Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	answer_v	argument_n	prove_v	3,101	5	5.5305	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27392	An answer to the dissenters pleas for separation, or, An abridgment of the London cases wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse.	Bennet, Thomas, 1673-1728.	1700 (1700)	Wing B1888; ESTC R16887	202,270	335

AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Pleas FOR SEPARATION OR AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE LONDON CASES WHEREIN The Substance of those Books is digested into one Short and Plain Discourse CAMBRIDGE Printed at the University Press for Alexander Bosvile at the Sign of the Dial over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1700. Imprimatur GUL. DAWES Procan HUMF GOWER SS Theol. pro D na Margareta Prof. GUL. SAYWELL Coll. Jes Praefect JA. JOHNSON Coll. Sid. S. Magist THE PREFACE THAT Collection of Cases and other Discourses which was lately written by the most Eminent of the Conforming Clergy to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England has met with such an Universal Approbation that I need not speak any thing in commendation of it Therefore I shall wave all discourse of that nature and only give a short account of this Abridgment The Collection it self being large and dear it was thought convenient to reduce it to a less Bulk and smaller Price that those Persons who have not either Money to buy or Time to peruse so big a Volume may reap the benefit of it upon easier terms This I presume will justify my Design if I have not fail'd in the prosecution of it I have us'd my best endeavours to avoid obscurity and all those other faults which are often charg'd upon Abridgments and I hope I may venture to say I have omitted nothing that is material tho' the Number of these sheets is not the Sixth part of those that contain the Original For the Learned Authours of the Collection do frequently glance and sometimes Discourse largely upon the same Subject so that by avoiding Repetitions and blending all the Substance together I have much lessen'd the Expence of Money and Time This and some other advantages arise from the Digestion into Chapters which cou'd not have been gain'd if I had made a distinct Abridgment of every single Discourse I hope I have fairly Represented the Sense of my Authours but if I have mistaken or injur'd it in any particular I am sorry for it and do heartily beg Pardon of Them and the Reader The 11 th and 12 th Chapters I am sure are exact for they have receiv'd the A. Bp. of York's own Corrections for which I am obliged to return his Grace my humblest Thanks Other parts I have submitted to the Censure of other worthy Persons to whose Judgment I shall ever pay the greatest Deference but I have reason to suspect my self for what I have receiv'd no Assistance in and therefore I desire the Reader to Correct me when he finds occasion I have follow'd not only my own Opinion but the Directions of several very judicious Persons in the omission of A. Bishop Tillotson's Discourse of Frequent Communion which is wholly foreign to the Design of the Collection The Quotations in the London Edit 1698. which I follow are very badly Printed and therefore if any mistakes of that Nature have crept into this Book I hope they will not be charg'd upon me Many of them appear'd false at first View and many I knew not what to make of but some of them I have ventur'd to Correct God Almighty grant that this weak endeavour may be of some Service at least towards the Cure of those Divisions which have endanger'd the Ruin of the Best Church in the World St. John's Coll. in Cambridge Octob. 2d 1699. Tho. Bennet A Catalogue of those Books the Substance of which is contain'd in this Abridgment 1. ARchbishop Tennison's Argument for Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 2. Archbishop Sharp's Discourse concerning Conscience In two parts 3. Bishop Grove's Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England 4. Bishop Patrick's Discourse of Profiting by Sermons 5. Bishop Fowler 's Resolution of this Case of Conscience whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. His Defence of the Resolution c. 7. Bishop Williams's Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England 8. His Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God 9. His Vindication of the Case of Indifferent things c. 10. Dr. Hooper's Church of England free from the Imputation of Popery 11. Dr. Sherlock's Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 12. His Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 13. Dr. Hicks's Case of Infant-Baptism 14. Dr. Freeman's Case of Mixt-Communion 15. Dr. Hascard's Discourse about Edification 16. Dr. Calamy's Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience 17. His Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving offence to Weak Brethren 18. Dr. Scott's Cases of Conscience resolv'd concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship In two parts 19. Dr. Claget's Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers c. 20. Dr. Resbury's Case of the Cross in Baptism 21. Dr. Cave's Serious Exhortation with some Important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity 22. Mr. Evans's Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament The CONTENTS THe Introduction containing an Argument for Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants pag. 1 CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Church of England pag. 15 CHAP. II. The use of Indifferent things in the Worship of God no objection against our Communion pag. 31 CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer pag. 48 CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answer'd pag. 90 CHAP. V. Of Infant-Baptism pag. 103 CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the Sign of the Cross Answer'd pag. 126 CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of Kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd pag. 135 CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd pag. 171 CHAP. IX The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answer'd pag. 194 CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances and Better Edification among the Dissenters Answer'd pag. 210 CHAP. XI The Pretence of it's being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England Answer'd pag. 228 CHAP. XII The Pretence of a doubting Conscience Answer'd pag. 249 CHAP. XIII The Pretence of a scrupulous Conscience Answer'd pag. 277 CHAP. XIV The Pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd pag. 292 The Conclusion containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England pag. 309 THE INTRODUCTION Containing An ARGUMENT for UNION Taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in ENGLAND who Profess and call themselves PROTESTANTS 'T IS plain that the ready way to overthrow a Church is first to divide it and that our Dissentions are Divisions properly so call'd How mortal these breaches may at last prove any

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

also upon other occasions which proves that 't is not appropriated to Prayer 4. Since this gift of expressing our minds is not appropriated to Prayer it may be as lawfully omitted in Prayer as in any other purpose which 't is design'd for For if it be unlawful to omit the use of the gift of Elocution then he who has the gift may not lawfully use a Form in Petitioning his Prince or in a Court of Justice but if it be lawful to omit it in these cases as a Man sees occasion then it is equally lawful to omit it in Prayer In short if a Man has two gifts he may use which he pleases and since we have other means of Prayer none is obliged to use his ability to pray Extempore 5. Using a Form is as much a means of public Devotion as praying Extempore because the end of public Prayer is at least as effectually serv'd by a Form as by a conceiv'd Prayer Now since there are two means of Prayer and both cannot be us'd at the same time therefore one may be lawfully omitted and consequently the use of a Form which is one means is not a sinful neglect of the other 4. The last Objection is that the Common Cases and wants of Christians cannot be so well express'd in one constant Form as in conceiv'd Prayers because the circumstances of Men are infinitely variable and require sutable Petitions and Thanksgivings which the Minister cannot otherwise provide than by praying Extempore To this I answer 1. That the Common Cases and necessities of Christians are for the Main alwaies the same and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form than in an Extempore Prayer For public Prayers which are offer'd up in the Name of the whole Congregation ought not to descend to particular Cases but only to the Common Cases of all and what every one may truly and sincerely join with Now a Form will express them much better than an Extempore Prayer which is subject to many omissions 2. Forms can make as good provision for Extraordinary cases as Extempore Prayer For as for those that can be foreseen such as the want of rain fair weather c. there may be Forms compos'd for them afore-hand and as for others that cannot be fore-seen Forms may be provided when they happen and this has ever been done in our Church 3. If Forms must not be us'd because they do not alwaies reach Extraordinary Cases certainly Extempore Prayers ought not to be us'd because by reason of omissions they will not alwaies reach even Ordinary Cases In a word it appears that all Extraordinary Cases may be very well provided for by Forms but supposing it otherwise yet since it has been prov'd at large that the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the public Devotion 't is unreasonable to spoil the Church of them and leave her to the mercy of Extempore effusions only for the sake of a few contingencies which may happen but very rarely if at all in a whole Age. III. I am now to prove in the last place that the imposition of Forms may be lawfully comply'd with and for this a very few words will suffice For since the use of public Forms is lawful in it self therefore it may be lawfully comply'd with because I have shewn in the Second Chapter that a Man may lawfully do a lawful thing when 't is injoin'd by Authority And now I hope it is evident to all impartial Readers that Forms of Prayer are not only lawful but expedient also CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answer'd HAving justified Forms of Prayer in general my duty and method oblige me to justify that of the Church of England in particular I must confess I have alwaies thought the Liturgy of the Church of England to be such as wou'd rather have invited Protestants to our Communion than have kept them from it And I believe if the Dissenters wou'd seriously read over Dr. Beverege's Sermon concerning the Excellency and usefulness of the Common-Prayer they wou'd go near to be of the same mind But alas this very Liturgy is that which many persons are incens'd against It has been cry'd down as Idolatrous Popish Superstitious c. 'T is true we do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon Baal and Dagon for the Common-Prayer is not now esteem'd such an abominable thing as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it but yet some Objections are still insisted upon to which I hope to return a fair answer 1. Then 't is Objected that the Confessions of sin in our Liturgy are too general and that there are many particular sins which ought to have been distinctly confess'd of which there is no mention But I desire the Objectors to consider that there is hardly any thing in public worship which requires more caution and prudence in the ordering of it than that confession of sin which is to be made by the whole Congregation 'T is hard to prevent its being either too general or too particular The reason is because such different persons must join in it and the sins of some are more numerous and grievous than the sins of others so that all persons cannot possibly make the same particular confession But I think our confessions viz. the daily one and that in the Communion-Office are so judiciously fram'd as to avoid both extreams and I am persuaded all persons may profitably use them However the confession of sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments is as particular as can reasonably be desir'd and by this a Man may confess all his known offences in thought word or deed If a Man must not use a confession that is possible to be mended he must never confess at all and if a Form of confession were compos'd by the wisest Dissenters I suppose no more wou'd be pretended but that it might be profitably us'd Now this may be said of our Form and ought to end the dispute Indeed there are examples of Jeremiah Nehemiah c. confessing such sins as they were not guilty of but this was done upon solemn humiliation for those known and public Idolatries of the Nation which had brought God's heavy judgments upon them or for common and scandalous transgressions afterward They consider'd themselves as a part of the Community which had provok'd God and they bare a part in the Calamity and in the confession as if they had offended as greatly as their Country-men But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those confessions upon such public humiliations and those that are fit for the Ordinary Service of the Church I may add that particular confessions are more properly the matter of private Devotion and if we did seriously practise strict examination and secret contrition in our Closets we shou'd then find our affections prepar'd to comply with those

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. ●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 act of receiving as was before noted and that for the same Reason saies a (b) Alex. Hales de Miss● 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

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

with Heathens in their filthy Mysteries nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that 's Immoral do's it therefore follow that they must not do their Duty because sometimes it cannot be done but in their Company Must they abstain from the public Worship of God and the Lord's Table to which they are commanded because Evil Men who till they repent have nothing to do there rudely intrude themselves As for St. John's words Revel 18.4 Come out of her my People that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues they are a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of Idolaters and according to most Interpreters those in particular of the Church of Rome but the Text do's not afford the Dissenters the least Plea to separate from us who are Reform'd from Popery and retain nothing of it but what it retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church I have nothing now to add but that the eminent Dissenters do utterly (g) See Vines on the Sacrament p. 235 242. Platform c. 14. §. 8. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 37 38. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacri● desert p. 97. Cawdrey's Reformation promoted p. 131. Manton on Jude p. 496. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. Burroughs's Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 242. disclaim this Plea of Mixt-Communion Mr. Vines saies it is Donastical and others as Mr. Brinsly and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismatics in defence of their Separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter advises And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those who separate upon this account do it very unjustly that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of Separation that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church tho' such be not cast out that the suffering of profane and scandalous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saies Mr. Burroughs an errour on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they shou'd be suffer'd to come think that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents agree in and endeavour (h) See Vines on the Sacrament p. 31 32 44 242 246. Vindicat of Presb. Gov. p. 134. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 47. Firmin's Separ Exam. p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Re●or p. 71. Tombes's Theod. p. 74. Hooker's Survey Pref. A 3. Platform c. 14. §. 8 9. Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53 55. Burroughs's Gospel-worsh Serm. 11. p. 236 237. Ball 's Tryal c. 10. p. 191 250 211. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's Right of Presbyt Blake's Vindic. p. 235. Cotton's Inf. Bapt. p. 102. Cartwright on Proverb Edwards's Apol. Baxter's Christian Direct p. 707. Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. Bains on the Ephes c. 1. v. 1. p. 5. to prove by several Arguments Nay they answer an Objection drawn from 1 Cor. 5.11 If any Man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator c. with such an one no not to eat and tell us First That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion it must be done by the Church and not by a private Person But you are not commanded to separate from the Church if they exclude him not So Mr. Baxter c. Secondly That it concerns not Religious but Civil Communion and that not all Civil Society or Commerce but Familiar also For which they produce several Reasons 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread which is a Token of Love and Friendship in the phrase of Scripture not to partake of or to be shut from the Table is a sign of Familiarity broken off So Mr. Ball c. 2. The eating which is here forbidden is allow'd to be with the Heathen but it 's the civil eating which is only allow'd to be with an Heathen therefore it 's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother So Mr. Jenkin c. (i) See Baxter's Defence part 2. p. 27. Ball 's Tryal p. 200. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 75 122 126. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 40 45 48. Tombes's Theodul p. 128 167 210. Grave Confut. part 1. p. 17 18. part 4. p. 57. Vines on the Sacrament p. 219 226 333 246. Cartwright's Def. of the Admon p. 98 99 106. Goodwin on the Ephes p. 487 488. Blake's Vindic. c. 31. p. 236 238. Gillisp Nihil respondet p. 33. Knutton's Queries Throughton's Apol. p. 65. Baxter's Cure Dir. 47. p. 231. Owen's Evangel Love c. 3. p. 77. Brian's Dwelling with God Sermon 6. p. 301. Firmin's Separat Exam. p. 28. Collins's Provocator Provocatus p. 144 151. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. p. 454. And as for other Objections Mr. Baxter's answer is sufficient If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases besides our Separation from the Infidel and Idolatrous World or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies and No-Churches is but one of these two sorts 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys or 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them but that the private Members shou'd separate from the Church because such Persons are not cast out of it shew me one Text to prove it if you can To conclude this objection of Mixt-Communion proves nothing but a supercilious Arrogance and a great want of Charity in those that make it What care they may take in their new way of Discipline I cannot tell but our Church has given the Minister a power of rejecting scandalous Sinners (k) See Rubr. after the Communion and this is as much as can be done for the close Hypocrite will escape the narrowest search Every Man is charg'd to examine himself and not another and 't wou'd be well if all wou'd do so For he that enquires seriously into his own sins will find great cause to be humble and penitent but he that is curious to pry into the miscarriages of others will be apt to be vain proud self-conceited and censorious which will make him as unfit for the Table of the Lord as any of those Faults which he so scornfully condemns in his Neighbours that he esteems himself and the Ordinances of God polluted by their Company CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances and Better Edification among the Dissenters Answer'd WELL but tho' our Communion be not sinful yet they can find Purer Ordinances and

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

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

men He that minds those Things most on which the Efficacy of his Prayers for Christ's sake do's Depend will not Need new Phrases every time to raise his Affections and the more a Man is concern'd about the Necessary Preparation for the Sacrament the less afraid will he be of offending God by Kneeling at it For he will find that True Religion consists in the Constant Practice of Holiness Righteousness and Charity which make a Man really Better and more Like to God 3. If Men were but really Willing to receive satisfaction this alone wou'd half conquer their Scruples but when they are fond of them and nourish them and will neither hear nor read what is to be said on the other side there can be but Little Hopes of recovering them to a Right Apprehension of things Wou'd they come once to distrust their own Judgments to suppose that they may perhaps be all this while mistaken wou'd they calmly and patiently hear faithfully and impartially consider what is said or written against them as eagerly seek for satisfaction as Men do for the cure of any Disease they are subject unto wou'd they I say thus diligently use all fit means and helps for the removal of their Scruples before they troubled the Church with them it wou'd not prove so very difficult a Task to convince and settle such teachable Minds When they have any Fear or Suspicion about their worldly concerns they presently repair to those who are best skill'd and most able to resolve them and in their judgment and determination they commonly acquiesce and satisfy themselves Has any Man a Scruple about his Estate whether it be firmly setled or he has a true legal Title to it The way he takes for satisfaction is to advise with Lawyers the most eminent for Knowledge and Honesty in their Profession If they agree in the same Opinion this is the greatest assurance he can have that it is right and safe Thus is it with one that doubts whether such a custom or practice be for his Health the opinion of known and experienc'd Physicians is the only proper means to determine him in such a Case The reason is the same here When any private Christian is troubled and perplex'd with Fears and Scruples that concern his Duty or the Worship of God he ought in the first place to have recourse to the public Guides and Ministers of Religion who are appointed by God and are best fitted to direct and conduct him I say to come to them not only to dispute with them and pertly to oppose them but with modesty to propound their doubts and meekly to receive Instruction humbly begging of God to open their Understandings that they may see and embrace the truth taking great care that no evil affection love of a Party or carnal Interest influence or byass their Judgments I do not by this desire Men to pin their Faith upon the Priest's Sleeve but only diligently to Attend to their Reasons and Arguments and to give some due Regard to their Authority For 't is not so Absurd as some may Imagine for the Common People to take upon Trust from their Lawful Teachers what they are not Competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty is how a private Christian shall govern himself when the very Ministers of Religion disagree By what Rule shall he chuse his Guide I answer 1. If a Man be tolerably able to Judge for himself let him impartially hear both sides and think it no Shame to Change his Mind when he sees good Reason for it Cou'd we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church wou'd every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men. For we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. As for those who are not capable of Judging they had better Depend on those Ministers who are Regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than on any other Teachers that they can chuse for themselves I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies which are above the sphere of Common People not of such things as Concern the Salvation of all Men which are plain and evident to the Meanest Capacities When therefore in such Cases about which we cannot easily satisfy our selves we follow the Advice of the Authoriz'd Guides if they chance to Mislead us we have something to say for our selves our error is more Excusable as being occasion'd by those whose Judgment God commands us to respect but when we chuse Instructors according to our own Fancies if we then prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into sin we may Thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely Accountable for such mistakes Thus if a Sick Person shou'd miscarry under a Licens'd Physician he has this contentment that he us'd the wisest means for Recovery but if he will hearken only to Quacks and then grow worse and worse he must charge his own Folly as the Cause of his Ruin 4. We shou'd throughly consider what is the true Notion of Lawful and how it differs from what is Necessary and from what is Sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God has expresly commanded that is sinful which God has forbidden that is lawful which God has not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbidden For Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4.15 There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where Kneeling at the Sacrament is forbidden in Scripture and Sitting is requir'd where Praying by a Form is forbidden and Extempore Prayers are injoin'd then indeed the Dispute wou'd soon be at an end but if neither the one nor other can be found as most certainly they cannot then Kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin Nay where they are requir'd by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another notion of lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself has not prescrib'd and appointed or that has been abus'd to evil Purposes but having fully confuted these two Mistakes in the Second and Eighth Chapters I shall pass them over here 5. I desire those who Scruple to comply with our Church to consider that there never was nor ever will be any public Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The

our Church is sufficient for this encounter She designs to make Men good by making them first judicious but some others desire to bring them to their side by catching of their imaginations and so some new device shall in time bring them over to a new Party Dissention it self amongst Protestants weakens their interest and that which weakens one side strengthens another Many that are wearied with endless wrangling are too apt for quiet sake to run to infallibility Some Dissenters prepare the way for Popery by running into another extreme to avoid it By decrying Episcopacy Liturgy Festivals c. as Popish they condemn that as Popish which is decent and Christian and so bring Popery into reputation For men will be apt to say if such good things be Popish surely that which is Popish is also Primitive and Evangelical What we have examin'd is good and probably the rest may be of the same kind It appears also from the History of our late Wars that Popery gains ground by the ruin of our Church For it made such a progress in those times that the Dissenters charge the Jesuits with the King's murther thereby tacitly owning that they had so great a power over some of them as to make them their instruments in it 'T is evident to any man that Popery was not then rooted out (n) Vid. Rob. Mentit de Salmonet Hist des troubles de la grand Bret. lib. 3. p. 165. Short view of the troub p. 564. Arbit gov p. 28. Whitl Mem. p. 279 280 282. Exact Coll. p. 647. 't is notorious that many Priests and other Papists fought and acted for the Parliament against the King Nay in 49 there was a design to (o) ibid. p. 405. settle the Popish Discipline in England and Scotland The Papists generally sheltred themselves under the Vizor of (p) Edwards's Gangr par 2 p. 10. Independency A College of Jesuits was settled at (q) B. of Heref. Narrat to the Lds. p. 7. Come in 52 and 155 were reconciled to Rome that year· Cromwel (r) Cromwel's Declar. Oct. 31. 1655. said that he had some proof that Jesuits had been found amongst the Discontented Parties and Dr. Bayly the Papist (ſ) Dr. Bayly's Life of Bp. Fisher p. 260 261. courted him as the hopes of Rome One of his Physicians (t) Elen. mot Par. 2. p. 347. saith he was Treating with the Papists for Toleration but brake off because they came not up to his Price and because he fear'd it would be offensive We are (u) Hist Indep Part 2. p. 245 c. told also that an agreement was made in 49 even with Owen Oneal that bloody Romanist and that he in pursuance of the Interest of the State rais'd the Siege of Londonderry A great door was open'd to Romish Emissaries when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were by public order taken away and the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath reviv'd in those days by (w) Cotton's Lr. Exam. p. 4 5. Simplicit defence p. 22. Min. of Lond. Test p. 18. Williams Gorton c. help'd equivocating Papists to an Evasion as I fear it may the Quakers at this day It was the Church of England that kept out Popery in those times The patient sufferings of her Members prov'd that they were not Popish or earthly-minded and the Writings of Laud Chillingworth Bramhal Cosins Hammond c. kept men stedfast in the Protestant Religion To this we may add that the Papists themselves think their Cause is promoted by our Divisions as appears from 2 Jesuits viz. Campanella in his discourse of the Spanish Mon. cap. 25. p. 157. Printed at Lond. in English in 54. and Contzen's Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. Sect. 9. And they act accordingly for they widen our breaches that themselves may enter and hope that we shall be dissolv'd at last by our distempers They expose Protestants as a Disunited People and ask men how they can in prudence join with those who are at Variance among themselves As for the design of advancing the Protestant Religion to greater Purity and Perfection by dissetling the Church it is not likely to be effected for six reasons First the dissetling that which is well setled corrupteth Religion by removing Charity which is the Spirit of it It lets men loose that cannot govern themselves it moves men to Atheism Idolatry and contempt of the Church and confirms them in sin It exposes the Church for a prey to the Enemy as it did formerly in Africa and Egypt Those that dissent from a National Church generally move for alterations in it when there is a ferment in the State and in such seasons a Church may be pull'd in sunder but there is not temper enough to set it together to advantage State-dissenters generally begin Revolutions with the pretence of Reforming Religion and well-meaning Dissenters when in such hands can establish nothing but what pleases their secular Leaders A change in the Church naturally produces some change in the State and who can secure the event for the better None can foresee all the ill consequences of disturbances When the vessel is stirr'd the lees come up and Religion is made less pure by commotions Politicians promise fair and use conscientious men to serve a turn but afterwards they take other measures Men may intend well but by using the illegal Arm they frequently render that which was well setled much worse by their unhinging of it Secondly in the Times of Vsurpation which began with pretence of a more Pure Religion our Dissentions caus'd great Corruptions both in Faith and Manners The War was Preach'd up as the Christian Cause and many believ'd that God wou'd not lay the greatest villanies to the charge of an elect person The instances of their extravagancies are endless and the Lords and Commons as well as the Ministers were (u) Vid. Ordin Feb. 4. 1646. Min. Testim p. 31. highly sensible of them Thirdly if by Purity of Religion be meant such Doctrine Discipline and Life as the Gospel teaches and a removal of human inventions that Purity is in our Church already and as for her Injunctions they are like those of the Primitive Church Rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ But if by Purity of Religion be meant a fewness of parts as the Quakers believe their way is purer because they have taken away Sacraments and outward Forms by the same reason the Papists may say that their Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is more pure than that of the Protestants because they have taken the Cup from it But it must be consider'd that that which makes a Pure Church is like that which makes a pure Medicine not the fewness of the ingredients but the goodness of them how many soever they be and the aptness of them for the procuring of health Therefore our Church being already Pure the ruin of it will not tend to the purity

Communion with the Church then Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.

with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say they according to his ability from whence they infer that in his daies the Ministers Pray'd by their own gifts and abilities To this I answer that the words do signify with all his might i. e. with his utmost fervency For the same words are spoken of the People in the same Book p. 60. who did not compose their own Prayer at the Eucharist and the same Phrase is us'd in the same sence by Nazianzen Orat. 3. 2 dly Because Tertullian in his Apology affirms that Christians did Pray without a Monitor or Prompter because they did Pray from their hearts they think he alludes to a custom of the Heathen who in their public worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words and to what God they were to Pray Now since the Christians Pray'd without a Monitor therefore say they they Pray'd without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in To which I answer 1. That without a Monitor cannot signify without any one to dictate a Form of words For in their public Prayers the Minister was the Mouth of the People and therefore whether he Pray'd by Form or extempore his words were a Form to the People Whatever therefore this obscure Phrase means 't is certain it cannot mean without a Form unless it means without a Minister too 2. It seems to me most probable that by without a Monitor is meant without any one to correct them when either the People repeated or the Minister recited the public Prayers falsly For (g) A. Gell. Noct. Att. l. 13. c. 21. Rosin Antiq. l. 3. c. 33. the Heathen Priests began their Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta and proceeded with the invocations of all the greater Deities by name Now that none of the greater God's might be pretermitted and (h) Plin. l. 28. c. 2. none of the Prayers falsly or disorderly recited or repeated (i) Liv l. 4. one Priest read out of a Ritual and another was appointed for a Public Monitor to oversee and correct such mistakes as might be made When therefore Tertullian saies We Pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we Pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether out of a Book or Extempore but that we Pray without one to oversee to admonish the Priests or People when they dictate or repeat falsly Because saies he we Pray from our hearts that is either by joining our affections and desires with the Priest without repeating the words or by saying our Prayers by heart so that we need none to correct us For Tertullian affects to express the Greek and therefore 't is probable his de pectore or from the heart may be a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart So that Tertullian's words do rather argue for the use of Forms than against them The Third and last testimony against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Socrates Scholasticus whose words Hist lib. 5. c. 22. they thus translate Every where and in all worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words And therefore say they 't is very unlikely they shou'd Pray by Forms But we must observe that he had been speaking of the different ceremonies and customs of the chief Churches and then concludes Every where and among all worships of Prayer there are not two to be sound not that speak the same words but that agree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same thing Where by worships of Prayer he means rites of Prayer which the Churches differ'd in And how do's it follow that because they did not use the same rites and ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer For even now we see there are different rites and ceremonies of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer 2. Therefore I am to prove that Forms were us'd in the Primitive times by a short Historical account of the matter of fact 'T is probable that in the first Age there was a gift of Praying Extempore by immediate inspiration and while this gift continu'd perhaps there might be no other Form in public Worship but only that of the Lord's Prayer But 't is probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it Forms were compos'd after the method of those inspir'd Prayers For 't is most likely that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the public Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of Praying by a Form For 't is strange that if Forms were an innovation such a remarkable and public innovation shou'd be introduc'd without the least contest or opposition For tho' some innovations did creep in yet every one of that public nature alwaies found powerful adversaries to withstand it But not to insist upon probabilities wee 'l enquire into matter of fact The Liturgies of Saint Peter St. Mark and St. James tho' corrupted by latter Ages yet are doubtless of great antiquity and probably even from the Apostles times For besides many things which have a strong relish of that Age that of St. James was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time who wrote a Comment upon it even in his younger years and 't is declar'd by (k) Allat de Lit. Sti. Jac. Proclus and the (l) Concil Trull c. 32. Sixth general Council to be of St. James's own Composure and 't was probably receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem within 170 years after the Apostolical Age. And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles seems highly probable For First all the Form Sursum corda is there and in St. Cyril's Comment and the same is in the Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and the Constitutions of Clemens which all agree are of great antiquity and St. Cyprian who was living within an 100 years after the Apostles (m) De Orat. Dom. mentions it as a Form then us'd and receiv'd and St. Austin tells us that Form is words deriv'd from the very age of the Apostles The same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular Hist lib. 18. c. 53. 'T is evident that from that Primitive Age there was a Form of questions and answers prescrib'd in Baptism from the questions and answers which Tertull. De Resur Carn St. Cypr. 76.80 Origen in Numer Hom. 5. speak of And if the Minister may be limited to a Form of question why not to a Form of Prayer there being as great a necessity to prescribe for the latter as for the former But that de facto there were Forms of Prayer as well as Questions and Answers us'd in Baptism Clemens's Constitutions affirm and some of the Prayers are there inserted l. 7.

And that Christians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their public Worship is evident from the Names given to public Prayers for they are call'd the (n) Justin Apol. 2. Ignat. Epist ad Magn. Common-Prayer (o) Orig. cont Celf. l. 6. Constituted Prayers and (p) Cypr. de Laps serm 14. Solemn Prayers which last was the Title by which the Heathens distinguisht their (q) Vid. Ovid. de fast lib. 6. Stat. lib. 4. Senec. in Oedip. act 2. scen 2. public Forms of Prayer and consequently in the Language of that Age must signifie a public Form (r) De Spir. S. c. 27. 29. St. Basil fetches the Glory be to the Father c. from the tradition of the Apostles and cites it from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar and from Dionysius of Alexandria who was living in the year 200 and Clemens of Alexandria who was living in the year 160 sets down these words as the Christian Form of Praising God (ſ) Paedag. Praising the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost So that this Form is older than the time of the Arians for they are sharply (t) Theod. Hist l. 2. c. 24. reprov'd by the Orthodox Fathers for the alteration of it And indeed a great part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns which must necessarily be compos'd into set Forms Tertull. Apol. cap. 2. and before him Lucian in Philop. and Justin Martyr also Epist ad Zen. Heren speak of their singing such Hymns They spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms saies Lucian and Pliny saies that early in the Morning 't was their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as God which Hymn was doubtless of human composure there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length as to take up a considerable part of their public Service Eusebius tells us that very early there were various Psalms and Odes compos'd by Christians concerning the Divinity of Christ (u) Euseb Hist lib. 5. and that Paulus Samosatenus was condemn'd for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ as being the composition of Men of late daies (w) ibid. Hist lib. 7. tho' in all probability those Hymns were compos'd within much less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age. But as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of it was earlier for it cou'd not be much above ten years after the death of St. John that Pliny gave this account of the Christians to Trajan and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of was us'd in the Age of the Apostles About the same time Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they us'd in their public Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service (x) Lucian Philop. which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of Since therefore the Primitive Worship did in a great measure consist of Hymns which were Forms of Praise intermixt with Prayer and some of these of human composure this is an evident Testimony of the Primitive use of Forms And doubtless they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse cou'd not but think it lawful to pray by Form in prose Now that Praying in Meeter or compos'd Hymns was a very early practice in the Christian Church is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions where it is injoin'd Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another (y) Constitut Apost l. 2. cap. 5. which way of singing was so very ancient that Eusebius (z) Euseb Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 171. urges it as an Argument to prove the Essenes Christians because they sung by turns answering one another and how cou'd they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers unless they had constant Forms of Prayer But that they had such Responsals in Prayer is evident because when Julian for the credit of Gentilism wou'd needs dress it up (a) Soz. Hist l. 5. c. 15. after the Order of the Christian Worship one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was in their constituted Prayers that is not in having constituted Forms of Prayer for that the Heathen had before but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had that is as Nazianzen (b) Nazian Orat. 1. p. 102. explains it a Form of Prayer to be said in parts for this way of Praying in parts Nicephorus (c) Niceph l. 13. c. 8. derives from Ignatius who was a Scholar of the Apostles All which to me is a plain demonstration of the great Antiquity of Forms And that in Constantine's time the Church us'd public Forms of Prayer is evident from that often-cited place of Eusebius (d) Euseb de Laud. Constant where he tells us of Constantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was We acknowledge thee O God alone c. (e) Id. de vit Constant c. 20. which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words But it 's objected that this Form was compos'd only for the use of his Soldiers who were a great part of them Heathens and that Constantine's composing it is a plain evidence that at that time there were no public Forms in the Church for if there had what need Constantine have compos'd one To which I answer That this Form indeed was compos'd only for his Heathen Soldiers for as for his Christian Soldiers the story tells us that he gave them liberty to go to Church (f) Ibid. c. 19. And therefore all that can be gather'd hence is that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Soldiers which is no great wonder for if they had it 's very unlikely that the Heathen Soldiers wou'd have us'd it But that they had Forms is evident because he calls the Prayers which Constantine us'd in his Court according to the manner of the Church of God (g) Ibid. c. 17. Authoriz'd Prayers which is the same Title which he (h) Ibid. c. 18. gave to that Form which he made for his Heathen Soldiers And therefore if by the Authoriz'd Prayers which he prescrib'd to his Soldiers he meant a Form of Prayers as 't is evident he did then by the Authoriz'd Prayers which he us'd in his Court after the manner of the Church he must mean a Form of Prayer also And since he had a Form of Prayer in his Court after the manner of the Church the Church must have a Form of Prayers too 'T is plain then that the three first Centuries had public Forms of Prayer after which not to insist upon the Liturgies of St. Basil St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose we have undeniable testimonies of the same See St. Chrysost 2. ad Corinth Homil. 18. St. Austin de Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 6. and Concil

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

whom they know may sometimes mistake their Passion for their Zeal and reake their Anger or their Faction in their Prayers or let drop an Errour before they are aware or express themselves so as an honest mind may not be able to join So that in joining with an Extempore Prayer a Man must judge what is said before he can consent to it and if he meet with a rub the Minister goes on in the mean time and the Man is left behind at a loss and perhaps confounded before he can join again and no sooner perhaps is he well fixt but he is troubled again with the same inconveniency all which is easily prevented by the use of Forms 4. Forms do not divert the affections of the People from the Matter of Prayer as Extempore Prayers do which disturb Devotion whenever the Minister hesitates or blunders or expresses himself improperly for then some will be pitying others contemning others carping c. And if he perform well some will admire his Phrase Judgment Readiness c. all which things do call off their minds from the Matter 5. The Decency and solemnity of public Worship which things are highly advantageous to the Devotion of the people are better secur'd by Forms than by Extempore Prayers where they depend wholly upon the Minister For if he happens to be a Man of a bad memory or apt to blunder or be dull c. then the Devotion of the Congregation may be turn'd into scorn and laughter and of this I have seen too many sad experiments But suppose him to be an able and Pious person yet he may be liable to indispositions of body dulness inadvertency c. with outward cares and accidents and if he be he must many times Pray confusedly or with broken indecent expressions and omit a great deal of the matter Sometimes he will be at a loss and be forced to use fulsome repetitions and how is it possible almost but that a great deal of flat and empty nonsence undigested conceptions and unadvis'd expressions shou'd escape from his lips before he is aware And this if he has a grain of modesty must put him into greater confusion and so amaze him that he will be hardly able to recover himself Now is it not a hard case that the Devotions of Five hundred or a thousand Persons must be disturb'd by one Man's disorders For they must either Pray after him or not Pray at all But all these evils are prevented by set public Forms 6. Those that join in a Form may be better secur'd of the reality and sincerity of their own Devotion For they knowing before-hand the expressions of the Form are not so much surpriz'd with the Phrases and therefore if they find themselves affected may more safely conclude 't is the Matter and not the words that moves them Whereas a Man that is tickled with the words of an Extempore Prayer may fancy himself to be very devout when he has nothing of true Devotion in him I might add more but I think these things are enough to convince an unprejudiced person that Forms of Prayer are so far from hindring that they very much help Devotion But if any Man shall still object that he finds by experience that Forms do actually deaden his Devotions because his affections are flat and heavy when he uses them but he is almost transported when he hears a Man Pray Extempore I beseech him to consider whether his experience be not founded in prejudice and whether his prejudice ought to prescribe to the whole Church 'T is certain other Men find by experience that joining with a Form do's help their Devotion so that here is experience against experience Now since two contrary experiences cannot proceed from the nature of the thing therefore one must proceed from the temper of the Man Now I have prov'd and many Men find by experience that Forms do help Devotion and therefore if he do's not find the same the fault must be in himself and I doubt not but if he will consider the matter impartially he will soon be of the same opinion For we have Scripture and Reason on our side but he is led by his passions which may be charm'd and flatter'd and will betray him into strong delusions 'T is plain 't is not the matter of the Extempore Prayer that affects him for that is the same as in a Form and if he be taken with the chiming of words 't is but a sensitive delight and he must not make a Division in the Church only to gratifie his fancy Besides I desire him strictly to examine his Conscience whether he has not often been as dull at a conceiv'd Prayer as at the public Forms If so then the person is to be blam'd and not the Form and he is guilty of a double iniquity who divides the Church without sufficient cause and charges his own formality upon a good and wholesome constitution 2. They pretend that Praying in a Form of Words do's stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer But before I answer this Objection it will be necessary to explain 1. What it is that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer 2. What is meant by stinting or limiting the Spirit in Prayer First Then what is it that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer I answer There are some things attributed to him which were Extraordinary and Temporary and others that were Ordinary fixt and standing The Extraordinary and Temporary were the immediate Inspiration of the matter of Prayer and an ability to express it in known or unknown Languages We read in the Old Testament of Prayers and Praises which for the matter of them were immediately inspir'd Thus Pray'd Hannah who as the Targum paraphrases it Pray'd by the Spirit of Prophesy that is by immediate Inspiration For Praying and Praising by immediate Inspiration are frequently call'd Prophesying 1 Sam. 10.5 Numb 11.25 1 Chron. 25.1 Luc. 1.67 for the matter of all those Prayers and Praises together with those in the Book of Psalms and sundry others recorded in Scripture was immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost But after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated 't is certain that not only the matter but the very Language of their Prayers was immediately Inspir'd This gift was peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity because the design of it was not only to enable the first planters of the Gospel to perform their office in the Languages of the several Nations they were sent to but also to be a sign from God as other Miracles were for the confirmation of the Gospel Tongues were for a sign to them that believe not 1 Cor. 14.22 and therefore since all Miracles were Extraordinary and after a time to cease certainly this Miraculous gift of Prayer was so too However because many Dissenters think it not an extraordinary but a Standing Gift which the Spirit will communicate to

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 ●●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

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

sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as

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 o● 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 Securi●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

Table-g●sture and expresses Fellowship with Christ c. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace and yet 't is not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper 4. And lastly Suppose that an Independent when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant shou'd signify his assent by holding up his hand or the like this is an outward and visible sign of no less then a new state of life that is of being made a Member of Christ's Church and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it and yet this was never charg'd upon them by the Presbyterians as introducing a New Sacrament Now from all these instances 't is evident how unreasonable a thing it is that our using the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he the Infant shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ crucify'd c. shou'd be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But 't is objected that our Convocation c. 30. declares That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated c. Now say they Baptism is it self a Seal of Dedication to God and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross is adding a New Sacrament To this I answer that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptiz'd Person and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration That this is the meaning of our Church is evident if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together Both the Rubric and Canon say that Baptism is compleat without the sign of the Cross It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock before 't is sign'd with the Cross Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism is acknowledg'd compleat without or before the sign of the Cross we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism that is the one is the sign of the Dedication and the other the Dedication it self So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptiz'd Person is admitted to and what engagement he lies under Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number We receive this Child c. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. whereas in Baptism the Minister alone as the immediate Agent of Christ pronounces in the singular number I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From what has been said I hope it appears that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it that may in the least justify a separation from us CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd THO' the Communion-Office for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferr'd by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet it has not past free from exception For I. 'T is objected against it that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body and our Souls wash'd by his most precious Blood implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleans'd by the Blood of Christ and only the Body by Christ's Body But I answer that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine the Priest saies The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was c. And therefore 't is plain that our Church teaches that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ Nor do's the mentioning of one alone exclude the other for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone 1 Cor. 10.17 and sometimes of the Wine alone 1 Cor. 12.13 and yet all Men must grant that he meant both II. 'T is said that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person 's hands with a Form of words recited to every one of them as we do But I answer 1. That this do's not appear from Christ's words for the Evangelists may well be suppos'd to give a short account of the Institution and then what might be particularly said or done to every one wou'd be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all 2. Suppose that our practice do's vary from this circumstance of the Institution it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinner-time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Man think that when great numbers are to be Baptiz'd together the Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. may not lawfully be express'd severally to every Person And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsutable to the Institution of Christ or the nature of the Sacrament and the alteration of it wou'd be for the worse and abate the Solemnity of its Administration See Falkner 's Libert Eccles p. 218 c. III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament and therefore I shall consider it largely and endeavour to shew 1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament 2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example 3. That 't is not unsutable for its being no Table-gesture 4. That 't is not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages 5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes First then Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other and if Authority did not restrain our Liberty we might either sit kneel or stand without the least violation of the Law of God The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament which the Scripture relates in several places (a) Matth. 26.26 c. Mark 14.22 c. Luke 22.19 c. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. were the Representatives

both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule An example may help to interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a rule no example is a competent warrant and if the example be according to the rule 't is not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by because he was an Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example

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

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

in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chri●● suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and sa●vation But it may ●e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinous●y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconve●ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' t●s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their

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

their separation upon these accounts that they think themselves safe and that they are able to justify themselves to God and all the world Now in answer to this I grant that if the things they except against be really forbidden by God then they are not to be blam'd for then separation from us is not a sin but a duty Nay supposing that they think that to be forbidden which is not really forbidden yet so long as they think so they cannot act against their mistaken Conscience without sin But then the point we stand upon is this that our Governours do require nothing that is forbidden by God and therefore their thinking our Communion unlawful will not acquit them from being guilty of sin before God I am not now to answer the particular objections against our establishments This has been sufficiently done already in the several foregoing Chapters The Point I am concern'd in is this whether a Man 's thinking our Communion to be unlawful when indeed it is not unlawful will justify his separation from it and I answer that a Man's false persuasion will not justify his breaking of God's Law So that if God's Law do's command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it my false persuasion will not acquit me from sin before God if I separate from it without just cause Tho' the truth of this appears from what I have said before yet I shall further confirm it by asking this question When St. Paul thought himself bound in duty to persecute Christians was his persecution sinful or no Yes surely for he call's himself the greatest of sinners for that very reason And therefore a Man's thinking a thing to be a duty or lawful will not acquit him before God for doing that thing if it be against God's Law So that it infinitely concerns all Dissenters to consider well before they separate For Schism is a crying sin and as vehemently spoken against by Christ and his Apostles and the Fathers as any sin whatever Let Dissenters look to it that they be not guilty of it for their false persuasion that our Communion is unlawful will not make their separation to be no Schism This matter will appear a little more evident if we put the case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concern'd Suppose a Papist that heartily believes Popery to be the only true Religion do's in obedience to it worship Images and the Host This person wou'd certainly abhor these practices did he think them to be Idolatrous but he believes them to be necessary duties And yet we do all charge such Papists with Idolatry tho' they disclaim it and profess they do no more than their duty when they give divine worship to such objects And we charge them rightly in this for if it be really Idolatry by God's word to do so then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do so let his opinion be what it will For a Man 's false opinion doth not alter the nature of things Now the case is the same in the matter before us for causeless separation is as properly Schism as worshipping a Creature is Idolatry and he is as much a Schismatic who thinks it his duty to separate as he is an Idolater who thinks it his duty to worship a Creature A Man's mistake according to the greater or less culpability of it will more or less excuse him before God in both instances but it cannot change the nature either of Schism or Idolatry But it will be said What shall a Man do He cannot Conform with a safe Conscience and yet he sins if he do not I answer he is to take all imaginable care to rectify his mistakes and then he may do his duty without sinning against his Conscience Now the only way of doing this is by laying aside Pride Passion Interest and all other Carnal prepossessions and endeavouring seriously and impartially to understand his duty considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides advising with the wisest Men and above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and spirit of the Christian Religion practising all undoubted duties and begging God's Assistance for the Matters in question Well but supposing a Man has done all this and after all his endeavours is persuaded that he cannot join with us without sin what shall this Man do This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it First We do heartily wish that this was the Case of our Dissenters for then I am persuaded our scandalous divisions wou'd presently be at an end But alas we fear they have not done their duty in this Matter that they have not heartily endeavour'd to satisfy themselves If they had surely they shou'd before they pronounc'd Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text to prove it so For the Texts they produce are such as had they in the least examin'd them cou'd scarce have been wrested to such a sence Nay the generality of Dissenters do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair If they had they wou'd think better of our way than they do For the most eminent of their own Ministers are ready to declare that tho' some things may be inconvenient yet a Lay-Person may lawfully join with us in all things nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to join in all the instances of Lay-Communion In short most of our Dissenters have taken up their opinions hand over head and scarce think it possible for them to be in the wrong Shew us a Man that has no end to serve by Religion but only to go to heaven and in the choice of his way is only concern'd that it be the way that leads him thither that is wonderfully sollicitous about his duty and will refuse no pains to understand it that in the midst of Church-divisions is modest humble and docible and believes that he and his friends may be mistaken that thinks his Governours may be wiser than himself and that every opinion that he has inconsiderately taken up ought not to be maintain'd against Authority a Man that where his duty to God seems to thwart his duty to Man endeavours to be truly inform'd and to that end begs God's assistance and uses the best helps and guides he can hears and reads the arguments on both sides and is byassed neither way I say shew us such a Man and we readily grant he has done his best to satisfy himself But then we must add that we believe such a Man will soon think it not only lawful but his Duty also to Conform Secondly If a Man has really done his best to satisfy his Conscience and yet thinks it a sin to Conform tho' his separation be materially a Schism yet he is not formally guilty of it For all those that commit Schism are not equally guilty of it Those that separate to serve a turn

best Policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be establish'd will have some flaws and defects which must be born and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never cou'd be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Goverment Discipline Public Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but Men. We must not expect in this World a Church without spot or wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lie at the catch and wait for an advantage against it Men must be willing if ever they wou'd promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and Favourable Interpretations upon Things and not strain them on purpose that they may raise more considerable Objections against them 6. If these and the like Considerations will not conquer a Man's Scruples then let him lay them aside and act against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you persuade us to Conform to the Orders of the Church tho' we are not satisfy'd in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this is the best Advice that can be given to such Scrupulous Persons It wou'd be an endless thing and Communion with any Church wou'd be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joining himself to it till he was perfectly satisfy'd about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was requir'd or was in use in that Church For indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Goverment Discipline or public Worship any more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Things of a Public Nature belong to Superiours and if they Appoint what is Indecent or Inconvenient they only are Accountable for it but 't is not the Fault of Inferiours who join with such Worship or yeild to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easy consequence contrary to the reveal'd Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with it's Orders we ought to be fully satisfy'd and persuaded that what is requir'd is forbidden by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon it and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful Causes But there is not the same necessity that we shou'd be thus fully satisfy'd about our Conformity to all things prescrib'd by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise If any one think that this Principle will introduce Popery and make People without any examination submit to every Thing which their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only Consider that there are many things in Popery which God has manifestly forbidden which render our Separation from it necessary whereas ours are at the worst only doubtful or rather not so Good as might be Devis'd and this surely makes a wide Difference in the Case But do's not St. Paul say Rom. 14.14 I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing Vnclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing Vnclean it is unclean Do's he not say He that doubteth is damn'd if he eat v. 23. and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin I answer Yes But then when I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well persuaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he has some little Exceptions against it he do's not think it best and fittest all things consider'd This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes join in our Worship which they cou'd not do did they judge it absolutely sinful So that tho' it shou'd be granted that a Man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be Lawful or no which case I have discours'd of in the foregoing Chapter yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not Unlawful tho' upon some other accounts he Scruples the doing of it Now if we have no very Weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things as we scruple at Of such Cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was requir'd by Law Eating was no Instance of Duty nor was it any waies forbid Christians Where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that which he has some suspicion of tho' he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a Man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any detriment to our selves or others tho' we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfy himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interpos'd their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischie● 1. All Fears and Scruples only about the Conveniency and Expediency of Things ought to be despis'd when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Wou'd Men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and Respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children shou'd to themselves they wou'd soon see the reasonableness of such Submissions For all Goverment and Subjection wou'd be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfy'd about the reasonableness of it was thereby excepted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according

to this Principle no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho' a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great Evil or general Mischief They are not fit to be put in the ballance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devis'd that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we cou'd invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no Man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration till it comes to be try'd yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determin'd some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere express'd like knocking a Man on the Head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion CHAP. XIV The pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd BUT there are some who tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is injoin'd by the Church of England but then there are many other godly but weaker Christians of another persuasion with whom they have long been join'd And shou'd they now totally forsake them and Conform they shou'd thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinc'd of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church Which sin say they is so very great that our Saviour tells us Matth. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a mill-stone were hang'd about his neck and that he were drown'd in the depth of the sea and in St. Paul's account 't is no less than spiritual murther a destroying him for whom Christ dy'd Rom. 14.15 These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter by shewing that No private Christian as the case now stands amongst us is obliged to absent himself from his parish-Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his Weak Brethren And this I shall do by inquiring 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother 2. What it is to Offend such an one 3. How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother I. Then a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3.1 Conversion to Christianity is call'd our New-birth and the Converts were for a while reckon'd as in an infant State and accordingly were to be most gently us'd till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age Heb. 5.14 They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines and great Prudence and Caution was to be us'd toward them lest they shou'd suddenly fly back and repent of their change For they having been Jews and Gentiles retain'd still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old Man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable The stronger and wiser Christians wou'd not stand rigidly on any little Matters but Tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now labour'd under Hence I observe 1. That the Rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suted to the Infant-state of the Church till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World The Apostle's design in all his complyances was to win many to Christ 1 Cor. 9.19 Now to do as St. Paul did wou'd alwaies be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times wherein Christianity is the National Religion than the same Cloaths which we did wear in our Infancy wou'd serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of Childrens way lest they stumble and fall but 't is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions but every one learns Christianity as he do's his Mother-Tongue St. Paul wou'd not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself labour'd hard night and day because he wou'd not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2.9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where public maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers and those who call them Hirelings and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre In short there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provides or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concern'd 2. The Dissenters according to their weak opinion of themselves are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only sober and godly Party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or Regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers or

by the passions of their Weak Brethren Whatever condescension may be due to the Weak yet 't was never intended they shou'd Govern the Wiser and who can Govern more absolutely than those whom none must displease Since then Scandalizing or giving offence do's not signify doing something which another takes ill I design to shew what is the true meaning of it in Scripture The Greek word which we translate Scandal or Offence signifies either a Trap or Snare or else more commonly something laid in the way of another which occasions his stumbling or falling by which he is bruis'd and hurt And so whatever it was that hindred Men from becoming Christ's Disciples or made them entertain unworthy thoughts of their profession or discourag'd them in it or tempted them to forsake it is call'd a Scandal or Offence It is sometimes rendred an occasion to fall Rom. 14.13 occasion of stumbling 1 Joh. 2.10 a stumbling block Rev. 2.14 or a thing that doth offend Matth. 13.41 in all which places there is the same original word Hence to Offend or Scandalize any one as 't is commonly us'd in the (a) See Matth. 17.27 and 26.31 Mark 4.17 and 6.3 Joh. 6.61 1. Cor. 1.23 New Testament is to do something which tends to fright him from Christianity to make him think hardly of it or is apt to make him Repent of his Conversion So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his Ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the mere sound of words Hence I observe Four things 1. The better Men are the harder 't is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly Persons as they wou'd be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended For how can they excel others in knowledge or goodness who are so easily drawn or tempted to sin 2. That Man that saies he shall be Scandaliz'd at what another Man do's speaks falsely For it is as much as to say that he shall be led into sin ignorantly whereas his saying so confutes his ignorance for if he knows it to be a sin he commits it wilfully 3. Since Offending or scandalizing signifies tempting to sin there can be no fear of Offending any one by Conforming to the Church because there is nothing us'd in it but what may be comply'd with without sin For the Man that fears giving Offence to the Weak is suppos'd to be satisfy'd himself that Conformity is lawful and how then shou'd he fear that his example will tempt others to sin in doing an innocent action If it be said that tho' what I do is lawful yet it may give occasion to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I may become truly guilty of giving Offence I answer that we are accountable only for the Natural tendencies of our actions and not for such consequences as wicked or silly Men may draw from them for at that rate a Man cou'd not speak or do any thing without the guilt of giving Scandal If it be said that tho' I am satisfy'd my self yet I may by my example tempt others that are not satisfy'd or that think Conformity to be sinful to follow me with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience I answer 1. that 't is as unlawful to go to separate Meetings against one's Conscience as to Conform against one's Conscience and the Man ought to fear lest he draw some to separate Meetings against their Conscience as well as he fears the drawing of others to Church against their Conscience The influence of his example is the same in both instances and the danger of Scandal is equal and therefore his own persuasion must determine his practice 2. A Man that is satisfy'd himself ought to endeavour to satisfy others especially those whom he formerly persuaded to separation by his example and when he has done thus he has done what lies in his power to prevent the ill effect and shall not be farther answerable for the consequences of what he doth 4. Since Scandalizing is leading into sin we may Scandalize others as soon by complying with them as by thwarting their humour St. Paul who circumcis'd Timothy Acts 16.3 in favour of the Weak Jews lest they shou'd have forsaken the Faith refus'd to circumcise Titus Gal. 2.3 tho' he angred the Jews by it lest they shou'd think the Jewish Law still in force And this he did because the condition of the Persons was different If he had pleas'd them he had truly Scandaliz'd them by hardening them in their folly and ignorance Mr. Baxter saies in his Cure of Church-Divisions Many a time I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the public Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that call'd the going to them a Scandal that is for fear of hardening them in a sinful Separation and Error Because I knew that was not Scandal which they call'd Scandal that is displeasing them and crossing their Opinions but hardening them in an Error or other Sin is true Scandalizing Vnderstand this or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal p. 135. This surely ought to be well consider'd of by a sort of Men amongst us who shall go to Church in the Morning and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon who halt between both and wou'd fain displease neither side but indeed give real Offence to both From all this I think it is very plain that he who is satisfy'd in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity but is afraid of giving Offence by it if he be true to his Principle ought to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church that he may not offend those very Dissenters of whom he wou'd seem to be so tender III. In the last place I am to inquire how far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brethren In answer to this I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said that the Dissenters are truly weak Persons and that there may be some danger of their being thro' their own fault Offended by our Conformity yet taking this for granted I shall plainly shew that he who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity ought not to forbear it for fear of giving such Offence to his Weak Brethren For First Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandaliz'd We must not do evil that good may come Rom. 3.8 We must not commit the least sin our selves to prevent the greatest sin in another The very best things may be perverted and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many Luke 2.24 but this do's not cancel our obligations to obey God's Laws If offence be taken at my doing any duty those only that are offended are chargeable with it Since those who fear giving Offence do themselves think Conformity

we must not omit our duty for it I shall only add that this very Rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent ought to have some restrictions but I think there are no unalterable Rules to be laid down in this affair For it being an exercise of Charity must be determin'd by the measure of Prudence according to Circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain Rules for Men's Charity in other Cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his Estate towards the Relief of the Poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own Liberty for the sake of his Brother This whole matter saies Dr. Hammond disc of Scand is to be referr'd to the Christian's Pious Discretion or Prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that Piety and that Prudence shall represent it to be most Charitable and Beneficial to other Mens Souls Secondly To avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of Persons And if this matter were rightly consider'd we shou'd soon f●●d our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal to join with our Church than to s●parate from it For 1. Our separation hardens other Dissenters in their persuasion of the unlawfulness of Conformity For they will think we separate upon the same reason with themselves and this is true Scandalizing them or Confirming them in an evil cause 2. Whatever Sect we join with we Offend all the other Parties who sometimes speak as hardly of one another as of the Conformists 3. Hereby great Offence is given to the Conformists For this separation is a public condemning of the Church and is apt to breed Scruples distast and prejudices in the well-meaning but least-knowing Members of it 4. Scandal is thereby given to Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt And if it be so sinful to Offend a little one what shall we think of Offending a Prince a Parliament c No Scandal taken at an indifferent thing can be so great as both the sin and Scandal of confusion and contempt of Authority 5. Hereby Scandal is given to the Papists who are harden'd in their own way because they only have Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists The Papists alwaies hit us in the Teeth with our Divisions whereas by our hearty Uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest this Weapon out of their hands 6. Separation is a Scandal to Religion in general It prejudices Men against it as an uncertain thing and matter of endless dispute when they see what dangerous Quarrels commence from our Religious differences and all the disorders they have caus'd shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless separations open a wide door to Atheism and all kind of Profaness and Irreligion The CONCLUSION Containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England AND now having shewn the Necessity of Maintaining constant Communion with the Church of England and answer'd those pleas by which the Dissenters endeavour to excuse their Separation from her nothing remains but that I add an earnest Persuasive to the practice of that which I have prov'd to be a Christian Duty I beseech you therefore with all the Earnestness that becomes a Matter of so great Importance and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian to suffer the Word of Exhortation duly consider what I offer to you I have shewn you in the first Chap. of this Discourse that Nothing but sinful Terms of Communion can justify a Separation and therefore you must charge our Church with sinful terms of Communion or else you cannot possibly defend your practice Suppose that there were some things in our Constitution that might be contriv'd better yet every defect or suppos'd Corruption in a Church is not warrant enough to tear the Church in pieces The question is not Whether there be any thing in our Constitution which a Man cou'd wish to be alter'd but whether any thing unlawful be appointed which will make an alteration not only desirable but necessary Whether you are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made We separate from the Church of Rome because She has corrupted the Main Principles of Religion and requires her Members to join in these Corruptions but this Charge cannot be fasten'd upon the Church of England and therefore Separation from her must be unlawful Mr. Ca●●●● (a) Institut lib. 4. sect 10 11 12. saies that Wherever the Word of God is duly preach'd and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject it's Admonitions or resist it's Counsels or set at nought it's Discipline much less separate from it and violate it's Vnity For that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a separation is a denyal of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true Vse of the Word and Sacraments This is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly design'd it against your own practice Nay the Ministers of New-England tell you that To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceiv'd or indeed in the Church which might and shou'd be tolerated and heal'd with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced tho' perhaps your self be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from public Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful If you say that the Governours may as well come down to you by forbearing what you dislike as you come up to the law by doing what it requires I beseech you to consider Whether our Case will bear this Wantonness and Whether such Expressions be consistent with your Duty I do not think it hard I confess to make out the prudence of their Determinations but I think it hard that a Public Rule shou'd not be thought Reason enough to justify things of this sort and to oblige the People to Complyance without more ado Certainly there is no prospect of Union till Men learn Humility and Modesty and are contented to be Govern'd What is the Duty of Superiours in our Case I cannot determine but sure I am that a Change tho' in

Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament