which has the same Foundation the same Faith the same Promises the same Priviledges should be divided into separate Bodies of the same kind For certainly where everything is common there is One Community 'T is true distinct men tho' of the same common nature have distinct Essences and this makes them distinct persons but where the very essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common there can be but one Body And therefore if one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all be common to the whole Christian Church and if no Christian has any peculiar privileges then there is but one Church I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World upon which account Christians are call'd the Chosen or Elect People of God having a peculiar Faith Laws Rites c. which are not common to the whole World It is also a Society of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is united to God because it is a Religious Society and the Men are united to themselves because they are one Society But the chief thing to be observ'd is that the Union is made by a Divine Covenant Thus God made a Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal and the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as are in Covenant with God thro' Christ I suppose all Men will grant that God only can make a Church and that the only visible way he has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and by authorizing some persons to receive others into this Covenant by such a form of admission as he shall institute which form under the Gospel is Baptism So that to be taken into Covenant with God and to be receiv'd into the Church is the same thing and he is no Member of the Church who is not visibly admitted into God's Covenant From what has been said it plainly follows 1. That a Covenant-State and a Church-State are the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is receiv'd into Covenant as such is a Church-Member 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us Members of the Christian Church but only Baptism which gives us right to all the privileges of the Covenant 4. That no Church-State can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants and therefore the Independent Church-Covenant between Pastor and People is no part of the Christian Church-Covenant because it is no part of the Baptismal vow which is one and the same for all Mankind and the only Covenant which Christ has made And why then do the Independents exact such a Covenant of Baptiz'd persons before they admit them to their Communion 5. That it is absurd to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptiz'd persons For there is but one Church which is founded upon a Divine Covenant and this we are made Members of by Baptism if therefore an Independent Church-Covenant be necessary then the Baptismal Covenant is of no value till it be confirm'd by entring into a particular Church-Covenant 6. That if the Church be founded on one Covenant then the Church is but one For those that have an interest in the same Covenant are Members
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
3. Some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death But why shou'd we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World when we are not fit to die For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us when we are not prepar'd for it And in this sence can any good Christian find fault with the Petition But suppose that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it that is a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness are there not Reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly May they not when they find themselves drawing towards their end by their good Instructions and Admonitions make Impressions upon their Friends Companions and Relations to the bettering of them May not their Counsels be then more effectual with them than ever they were before And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so As for themselves may not the warning they have of approaching Death be improv'd to make them more sit to die than they were in their perfect Health In a word he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God and not to stand in need of those acts of Self-Examination Humiliation and Devotion by which Good Men improve the Warning of Death which Mortal Sickness or Extreme Age gives them let him suspend his Act and refuse to join with us when we pray God to deliver us from sudden death· 4. Some are offended that we pray to be deliver'd By the Mystery of Christ's Holy Incarnation c. By his Agony and bloody Sweat by his Cross and Passion c. And by the Coming of the Holy Ghost Some say this is Swearing others Conjuring and I know not what To these I answer that when we say By the Mystery of thy holy Incarnation and by thy Cross and Passion c. Good Lord deliver us we implore Christ who has already shew'd such inestimable goodness towards us by taking our Nature into his Divinity to Die upon the Cross to be Buried to Rise again to ascend into Heaven and there to intercede with the Father for us and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualifie the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World I say we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation and we plead with him by that goodness which he has already given us such great demonstrations of by those Wonders of Mercy that he has wrought for us that he wou'd now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from those Evils which we pray against And this is so reasonable so devout and affectionate so humble and thankful a way of praying that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers shou'd be so ignorant as not to understand it or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be as to deride it To conclude I must confess that of all the Prayers in our Liturgy that are of humane composition I shou'd be most unwilling to part with the Litany It seems to be what it was design'd to be A Form of Prayer apt to excite our most intense and fervent desires of God's Grace and Mercy The whole office is fram'd with respect both to matter and contrivance for the raising of the utmost Devotion of good Christians and for the warming of the coldest hearts by the heat of the Congregation And in such a disposition it is most fit to express our Charity by praying for others even all sorts of men as distinctly and particularly as public Prayers will bear CHAP. V. Of Infant-Baptism BEfore I proceed to the Vindication of our Office of Baptism I think it is proper to justify Infant-Baptism which is practis'd by us and dislik'd by some of the Dissenters And that my Discourse concerning Infant-Baptism may be the better understood I shall take the liberty of premising a few things 1. That the Original of the Jewish Church consider'd purely as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham but that of the Jewish Common-wealth from the delivery of the Law by Moses For that the Jewish Church and Common-wealth are distinct things is plain because the Apostle makes this distinction Rom. 4.13 Gal. 3.17 And therefore 2. The way to find out the Nature of the Jewish Church is to consider the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham upon which the Jewish Church was founded Now 't is plain from Rom. 4. 9th to the 17th and 9.6 c. Gal. 3.5 c. that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Spiritual Covenant made with him as the Father of Believers and with his Posterity not as proceeding from him by Natural but by Spiritual Generation as heirs of his Faith Hence saies the Apostle in the name of the Christians We are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no confidence in the Flesh Phil. 3.3 and it is one God which shall justify the Circumcision by Faith and the Vncircumcision thro' Faith Rom. 3.30 and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.29 Nay 't will farther appear that this Covenant was made not with Abraham's Natural but his Spiritual Off-spring if we consider 3. That the initiatory Sacrament into it was Circumcision For the Covenant is call'd the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 and Circumcision on the other hand is call'd the Seal of the Righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 faith or faithful obedience being the condition of that Covenant which God requir'd of the Children of Abraham and which they promis'd to perform It also signify'd the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10.16 and 30.6 Rom. 2.28 29. 4. As to the Persons to be admitted into the Covenant we have a very plain account at the institution of it Gen. 17. from whence it appears First that the Children of Heathens were to be circumcis'd See Exod. 12.48 49. which also proves that the Promise was made not to his Natural but to his Spiritual Children Hence in all Ages great numbers of Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church by Circumcision Secondly that persons of all Ages were to be Circumcis'd and that God was so far from excluding Children from Circumcision that he order'd that the Circumcision of them shou'd not be deferr'd beyond the 8th day God was pleas'd to be so gracious as to chuse the Children with their Parents and look upon them as holy upon their account This was ground enough for their Admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers tho' they cou'd not make open profession of their faith The Faith and consent of the Father or the God-father and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcis'd was believ'd of Old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and consent See Seld. De Jure lib. 2. c. 2. De Synedr lib. 1.
themselves do grant because there is no such prohibition to be found in the New Testament but then they pretend that it was Christ's intention that none but grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd because the Gospel requires that persons to be Baptiz'd shou'd 1. be Taught Matth. 28.29 2. Believe Mark 16.16 3. Repent Acts 2.38 But those and the like Texts do no more prove that none but grown persons ought to be Baptiz'd than the Apostle's words 2 Thess 3.10 do prove that none but grown persons ought to eat For he requires that if any wou'd not work neither shou'd he eat now none but grown persons can work and therefore by this way of arguing none but grown persons ought to eat Again suppose there were a Plague in any Country and God shou'd miraculously call 11 or 12 Men and give them a Meditine against this Plague and say Go into such a Country and call the People of it together and Teach them the Vertues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Now since Children are capable of the Medicine tho' they are ignorant of the Benefits of it wou'd any Man conclude that it was God's intention that none but grown persons shou'd receive it because they only cou'd be call'd together and be taught the Vertues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly Wherefore seeing Children as I have prov'd are capable of the Benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who were sent to Baptize all Nations knew them to be capable of it and to have receiv'd both Circumcision and Baptism in the Jewish Church how shou'd it be thought but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd Shou'd God in the daies of David have order'd some Prophets to go and Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damn'd wou'd those Prophets have Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd only grown persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission we shou'd have read that they Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd as many Proselytes as gladly receiv'd their word wou'd this have prov'd that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church Or shou'd God bid 12 Men of a Church that had always practis'd Infant-Baptism go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies saying He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd wou'd those Men that were bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism think it was God's intention that Baptism shou'd be deny'd to Infants No certainly and therefore by parity of Reason the Apostles cou'd not so understand their Commission as to exclude Infants from Baptism Now since our Saviour has not either expresly or otherwise excluded Infants from Baptism certainly his Command to Baptize all Nations do's comprehend Infants as well as Men. For the Apostles liv'd under a dispensation where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church and unless they had been instructed to the contrary they must naturally understand their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants as well as actual Believers Our Adversaries indeed put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but if they wou'd well consider the next words they wou'd find that Infants are not at all concern'd in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be damn'd The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore 't is plain that the believing or not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in a capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown persons just as the words John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him But they urge also that Baptism is unprofitable for Infants because putting away the filth of the Flesh which is all that Infants are capable of signifies nothing but only the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are wholly uncapable To this I answer that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision which is all that infants are capable of profiteth nothing without keeping the Law which Infants cou'd not keep but that the inward Circumcision of the Heart and in the Spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants are uncapable of it So that their way of arguing proves nothing because it stretches the words of the Apostles beyond their just meaning which was to let both Jews and Christians know not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcis'd or Baptiz'd but that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism But farther had not the Church been alwaies in possession of this practice or cou'd any time be shew'd on this side the Apostles when it began nay cou'd it be prov'd that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same principles that these Men do now then I shou'd suspect that their arguments are better than they really are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the Rule of Christ But since it is so Universal and Ancient a practice that there never was any Church Ancient or Modern which did not practise it it can be nothing less than an Apostolical practice and tradition If it be said that False Apostles and False Teachers brought in Infant-Baptism in the very first Ages I wou'd fain know how it came to pass that the very Companions and Contemporaries of the Apostles and the Ancient Saints and Martyrs who wrote against other Heresies pass'd it over in silence tho' we are sure from Irenaeus and Tertullian that it was (a) See Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hammond on Matth. 19.28 John 3.5 Selden De Jure lib. 2. c. 4. Vossius De Baptismo p. 181. practis'd in those early times 'T is impossible that they shou'd all consent in such a dangerous Errour or that they shou'd all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration shou'd be made without observation no body can tell how or when Certainly those places of the New Testament which require a profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the ancient Fathers and yet they never concluded from thence that Infants ought not
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
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
Son of God will strike a Man almost naturally into the humblest posture of Adoration But if any reverence be due at such a time I am sure Sitting is a very unfit posture to express it In a word whatsoever Gesture best answers the Principal ends of this Holy Feast do's best sute it 's nature and ought to be best esteem'd of if we will be guided by the nature of the thing and that Kneeling do's best answer the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper I think I have fully prov'd I shall crave Leave to observe in the last place that the Primitive Church had no such Notion of the necessity of a Table-gesture as the Dissenters maintain There is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings for the space of 200 years after Christ For they call the Place on which the Consecrated Elements stood the Altar and the Eucharist they call an Oblation and a Sacrifice and what connexion I Pray is there between an Altar or a Sacrifice and a Table-gesture The Dissenters indeed (f) Dispute against Kneeling arg 1. p. 6. â—6 c. say that Kneeling or an Adoring-gesture is against the dignity of Guests and debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table such as social admittance and social entertainment that it is against the purpose of Christ whose intention was to dignify us by setting us at his Table and much more of this nature but 't is plain that the Fathers thought otherwise as the Phrases they use and the Titles they give the Sacrament plainly demonstrate They call it as St. Paul doth the Lord's Supper the Kingly Royal and most Divine Supper which import Deference Distance and Respect on our parts the Dreadful Sacrifice the Venerable and Vnbloody Sacrifice the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language call'd the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they styl'd the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. They advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and down-cast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-gesture contend for as the Privilege of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table Fourthly I am to shew that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper is not contrary to the general Practice of the Church in the first Ages This I shall do by proving 1. That it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament as our custom at present is 2. That it 's most certain they us'd an Adoring Posture First then it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament I have already shewn that the Scripture do's not inform us what Gesture was us'd at the Institution of the Lord's Supper and I desire those who contend for a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting to observe that the Primitive Church thought sitting to be a very irreverent Posture in the Service of God The Laodicean Synod finding great inconveniences to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lord's Supper forbad the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was at those Feasts The same Practice was forbidden by the Council of Carthage c. 28. and the Decree was Ratify'd by the sixth Trullian Council c. 74. and that under the pain of Excommunication Now the Reasons upon which 't was forbidden were in all probability taken from the disorder and irreverence the animosities and excess that accompany'd those Feasts Justin Martyr who liv'd in the Second Century saies We rise up together and send up our Prayers Apol. 2. from whence 't is clear that they did not Sit but in most other places they were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears plainly from what Philostorgius (g) Hist Eccles l. 3. p. 29. observes of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly Reform'd this That the People were wont to Sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them and Sozomen (h) Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 19. notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read Optatus Bishop of Milevis (i) De Schism Donat. l. 4. See also Albaspin not in Optat. cites a passage out of the 50. Psalm and applies it home to Parmenianus the Donatist after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him that sits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you saies he are more particularly pointed at in the Text For the People are not Licens'd to sit in the Church Now if it had not been the general Custom to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might easily have retorted this Argument upon Optatus as concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charg'd in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he (k) De Orat. c. 12. Tertullian reproves it as an ill custom that some were wont to sit at Prayer and a little further in the same Chapter he has these words Add thereunto the Sin of irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did wou'd take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for how much more irreligious is this gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by Vnless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer has tir'd us Eusebius also (l) De Vit. Constant l. 4. commends Constantine because when he was present at a long Panegyric concerning Christ's Sepulchre and was sollicited to sit down he refus'd to do so saying it was unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things shou'd be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be us'd in Divine Service except at
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
and as to the truth of the Matters of fact she places it not in the testimony of any particular Church but in the Vniversal Tradition of Jews and Pagans as well as of all Christians II. I am to shew that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing The Dissenters tell us that those things which are indifferent in their own nature do cease to be indifferent and become sinful if they have been us'd by the Church of Rome For say they we read Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances Now not to insist on the vast difference of our circumstances from those of the Israelites I answer that it is an absurd thing to imagin that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be obliged to be unlike those People in all their actions The things forbidden from verse 5 th to 24 th are not Indifferent but Incestuous Copulations and acts of uncleaness and God do's expresly enough restrain that general Prohibition to those particulars in saying v. 24 th Defile not your selves in any part of these things for in all these the Nations are defil'd which I cast out before you And they were therefore forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites because they were the doings of those People whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even in their greatest immoralities If it be said that in other places God forbids the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in things of an indifferent nature I answer 1. That supposing this were so it do's not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But 2. That God has any where prohibited the Israelites to symbolize with Heathens in things of a mere indifferent and innocent nature I mean that he has made it unlawful for them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens merely upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.2 You shall not cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who sees not that 't is unnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by cutting off their Eye-brows this was not merely indifferent neither it being a Custom at Funerals misbecoming the People of God and which wou'd make them look as if they sorrow'd for the Dead as Men without Hope Another place is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse Kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled Seed nor shall a garment of linnen and woollen come upon thee But I answer that tho' these things are indeed indifferent in their own nature yet they are forbidden not because the Heathens us'd them but because they were mystical instructions in moral duties If it be objected also that God forbad the Jews Hos 2.16 17. to call him by the Name of Baali which was a very good Name and signify'd only My Lord because that word was abus'd in being the name of the Idol Baal I answer that God did not forbid the Name Baali because an Idol was call'd by that Name for he is call'd Baal in other places of the Hebrew Bible and also Jah which the Heathens us'd for an Idol but because the word Baali signifies an unkind husband or Lord such as Baal was to his worshippers whereas God Promises he wou'd be call'd Ishi that is a tenderly-loving husband for he design'd to be kind to his People Israel I shall add that Baalim in the next verse signifies Idols which God there Promises to destroy But suppose that God forbad the Jews to call him Baal for the future yet it might be because of their vehement inclination to the worship of Baal lest by using it they shou'd be tempted to worship him again whereas our Ceremonies were us'd by the ancient Fathers without any Superstition or Idolatry and we are not in danger of returning to Popery by retaining them Well but they say it appears from Scripture-precepts and examples that it is unlawful to symbolize with the Church of Rome in things that have been notoriously abus'd in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services To this I answer First that it is not sinful to use those things which have been abus'd to Idolatry as I shall prove by these following Arguments 1. No abuse of any Gesture tho' it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be us'd in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in it's own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abus'd by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be us'd at all then the Jews sinn'd in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observ'd in the worship of their false gods If the Dissenters say they except all such Rites as were commanded or approv'd of by God I reply that such an exception avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be us'd at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what has been once abus'd must ever remain so that is an infinite Power can't undo what has been done and clear it from ever having been abus'd And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practise in the worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry For if it be God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position wou'd plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This principle intrenches upon Christian liberty if St. Paul himself may judge who tells us 1 Cor. 10.25 c. that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and to eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture
shou'd be more defil'd by Idolaters than Meat which they had Offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and why shou'd one be sinful and Idolatrous to use and not the other Certainly St. Paul wou'd never have granted them such a privilege if he judg'd it Idolatrous to use what Idolaters had abus'd especially considering that he in the same Chapter exhorts them earnestly to fly from Idolatry 3. This Principle subjects the Minds of Christians to infinite fears scruples and perplexities whereas the true and great design of the Gospel is to breed in Men a filial cheerful frame of heart the spirit of love and of a sound or quiet mind to give us a free easy comfortable access to God as to our Father and to encourage every good Man to a diligent constant and frequent attendance upon his Worship by the delight that follows it But now if nothing may be us'd by us without highly offending God that either has been or is abus'd to Idolatry who sees not what trouble and distraction will arise in our Minds hereupon when we meet together to worship God It 's well known that most of our Churches were erected by Idolatrous Papists and as much defil'd by Idolatry as any Gesture can be They are dedicated to several Saints and Angels whose Images were once set up and ador'd Our Bells Pews Fonts Desks Church-yards have been consecrated after a superstitious manner Many Cups Flagons Dishes Communion-Tables have been given and us'd by Idolaters What now is to be done Perhaps all these things have been abus'd and if certain information cannot be had we can't worship in public without great disquiet of Mind 4. This Principle will destroy all public Worship For if nothing must be us'd which has been or is abus'd by Idolaters it will be in the power of Idolaters by ingrossing all the outward marks and signs of that inward veneration and esteem which we owe to God to smother our Devotions so as they shall never appear in the World and by that means frustrate the very end and design of Religious Assemblies And truly this work is already by the strength of this Principle very well effected For kneeling at Prayers and standing and sitting and lifting up the Hands and Eyes to Heaven and bowing of the Body together with Prayer and Praise and Singing have been all notoriously abus'd to Idolatry and are so to this day If the Dissenters say they except such things as are necessary to be us'd in the Service of God tho' they have been abus'd by Idolaters I reply that so long as the reasons hold to make any thing sinful so long it is so If the use or abuse of any thing by Idolaters make it simply evil then it must for ever remain so and no necessity whatsoever can make it lawful So that this Principle drives us into such streights that we must sin one way or other For either we must not worship God in public or we must be guilty of Idolatry if we do and tho' of two Evils or Calamities the least is to be chosen yet of two Sins neither is Christian Religion flows from infinite Wisdom and the Laws of God do not cross one another but are even and consistent We are never cast by God under a necessity of sinning of transgressing one Law by the observance of another but thus it must be if we take up and stick to this Principle 5. The Dissenters condemn themselves in what they allow and practise by the same Rule by which they condemn kneeling at the Sacrament and other Rites of our Church For they themselves did use without scruple such Places and Things and Postures as had been defil'd and abus'd by Idolaters They were wont to be bare-headed in time of Divine Worship at Prayer and at the Sacrament and so do Idolatrous Papists They never affirm'd that it was sinful to kneel at our Prayers both public and private yet this Gesture the Papists use in their Prayers to the Virgin Mary to the Cross to Saints and Angels They us'd our Churches Church-yards and Bells and never thought they sinn'd against God by so doing tho' they knew they had been abus'd Nay the Directory (a) Direct of the day and place of worship declares That such places are not subject to any such Pollution by any Superstition formerly us'd and now laid aside as may render them unlawful and inconvenient Mr. Rutherford (b) Rutherf of Scandal Q. 5.6 saies of Bells grosly abus'd in time of Popery That it is unreasonable and groundless that thereupon they should be difus'd Upon which the Reverend Dr. Falkner has this judicious Remark The pretence of their convenient usefulness wou'd be no better excuse on their behalf than was the Plea for sparing the best of the Amalekites Cattel that they might be a Sacrifice when God had devoted them to Destruction For if God as they say had commanded that all such Things and Rites shou'd be utterly abolish'd as were of Man's devising and had been abus'd to Idolatry then the convenient usefulness of such Places and things will never bear them out 6. If this Principle were true it wou'd go nigh to throw a scorn upon all or most of the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome for they do not seem to have govern'd themselves by this Rule Some of them in their public Confessions (c) Confess Bohem. Art 15. declaring that they might lawfully retain such Rites and Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith the Worship of God or Peace and Order in the Church tho' they had been introduced by any Synod or Bishop or Pope or any other 7. Nay this Principle wou'd render Christianity impracticable because there is no Circumstance no Instrument no Ministry in Worship but may have been some way or other abus'd by Pagan or Romish Idolatries It wou'd make every Garment of what shape or of what colour soever unfit for use in our Religious Service for not only the White but the Red the Green and the Black have been us'd even for the significancy of their respective Colours by the Gentile or Romanist to very superstitious purposes in Divine Worship Secondly There is no express Precept of this nature and the Texts alledg'd do not infer it For 1. Tho' some Churches are blam'd for suffering some to teach the People to eat things sacrificed to Idols Rev. 2.14 20. yet the instance is impertinent because that was no better than Communicating in Idol-worship as the Gnostics did But St. Paul declares 1 Cor. 8. and chap. 10.27 28 29. that eating things offer'd to Idols without any respect to Idols in cating is unlawful upon no other account but that of Scandal 2. St. Jude's words v. 23. hating even the garment spotted by the flesh teach us indeed to be as cautious of temptations to sin as of the Garments of infected Persons but there is no danger when they are well cleans'd from infection 3. Tho' the
Good for the sake of the Evil. We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony that is purely Popish but we must part with the best things in our Religion if all those things are sinful which the Papists abuse And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them in those things wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them in those things wherein they are right CHAP. IX The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answer'd SOme think that the Church is to consist of none but real Saints and therefore finding many corrupt Members in the Church of England they separate from her Communion and set up Churches of their own Consisting in their judgment of none but truly sanctify'd Persons The Ground of this dangerous mistake is their false Notion of that holiness which the Scripture applies to God's Church Holiness in Scripture is twofold 1. Inherent Holiness and that can be in none properly but God Angels and Men. In God Originally as he is that Being in whom all Excellencies do possess infinite Perfection and hence he is call'd the Holy One of Israel In Angels and Men by way of Participation 2. Relative Holiness founded in a Separation of any thing from common uses and an Appropriating it to the Service of God Thus the Sabbath is holy and Judea and Jerusalem are holy and thus the Church is holy that is a Society separated from the World to serve God after a peculiar manner Thus the Israelites even when very much corrupted were call'd God's holy People Deut. 7.6 and the Apostles call the Churches by the name of Saints tho' there were strange immoralities amongst them because they were separated to God and in Covenant with him Well but did not Christ die that the Church shou'd be holy and without blemish Eph. 5.27 that is really holy Yes But then by Church we must understand not the whole Universal Church but either that part of it which is really holy in this World or that Church which shall be hereafter when the corrupt Members shall be utterly cut off Neither is this to make two Churches but only to assign two different states of the same Church This being premis'd I shall prove these three Propositions 1. That an external profession of the Christan Faith is enough to qualify a person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church 2. That every such Member has a right to all the external privileges of the Church till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges 3. That some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of separation from her First then an external Profession of the Christian Faith made either by himself or by his Sureties is enough to qualify a Person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church For 1. This is the qualification prescrib'd by our Lord Go teach all Nations that is make Disciples of all Nations Baptizing them c. Matth. 28.19 Now the Pastors of the Church cannot know the sincerity of Mens hearts but their Profession of Christianity entitles them to baptism By this Rule the Apostles acted whilst Christ was upon Earth and Baptiz'd more than were sincere for of so many Persons that were Baptiz'd not above 120 continu'd with Christ to the last 2. By the same Rule they acted afterwards for St. Peter Baptiz'd about 3000 in one day upon their professing the Word Acts 2.41 tho' all wou'd not probably prove sincere and two of them Ananias and Sapphira were gross Hypocrites St. Philip Acts 8.12 Baptiz'd both Men and Women at Samaria and and amongst them was Simon Magus whom the holy Deacon might justly suspect for his former practices and whose Hypocrisie appear'd afterwards Such other Members of the Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander whose bare Profession Entitled them to that privilege 3. Christ foretels (a) Matth. 3.12 and 13.24 c. Joh. 15.1 that his Church shou'd consist of Good and Bad by comparing it to a Field of Wheat and Tares a Net of all sorts of Fishes a Flour of Corn and Chaff c. St. Paul saies (b) Rom. 9.6 they are not all Israel that are of Israel and Christ saies that many are call'd but few chosen 4. The many corrupt members (c) 1 Cor. 11.20 21. 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 1 Cor. 6. Gal. 3. Rev. 3. of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia prove the same For if the Apostles themselves admitted mere formal Professors we may conclude that they thought it God's Will that it shou'd be so 5. No other Rule in admitting Persons into the Church is practicable since the Officers of Christ cannot make a certain judgment of men because they themselves have short and fallible understandings Secondly therefore every such member has a right to all the External privileges of the Church till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges By External privileges I mean only a Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances for the pardon of sin and comforts of the Holy Ghost c. are Internal privileges which belong to none but the truly Good who are born not of water only but of the Spirit Now when a Man by gross and notorious wickedness has forfeited the Internal privileges of the Church he ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded from the External privileges also but till the sentence of the Church is past upon him we must not forsake the Church ourselves to avoid Communion with him because till then his right to them remains inviolable and that for several reasons 1. Because the Baptismal Covenant gives Men a right to God's Promises as far as they perform the conditions If a bare federal holiness gives Men a relation to God then it gives them a title to the blessings that belong to that relation Not that unworthy Men shall receive the special reward of the truly Good but they are to be allow'd the liberty to partake of those External blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole family 2. Church-Membership necessarily implies Church-Communion or else it signifies nothing For to what purpose is a Man a Member of a Society if he cannot enjoy the privileges of it 3. All the Jews were commanded to join in the public Worship tho' I doubt many of them were wicked Livers and therefore mere Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in it's most Solemn and Sacred Ordinances 4. It appears that St. Paul makes the Number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as great as that of those that were Baptiz'd For they were all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 that is in the Cup of the blessed Sacrament and all are partakers of one Bread 10.17 and we read that they all the 3000 Ananias and Sapphira being of the number continu'd in the Apostles Doctrine and in breaking of Bread and
themselves own our Sermons to be really good And tho' some few may not be able to answer the true design of Preaching yet in general Men may Edify very well among us Nor has there been for these many hundred years a Clergy so Learned Pious Prudent and Industrious to Edify Mens Souls as now is in the English Church II. Because those who make this pretence do commonly mistake better Edification And surely to desert the plain and great duty of Church-Communion for disputable or mistaken Edification is to be guilty of the sin of Schism Now the mistakes of these Men are principally three 1. In taking nice notions for Edifying truths He that discourses about Angels separated Souls the situation of Paradise and Hell c. shall be thought a sounder Divine than he that teaches the way of Salvation plainly by Faith and a good Conversation Such things pass with too many for saving truths and many ignorant and corrupt Men that espouse Parties and Interests readily embrace them The Apostle speakes of some that have itching ears 2 Tim. 4.3 If the food tho' wholsom and good be not to their fancy they complain of starving Bring but an honest sincere and teachable mind and you may Edify in a worse Church than ours but otherwise the best Doctrine will be insipid to you Place Edification in the substantial things of Religion in a right Faith and a holy Conversation which our Church presses upon us under the penalty of eternal damnation for these things alone do truly Edify the souls of Men and to these all Religion tends The Kingdom of Christ consists in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy-Ghost Rom. 14.17 Now such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoin'd and zealously taught in our Church we need not complain for want of Edification and the desire of other nourishment is spiritual pride and wantonness Wherefore desire the sincere milk of the Word the food of your understanding and not of your fancy that you may grow thereby For if you had but such an increase of grace as to hear meekly God's Word and to receive it with pure affection you cou'd not easily fail to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit Therefore 't is dangerous and sinful to give Men a Liberty to run from any establish'd Church for better Edificaton which is so often and easily mistaken And may we not add that when a quarrel arises from an unjust denial of the Minister's Dues then he is call'd dull and a better must be sought elsewhere Thus one fault helps out another and defamation must excuse the Schism 2. In taking the Opinions of parties for essential truths This those Men do that are wedded to a Party and if we do not explain all things in their way they cry we destroy the Gospel truths and that instead of being Edify'd they are weaken'd in their faith The early and best Christians thought it sufficient to know Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent and it were well if Men were satisfy'd with this old way otherwise they break the Peace of the Church and Obedience to Governours which are the great things of Religion upon the score of better Edification 3. In taking sudden heats and warmth arising from melting tones and other arts for Edification whereas a bright or a lowring day or a Dose of Physic can do the same things and they have often happen'd in the worst of Men. According as these Heats and Bodily Passions are Stirr'd so in some Mens Opinion the Ministry is Edifying or Unprofitable But sound and solid Reasoning is the true way to Edification whereas the Silly and Weak who are most subject to these Heats and Colds are Inconstant and turn round in all Religions Such Persons being all sail are the more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine III. Because the pretence of better Edification will cause endless divisions in the Church For since every Man must judge and the Governour must not restrain him therefore People may run from Teacher to Teacher to find out Better Edification Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth 2 Tim. 3.7 And when once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces then envy detraction strife murmurings fierceness and numberless other mischiefs will come in and that which divided them from the Church will crumble them into Endless Parties to the joy of our Enemies But all this wou'd be avoided if Men were sensible of the heinous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in the blackest colours IV. Because this is a discouragement to an honest and truly Christian Ministry For if the Flock run from a Pastor that instructs them rightly upon pretence of better Edification will it not cool his zeal check his labours and affront his Person and Office And this may be done to the best Pastors as well as to others and the most judicious Dissenters have complain'd of it tho' upon this principle it cannot be remedy'd because the people must judge for themselves And ought the Ministers to be scorn'd and discountenanc'd and have their Ministry rendred useless for the fancies peevishness and humour of the People If it be said that the Pastor is idle or unsound in Doctrine I answer that our Governours upon a just and modest complaint will quicken the lazy and negligent and correct the Heretical Pastor and restore the Flock to true Edification I may add that the eminent Dissenters do declare that the pretence of Better Edification is not a sufficient excuse for Separation as those who have leisure may find in these Books of theirs which I have quoted (b) See Hildersh Lect. 28 29.54 58 66. Methermeneut p. 71 72 74. Baxter's Cure p. 359. his Defence part 1. p. 85. his Farewell-Sermon Continuat of Morn Exer. Serm. 4. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. Burroughs's Irenic c. 12 23. Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 48. Cawdry's Independ a Schism p. 50. Vines on the Sacrament p. 246. Tuckney's Serm. on Acts 9.31 Jus Div. Min. Evangel p. 11 12. Letter of the Minist in Old-Eng to the Brethren in New-Eng p. 13. Nye's Case of great use p. 3 25. Tombes's Theodul c. 9. §. 8. at the bottom But after all that has been said I know some Persons will object that our Ministers are unedifying Preachers for they cannot profit by their Sermons Therefore I shall endeavour to give these Men full satisfaction and I doubt not to demonstrate that they may profit by our Sermons if it be not their own fault We are all agreed that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation and therefore when they are rightly open'd and duly apply'd in a Sermon so that the hearers improve in Christian Knowledge or in Faith or in well-doing then they profit by that Sermon Now if any Man do not improve
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
are horribly and inexcusably guilty of Schism and those that separate thro' such mistakes as they might have avoided if they had been careful are very blameable and are bound as they love their souls to take more care of informing their Consciences that so they may leave their sin but when God who searches the hearts knows that a Man did his best and had not means or opportunities of understanding better then tho' the Man commit Schism yet he is innocent of it And God who judgeth of Men by their inward sincerity will impute it to his ignorance and forgive it at the last day especially if this innocently mistaken Man be careful in the following points First that he be not obstinate but ready to receive Conviction Secondly That he separate no more than he needs must but comply in all those instances where he is satisfy'd he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly That where he cannot comply he patiently submit to the penalty of the Law neither exclaiming at his Governours or the Magistrates nor using illegal means to get more liberty but living as a quiet and peaceable Subject Fourthly That he do not censure those of another persuasion but shew himself a good Neighbour and friendly to them Whoe're observes these things tho' he dissent from us I shall be loth to censure him as an ill Man ill Subject or ill Christian But then all that I have said do's no more justify or lessen the sin of Schism than the sin of Idolatry for the case is the same in both whether the Man be a deluded Dissenter or a deluded Papist And therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the innocence or excusableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To conclude I have shewn how absolutely necessary 'tis that every Man shou'd endeavour to inform himself aright before he disobey his Governours or separate from the Church and that tho' something in our worship be really against his Conscience yet separation may be a great sin if a Man shou'd prove to be mistaken in his Notions And therefore every Dissenter ought presently to set about the true informing of his judgment for fear he live in a grievous sin Let him not satisfy himself with frivolous pretences For tho' we agree in the rule of faith and manners yet Schism is a dreadful sin and a Man may be damn'd for that as certainly as for heresy or drunkenness Sure I am the ancient Fathers thought so What if the points of Conformity be matters of dispute Who made them so The Church of England wou'd have been well pleas'd if these Controversies had never been We think a Man may be a very good Christian and go to heaven that is not able to defend our Ceremonies c. but he that separates upon the account of them is bound at the peril of his own Salvation to use the best means he can to be satisfy'd about them To those that pretend that these are subtil points above their capacity I answer that since they have understanding enough to find fault and separate they ought to have honesty enough to seek satisfaction which is all that we desire of them otherwise they will never be able to answer to God or Man for the Mischiefs of Separation We are bound especially in this case to prove all things and hold fast that which is good For no Man can disobey his Superiours without sin unless after he has us'd his best endeavours he finds their commands inconsistent with his duty to God For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case I now speak of it is no less than the sin of Formal Criminal Schism CHAP. XII The pretence of a Doubting Conscience Answer'd I Come now to the Case of those who separate because they doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and who fear they shou'd sin in doing any thing with a doubting Conscience To this I might answer from the former Chapter that if Communion with our Church be a Duty no Man's doubts concerning the lawfulness of it will justify his separation from it For if a Man's setled Persuasion that an action is unlawful will not justify his omission of it supposing that God commands it much less will his bare doubt excuse him But because this answer seems rather to cut the knot than to unty it I shall particularly examine this Plea of a doubting Conscience by giving an account First Of the nature of a doubting Conscience Secondly Of the Rule of it Thirdly Of the Power that Human Laws have over it Fourthly Of its Authority i. e. whether at all or how far a Man is obliged by it I. In speaking of the Nature of a doubting Conscience I shall Treat 1. Of doubting in General 2. Of such doubts as affect the Conscience 3. Of the difference between the doubting and the scrupulous Conscience First Then A Man is said to doubt when he cannot determin whether the thing he is considering be so or be not so he thinks the question probable on both sides but cannot fix upon either So that his mind is like a ballance when by reason of equal weight in both Scales neither Scale comes to the bottom 'T is true a Man may lean more to one side of the question than the other and yet be doubtful still just as one Scale may have more Weight than the other while yet that Weight is not able to carry it perfectly down but when there is so much more evidence on one side that the mind can determin it self then the Man doubts no longer but is said to be Persuaded as the Ballance is said to be fixt when there is Weight enough to carry it down on either side 'T is true a Man has not alwaies the same degree of Persuasion Sometimes the evidence is so strong that he intirely assents without the least doubtfulness This is Assurance or full Persuasion At other times the evidence may gain an Assent but not such as excludes all doubts of the contrary This kind of Assent is call'd Opinion or probable Persuasion So a greater or less Weight carries down the Scale with greater or less force and briskness But still in both these Cases the Mind is determin'd the Ballance is turn'd and the doubt is ended tho' perhaps the Man is not perfectly free from all scruple about that thing Secondly then I shall Treat of such doubts as affect the Conscience A Man may doubt of any thing which he has to consider but every doubt do's not affect the Conscience As a Man's Conscience is affected with nothing but his own actions so his doubts do not affect his Conscience any farther than they concern his own actions And as his Conscience is not affected with his own actions any otherwise than as
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