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.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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.
Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
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
Books and Laxation of Discipline in those Wars Atheism has much increas'd and they say that some undisguised Sceptics and Atheists have since the King's return been much us'd in the Cause of our Dissenters and surely such hands cannot do what well meaning zeal could not effect Nor can they settle themselves as several distinct Parties by a general Toleration For First some Dissenters believe some of the Parties to be incapable of forbearance as maintaining Principles destructive of Christian Faith and Piety This Opinion they still have of Antinomians Quakers and Muggletonians and they formerly declaim'd against the Toleration of Erastians and Independents (e) Harmon Consent p. 12. Nay many Ministers declar'd a Toleration to be an appointing a City of Refuge in Mens Consciences for the Devil to fly to a Toleration of Soul-murther the greatest murther of all others c. Secondly there is no firmness in this Union for the Union that lasteth is that of the Concord of Members in an Uniform Body Thirdly Parties cannot be kept equal in number and interest but one will always prevail and be favour'd as the Religion of the State And it is natural for the strongest to attempt to subdue all the rest so that they will not be at peace but in perpetual discord Some indeed think this inclination to the swallowing up of all other Parties is to be found almost only in the Romish Church But there is something of it to be discerned I will not say in all Churches for our own suffered Bonner himself to live yet in all Factions and Parties tho' the inequality of Power makes it not seem to be alike in all of them Parties who are not otherwise than in shew concern'd for Religion will perpetually covet after Power and Parties that are conscientious in their way will do the same For they withdraw from others because they think Communion with them to be unlawful and if they think those of another way without Repentance to be lost eternally Charity will urge them to reduce them and they will think that suffering them to wander declares them to be contented with their condition Besides experience shews that where there is Power there is little forbearance and the same men as their conditions alter speak of Mercy or Justice Thus did the (f) Vid. August Cont. Petil. Lib. 2. Donatists of old and the (g) Mr. Calamy's great dang of Cov. Ref. p. 3. Heads of the Discipline in the late Times Those that remov'd to New England for Liberty of Conscience when they had gotten footing there refus'd Indulgence to Anabaptists and Quakers and use them to this day with great severity The (h) Whitlock's Memoirs p. 276. Commons in 47 gave Indulgence to all but those that us'd the Common Prayer The Dutch suffer none to speak against those Doctrines which the State hath Authoriz'd and the Remonstrant Party contend for Superiority whenever they have any encouragement The Popish Orders mortally hate and were they not restrain'd wou'd soon devour one another And Gittichius his behaviour towards (i) Ruari Epist par 1. p. 415 416. Ruarus a Socinian of better temper shews the spirit of the Socinians those great asserters of Liberty in Religion The Quakers themselves when form'd into a society began to Excommunicate and Domineer and G. Fox (k) Spirit of the Hart. p. 41. declar'd he never lik'd the word Liberty of Conscience and wou'd have no Liberty given to Presbyterians Papists Independents and Baptists I proceed now to the Second and Chief end of the Dissenters the removal of Popery and perfecting the Protestant Religion As for the removal of Popery 't is plain that the ruin of our Church called by Diodati the Eye of the Reform'd Churches will rather advantage it both at home and abroad For she being more like the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation can better answer the Papists Objections than those that are cramp'd in a few points and therefore if Dissentions ruin her Popery will the sooner spread over Foreign Reform'd Countries And since the Romanists are so powerful diligent and cunning have so much Learning and interest and pretend to antiquity miracles c. nothing can secure us from them at home but the Christian constitution and strong nature of the Primitive Learned Pure Loyal and Pious Church of England which is a National Body already form'd that is able to detect the Forgeries of Rome and hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extreme Monsieur Daille who was not likely to be partial in this matter and was at that time engaged in a Controversy with one of our Divines (l) De Confess adv Hammond c. 1. p. 97 98. says As to the Church of England purg'd from Foreign wicked superstitious Worships and Errours either impious or dangerous by the rule of the Divine Scriptures approv'd by so many and such illustrious Martyrs abounding with Piety towards God and Charity towards Men and with most frequent examples of good works flourishing with an increase of most Learned and wise Men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time I have always had it in just esteem and till I die I shall continue in the same due veneration of it And indeed it is strange that any who know other Churches and States shou'd be displeas'd at ours which so much excels them Now is it probable that such a Church shou'd have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery than a number of divided Parties the best of which is not so Primitive Learned United Numerous or Legal and is but of yesterday These Parties have scarce any form'd way of keeping out Popery for what hinders a crafty Jesuit from gathering and modelling a particular Congregation And what a gap do they leave open for Seducers who take away all legal Tests and admit strangers to officiate upon bare pretence of spiritual illumination The Romanists have more powerful ways of drawing men from the Dissenting Parties than from the Church of England For Men separate too frequently thro' weakness of imagination for which the Church of Rome has variety of gratifications They will offer strictnesses to the severe and mental Prayer to those who contemn or scruple Forms They have Mystical Phrases for such who think they have a new notion when they darken understanding with words and accordingly the third part of a very mystical Book written by Father Benet a Capuchin was reprinted in London in 46 with a (m) A Bright Star centring in Christ our Perfection Printed for H. Overton in Popes-head Alley new Title and without the Authour's Name and it pass'd amongst some of the Parties for a Book of very sublime Evangelical Truths They use much gesture and great shew of Zeal in Preaching They have rough cords and mean garments bare feet and many other great shews of Self-denial They have Processions and other Rites to humour the soppishness of others But
and advancement of the Protestant Religion Fourthly the establishing of contrary parties by a Toleration is not the way to perfect Religion any more than the suffering of divers Errours wou'd be the means of reforming them One principle only can be true and a mixture of Sacred and Profane is the greatest impurity Fifthly Many Dissenters are not like to improve Christianity because they lay aside the Rules of discretion and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means but depend wholly upon immediate illumination without the aids of prudence Sixthly Our Church has already better means to promote Pure Religion than any the Dissenters have propos'd Any Church may be improv'd in small matters but 't were very imprudent to change the present model for any that has yet been offer'd We have all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness Primitive discipline decency and order are preserved We have as many truly pious Members as any Nation under Heaven and such excellent Writers and Preachers as God ought to be prais'd for whereas amongst the Parties the folly and weakness of Preachers is delivered solemnly as the dictate of God's Holy Spirit I may add also that the Dissenters Doctrine of God's secret Decrees their Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop their long unstudy'd effusions their leaving the Creed out of the Directory for public Worship their sitting at the Lord's Supper and that sometimes with the Hat on their alteration of the Form of giving the holy Elements and their forbidding the observation of Festivals were not so conducive to the edifying of the Body of Christ as those things which were in the late Times illegally remov'd by them It is easy enough to alter a Constitution but 't is extreme difficult to make a true and lasting improvement To conclude since it appears that Dissenters are not like to obtain their ends of establishing themselves of rooting out Popery and promoting Pure Religion by overthrowing the Church of England therefore they ought both in Prudence and Charity to endeavour after Union with it CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Establish'd Church of England THAT I may discourse with all possible clearness it will be necessary before I proceed to explain a few things 1. What is meant by a Christian Church 2. What Church-Communion is 3. What is meant by Fixt Communion and by Occasinal Communion I. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is a Body or Society in opposition to particular Men and to a confus'd multitude For tho' it do's consist of particular men yet those men are consider'd not in a private capacity but as united into a regular Society For God is not the Authour of confusion And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without order much less the Church of God which is a Society instituted for the most spiritual and supernatural ends The Jewish Church had exact order and the Christian Church with respect to the Union and Order of it's parts is not only call'd a Body but a spiritual building Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is One body in opposition to many bodies The Jewish Church was but One and therefore the Christian which is grafted into the Jewish is but One. The Church is call'd the Temple of God and the Temple was but One by the command of God Christ also tells us that there should be but one fold under one shepherd Joh. 10.16 And indeed it is extremely absurd to say that the Christian Church which has the same Foundation the same Faith the same Promises the same Priviledges should be divided into separate Bodies of the same kind For certainly where everything is common there is One Community 'T is true distinct men tho' of the same common nature have distinct Essences and this makes them distinct persons but where the very essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common there can be but one Body And therefore if one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all be common to the whole Christian Church and if no Christian has any peculiar privileges then there is but one Church I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World upon which account Christians are call'd the Chosen or Elect People of God having a peculiar Faith Laws Rites c. which are not common to the whole World It is also a Society of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is united to God because it is a Religious Society and the Men are united to themselves because they are one Society But the chief thing to be observ'd is that the Union is made by a Divine Covenant Thus God made a Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal and the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as are in Covenant with God thro' Christ I suppose all Men will grant that God only can make a Church and that the only visible way he has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and by authorizing some persons to receive others into this Covenant by such a form of admission as he shall institute which form under the Gospel is Baptism So that to be taken into Covenant with God and to be receiv'd into the Church is the same thing and he is no Member of the Church who is not visibly admitted into God's Covenant From what has been said it plainly follows 1. That a Covenant-State and a Church-State are the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is receiv'd into Covenant as such is a Church-Member 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us Members of the Christian Church but only Baptism which gives us right to all the privileges of the Covenant 4. That no Church-State can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants and therefore the Independent Church-Covenant between Pastor and People is no part of the Christian Church-Covenant because it is no part of the Baptismal vow which is one and the same for all Mankind and the only Covenant which Christ has made And why then do the Independents exact such a Covenant of Baptiz'd persons before they admit them to their Communion 5. That it is absurd to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptiz'd persons For there is but one Church which is founded upon a Divine Covenant and this we are made Members of by Baptism if therefore an Independent Church-Covenant be necessary then the Baptismal Covenant is of no value till it be confirm'd by entring into a particular Church-Covenant 6. That if the Church be founded on one Covenant then the Church is but one For those that have an interest in the same Covenant are Members
made by incense the coals were to be taken from thence and therefore surely 't was peculiar to those offices Nay just after the account of the extraordinary way of lighting the fire follows this relation of Nadab and Abihu to shew wherein they offended For before it was the office of Aaron's Sons to put fire upon the Altar and now they suffer'd for attempting to do as formerly because Heaven had declar'd to the contrary There was also a Conformity between the punishment and the sin for as fire from the Lord consum'd the burnt-offering so fire from the Lord consum'd them So that their case seems like that of Vzzah 1 Chron. 13.7 10 15.2 for they acted contrary to God's command I may add that in other places also the phrase not commanded is apply'd to things forbidden such as are call'd abominations that is idolatrous worship false Prophets c. Deut. 17.3 4. Jer. 7.31 19.5 32.35 so that since the phrase is always spoken of things plainly forbidden 't is a sign that 't is rather God's forbidding that made them unlawful than his not commanding But say they why shou'd the phrase be us'd at all in such matters if not commanded is not the same as forbidden To this I answer that not commanded is only a softer way of speaking which is usual in all languages and frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus God saies that hypocrites chuse that in which I delighted not Is 66.4 that is their abominations as we read v. 3. So the Apostle saies the Gentiles did things not convenient Rom 1.28 29. that is envy murther c. And the phrase not commanded is of the like kind when the things it 's apply'd to are alike abominable Besides if not commanded be the same as forbidden then the very notion of indifferent things is destroy'd and there is no indifferent thing in the world because a thing indifferent is as I said before that which is neither commanded nor forbidden But 't is said that all things not commanded in God's Word are additions to it and that such additions are unlawful because God saies Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it Deut. 4.2 and the Scribes are condemn'd Matth. 15.9 because they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. Now to this I reply that if by adding to the Word they mean doing what the Word forbids or appointing somewhat else instead of what God has appointed or expounding away the design of the Word or making that which is not the Word of God to be of equal authority with it as the Scribes did or giving the same efficacy to human institutions as God does to his if I say by adding to the Word they mean any of these things we think that adding to the Word is unlawful And if by diminishing they mean neglecting what the Word requires or thinking God's institutions not compleat we think that diminishing from the Word is unlawful But if they say that doing any thing not commanded in the worship of God tho' it have none of the ingredients before spoken of is a sinful adding to the Word we therein differ from them 1. Because Christ and his Apostles and all Churches have done things not commanded 2. Because this destroys the nature of indifferent things which cannot be indifferent if they be sinful additions to God's Word Besides adding is adding to the Substance and diminishing is diminishing from the Substance so that when the Substance remains intire without debasement or corruption it cannot be call'd an addition or diminution in the Scripture-sence However our Adversaries themselves are really guilty of what they charge upon us for they forbid as absolutely unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God which is not prescrib'd and certainly he that forbids what the Scripture do's not forbid do's as much add to it as he that commands what the Gospel doth not command As for the Words of the 2d Commandment Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image c. they do by no means prove that we must worship God by no other Religious rites than what he has prescrib'd 'T is true we are there commanded to worship none besides God and to worship God in a manner sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will but surely rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's Service are not there forbidden It has been said indeed that Ceremonies being invented by Man are of the same nature with images but we must observe 1. That Images are expresly forbidden and Ceremonies are not 2. That Images tend to debase God in the thoughts of those that worship him after that Manner but Ceremonies do not and therefore Ceremonies are not a breach of the 2d Commandment Ceremonies are not Essential parts of Divine Worship but only circumstances of it and certainly our Brethren cannot find fault that such circumstances are us'd to further Devotion For they themselves do plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper c. upon this very account because they think such external circumstances do further Devotion But say they if there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God the Gospel wou'd be less perfect than the Law and Christ wou'd not be so faithful in the care of his Church as Moses who was faithful in all his house Heb. 3.2 Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules for God's Worship under the Law so has Christ under the Gospel and it is as dangerous to add as to detract from them Now to this I answer that the design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to compare Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel and to shew the exact Correspondence between the Type and the Antitype and not to shew that our Saviour had as particularly prescrib'd the Order of Christian Worship as Moses had that of the Jewish The Gospel is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we wou'd have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he shou'd have done it We may better argue that since these things are not expresly determin'd under the Gospel as they were under the Law therefore they are left to the determination of our Superiours whom we are commanded to obey Nor are the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ to be judg'd of by what we fancy they shou'd have determin'd but by what they have Since we do not find in the Scriptures such particular prescriptions in Baptism as in Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in our Prayers as in the Jewish Sacrifices therefore 't is plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for want of them Christ was faithful as Moses to him that
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
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
nothing can be distinctly heard To this I answer that those who can read may bring Books and those that cannot may attend to those that are near Nay I have been credibly inform'd that some devout People that cou'd never read have attain'd to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited I shall add that for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presum'd that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted Now if the People may join in Vocal Praise why may they not also join in Vocal Prayer If it be said there is some example or warrant in Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of Scripture for the one is an imply'd warrant for the other I have already shewn Chap. 3. that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer was very anciently practis'd and if this was the Primitive way 't is probable that it was the way in the Apostles times I know 't is objected that the People's speaking to God in the Church is disorderly and a breaking in upon the Minister's office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrench'd upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and worshipped the Lord and prais'd him saying for he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7.3 Ecclesiastical Order is secur'd by the Minister's presiding in God's public Worship and guiding the performance of it but not to allow the People to make an Audible confession of sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and â—â—ted by him seems rather to favour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear of the Minister's office being invaded Some urge that Women are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 but this is strangely misapply'd to the Matter in hand For 't is plain that the speaking mention'd by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophesying Interpreting Preaching and Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching implies Authority whereas the Woman's part is obedience and subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the meaning of St. Paul 5. I proceed in the next place to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church Now if Sermons and Catechizing be allowable besides the Word of God why may not some Apocryphal Lessons be read which contain excellent Rules of life Especially since those Writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other human writings also were publicly read as well as the Scriptures and those Chapters of the Old Testament which are omitted do either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or matters of fact deliver'd in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood If it be said that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority 't is more profitable to read any part of that than any other good Lesson I answer that then no place will be left for Sermons which are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons There is no danger of any person 's mistaking the Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical Scripture because the Church speaks so plainly in her Sixth Article nor do we read them otherwise than the antient Church did I shall only add that no Apocryphal Lesson is read upon any Lord's Day in the Year and as for other exceptions I refer the Reader to Dr. Falkener's Libertas Eccles p. 164 c. 6. If any object against our Standing at the Creed Mr. Baxter saies his judgment is for it where it is required and where not doing it wou'd be aivisive and scandalous Nay elsewhere he saies that 't is a convenient praising gesture c. See his Christ Direct p. 858. I proceed now to the Vindication of the Litany against which 't is pleaded 1. That the People utter the Words of invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the matter of it to them But this Objection is of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted If it be said that the People bear too considerable a part to the disparagement of the Minister's office I answer that 't is a great mistake For 1. tho' the People say Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord yet the Minister saies the other and the far greater part of the Prayer 2. They are but these Two short and known Petitions which are excepted against and if the People may be allowed any part in Vocal Prayer I know of nothing more proper than these nor are they repeated but when they are apply'd to new and distinct matter Besides they relieve our attention and cherish our warm affections in Prayer and I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries whether if Good Lord deliver us were apply'd but once in gross to that part of the Litany we shou'd not be more apt to languish in the offering it up than as it is now ordered But 3. 'T is plain that in those Prayers the Minister has the principal and guiding part in that he utters all the distinct matter of the Prayer which the People do not whereas he utters words of invocation as well as they And consider I pray whether if the People were to utter that which is the Minister's part now and the Minister to say that only which is theirs we shou'd not have more grievous complaints that the Minister's authority was slighted in the whole design since he seem'd only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for 2. 'T is Objected that we pray to be deliver'd from all deadly sin which seems to imply that there are some sins which are not deadly Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said that these words do not necessarily imply a distinction between sins that are and sins that are not deadly But admitting that such a distinction were intended yet we must observe that tho' all sin be in its own nature deadly or damnable yet thro' the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ sins of mere infirmity are not imputed and therefore not deadly to us But there are some sins so heinous that he who commits them is thereby put into a damnable state and 't is of such sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication from Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us
3. Some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death But why shou'd we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World when we are not fit to die For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us when we are not prepar'd for it And in this sence can any good Christian find fault with the Petition But suppose that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it that is a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness are there not Reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly May they not when they find themselves drawing towards their end by their good Instructions and Admonitions make Impressions upon their Friends Companions and Relations to the bettering of them May not their Counsels be then more effectual with them than ever they were before And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so As for themselves may not the warning they have of approaching Death be improv'd to make them more sit to die than they were in their perfect Health In a word he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God and not to stand in need of those acts of Self-Examination Humiliation and Devotion by which Good Men improve the Warning of Death which Mortal Sickness or Extreme Age gives them let him suspend his Act and refuse to join with us when we pray God to deliver us from sudden death· 4. Some are offended that we pray to be deliver'd By the Mystery of Christ's Holy Incarnation c. By his Agony and bloody Sweat by his Cross and Passion c. And by the Coming of the Holy Ghost Some say this is Swearing others Conjuring and I know not what To these I answer that when we say By the Mystery of thy holy Incarnation and by thy Cross and Passion c. Good Lord deliver us we implore Christ who has already shew'd such inestimable goodness towards us by taking our Nature into his Divinity to Die upon the Cross to be Buried to Rise again to ascend into Heaven and there to intercede with the Father for us and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualifie the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World I say we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation and we plead with him by that goodness which he has already given us such great demonstrations of by those Wonders of Mercy that he has wrought for us that he wou'd now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from those Evils which we pray against And this is so reasonable so devout and affectionate so humble and thankful a way of praying that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers shou'd be so ignorant as not to understand it or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be as to deride it To conclude I must confess that of all the Prayers in our Liturgy that are of humane composition I shou'd be most unwilling to part with the Litany It seems to be what it was design'd to be A Form of Prayer apt to excite our most intense and fervent desires of God's Grace and Mercy The whole office is fram'd with respect both to matter and contrivance for the raising of the utmost Devotion of good Christians and for the warming of the coldest hearts by the heat of the Congregation And in such a disposition it is most fit to express our Charity by praying for others even all sorts of men as distinctly and particularly as public Prayers will bear CHAP. V. Of Infant-Baptism BEfore I proceed to the Vindication of our Office of Baptism I think it is proper to justify Infant-Baptism which is practis'd by us and dislik'd by some of the Dissenters And that my Discourse concerning Infant-Baptism may be the better understood I shall take the liberty of premising a few things 1. That the Original of the Jewish Church consider'd purely as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham but that of the Jewish Common-wealth from the delivery of the Law by Moses For that the Jewish Church and Common-wealth are distinct things is plain because the Apostle makes this distinction Rom. 4.13 Gal. 3.17 And therefore 2. The way to find out the Nature of the Jewish Church is to consider the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham upon which the Jewish Church was founded Now 't is plain from Rom. 4. 9th to the 17th and 9.6 c. Gal. 3.5 c. that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Spiritual Covenant made with him as the Father of Believers and with his Posterity not as proceeding from him by Natural but by Spiritual Generation as heirs of his Faith Hence saies the Apostle in the name of the Christians We are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no confidence in the Flesh Phil. 3.3 and it is one God which shall justify the Circumcision by Faith and the Vncircumcision thro' Faith Rom. 3.30 and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.29 Nay 't will farther appear that this Covenant was made not with Abraham's Natural but his Spiritual Off-spring if we consider 3. That the initiatory Sacrament into it was Circumcision For the Covenant is call'd the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 and Circumcision on the other hand is call'd the Seal of the Righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 faith or faithful obedience being the condition of that Covenant which God requir'd of the Children of Abraham and which they promis'd to perform It also signify'd the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10.16 and 30.6 Rom. 2.28 29. 4. As to the Persons to be admitted into the Covenant we have a very plain account at the institution of it Gen. 17. from whence it appears First that the Children of Heathens were to be circumcis'd See Exod. 12.48 49. which also proves that the Promise was made not to his Natural but to his Spiritual Children Hence in all Ages great numbers of Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church by Circumcision Secondly that persons of all Ages were to be Circumcis'd and that God was so far from excluding Children from Circumcision that he order'd that the Circumcision of them shou'd not be deferr'd beyond the 8th day God was pleas'd to be so gracious as to chuse the Children with their Parents and look upon them as holy upon their account This was ground enough for their Admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers tho' they cou'd not make open profession of their faith The Faith and consent of the Father or the God-father and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcis'd was believ'd of Old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and consent See Seld. De Jure lib. 2. c. 2. De Synedr lib. 1.
c. 3. And they had good ground in Scripture for this opinion because the infidelity and disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising the Circumcision was imputed to the Children who were esteem'd and punish'd as breakers of the Covenant when they were not Circumcis'd Gen. 17.14 And therefore if the act of Parents in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs much more their act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their act and deed Thus Numb 3.28 we find the keeping of the sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards because their Fathers actually kept it and they were to be train'd up to it Thus Deut. 29.11 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into the Covenant with God because the Men of Israel did so Thus also tho' Christ heal'd grown Persons for their own Faith Matth. 9.29 yet he heal'd Children for the Faith of their Parents or others who besought him for them as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith Mark 9.23 Matth. 8.13 John 4.50 Vid. Cassand De Baptismo Infant p. 729. Taylor of Baptiz Inf. Great Exemplar Part 1. Sect. 9. 5. The Church was the same for substance under the Law as it was before it and still remains the same for substance under the Gospel as it was under the Law For Abraham is still the Father of the faithful and we that Believe under the Gospel are as much his Children in the true meaning of the words as those that were Believers under the Law Hence St. Peter Epist 1. calls Christians by those Titles which God gave to the Jews as to his peculiar People viz. a Chosen Generation Royal Priesthood c. and St. Paul compares the calling of them to the engrafting of the Wild Olive-tree into the Old Olive-tree's Stock Rom. 11. Christ and his Apostles introduc'd as much of Judaism into the Christian Church as the nature of the Reformation wou'd bear and adher'd as much as they cou'd to the Old both in the Matter and Form of the New Oeconomy For the proof of this the Reader may consult Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510 520 c. Hammond of Baptizing Infants Selden de Jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot's Horae Heb. p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 2.1 Alting Dissert Septima de Proselyt Mede's 1 B. disc 43. 2 B. Christ Sacrif Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembl Taylor 's Great Exemplar Part. 1. Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Dodwell's One Altar and One Priesthood Lightâ—oot on 1 Cor. 5.4 Some things I confess they laid aside but their Reasons for so doing were 1. Because very many of the Jewish Rites were fulfilled in Christ and this is so plain that I need not prove it 2. Because many of them were inconsistent with the Nature of Christianity which was to be 1. Manly in opposition to the Law which was but a School-Master to bring them to Christ Gal. 3.24 and the Jews were under it as Children are under Tutors Chap. 4.1 2 3 4. for they had Childish understandings and were like Children to be instructed by Symbolical Lessons viz. Washings c. 2. Free in opposition to the servile Nature of the Jewish Church which was loaded with numberless observances of which the Jews were grown weary and with which they had been for a long time heavy laden when Christ call'd them to take his yoke upon them which was to be so easy and light 3. Vniversal God injoin'd the Jews many things in oposition to the Neighbouring Idolatrous Nations that there might be a mutual strangeness between them and that by Ceremonial singularities they might be distinguisht from the rest of the World but then Christ coming to break down the Middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles and to abolish the enmity of ordinances that was betwixt them that he might make peace between them and reconcile them both into one body it was requisite to this end that he shou'd abolish these and all oher distingishing characters betwixt them which wou'd have hindred the progress of the Gospel because they were become so odious and ridiculous to the Gentile World And this is the reason why the bloody Rite of Circumcision is changed into the easy Rite of Baptism 6. Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and Baptism suceeded in the room of it not as an Antitype succeeds in the place of the Type but as one positive institution succeeds in the place of another For we must note that strictly and properly speaking there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype as betwixt the shadow and the substance or betwixt a Man and his picture in a Glass insomuch that what was in the Type did only represent something which did in a more perfect manner belong to the Antitype Thus the blood of Sacrifices represented the blood of Christ which do's truly purge the Conscience from dead works and the healing vertue of the Brazen Serpent was a Symbol of the healing vertue of Christ upon the Cross But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision has no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common to Baptism which doth not as fully belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For 1. Circumcision was heretofore a real Sacrament of Initiation into the Covenant of Grace a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and a confirmation of the Covenant betwixt God and Man as much as Baptism is now Baptism do's nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually do under the Law and therefore it cou'd not be a Type of Baptism any more than the Broad-Seal of England 300 years ago was a Type of this And accordingly 't is never mention'd in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution do's in the place of another 2. Circumcision was not a Type of Baptism because a Type is an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New but Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament and by consequence cou'd not be Typify'd and prefigur'd by Circumcision because it was us'd together with it in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes under the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continu'd the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes under the Gospel superadding to it the compleat nature of an Initiatory Sacrament or the full force of Circumcision as it was a sign of the Covenant and a seal of the Righteousness of Faith Having premis'd these Six things I proceed to the main business in treating of which
themselves do grant because there is no such prohibition to be found in the New Testament but then they pretend that it was Christ's intention that none but grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd because the Gospel requires that persons to be Baptiz'd shou'd 1. be Taught Matth. 28.29 2. Believe Mark 16.16 3. Repent Acts 2.38 But those and the like Texts do no more prove that none but grown persons ought to be Baptiz'd than the Apostle's words 2 Thess 3.10 do prove that none but grown persons ought to eat For he requires that if any wou'd not work neither shou'd he eat now none but grown persons can work and therefore by this way of arguing none but grown persons ought to eat Again suppose there were a Plague in any Country and God shou'd miraculously call 11 or 12 Men and give them a Meditine against this Plague and say Go into such a Country and call the People of it together and Teach them the Vertues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Now since Children are capable of the Medicine tho' they are ignorant of the Benefits of it wou'd any Man conclude that it was God's intention that none but grown persons shou'd receive it because they only cou'd be call'd together and be taught the Vertues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly Wherefore seeing Children as I have prov'd are capable of the Benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who were sent to Baptize all Nations knew them to be capable of it and to have receiv'd both Circumcision and Baptism in the Jewish Church how shou'd it be thought but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd Shou'd God in the daies of David have order'd some Prophets to go and Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damn'd wou'd those Prophets have Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd only grown persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission we shou'd have read that they Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd as many Proselytes as gladly receiv'd their word wou'd this have prov'd that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church Or shou'd God bid 12 Men of a Church that had always practis'd Infant-Baptism go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies saying He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd wou'd those Men that were bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism think it was God's intention that Baptism shou'd be deny'd to Infants No certainly and therefore by parity of Reason the Apostles cou'd not so understand their Commission as to exclude Infants from Baptism Now since our Saviour has not either expresly or otherwise excluded Infants from Baptism certainly his Command to Baptize all Nations do's comprehend Infants as well as Men. For the Apostles liv'd under a dispensation where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church and unless they had been instructed to the contrary they must naturally understand their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants as well as actual Believers Our Adversaries indeed put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but if they wou'd well consider the next words they wou'd find that Infants are not at all concern'd in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be damn'd The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore 't is plain that the believing or not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in a capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown persons just as the words John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him But they urge also that Baptism is unprofitable for Infants because putting away the filth of the Flesh which is all that Infants are capable of signifies nothing but only the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are wholly uncapable To this I answer that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision which is all that infants are capable of profiteth nothing without keeping the Law which Infants cou'd not keep but that the inward Circumcision of the Heart and in the Spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants are uncapable of it So that their way of arguing proves nothing because it stretches the words of the Apostles beyond their just meaning which was to let both Jews and Christians know not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcis'd or Baptiz'd but that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism But farther had not the Church been alwaies in possession of this practice or cou'd any time be shew'd on this side the Apostles when it began nay cou'd it be prov'd that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same principles that these Men do now then I shou'd suspect that their arguments are better than they really are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the Rule of Christ But since it is so Universal and Ancient a practice that there never was any Church Ancient or Modern which did not practise it it can be nothing less than an Apostolical practice and tradition If it be said that False Apostles and False Teachers brought in Infant-Baptism in the very first Ages I wou'd fain know how it came to pass that the very Companions and Contemporaries of the Apostles and the Ancient Saints and Martyrs who wrote against other Heresies pass'd it over in silence tho' we are sure from Irenaeus and Tertullian that it was (a) See Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hammond on Matth. 19.28 John 3.5 Selden De Jure lib. 2. c. 4. Vossius De Baptismo p. 181. practis'd in those early times 'T is impossible that they shou'd all consent in such a dangerous Errour or that they shou'd all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration shou'd be made without observation no body can tell how or when Certainly those places of the New Testament which require a profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the ancient Fathers and yet they never concluded from thence that Infants ought not
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
To bring their own Rule to the case in hand how do they know but our Lord was mov'd to Sit at the Sacrament by Special Reasons drawn from that Time and Place or the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have us'd another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord comply'd with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was only temporary and not design'd for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like Practice If Christ acted upon special Reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the Reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it 4. 'T is absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a principle of duty distinct from the Precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself alwaies govern'd his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man he was obliged by the Natural Law as a Jew by the Mosaic Law as the Messias by the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to Teach and Practise the whole Will of God If therefore we look only to his Example without considering the various capacities and relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the Measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus if we shou'd subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did we shou'd thereby frustrate the great design of the Gospel and yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient warrant for our actions Thus it appears that Christ's bare Example do's not oblige us to do any thing that is not commanded I shall only add that they who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament do not follow it themselves For our Saviour probably us'd a Leaning Gesture and by what Authority do they change it to Sitting Certainly our changing the Gesture is as warrantable as theirs Nor is it enough to say that Sitting comes nearer our Saviour's Gesture than Kneeling for if they keep to their own Rule they must not vary at all The Presbyterians if one may argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For tho' they generally chuse to Sit yet they do not condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in it self and several are willing to receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is suppos'd to have set us whether he lay along or sate upright as that which is injoin'd and practis'd by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allow'd of and practis'd by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have chang'd dipping into sprinkling and 't is strange that those who scruple kneeling at the Lord's Supper can allow of this greater change in Baptism Why shou'd not the Peace and unity of the Church and Charity to the Public prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's Supper as much as mercy and tenderness to the Infant 's Body to sprinkle or pour water on the Face contrary to the first Institution Thirdly kneeling is not therefore repugnant to the nature of the Lord's Supper because 't is no Table-Gesture The Sacrament is a Supper and therefore say they the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same which we use and observe at our ordinary Tables according to the custom and fashion of our Native Country and by consequence we ought to Sit and not to Kneel because sitting is the ordinary Table-gesture according to the mode and fashion of England Here by the way we may observe that this Argument overthrows the two others drawn from the Command and Example of Christ For 1. Different Table-gestures are us'd in different Countries and therefore tho' Christ did Sit yet we are not oblig'd to Sit after his Example unless sitting be in our Country the common Table-gesture 2. If the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-gesture and that gesture in particular which is customary then God has not Commanded any particular gesture because different Countries have different Table-gestures However I shall fuâ—ly Answer this Argument drawn from the Nature of the Sacrament by shewing 1. What is the Nature of it 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture 3. That Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Then the Nature of the Sacrament is easily understood if we consider that the Scripture calls it the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper The Greek Fathers call it a Feast and a Banquet because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord has made for all worthy Receivers 'T is styl'd a Supper and a Feast either because 't was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time or because it represents a Supper and a Feast and so it is not of the same nature with a civil and ordinary Supper or Feast tho' it bear the same name Three things are essential to a Feast Plenty Good Company and Mirth but the Plenty of the Lord's Supper is a Plenty of Spiritual Dainties and the Company consists of the Three Persons of the Trinity and good Christians and the Mirth is wholly Spiritual So that the Lord's Supper differs in its nature from civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs Farther the Lord's Supper is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to commemorate the Death of Christ 'T was also instituted in honour of our Lord and to preserve an Eternal Memory of his wondrous Works and to Bless and Praise our Great Benefactour 'T is also a Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants and signifies that we are in a state of Peace and Friendship with him that we own him to be our God and swear Fidelity to him we take the Sacrament upon it as we ordinarily say that we will not henceforth live unto our selves but to him alone that died for us 'T is also a means to convey to us the Merits of Christ's Death and a Pledge to assure us thereof Lastly 't was instituted to be a Bond of Union between Christians to engage and dispose us to love one another as our Lord loved us who thought
Son of God will strike a Man almost naturally into the humblest posture of Adoration But if any reverence be due at such a time I am sure Sitting is a very unfit posture to express it In a word whatsoever Gesture best answers the Principal ends of this Holy Feast do's best sute it 's nature and ought to be best esteem'd of if we will be guided by the nature of the thing and that Kneeling do's best answer the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper I think I have fully prov'd I shall crave Leave to observe in the last place that the Primitive Church had no such Notion of the necessity of a Table-gesture as the Dissenters maintain There is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings for the space of 200 years after Christ For they call the Place on which the Consecrated Elements stood the Altar and the Eucharist they call an Oblation and a Sacrifice and what connexion I Pray is there between an Altar or a Sacrifice and a Table-gesture The Dissenters indeed (f) Dispute against Kneeling arg 1. p. 6. â—6 c. say that Kneeling or an Adoring-gesture is against the dignity of Guests and debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table such as social admittance and social entertainment that it is against the purpose of Christ whose intention was to dignify us by setting us at his Table and much more of this nature but 't is plain that the Fathers thought otherwise as the Phrases they use and the Titles they give the Sacrament plainly demonstrate They call it as St. Paul doth the Lord's Supper the Kingly Royal and most Divine Supper which import Deference Distance and Respect on our parts the Dreadful Sacrifice the Venerable and Vnbloody Sacrifice the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language call'd the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they styl'd the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. They advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and down-cast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-gesture contend for as the Privilege of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table Fourthly I am to shew that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper is not contrary to the general Practice of the Church in the first Ages This I shall do by proving 1. That it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament as our custom at present is 2. That it 's most certain they us'd an Adoring Posture First then it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament I have already shewn that the Scripture do's not inform us what Gesture was us'd at the Institution of the Lord's Supper and I desire those who contend for a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting to observe that the Primitive Church thought sitting to be a very irreverent Posture in the Service of God The Laodicean Synod finding great inconveniences to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lord's Supper forbad the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was at those Feasts The same Practice was forbidden by the Council of Carthage c. 28. and the Decree was Ratify'd by the sixth Trullian Council c. 74. and that under the pain of Excommunication Now the Reasons upon which 't was forbidden were in all probability taken from the disorder and irreverence the animosities and excess that accompany'd those Feasts Justin Martyr who liv'd in the Second Century saies We rise up together and send up our Prayers Apol. 2. from whence 't is clear that they did not Sit but in most other places they were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears plainly from what Philostorgius (g) Hist Eccles l. 3. p. 29. observes of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly Reform'd this That the People were wont to Sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them and Sozomen (h) Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 19. notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read Optatus Bishop of Milevis (i) De Schism Donat. l. 4. See also Albaspin not in Optat. cites a passage out of the 50. Psalm and applies it home to Parmenianus the Donatist after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him that sits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you saies he are more particularly pointed at in the Text For the People are not Licens'd to sit in the Church Now if it had not been the general Custom to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might easily have retorted this Argument upon Optatus as concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charg'd in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he (k) De Orat. c. 12. Tertullian reproves it as an ill custom that some were wont to sit at Prayer and a little further in the same Chapter he has these words Add thereunto the Sin of irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did wou'd take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for how much more irreligious is this gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by Vnless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer has tir'd us Eusebius also (l) De Vit. Constant l. 4. commends Constantine because when he was present at a long Panegyric concerning Christ's Sepulchre and was sollicited to sit down he refus'd to do so saying it was unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things shou'd be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be us'd in Divine Service except at
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
shou'd be more defil'd by Idolaters than Meat which they had Offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and why shou'd one be sinful and Idolatrous to use and not the other Certainly St. Paul wou'd never have granted them such a privilege if he judg'd it Idolatrous to use what Idolaters had abus'd especially considering that he in the same Chapter exhorts them earnestly to fly from Idolatry 3. This Principle subjects the Minds of Christians to infinite fears scruples and perplexities whereas the true and great design of the Gospel is to breed in Men a filial cheerful frame of heart the spirit of love and of a sound or quiet mind to give us a free easy comfortable access to God as to our Father and to encourage every good Man to a diligent constant and frequent attendance upon his Worship by the delight that follows it But now if nothing may be us'd by us without highly offending God that either has been or is abus'd to Idolatry who sees not what trouble and distraction will arise in our Minds hereupon when we meet together to worship God It 's well known that most of our Churches were erected by Idolatrous Papists and as much defil'd by Idolatry as any Gesture can be They are dedicated to several Saints and Angels whose Images were once set up and ador'd Our Bells Pews Fonts Desks Church-yards have been consecrated after a superstitious manner Many Cups Flagons Dishes Communion-Tables have been given and us'd by Idolaters What now is to be done Perhaps all these things have been abus'd and if certain information cannot be had we can't worship in public without great disquiet of Mind 4. This Principle will destroy all public Worship For if nothing must be us'd which has been or is abus'd by Idolaters it will be in the power of Idolaters by ingrossing all the outward marks and signs of that inward veneration and esteem which we owe to God to smother our Devotions so as they shall never appear in the World and by that means frustrate the very end and design of Religious Assemblies And truly this work is already by the strength of this Principle very well effected For kneeling at Prayers and standing and sitting and lifting up the Hands and Eyes to Heaven and bowing of the Body together with Prayer and Praise and Singing have been all notoriously abus'd to Idolatry and are so to this day If the Dissenters say they except such things as are necessary to be us'd in the Service of God tho' they have been abus'd by Idolaters I reply that so long as the reasons hold to make any thing sinful so long it is so If the use or abuse of any thing by Idolaters make it simply evil then it must for ever remain so and no necessity whatsoever can make it lawful So that this Principle drives us into such streights that we must sin one way or other For either we must not worship God in public or we must be guilty of Idolatry if we do and tho' of two Evils or Calamities the least is to be chosen yet of two Sins neither is Christian Religion flows from infinite Wisdom and the Laws of God do not cross one another but are even and consistent We are never cast by God under a necessity of sinning of transgressing one Law by the observance of another but thus it must be if we take up and stick to this Principle 5. The Dissenters condemn themselves in what they allow and practise by the same Rule by which they condemn kneeling at the Sacrament and other Rites of our Church For they themselves did use without scruple such Places and Things and Postures as had been defil'd and abus'd by Idolaters They were wont to be bare-headed in time of Divine Worship at Prayer and at the Sacrament and so do Idolatrous Papists They never affirm'd that it was sinful to kneel at our Prayers both public and private yet this Gesture the Papists use in their Prayers to the Virgin Mary to the Cross to Saints and Angels They us'd our Churches Church-yards and Bells and never thought they sinn'd against God by so doing tho' they knew they had been abus'd Nay the Directory (a) Direct of the day and place of worship declares That such places are not subject to any such Pollution by any Superstition formerly us'd and now laid aside as may render them unlawful and inconvenient Mr. Rutherford (b) Rutherf of Scandal Q. 5.6 saies of Bells grosly abus'd in time of Popery That it is unreasonable and groundless that thereupon they should be difus'd Upon which the Reverend Dr. Falkner has this judicious Remark The pretence of their convenient usefulness wou'd be no better excuse on their behalf than was the Plea for sparing the best of the Amalekites Cattel that they might be a Sacrifice when God had devoted them to Destruction For if God as they say had commanded that all such Things and Rites shou'd be utterly abolish'd as were of Man's devising and had been abus'd to Idolatry then the convenient usefulness of such Places and things will never bear them out 6. If this Principle were true it wou'd go nigh to throw a scorn upon all or most of the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome for they do not seem to have govern'd themselves by this Rule Some of them in their public Confessions (c) Confess Bohem. Art 15. declaring that they might lawfully retain such Rites and Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith the Worship of God or Peace and Order in the Church tho' they had been introduced by any Synod or Bishop or Pope or any other 7. Nay this Principle wou'd render Christianity impracticable because there is no Circumstance no Instrument no Ministry in Worship but may have been some way or other abus'd by Pagan or Romish Idolatries It wou'd make every Garment of what shape or of what colour soever unfit for use in our Religious Service for not only the White but the Red the Green and the Black have been us'd even for the significancy of their respective Colours by the Gentile or Romanist to very superstitious purposes in Divine Worship Secondly There is no express Precept of this nature and the Texts alledg'd do not infer it For 1. Tho' some Churches are blam'd for suffering some to teach the People to eat things sacrificed to Idols Rev. 2.14 20. yet the instance is impertinent because that was no better than Communicating in Idol-worship as the Gnostics did But St. Paul declares 1 Cor. 8. and chap. 10.27 28 29. that eating things offer'd to Idols without any respect to Idols in cating is unlawful upon no other account but that of Scandal 2. St. Jude's words v. 23. hating even the garment spotted by the flesh teach us indeed to be as cautious of temptations to sin as of the Garments of infected Persons but there is no danger when they are well cleans'd from infection 3. Tho' the
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 1 Kings 11.7 Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew 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 This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can But what reason is there for this For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill and not in things wherein they do well No Man can shew a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
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
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 Chriâ—â— 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 saâ—vation But it may â—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 heinousâ—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 unconveâ—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 ' tâ—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
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
themselves own our Sermons to be really good And tho' some few may not be able to answer the true design of Preaching yet in general Men may Edify very well among us Nor has there been for these many hundred years a Clergy so Learned Pious Prudent and Industrious to Edify Mens Souls as now is in the English Church II. Because those who make this pretence do commonly mistake better Edification And surely to desert the plain and great duty of Church-Communion for disputable or mistaken Edification is to be guilty of the sin of Schism Now the mistakes of these Men are principally three 1. In taking nice notions for Edifying truths He that discourses about Angels separated Souls the situation of Paradise and Hell c. shall be thought a sounder Divine than he that teaches the way of Salvation plainly by Faith and a good Conversation Such things pass with too many for saving truths and many ignorant and corrupt Men that espouse Parties and Interests readily embrace them The Apostle speakes of some that have itching ears 2 Tim. 4.3 If the food tho' wholsom and good be not to their fancy they complain of starving Bring but an honest sincere and teachable mind and you may Edify in a worse Church than ours but otherwise the best Doctrine will be insipid to you Place Edification in the substantial things of Religion in a right Faith and a holy Conversation which our Church presses upon us under the penalty of eternal damnation for these things alone do truly Edify the souls of Men and to these all Religion tends The Kingdom of Christ consists in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy-Ghost Rom. 14.17 Now such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoin'd and zealously taught in our Church we need not complain for want of Edification and the desire of other nourishment is spiritual pride and wantonness Wherefore desire the sincere milk of the Word the food of your understanding and not of your fancy that you may grow thereby For if you had but such an increase of grace as to hear meekly God's Word and to receive it with pure affection you cou'd not easily fail to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit Therefore 't is dangerous and sinful to give Men a Liberty to run from any establish'd Church for better Edificaton which is so often and easily mistaken And may we not add that when a quarrel arises from an unjust denial of the Minister's Dues then he is call'd dull and a better must be sought elsewhere Thus one fault helps out another and defamation must excuse the Schism 2. In taking the Opinions of parties for essential truths This those Men do that are wedded to a Party and if we do not explain all things in their way they cry we destroy the Gospel truths and that instead of being Edify'd they are weaken'd in their faith The early and best Christians thought it sufficient to know Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent and it were well if Men were satisfy'd with this old way otherwise they break the Peace of the Church and Obedience to Governours which are the great things of Religion upon the score of better Edification 3. In taking sudden heats and warmth arising from melting tones and other arts for Edification whereas a bright or a lowring day or a Dose of Physic can do the same things and they have often happen'd in the worst of Men. According as these Heats and Bodily Passions are Stirr'd so in some Mens Opinion the Ministry is Edifying or Unprofitable But sound and solid Reasoning is the true way to Edification whereas the Silly and Weak who are most subject to these Heats and Colds are Inconstant and turn round in all Religions Such Persons being all sail are the more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine III. Because the pretence of better Edification will cause endless divisions in the Church For since every Man must judge and the Governour must not restrain him therefore People may run from Teacher to Teacher to find out Better Edification Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth 2 Tim. 3.7 And when once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces then envy detraction strife murmurings fierceness and numberless other mischiefs will come in and that which divided them from the Church will crumble them into Endless Parties to the joy of our Enemies But all this wou'd be avoided if Men were sensible of the heinous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in the blackest colours IV. Because this is a discouragement to an honest and truly Christian Ministry For if the Flock run from a Pastor that instructs them rightly upon pretence of better Edification will it not cool his zeal check his labours and affront his Person and Office And this may be done to the best Pastors as well as to others and the most judicious Dissenters have complain'd of it tho' upon this principle it cannot be remedy'd because the people must judge for themselves And ought the Ministers to be scorn'd and discountenanc'd and have their Ministry rendred useless for the fancies peevishness and humour of the People If it be said that the Pastor is idle or unsound in Doctrine I answer that our Governours upon a just and modest complaint will quicken the lazy and negligent and correct the Heretical Pastor and restore the Flock to true Edification I may add that the eminent Dissenters do declare that the pretence of Better Edification is not a sufficient excuse for Separation as those who have leisure may find in these Books of theirs which I have quoted (b) See Hildersh Lect. 28 29.54 58 66. Methermeneut p. 71 72 74. Baxter's Cure p. 359. his Defence part 1. p. 85. his Farewell-Sermon Continuat of Morn Exer. Serm. 4. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. Burroughs's Irenic c. 12 23. Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 48. Cawdry's Independ a Schism p. 50. Vines on the Sacrament p. 246. Tuckney's Serm. on Acts 9.31 Jus Div. Min. Evangel p. 11 12. Letter of the Minist in Old-Eng to the Brethren in New-Eng p. 13. Nye's Case of great use p. 3 25. Tombes's Theodul c. 9. §. 8. at the bottom But after all that has been said I know some Persons will object that our Ministers are unedifying Preachers for they cannot profit by their Sermons Therefore I shall endeavour to give these Men full satisfaction and I doubt not to demonstrate that they may profit by our Sermons if it be not their own fault We are all agreed that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation and therefore when they are rightly open'd and duly apply'd in a Sermon so that the hearers improve in Christian Knowledge or in Faith or in well-doing then they profit by that Sermon Now if any Man do not improve
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
by their curiosity about some external Observances They therefore who are so Scrupulous about little indifferent matters ought to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate diligence in the practice of all other Duties of Religion which are plainly and undoubtedly such They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men must know that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Dealings the calmness of their Tempers their Behaviour in their several Relations their Modesty Humility Charity Peaceableness and the like If in all these things they keep the same Tenor use the same caution and circumspection and be uniformly conscientious then it must be acknowledg'd that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples and not any vicious Principle and the condition of those who are under the power of such Scruples is much to be commiserated But when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form and yet living without any sense of God or fear of him afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin of Coveteousness rash censuring his Brethren of Hatred and Strife Faction and Schism and disobedience to Superiours when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament and yet dares totally neglect the Communion who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother but can freely speak evil of Dignities and despise his lawful Governours it is not then uncharitable to say That it is not a dread of displeasing God but some other End or Interest that acts and moves him and that in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite 3. 'T is excessively troublesome and vexatious It robs a Man of that Peace and Satisfaction which he might otherwise find in Religion and makes his Condition continually uneasy and restless 4. It 's scruples are infinite and endless for there is hardly any thing to be done but some small exceptions may be started against it Scrupulous Men go on from one Thing to another till at Length they Scruple every thing This is notorious amongst us for those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church and have thereupon separated from us and associated themselves with a purer Congregation have soon dislik'd something amongst them also and then they wou'd reform themselves farther and after that refine themselves more still till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism Popery or Atheism 5. This Needless scrupling has done unspeakable mischiefs to the Church of Christ especially to the Reform'd Church of England In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed We all worship the same God believe in the same Lord and Saviour have the same Baptism the same Faith the same Hope the same common Interest our Sacraments as to the main are rightly administred according to our Saviour's Institution our Churches are acknowledg'd to be true Churches of Jesus Christ but there are some Constitutions which chiefly respect outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship against which Men have receiv'd strange Prejudices on the account of them have rais'd a mighty noise and clamour against the Church and have openly separated from her Communion as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another About these Skirts and Borders the dress and circumstances of Religion has been all our quarrelling and contention and these Differences have proceeded to such an height as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities to break and crumble us into little Parties and Factions whereby mutual Edification is hinder'd our common Religion suffers Reproach the Enemies of it are strengthen'd and encouraged public Peace endanger'd and brotherly Love the Badge of Christ's Disciples quite lost amongst us and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts is a matter of sad consideration and forebodes great Evils in Church and State I doubt not to say that the Devil has fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer than under any other disguise whatever Thirdly I shall offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of a Scrupulous Conscience 1. We shou'd Endeavour to have the most Honourable thoughts of God for accordingly as we Conceive of His Nature so shall we judge what Things are most Pleasing or most Offensive to Him Now consider I pray Do's not God principally Regard the Frame of our Minds in Prayer or will He refuse to hear us because He dislikes the Garment of the Minister Do's God regard any particular Gestures or Habits which are neither Dishonourable to Him nor Unsutable to the Nature of the Religious performance so far as that the acceptance of our Worship shou'd depend upon such Circumstances To surmise any such Thing is surely to Dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursom Being like a Father that shou'd disinherit his Dutiful Child only because he did not like his Complexion or the Colour of his Hair The Wiser and Greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilioes Mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it has been truly observ'd that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God has no where forbidden than there is in doing that which God has not commanded A Man may certainly do what God has not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God has not forbidden and is by lawful Authority requir'd of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. We shou'd lay out our Great Care and Zeal about the Necessary and Essential Duties of Religion and this will make us less Concern'd about Things of an Idifferent and Inferiour Nature St. Paul saies Rom. 14.17 The Kingdom of God is not Meat nor Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost What needs all this stir and bustle this censuring disputing and dividing about Standing or Kneeling These are not the great matters of our Faith they are not worth so much Noise and Contention The great stress and weight in our Religion is laid upon the Duties of a Righteous and Holy Life and a Peaceable Spirit and Conversation For saies St. Paul ver 18. he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd of
things perfectly indifferent is no indifferent thing and 't is infinite odds but if once they begin to change without necessity there will never be an end of changing But farther I desire you to consider that the most eminent even of your own Writers do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England For they acknowledge her to be a true Church and (b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gov. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-Câ—m Newcomen 's Iren. Epist to the Read â—all's Tryal c. 7. Jeâ—uâ—baâ—l p. 28.30 Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful of Hear p. ult hold that You are not to separate farther from a true Church than the things you separate for are unlawful or conceiv'd so to be that is they hold that you ought to go as far as you can and do what you lawfully may towards Communion with it They (c) See Tombes 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas p. 78. Owen 's Evangel Love p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist of John p. 156. Baxter's Cure dir 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaâ—l p. 12. hold also that You are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church or are not impos'd as necessary Terms of Communion Nay they (d) See Brownists Confess art 36. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen's Life p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer Serm. 4 14 16. Ball 's Tryal p. 74 c. 132 c. 159 c. 308. Platform of Discipl c. 14. sect 8. Hildersham on John Lect. 35 82. Brian 's Dwell with God p. 293 294. Bradshaw's Unreason of Sep. p. 103 104. Non-Conf no schismat p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep a great schism p. 192 195. Owen 's Evang. Love c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100. Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas p. 78 89. Davenport's Reply p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist of John p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark Epist Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion p. 122 127. Bâ—ins on Ephes 2.15 Contin Morn Exer. serm 16. Baxter's Cure dir 35. Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 47. part 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton 's Memorial p. 78 c. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes's Theodul answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy p. 12 13. Calamy's Door of Truth open'd p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful of Hear p. 19 23. Nye's Case of great pres Use p. 10 16 18. produce several arguments to prove that Defects in Worship if not essential are no just reason for withdrawing from it 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects wou'd be to look after a greater Perfection than this present state will admit of 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches and so ought we 4. To separate from such defective Churches wou'd destroy all Communion Nor 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture Nor 6. is it necessary because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions Nay 7. they urge that 't is a duty to join with a defective Worship where we can have no better And as for our Injunctions in particular they (e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwell with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68. Owen's Peace-Off p. 17. Misch of Impos Epist Ded. own them to be tolerable and what no Church is without more or less that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion and that they are but few Nay farther several of the old Non-Conformists zealously oppos'd Separation from the Church of England and join'd with it to their dying Day tho' they cou'd not conform as Ministers and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it and have in print (f) See Baxter's Sacril Desert p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life p. 111. Collins's Doctr. of Schism p. 64. Lye's Reas Account c. Hickman's Bonas Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. declar'd it to be their Duty and Practice But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers there is greater Authority to be urged against you For in those things wherein you differ from us you are condemn'd by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse but I shall only hint at a few Particulars 1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any setled Church that was without Episcopacy till Calvin's time The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant that it obtain'd in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age and we are sure we can carry it higher even to the Apostles themselves There are but two Passages and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority That of (g) In Epist ad Tit. cap. 1. St. Jerom when improv'd to the utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings that he often wrote in hast and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and overtop the Presbyters which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood For at other times when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ'd nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error merely thro' Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aim'd at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius who was his Cotemporary represents him as very little better than a Mad-man 2. We desire you to name any Church that did not constantly use Forms of
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament
Society of Christians you please Which giddy principle if it shou'd prevail wou'd certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errours and Mischiefs that can be imagin'd But our Blessed Lord founded but one Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucify'd for us and pray'd not for the Apostles alone but for them also that shou'd believe in him thro' their Word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst diverse others to the same Purpose was That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me 'T is plain this was to be a Visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an Inducement to move Men to embrace the Christian Faith Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions do's mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the Intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling-block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hindrance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errors that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and embolden'd them to a profess'd Atheism Therefore as you wou'd avoid the hardening of Men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in you lies wholly ineffectual you ought to be exceeding cautious that you do not wilfully Divide his Holy Catholic Church You are often warn'd of this and how many Arguments do's St. Paul heap together to persuade you to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are call'd in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And how pathetically do's the same Apostle exhort you again to the same thing by all the mutual Endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ if any Comfort in Love if any Fellowship of the Spirit if any Bowels and Mercies fulfil ye my Joy that ye be like minded having the same Love being of one Accord of one Mind Phil. 2.1 2. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige you to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing but what is lawful of you They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven thro' the Merits of the same Lord shou'd not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which you have to this Duty our Saviour dy'd that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scatter'd abroad John 11.52 And do you not then contradict this end of his Death in setting those at Variance whom he intended to Vnite Nay may you not be said to Crucify the Son of God afresh by mangling and dividing a sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require you to profess any false Doctrine or to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command you were bound in such instances to withdraw from her but since her Doctrine Discipline and Worship are good and lawful you are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her For as I said before and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Vnlawfulness of joining with us can make a Separation Lawful Let it pity you at least to see the ghastly wounds that are still renew'd by the continuance of our Divisions Be persuaded to have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to faint and in imminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that shou'd Support and Defend her Why shou'd you leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require your most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow you might forsake her that had forsaken him but since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no forbidden thing of you you ought to strengthen her Hands by an unanimous Agreement Since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably defeat the subtil Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the Losses she has suffer'd by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all wicked Purposes unsuccesful and the Blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen THE END