of it But for their sakes who may not have that Book by them I shall add out of it another answer which I think may satisfie a Reasonable Man Supposing then that the Evangelists did not relate the Matter Summarily but as distinctly as the Words were spoken by our Saviour Yet 2. Our Saviour also Commanded his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Christian think it hence deducible That where divers Persons or great numbers are to be Baptized together the Solemn Words of Baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person And if the Baptismal Form of Words may be Solemnly and Suitably to that Sacrament applied to every Person Baptized by the General acknowledgment of all Christians there can be no Reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the Practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ or the Nature of the Sacrament and the Alteration of it would be for the worse and to the abating the Solemnity of its Administration Lib. Eccl. p. 224. There remains but two more particular Exceptions which I think needful to take notice of and those are in the Office of Baptism And the first I mean is 1. That all Baptized Infants are supposed to be Regenerated of which as some say we cannot be certain But I desire those that say so to consider if the Scripture does not attribute to Baptism as much as the Liturgie does We are said by Baptism to be made Members of Christ's Body By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. And to be Baptized into Christ and to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. and he that is in Christ is a new creature And to be Baptized for the Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Baptism is also called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Now if it be made a Question Whether Infants are Regenerated in Baptism the Question at last must come to this Whether they are Qualified to become Members of Christs Body to be admitted into God's Covenant to receive Pardon of Original Sin and to become New Creatures gaining that State by Grace which they could not have by Nature And I do not see that any but Anabaptists can deny this For they that contend as we do that Infants are capable of Baptism must not deny them to be qualified for this Grace of Baptism unless they will make the Ordinance and Promises of God to be of none effect towards them Now if Infants do by Baptism gain Remission of Sin and are made Members of Christ they are Regenerated and Born anew If they do not gain this by it what does their Baptism signifie Or what benefit can they be supposed to have by it if they die in their Infancy more than if they had not been Baptiz'd at all This is the only means of Salvation they can have And those expressions of the Scripture above recited with many more will justifie our Church which supposes that this means will be effectual so long as they are capable of none other and therefore ought to be considered by those that make it to be of none effect I shall only add That this had been thought a strange Question in the Ancient Church Whether Infants were Regenerated by Baptism when the Pelagians whose cause led them to deny it yet durst not do it directly because they knew it would not be endured and therefore they confessed that Infants were to be Baptiz'd to qualifie them for the Kingdom of Heaven but not for the Remission of Sin So that they themselves seemed to acknowledge the saving effect of Baptism to Infants though as St. Austin often shewed them they contradicted themselves by so doing But they durst do no otherwise because the Doctrine of the Church was so plainly against them in this matter and every Believer was so settled in it that I remember St. Austin somewhere speaks to this purpose that the Pelagians would have come to the point and denied that the Baptism of Infants signified any thing at all to their Salvation and therefore might be as well let alone but that they were afraid the Mothers themselves of those Children would every where reproach them for it The other Objection against the Office of Baptism is this That the Godfathers and Godmothers that answer for Infants are not their Parents or Guardians but others who have they say no Authority to Covenant or Act in their Names In answer to whih I shall omit several things that might be said and content my self with these two things which I think may be sufficient 1. That in all cases where the Sureties are procured by the Parents there they have Authority to Covenant in behalf of the Infant and this the Objectors must grant I think upon their own Principles since they contend that Parents or Pro-parents are fittest to act in behalf of the Baptized Infants as having Authority so to do since they have the Power to dispose of their Education afterward For then the Sureties which are by them prevailed with to stand for their Children have at least all that Authority which the Parents can give them And this is sufficiently known to be the case with us And this is that which the Church might well suppose viz. that the Sureties which contract with the Church in the Infants Name would be procured by the Parents so that the Parents Contracting in behalf of the Infant is included in the Undertaking of the Sureties who although they are required by the Church to answer for the Infant yet are they supposed to be Authoriz'd by its Parents also so to do 2. The good Design of this Order and Appointment in the Church ought to be considered which is not the less for the fault of Men and the looseness of these times does often defeat it For hereby the Church taketh greater security that the Infant shall be brought up in the Knowledge and Practice of that Holy Covenant into which it is Baptiz'd In as much as besides the care of the Parents which is in effect promised and may be more reasonably rely'd upon without their own Solemn Act upon the account of that Natural Affection which makes them particularly concerned besides this I say there is a Particular Obligation laid upon others also to see that the Infant be so Educated as much as in them lies In case the Parents should die before the Child is grown to years of Discretion the Sureties are then more Particularly Obliged to look to their Godchild that he be put into a way of learning and doing his Duty If they should not die before but be remiss the Sureties have Authority to come to them and Admonish them of their Duty and to let them know
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can But what reason is there for this For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies No Man can shew a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED And the Lawfulness of it shew'd from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Perswasions Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlesly expose themselves to The Second Edition corrected by the Author LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M. DC LXXXIV TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England Dear Brethren YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it It 's both your Duty and Interest to enquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws Communion with the Church of God and thereby expose our Religion to danger and your selves to suffering In which unless the Cause be good the Call clear and Mr. Mede 's Farewel Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3. the End right it cannot bring Peace to your selves or be acceptable to God Not bring Peace to your selves For we cannot suffer joyfully the Mr. Read 's Case p. 4. spoiling of our Goods the confinement of our Persons the ruin of our Families unless Conscience be able truly to say I would have done any thing but sin against God that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God to whom all are accountable Continuat of Morn Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92. for what Portion he hath intrusted them with of the things of this Life and are not to throw away without sufficient reason and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us as you are told by some Read Ibid. in the same condition with your selves To assist Persons in this Enquiry I have observed that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question and have handled them with that Candor and Calmness which becomes their Profession and the gravity of the Arguments and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied to peruse and consider them But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons to remove as much as may be that Obstruction I have in this Treatise shewed that these Authors are not alone but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them who do generally grant that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it The sence of many of these I have here collected and for one hundred I could easily have produced two if the Cause were to go by the Poll So that if Reason or Authority will prevail I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church is not to be despaired of Which God of his infinite Mercy grant for your own and the Churches sake Amen THE CONTENTS THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1 The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church p. 4 That they are not totally to separate from it p. 12 That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can p. 16 That Defects in Worship if not Essential are no just reason for Separation p. 23 That the expectation of better Edification is no sufficient reason to with-hold Communion p. 39 The badness of Ministers will not justify Separation p. 48 The neglect or want of Discipline no sufficient reason to separate p. 59 The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England which its Lay-Members are concerned in p. 64 That Forms of Prayer are lawful and do not stint the Spirit ibid. That publick prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with p. 66 That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is for its Matter sound and good and for its Form tolerable if not useful p. 69 That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous nor unlawful and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance p. 71 72 That standing up at the Creed and Gospel is lawful p. 73 The Conclusion ibid. THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks Ecclesiastical and Civil usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity Ministers and People The Clergy besides the things essentially belonging to their Office are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions or both to own and maintain the Doctrine Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted Thus in the Church of England they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Christians which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers But the Laity are under no such Obligations there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them nor any thing more than to attend upon and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church Thus it is in the Church of England as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to whom when it Defence of the Cure part 2. pag. 29. was objected that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion he replies What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches but your actual Communion it self In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all It 's observed by one That the Original of all Our Mischiefs A Book licensed by Mr. Cranford sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God tho performed by the Liturgy than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths c. Certainly if this Difference were but observ'd and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood the People would not be far more
is P. 4. The Case of Mixed Communion This is a On the Sacrament p. 235. Plea saith Mr. Vines that is plausible to easy Capacities because it pretends to set up Holiness of Ordinances and People but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical and others as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Brinsley's Arraignment p. 37 38. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacril desert p. 97. Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismaticks in defence of their separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter doth advise And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those that separate upon this account do it very unjustly (a) (a) (a) Cawâ—rey's Reformation promoted p. 131. that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of separation (b) (b) (b) Manton on Jude p. 496. that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate Sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church though such be not cast out (c) (c) (c) Vines on Sacrament p. 242 Platform c. 14. § 8. V. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. That the suffering of prophane and scanlous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great Sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saith Mr. Burroughs (d) (d) (d) Gospel-Worship Serm 11. p. 242. an error on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they should be suffered to come that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents so far agree in and for this their Opinion they urge several Arguments First It 's no where commanded but is a vain Arg. 1 pretending to Holiness above Rule and Example saith On Sacrament p. 246. p. 31. Mr. Vines It 's no Duty as he elsewhere saith because there is no Command it 's no Duty and therefore we read not this word come forth in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches against which Christ saith he hath such and such things They that lived in the Impurer are not called forth into the Purer but there are Promises made to them that keep themselves pure and Duties injoined them toward the impurer part For we may not make every Disease the Plague Shall the Sons of God the Angels forsake the Lord's Presence because Satan came also amongst them c. The Provincial Assembly of London doth affirm In the Vindicat. of Presbyt Govern p. 134. Brinsly's Arraign p. 47. Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament as we believe few if any of our Congregations can be charged withal And yet the Apostle doth not perswade the Godly Party to Separate much less to gather V. Firmin's Separat examined p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 71. a Church out of a Church From which Consideration Mr. Tombs concludes * * * Theodulia p. 74. Sure it can be no sin in any Person to join in the True Worship and Service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that Service because of their Presence nor Power to exclude them and yet is bound to the Duties there performed Nay they do not only plead that it 's not commanded but that it 's forbidden and unlawful So Mr. Hooker To separate from a Church because of the Survey of Discipline Pres A. 3. Platform c. 14. §. 9. Sin of some Worshippers is unlawful So the New-England Ministers do declare As separation from a Church wherein prophane and scandalous Livers are tolerated is not presently necessary So for the Members thereof otherwise worthy hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church in the participation of the Sacraments is unlawful Secondly They plead that the communicating in Arg. 2 God's Service with open Sinners whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to communicate with is not sufficient to make such prophane Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53. or to pollute to them the Holy Things of God So the old Non-Conformists So Mr. Vines The presence On the Sacrament p. 242. p. 31 32. of wicked Men at God's Ordinances pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their Sin nor yet to their presence there This Mr. Burroughs disclaims Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 236 237. You are not defiled by the meer presence of wicked Men in the Sacrament for that is a meer deceit and gull that some would put upon them that differ from them but thus are you defiled if you do not your Duty and the uttermost you are able to purge them out But if this be done according to the Power and Capacity Persons are in it 's universally granted that the Innocent shall not suffer for the Nocent So Mr. Ball The Precept of debarring scandalous Offenders Tryal c. 10. p. 191 205. bindeth them to whom God hath given this Power and them only so far as God hath put it in V. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's right of Presbyt their Power But God regularly doth not leave that Power in the hand of one single Steward or some few private Christians And if the Steward or one or few private Christians cannot debar the unworthy from the Lord's Table it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the Wicked whom they desire to reform or expel but cannot because Power is not in their hand to do it lawfully This they confirm 1. From the Examples of the Prophets and good Men who of old joined with Grave confut Part 3. p. 53 55. Ball 's Tryal p. 211. Platform c 14. § 8. Blake Vindic. p. 235. many that were notoriously stained with gross Sins from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the publick Service of God from the practice of Christians in Apostolical Times all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon This is also pleaded by those of New-England and others This would make all the Sins of the Congregation Christian Directory p. 747. V. Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. to be ours So Mr. Baxter If you be wanting in your Duty to reform it it is your Sin but if bare presence made their Sin to be ours it would also make all the Sins of the Assembly ours From all which it appears that their sense is that scandalous Members are no sufficient Reason for Separation for that must be either because it 's commanded in Scripture or that those that do communicate with such are in so doing corrupted also but if neither of these be then we may
that which mankind would have been had there been no such particular Institution and was in before that Institution 'T was the nature of the Law and the injoining of it by divine Institution so as it became necessary to them that made it a Yoke and a Act. 15. 18. Yoke intolerable and it was a freedom from that Law that constitutes the Liberty which the Apostle treats of in that Epistle And if it be also to be taken as our Author would have it for a freedom in matters of Worship from any thing but what is of Divine Institution that is a secondary sense and which may be taken from some parity of reason betwixt Case and Case but is not the Apostles nor the primary sense of it But take it how we will in this or the other I there shewed that the Apostles exhortation was of no use to them that Case of Indifferent things Pag. 47. plead it against submission to Authority in Indifferent Things when imposed in or about Divine Worship I am now come to the last general head of the aforesaid §. 5. Tract which contained a short account of the things required in our Church as they were either Duty or Indifferent And for an inforcement of that and conclusion of the whole I shall briefly shew how far this Reverend Author consents to or by his concessions must be bound to acknowledge it Indeed he sometimes doth tell us that Nine parts of Ten of all Dissenters say they cannot comply with things required in the English Case Examin pag. 3. 36. 38. Liturgy because they believe the things sinful and unlawful And elsewhere Two hardly of an Hundred think them Indifferent But whether our Author be of that number or at least has reason so to be I shall leave to his own conscience as to himself and to his concessions as to others In which I shall observe the method taken in the aforesaid Tract where I said all things objected against might be refer'd to Posture Forms and Times and shew'd these to be Natural or Moral circumstances of Action and inseparable from it Now in general he grants what are such may be lawfully used And if we pag. 14. come to particulars he doth at last yield it As for postures what more scrupled and opposed than Kneeling at the Sacrament Yet of this he saith There pag. 22. is no command in it and it is Indifferent that in all probability our Saviour administred it Kneeling and sitting pag. 12. backward upon his Legs that no Dissenter refuseth it pag. 36. because it is not decent but because it is a posture of Adoration that our Church doth not intend it as an homage to the Body of Christ there really present but declares that to do it as to the bread were an Idolatry to pag. 12 13. be abhor'd And in conclusion tells us that those that hesitate in that point fear a posture of Adoration used by Idolatrous Papists which is a consideration of no moment as has been already shewed As to Forms of Prayer he saith God has lest us pag. 30. at liberty what words to use and further that for conceived Prayer we know no body saith no other must be used pag. 22. in Gods Worship and if so then Forms may be lawfully used in it But suppose any scruple the use of them Case of Indiff p. 18. he saith however We know no reason but people may hear them if any scruples the use of them he may yet Case Exam. p. 22. have Communion with the Church we hope though he doth not act in it as a Minister As to time he saith the Law of Nature directs and for Festivals such as Purim amongst the Jews he pag. 29. saith It was generally commanded under the precepts of pag. 26. giving thanks for publick mercies Lastly Are the things required unlawful because imposed He answers Some of us including surely himself are not of that mind nay he affirms that the most pag. 39. sober Dissenters will agree in these things that is Natural pag. 7. circumstances to obey the command of Superiours provided it be not such as by circumstances is made sinful But if imposition would make them sinful such a command must not have been obeyed So that in the conclusion I see no reason why our Reverend Brother and the Dissenters he defends and that in all things as he saith agree to the Doctrine professed in the Articles pag. 1. of the Church of England should dissent from the Liturgy and Ceremonies of it as far as Lay-Communion is concerned in them Nor why he should tell us so much of Goals and Sessions and Judicatures and of the Sufferings they endure when if these things be true pag. 41 44. it 's for not doing what they lawfully can It is no wonder when such with-hold communion from the Church and set up other Churches against it that some call them as he complains perverse and contumacious persons â—bid and others call them damnable Schismaticks and pag. 1. are so bold as to say that such a separation from that Church is a separation from Christ And it 's likely he will meet with such that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people and those who thus pursue pag. 41 44. them I am far from one God is my witness that is a smiter of his fellow-servants as he calls them nor pag. 41. would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can to hear readily and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it This I think every truly conscientious person will do and I should question his conscience that doth it not Certainly to return him his own words if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God for the good and ibid. peace of others Souls for the preserving the Protestant Religion for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries for any thing indeed that is good and lovely they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but righteousness and peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost FINIS ERRATA PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should p. 30. l. antepenult r. imply p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions p. 39. Marg. add to Lightfoot Hor. in Matth. and Mark p. 46. l. 17. 1. Government Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. A. A Perswasive 〈…〉 with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the
upon which he Acts for according as this is so will his Guilt in Acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all We do not say that a Man is always Guilty of a Sin before God when upon a misinformation of Judgment he Omits that which Gods Law hath Commanded or doth that which Gods Law hath Forbidden No though these Omissions or Actions may be said to be Sins in themselves that is as to the Matter of them as being Transgressions of Gods Law Yet before we affirm that they will be imputed to a Man as such that is prove formally Sins to him we first consider the Nature of the Action and the Circumstances of the Man If we find upon Examination that the instance wherein Gods Law is Transgressed is such an instance as even an Honest minded Man may well be supposed to mistake in And if we find likewise that the Man had not sufficient means for the informing himself aright as to this matter and that he hath done all that he could do in his Circumstances to understand his Duty If in such a Case as this he be mistaken in his Duty and Act upon that mistake yet we do not say that the Man is properly Guilty of any Sin in that Action however that Action is indeed contrary to the Law of God On the contrary we believe him to be Innocent as to this matter nor will God ever call him to an Account for what he hath done or omitted in these Circumstances And the Reasons and Grounds upon which we affirm this are plain and Evident at the first hearing No Man can be Obliged to do more then what is in his Power to do And what ever a Man is not Obliged to do it is no Sin in him if he do it not So that if a Man do all that one in his Circumstances can or should do for the right understanding of his Duty If he happens to be mistaken that mistake cannot be imputed to him as a Sin because he was not Obliged to understand better And if his mistake be no Sin it is certain to Act according to that mistake can be no Sin neither So that the whole point of Sinning or not Sinning in following an Erroneous Conscience lies here Whether the Man that is thus mispersuaded is to be blamed or not blamed for his Mispersuasion If the Error he hath taken up do not proceed from his own Fault and Negligence but was the pure unavoidable Effects of the Circumstances in which he is placed which Circumstances we suppose he contributed nothing to but he was put into them by the disposition of Divine Providence Then of what Nature soever the Error be he doth not contract any guilt by any Action which he doth in pursuance of that Error But if it was in his power to Rectifie that Error if he had Means and Opportunities to inform his Conscience better and the nature of the Action was such that it was his Duty so to do So that he must be accounted guilty of a Gross and Criminal Neglect in not doing it In this Case the Man is a Transgressor and accountable unto God as such for all the Actions that he doth or omits contrary to Gods Law while he Acts under that mistake or in pursuance of it And accordingly as this Neglect or Carelesness is greater or less so is the Sinfulness of the Action which he doth in pursuance of it greater or less likewise And this is a plain account of this matter So that we see there is no Fatal unavoidable necessity laid upon any Man to commit a Sin by Acting according to his Conscience But if at any time he be brought under those sad Circumstances he brings that necessity upon himself God never put any Man into such a Condition but that he might do that Duty which was required of him and be able to give a good account of his Actions But here is the thing Men by their Vice and Wickedness by neglecting the Means of Instruction that are afforded them and not using their Reason and Understanding as they should do may suffer themselves to be brought under the Bondage of such False and Evil Principles that they shall so long as they hold those Principles fall into Sin whether they Act according to their Conscience or Act against it I have done with the general Points concerning Conscience which I thought needful to be premised as the Grounds and Principles of our following Discourse I now come to that which I at first proposed and for the sake of which all this is intended that is to speak to the Case of those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it Now all that I conceive needful to be done in order to a full discussion of this Case and giving satisfaction about it are these Two things First To Separate the pretences of Conscience that are truly and justly made in this matter from the false ones Or to shew who those are that can rightly plead Conscience for their Nonconformity and who those are that cannot Secondly To inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when it is truly made will Justifie any Dissenter that continnes in Separation from the Church as Established among us and what is to be done by such a Person in order to his Acting with a safe and good Conscience in this affair Our first inquiry is what is required in order to any Mans truly pleading Conscience for his refusing to joyn in Communion with the Established Church Or who those Persons are that can with justice make that Plea for themselves I think it very convenient to begin my Disquisition here because by removing all the false Pretences to Conscience the Controversy will be brought into a much less compass and the difficulties that arise will be more easily untyed The truth is if the thing be examined I believe it will be found that the pretence to Conscience in the matter we are talking of is as in many other Cases extended much farther than it ought to be My meaning is that of all those who think fit to withdraw from our Communion and to live in Disobedience to the known Laws of the Church and pretend Conscience for so doing in a great many of them it is not Conscience but some other thing mistaken for Conscience which is the Principle they Act upon So that if the true Plea of Conscience be separated from those counterfeit ones which usually usurp that Name we shall not find either the Persons to be so many that refuse Communion with us upon the Account of Conscience truly so called nor the Cases to be so many in which they do refuse it upon that Account Now in Order to the making such a Separation or Distinction between Conscience truly so called and the several Pretences to it in this business of not conforming to
shall be Scandalized at what another man does for it is as much as to say that by such a person and action he shall be led into sin ignorantly and his saying this confutes his ignorance If he knows it to be a sin he is not betrayed into it nor doth he fall into it through ignorance and mistake which is the case of those that are Scandalized but wilfully commits it This a great Bishop compares with the peevishness of a little Child who when he is commanded to pronounce the word he hath no mind to tells you he cannot pronounce that word at the same time naming the word he pretends he cannot speak Such Nonsense it is for a man to forbid me doing any thing upon pretence it will be a Scandal to him or make him through mistake fall into some sin when by this it is plain that he knows of it beforehand and so may and ought to avoid the stumbling-block that is laid before him and the danger that he is exposed unto Surely saith Solomon Prov. 1. 17. in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird. If to Offend or Scandalize any one is to tempt and draw him into some sin whereby his Conscience is wounded there then can be no fear of giving Offence by our Conformity to the orders and usages of our Church because there is nothing appointed by or used in it but what may be complyed withal without sin For this as I before observed is supposed in the Question I at first propounded to discourse of that he who absented from his Parish Church for fear of Offending his weak Brethren was convinced in his own mind of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyn'd and therefore by his own Conformity he can only engage others to do as he hath done which as long as he is perswaded to be lawful I do not see how he can be afraid of Scandalizing others by it or making them to sin by his Example unless he will imagine his Brethren not so weak but so wicked as to Worship the Host because he Kneels at receiving of the Sacrament and to adore the Cross because he bows at the Name of Jesus or that they will renounce all Religion because he hath forsaken their ways of Separation This cannot but prove a vain excuse for me to forbear doing that in which there is really no evil lest by the Authority of my example I make others sin in doing the same innocent action which in this case is so far from being to be feared that if by my example I prevail with others to return into the Communion of our Church they are not thereby at all Scandalized but I have done them a most signal kindness and benefit If it be said that tho what I do is in it self lawful yet it may minister occasion or provocation to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I become truly guilty of giving Offence I Answer that we are accountable only for the natural tendencies or probable effects of our actions which may be easily foreseen and prevented Remote probabilites and contingencies and bare possibilities come not into reckoning nor are they at all to be weighed If in every action I am bound to consider what advantage a wicked sensual Man or a weak silly man might take and what Arguments he might possibly thence draw to encourage himself in sin and folly or excuse himself from the care of his Soul and Religion this would open the door to infinite Scrupulosity and trouble and I should hardly be able to do or speak any thing without the incurring the guilt of giving Scandal Now this being supposed I dare boldly challenge any Man to name any one sin either against God our Neighbour or our selves that our Conformity doth give any real probable occasion unto and it is very uncharitable to conceit that our Nonconforming Brethren will out of meer perverseness or spite and revenge run into sin on purpose to make our leaving them criminal and vicious which if any should be so wicked as to do yet they would lose the design of their malice and prove the only guilty persons themselves The only thing I imagine can be further said in this case is that tho I am well satisfied my self yet by my Conformity I may tempt and provoke others that are not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it nay those who judge it absolutely sinful yet rather than stand out or being moved by the opin on they have of my goodness and Wisdom to follow my example with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience Suppose a Master of Family that used to frequent the private Meetings and his Wife and Children and Servants used to follow him thither but afterwards by reading of such good Books as have been lately written is himself satisfied concerning the lawfulness of going to Church and at last thinks it his duty so to do only he is afraid that the rest of his Family to please and humour him will be apt also to forsake the private Meetings and go along with him to Church tho it be altogether against their judgment and Conscience Or suppose him a man of eminency amongst his Neighbours on whose favour many do depend of great interest and reputation by whose example many are sway'd and led Tho himself doth conform upon good reasons and principles yet his example may invite many others to it tho they have received no satisfaction concerning the lawfulness of it Now here I desire these three things may be considered 1. It is certain that it is as unlawful to go to the Separate Meetings against ones Conscience as it is to go to the publick Church against ones Conscience Why then ought not this man to be as afraid when he leaves his Parish-Church and frequents the private Congregation lest he should draw some to follow him thither with a doubting Conscience as well as he fears if he leaves the Meetings and resorts to his Parish-Church some not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it should come after him thither The influence of his Example interest reputation is the same in both instances the danger of giving this Scandal is equal that therefore whâ—ch ought to determine his practice must be his own Judgment and persuasion 2. Such an one who hath been a Separatist but is now himself satisfied of the lawfulness of Conformity ought to take great care and pains in endeavouring to satisfie others also especially those whom he hath any cause to think to have been led into the ways of Separation by his example He must not be ashamed to own his former mistake to set before them the reasons on which his change is grounded and must do this publickly and frequently persuading others to use the same helps and means which were so effectual for his own conviction And thus he doth all that lieth in his power to prevent this ill effect and shall not be further answerable for the consequences
first sort which I call a strict Institution and then their Argument had been good but this they will never be able to prove because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort and because our Saviour was Baptised in whom there was a greater incapacity as to the ends of Baptism than possibly can be in Infants even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision than ordinary Jewish Infants were John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this and other ends of his Baptism he forbad him telling him that he was fitter to be the Baptist than to be Baptized of him but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness he suffered him which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person as to some ends doth not incapacitate him for it when he is capable of the rest But Secondly This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered but by the Circumcision of adult Persons who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution and the nature of the Covenant into which they were to enter of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament in which Children were merely Passive and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon sealing unto them the Remission of their Sins Wherefore the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision as well as Infant-Baptism because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends that Baptism now is and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith and Repentance and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry and all idolatrous Manners and Worship and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes their Children were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism though they were altogether uncapable of understanding or doing those things which their Fathers did Wherefore those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism reproach the Divine Wisdom and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church not considering that Circumcision was and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass designed on purpose by God for Children in whom there is a capacity for some nay for the * * * Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt hoc est restificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate Vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae Infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant chief ends of Baptism as well as for Men and Women in whom there is a capa city for all They are capable of all the ends of it as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his Gracious favour and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace For their Child-hood doth not hinder but that they may be made Members of the Church as of a Family Tribe Colledge or any other Society nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God than the Children of any other Person nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption than by vertue of any other civil Adoption the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men and of being instated in all the Priviledges of any Society though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it nor understand any thing thereof Since therefore Children are as capable and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby Or to make a Comparison which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose should say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which henceforward he shall have as much right as if the Family had never been attainted I justifie him freely and declare my self reconciled unto him and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lay upon him I here before you all wash him with pure water to signifie that he is cleansed from his Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood and that he is as fully restored to his Birth-right as if he had never been Attaint Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant could any Man say that the action was insignificant and invalid because the Child knew nothing of it or that he was incapable of the Sign when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure and of being thereby restored to his blood and Birth-right which was the chief thing signified thereby These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision and Baptism of the Jewish Church both these as I must often observe were applied unto Infants as well as adult and actual Believers under the Old Testament and accordingly tho' Abraham believed and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly in commanding Isaac c. to be Circumcised before he understood the ends of Circumcision or could believe much less make profession of his Belief He was entered Sacramentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract or understand what the condition of the Covenant was
betoken our being made new Creatures and entred into a new State or Condition of Life which still they seem to aim more expresly at in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name or some name that should signify some excellent vertue or Grace some Religious duty owing to God or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him Here we have an outward Visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament or a Sacrament within that of Baptism than we do our Sign of the Cross and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other and no more 2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper do shew that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other for some of them plead for the posture of sitting as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs Now in this matter let us consider our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him so that we see this gesture of sitting by the Tenor of their Argument made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace and this not from any antecedent express institution of Christ which notwithstanding this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper 3. Lastly Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant which they insist upon that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches must engage themselves in this is of that importance amongst them that they call it the Constitutive Form of a Church that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church Apol. for Church-coven Yea and as another expresses it that wherein the Vnion of such a Church doth consist We will suppose then this Covenant administer'd in some form or other and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other such as holding up his Hand or the like Let me ask them What must they of that Church think of this Rite or Ceremony of holding up the hand will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member Here then is an outward Visible sign of What of no less according to their apprehension of things than a perfect new State and Condition of Life that is of being embody'd in Christ's Church engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it Will they say that this way of admission either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred or the Ceremony of holding up the hand by which this Covenant is taken and assented to was originally ordain'd by Christ or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament or did the Presbyterian-Brethren in all their Arguments against this way charge them with introducing a new Sacrament So that from all instances imaginable both of the Jewish and Christian Church and that both Primitive and later Reformations even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren it is very Evident how unreasonable a thing it is that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi d c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But then they tell us secondly we seem to own it our selves when in an entire Representative of our Church such as we suppose a Convocation to be it is actually determin'd that by the Sign of the Cross the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross and what can be more immediate saith one of our Brethren than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating Signification It is confest that the 30th Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is because the Sacrament of Baptism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant and Dedication to God and the Christian Religion therefore by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross we have made a new Sacrament and added to that of Baptism to dedicate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted 1. To this I answer that surely the word dedication is of a much larger Signification than that it should be confin'd meerly to the Interpretation that our Brethren would put upon it The meaning of dedication properly is the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service such as a Church or Temple for the Worship of God any Person to the profession the true Religion to the Ministry or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars This is the strictest sense of dedication but then in a larger sense we may suppose it apply'd to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties and answering all the ends of the first dedication Thus suppose a Man ordain'd to the Ministry whereby he is properly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel he may by some solemn act of his own dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office and this after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been committed to him This cannot be call'd in any sense a new ordination but it may with reason and sense enough be stil'd a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordain'd to And therefore 2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood when they in explaining the intention of the Cross tell us it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross c. And yet I must needs say it seems hard measure upon the Church of England that if those in a Convocation should not have apply'd the word dedication to what might be most strictly the sense of it that this should be so severely expounded that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of than what meerly the strict and critical sense of that word will bear Surely
strongly enforc'd upon his Mind or in Prayers which among them are better compos'd and more fervently sent up unto God and in all other parts of Devotion which there are better fram'd and order'd to affect his Soul and make a truly Christian man These two things being explain'd and premis'd the Answer to the Question will be found true if we consider these following Reasons 1. That the Ground upon which the Question stands is false viz. There is not better Edification to be had in the Separate Meetings than in the Communion of the Church of England This will appear if we consider 1. How apt and fit the whole Constitution of the Church of England is to Edifie Mens Souls 2. That this Constitution is well us'd and manag'd by the Pastors of our Church for Edification The first will be manifest by Induction if we consider the several parts of her Constitution reducible to these following Heads 1. Her Creeds or Articles of Faith are those which our Dissenters themselves allow which are full and plain containing all Necessaries and Fundamentals in Religion nothing defective in Vitals or Integrals to make up the Body of a true Christian Church Christ that founded his Church best knew what was absolutely necessary to her being and there is nothing that he hath declar'd to be so but is contain'd in her Creeds Whatever is fundamental for us to know of the Nature of God is to be found there or by easie Consequences deduced from them Would we know what we ought to believe of the Nature of Christ or his Offices the Designs of his coming upon Earth the Constitution of his Reign and Government the Rewards and Punishments of his Laws the Times of Account and Retribution the mighty Miracles and extraordinary Acts of Providence to confirm these we may read them at large in Holy Writ and find wisely summ'd up in our Creeds Whose Articles to help the Memories of Men are short and few and to assist the dulness of their Understandings are manifest and plain they containing no more than what was some way or other either suppos'd before or included in or following from that brief Creed the Character of a true Christian that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 1 John 4. 15. 5. 5. Whatever is any way reveal'd by God as necessary is an Article of our Faith nothing that is nice and obscure fit onely for dispute and wrangling is brought into our Creed all whose Articles are Primitive and of Divine right none of them purely speculative or curious but plain and useful in order to practice naturally leading to an Holy Life the end of all Religion We love every thing that is truly ancient and Apostolical but we cannot call that an eternal truth which was but yesterday and we are ready to embrace all truth but we cannot call that the High-Priest which is but the Fringe of his Garment We believe all that the early Christians in the first 300 Years thought sufficient for them to know and they were very secure that this would save them And if any truth be disguis'd or defac'd by the iniquity of the descending Ages we are ready to receive it whenever it is made clear and restor'd to its former shape and complexion we casting out obstinacy and perversness out of our Practice as well as niceness out of our Creed That Creed that Christ and his Apostles taught the Saints Martyrs and Confessors the Wise and Good Men in the first and purest days of Christianity believ'd and were secure of Heaven by it and therefore added no more that Faith this Church maintains which will sufficiently and effectually Edifie the Souls of Men. 2. The Necessity she lays upon a Good Life and Works For this is the solemn intention of all Religion our Creed our Prayers our Sacraments and Discipline and all Devotion Her Creed is such that all its Articles so directly or by natural consequence lead unto Virtue and Holiness that no man can firmly believe them but they must ordinarily influence his Manners and better his Conversation and if by virtue of his Creed his Life is not mended he either ignorantly and grosly mistakes their Consequences or is wilfully desperate Our Church publickly declares that without preparatory Virtues no Acts of Devotion however set off with Zeal and Passion are pleasing unto God and if obedience be wanting afterwards are but scene and show Such a Faith she lays down as fundamental to salvation which rests not in the brain and story in magnifying and praising in sighing and repeating but in the production of Mercy Charity and Justice and such excellent Virtues She makes no debates between Faith and Good Works nor argues nicely about the preference nor disputes critically the Mode how joyntly they become the condition of Salvation but plainly determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God She not onely keeps to a Form of sound Words but to a Conversation of equal Firmness and Solidity Her Festivals are to commemorate the Virtues of Excellent Men and to recommend them as Presidents for imitation Her Ceremonies which were principally design'd for Decency may also remind us of those Virtues which become the Worshippers of God Her Collects and Petitions are for Grace to subdue our Follies and to fortifie our resolutions for Holiness Her discipline is to lash the sturdy into Sobriety and Goodness And her Homilies are plainly and smartly to declare against the gross Acts of Impiety and to perswade a true Christian Deportment in Word and Deed and her whole Constitution aims at the Design of the Gospel to teach Men to live Soberly Righteously and Godly She flatters and lulls no man asleep in Vice but tells all secure sinners plainly that they do not pray nor receive aright that they are not absolv'd that their persons are not justified nor can have any true hopes of Heaven except they purifie themselves and be really just and good She neither useth nor allows any nice distinctions in plain Duties to baffle our Obedience nor suffers a cunning head to serve the designs of a wicked heart and teach Men learnedly to sin but urgeth plain Virtues laid down distinctly in Holy Writ and taught by Natural Reason and Conscience without calling them mean Duties or ordinary Morality to be the great Ornament of our Religion and the Soul of our Faith She sets no abstruse and phantastick Characters nor any Marks whose truth must be fetcht in by long deductions and consequences for Men to judge by whether they shall be sav'd or no but Faith and good Works which the Philosopher and meanest Christian can easily judge of The civil interest of a Nation is Edifi'd by such a Church pressing the necessity of good Works not onely thereby enforcing Peace and Justice Pity and Tenderness Humility and Kindness one towards another but she makes Kings safer and Subjects more secure condemning both Tyranny and Disobedience Parents more obey'd and