dangerous to add as it is to detract from these written Rules we may no more do what is not Commanded then what is Forbidden This I take to be the main Argument that is brought against us in the present Controversie and if this can be Answered all the rest will be but of little Force Therefore to give what satisfaction I can to this I say first that throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebrews where Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel are compared the scope of the Apostle is to shew the exact Correspondence there was betwixt the Type and the Antitype and not that our Saviour had as particularly prescribed the Order of external Worship as Moses by Gods appointment had done For it is certain he did not to give but one instance of very many The manner Exod. 12. of Celebrating the Passover how it should be Killed and how it should be Eaten is it set down with every minute Circumstance But the Institution of the Supper of our Lord is not so delivered unto us We have only a short Narrative with a general Command superadded Do this in remembrance of me And when Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. St. Paul repeats it again he does it without any mention of the Posture of Receiving The Gospel which teaches us a more Spiritual way of Serving God is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we would have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he should have done it It would be better argued if we should say The Gospel has not expressly determined these things as the Law did therefore they are left to the prudent determination of those that have the Rule over Heb. 13. 17. us to whom we are Commanded to be Obedient and submit our selves that the Episcopal Power may be equivalent to the Sacerdotal and the Service of God as regularly Administred in the Church as it was in the Temple Besides it was not a Sin even under the Law to ordain and observe some things relating to the Worship of God that were not written And these could not be esteemed additions to the Word if they were not imposed as Divine Precepts but as Prudent Constitutions appointed only for the more Orderly management of the external Offices of Religion But that any thing should be Unlawful meerly because it is not Commanded is a Doctrine I think that was never heard of among Jews or Christians till very lately God had Commanded the setting up of a Tabernacle and most punctually described how it should be made We have been told that there was not to be one Pin about it for which there was not some special Direction And God never spake a word concerning building of an House See 2 Sam. 17. yet this notwithstanding David without any Command 1 Chron. 17. had it in his thoughts to build one and Nathan in his private judgment approved of the design and God himself though he suspended the execution of it for some time commended him for it and rewarded his pious Intentions with a promise of building him 2 Chron 6. 8. another kind of House by confirming the settlement of the Crown in his Family Which is proof enough that every thing then that was not Commanded was not therefore Sinful The antient Church of the Jews were so fully satisfied in this that they made no Scruple of ordering divers things for which they could not find a Command The Feast of the Dedication is a known and pregnant instance it was of modern and humane Institution and yet our Saviour vouchsafed to be present at John 10. 22. it Some things they a little altered and added others at the Passeover as their eating of it not Standing but Sitting or Lying at the Table and their Singing a Paschal Hymn after it which with some other like Usages were observed by our blessed Lord and his Disciples and it can be no less than Blasphemy then to conceive that there could be any thing that was Sinful in them The whole matter may be concluded thus If it were not Sinful under the Law where the external Form of Divine Worship was particularly specified to admit of certain Usages that were not Commanded then much less is it Sinful to do so now under the Gospel where the external Form is not so specified where we have little more than such general Rules as these to be respectively applied by Superiors and Inferiors Let all things be done Decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 4. 15. Obey them that have the Rule over you Where no Law is there is no transgression I have been something the longer in considering this Argument because the whole debate must issue here which way soever this be decided the Controversie is at an end If our Church require any thing of us that is Unlawful we are bound to Separate from her if she do not we are strictly ingaged to Communicate with her They therefore that Divide should first shew that she injoyns something Unlawful But that never was and I verily believe never can be made appear For we are told in the Person of St. Paul that All things are Lawful which must of necessity be understood 1 Cor. 6. 12. 10. 23. of things that are not Forbidden And then since it cannot be charged upon our Church that she Commands any thing that is Forbidden it must be granted that she Commands nothing but what the Apostle has declared to be Lawful What Reason then can be pretended why we should rend and tear her very Bowels Why should we run so headily into opposite Parties and Factions Why should we hazard the Protestant Cause upon a number of little disunited Independent Interests that are as much at Difference one with another as they all are with us What should make us so timorous in this when we are so daring in some other cases Why should we be afraid to joyn in Communion with a Reformed Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox whose Rites ae Innocent whose Government is Apostolical A man would wonder truly what could be pleaded in defence of a Separation when none of these can be justly accused And yet there are certain Objections brought against us which those that withdraw would fain perswade us to think sufficient to justifie their Departure To some of the chief of these I shall now endeavour to give what satisfaction I can Our Dissenting Brethren therefore are wont to plead That there is a Liturgy or Set Form of Publick Worship prescribed That there are certain Ceremonies injoyned That the use of these Controverted things gives great Scandal to the weak That they cannot Safely joyn in our mixt Communion That they leave our Assemblies for the sake of greater Edification which they can find elsewhere And for these Reasons they think
As for their Sacrifices he saith the Rule was sufficient pag 32. and perfect we hope though one Jew brought a Bullock another a Goat c. I may confidently say it was not sufficient if so they did for God was pleas'd to require more who is the most competent Judge of the perfection of his own Law For there was a particular prescription not only as to the kinds of the Beasts but as to the disposing and ordering of them in Sacrifice what was to be eaten and what not whether the bloud should be poured out or sprinkled whether upon the Altar or at the bottom of it c one would think that a person that talks so loosely of these things had never read the Book of Leviticus But now as to Prayers in the Christian Church we have only a general Form given us and direction to Pray in the Name of Christ but nothing as to Words Time Posture Company c. So that what can be more manifest then that there is no such particular direction given in Worship as they had under the law And therefore however it comes to pass that this Author hath here so bewildred himself yet it 's what he hath granted before when he was fain to make exceptions as to things naturally necessary c and of which he saith in the beginning of this argument that for such it is impossible there should be a Rule though there I Page 8. conceive he hath as much erred on one side as he did before on the other when he saith it's impossible for then it had not been possible to assign time posture place c under the Law Had he said in some not possible in others not fit he had been much more in the right However to let that pass in either way he grants that there is no expectation of Scripture-Authority for such things nor doth the sufficiency of that or the faithfulness of Christ suffer by such an opinion I suppose I may now close this Argument For as for his Or 's and Alias's which this Author so much depends upon I shall consider them in another place Conclus 4. If things indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 4 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded then the doing of such things as are not commanded is not contrary to the second Commandment The contrary to this is maintained by our Author Case examined pag. 27 who saith that the doing of such things in Acts of external Worship as are not commanded is indeed a violation of the second Commandment For which he offers this reason because as in the 6th Commandment it is agreed that all injuries to our neighbour's person is forbidden under the highest species of such Acts and in the 7th all species of uncleanness are so in the 2 d commandment all errors in the matter of external Worship are forbidden under the species of Idolatry The answer to this depends upon the understanding of his phrase Matter of Worship which he hath given us no light in which either signifies parts of Worship and then we yield it that all such instituted by men are forbidden in this commandment for it 's false worship but then we deny that we are concern'd in it or that any thing not commanded and used by us is a part of Worship And if he thinks otherwise he is as upon other reasons also concern'd to take up the cause of Dr. Ames that he saith he is not concern'd in If by matter of Worship he means the administration Pag. 27. and ordering of it then I deny the parallel that all errors in Matter of Worship areas much forbidden in the second commandment as injuries by the 6th c. For injuries are of the same Species with Murder and Acts of uncleanness are of the same kind with Adultery but errors in the administration of Worship are nothing akin to Idolatry 2. I deny that the doing of things not commanded in the Matter of Worship are so much as errors in his sence since forbidden by no Law as I have shewed The Second point undertaken in the Case of Indifferent Sect. 2. Case of Indiff Things p. 4. c. Things was to shew that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that such things though not prescribed may be lawfully used in it Of this saith our reverend Author none that we Case examined p. 19 20. know of ever doubted and again as it 's stated in that Tract none in his wits did ever deny it I do not think my self obliged to answer for some mens understandings but if that be true what must we think of those whom Mr. Baxter writes of that will have a Rule for every thing and adds take heed of Defence of the principles of love part 2. p. 97. them What of such that when they grant Things Indifferent to be neither commanded nor forbidden will yet say that things not commanded are forbidden What of such that when they have granted and so it 's then granted on both sides that there are Things Indifferent in the Worship of God will yet say that the Case examin'd p. 15. Indifferency of actions to be done while they are employ'd in the Worship of God is all the Question Lastly What of those that when they have yielded that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship will have it put to the Question Whether things not necessary to all human actions may be used in it Who they are or how far they are concerned in the foregoing Character I leave to this Reverend persons Consideration But although none in his Wits did ever deny the Question as stated by me yet because it may be of use toward the clearing of the matters hereafter to be discoursed of I will briefly consider the case as it was then stated and that will appear from the things considered in the state of it and the ways taken to prove it 1. It was granted that things naturally necessary to the Action were excluded since generals act but in their particulars and if some of the kind must accompany the Act then this or that particular of the kind is lawful to be used as it is in time place habit This he grants but only adds that Habit surely is not Pag. 7. necessary we read of none before the Fig-leaves were sown together Gen. 3. But 1. We indeed read of no habit before the Fall but is there nothing natural to man since the Fall What doth our Author think of the Apostle's Natural 1. Corinth 15. 44. Body c as opposed to Heavenly or of the description he gives of the state of mankind when he saith we are by Nature Children of Wrath We read of no Eph 2. 3. such Body or state before the time of the Fig-leaves And yet the Apostle makes bold to call them Natural as belonging to man in his present fallen State
is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning but less knowing members of it and by degrees produces a distast or dislike of our Worship and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administred in our Church whilest it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt and why there should not be a due regard had to those many who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship as well as of those who are said to be Scandalized by our Church service I cannot at all guess I shall only say here that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mens unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers their indecent postures and antick gestures at their devotions the extravagancies and follies not to say worse some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching in a word the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous then all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be 4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt concerning which the forenamed Mr. Jeans in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil hath these words If saith he it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck than to offend a little one a poor and illiterate Artizan what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate to a Religious Prince to a Parliament and Convocation to an whole Church and Commonwealth 5. By this Separation from the Church great Scandal is given to the Papists not that they are displeased at it they are not indeed offended in that sense but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship it increaseth their confidence that their Church is the only true Church of Christ because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us that Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and he saith of himself that he is persuaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the multitude of Sects among our selves This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us and hit us in the teeth with and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation 6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing a matter of endless dispute and debate it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Publick Peace of Societies when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheisme and all kind of Prophaneness and Irreligion After this manner it was of old and always will be where there are Parties in Religion and one contends that their Separation is lawful and the other that it is unlawful the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion I might add here that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity they beget implacable enmities and animosities Hence cometh strife emulation envying one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other watching for one anothers halting rejoycing in one anothers sins and misfortunes constant undermining one another to the disturbance of the Publick Government and endangering the Civil Peace of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undenyable an evidence that there need no more words to shew the mischiefs that attend such Divisions and now let any one judge whether the Peace and Unity of the Church the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren the keeping out Popery and Atheism the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate and quiet of the Society we are Members of the honour and credit of our Religion Lastly Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division nay Scandalizing them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal be not of far greater and more weighty consideration than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren Wo to those by whom Offences come But these things I have very lightly touched because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published To sum up all I have said Since they who dissent from the Church of England are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalize or Offend them in that sense in which the Scriptures use those words since tho we did give Offence to them by our Conformity yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief I think I may safely conclude that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent himself from his Parish-Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending his weak Brethren I end all with one word of Advice First to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity Secondly to those who are satisfied that it is lawful 1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request since they require all others to be so tender of them They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our publick Churches Let them not affront our Service and Common-Prayers nor revile our Bishops and Ministers nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches nor talk nor read in Books nor make sour
of the thing 2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle who was of the Seed of Abraham an Hebrew of the Hebrews and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church and as a Common-wealth First I say there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before and after its Union with the Empire Before its Union with the Empire it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years in a State of Persecution from Christ unto Constantine the Great and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the Law But Secondly As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing so is it in effect made by the Apostle Gal. 3. 17. This I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God with Abraham in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise to Abraham of none Effect Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed when he separated him from the World unto himself and that Political one which he afterwards made with the Jews when he gave them the Law And this difference is also observed Rom. 4. 13. The Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise is of no effect From these words which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham or the Promise which he made unto him and the Law it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore in the second place the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical or pure Jewish Church is to consider the nature of the Covenant or Promise upon which it was founded and if we examine the Scriptures we shall find that it was an Evangelical Covenant For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with * * * Fide autem stare justitiā illic esse vitam praedictā est apud Habbaccuc Justus autem ex fide vivet Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit In Genes credidit Abraham Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Item Paulus ad Galatas Abraham credidit Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide c. Cyprian advers Judaeos Judaeos à Deo recessisse successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes de omnibus Gentibus ac toto orbe venientes Cyprian ad Quirin Testim L. 3. Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers with his Spiritual as well as Carnal Seed proceeding from him by Spiritual as well as Natural Generation and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans from the 9th to the 15th Verse Cometh then this Blessedness of Justification by Faith upon the Circumcision only or upon the Uncircumcision also For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckon'd When he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Promises made to the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that so believing before Circumcision he might be the Father both of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also as his Children and the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World in his Posterity was not to Abraham or his Seed through the Righteousness of the Law but through the Righteousness which cometh of Faith For if they only which are of the Law be Heirs his Faith so much celebrated is made void and the Promise made to it of no effect So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse He therefore that ministreth unto you the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the works of the Law or by the Faith which you have heard preached even as it is written of * * * Quoniam autem in Abraham praefigurabatur fides nostra quoniam Patriarcha nostrae fidei velut propheta fuit plenisfimè Apostolus docuit in eâ Epistolâ quae est ad Galatas dicens Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum operatur virtutes in vobis Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 38. Abraham he believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness know ye therefore that they which are the Children of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed So then they which be the Children of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham or his Seed or Race were the Promises of God made He i. e. God or Moses his Pen-man saith Not to Seeds or Races as if there were divers of them but to thy Seed i. e. to one of thy Seed which is Christ And this I say that the Abrahamical Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise made unto Abraham of none effect From all these Texts put together it is plain that the Abrahamical Covenant upon which the Jewish Church as such was founded was of a Spiritual Evangelical Nature and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ who was made of the Seed of Abraham and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed and whose Day Abraham himself saw and rejoyced It is farther evident from them that this Covenant was made with Abraham as the Father
old in their calm mood who declare We testify to all Brownists Apol p. 7. An. 1604. Men by these Presents That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true ancient Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them See more in Baily's Disswasive cap. 2. p. 20 33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Part 1. § 9. p. 31. The Presbyterians if I may so call them for distinction sake do own it So Mr. Corbet The Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments by Discourse § 21 p. 43. Law established is heartily received by the Non-conformists So Mr. Baxter As for the Doctrine of the Church of England Preface to 5 Disp p. 6. the Bishops and their Followers from the first Reformation begun by Edw. 6. were sound in Doctrine adhering to the Augustan Method express'd now in the Articles and Homilies they differ'd not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritans The like is affirmed by the Independents The Confession of the Church of Peace-Offer ing p. 12. See Mr. Baxter's Defence of his Cure Part 1. p. 64. and Part 2. p. 3. and Wadsworth in his Separation yet no Schism p. 60 62. Mr. Throughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists cap. 3. p. 106. England declared in the Articles of Religion and herein what is purely doctrinal we fully embrace 2. As to the Worship they own it for the Matter and Substance to be good and for Edification So the old Non-Conformists as Mr. Hildersham There is Lecture 26. on John p. 121. nothing in our Assemblies but we may receive profit by it c. And again There is nothing done in God's Publick Worship among us but what is done by the Institution Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. So among the present it is owned by both Presbyterians and Independents by the former in the Morning Exercise Continuat Morning Exercise Serm 4. p. 91. Why may it not be supposeable that Christians may be moved by reasonable Considerations to attend the publick Forms the substantial Parts of them being thought agreeable to a Divine Institution though in some Circumstantials too disagreeable So it is acknowledged That in Throughton's Apol. p. 104. private Meetings the same Doctrine and Worship is used as in the Parish Churches only some Circumstances and Ceremonies omitted By the latter We know full well that we Peace-Offering p. 17. differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion established in England but only in some few things in outward Worship But I shall have further occasion to treat of this under the third General 3. As for the Ministry of the Church 1. It is acknowledged to be true and for substance the same which Christ hath established So Mr. Bradshaw I Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 16. affirm That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies howsoever it may in some particular parts of the Execution haply be defective in some Places is for the Substance thereof that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church This he speaks as he saith of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State 2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office so the grave and modest Confutation maintains The preaching of the whole Truth of God's Word Grave and modest Confutat p. 28. and nothing but it the Administration of the Sacraments and of Publick Prayer as they are of all parts of the Ministers Office prescribed in the Word so they are all appointed to our Ministers by the Law 3. They own That all the Defects in it whether in their Call or Administration do not nullify the Office Thus much Mr. Bradshaw doth contend for So many of our Ministers Unreasonableness of Separation p. 27 37. who in the Book of Ordination are called Priests and Deacons as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry are qualified according to the intent of the Laws have their Offices Callings Adminstration and Maintenance for the Substance thereof ordained by Christ And yet I deny not but there may be some accidental Defects or Superfluities in or about them all yet such as do not or cannot be proved to destroy the Nature and Substance of any of them This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England c. p. 86 87. And the like is also affirmed even by those of the Apologet. Narration p. 6. Congregational Way so the Brethren in their Apology The unwarrantable Power in Church-Governours did never work in any of us any other Thought much less Opinion but that the Ministry thereof of the English Churches was a true Ministry So Mr. Cotton The Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. Power whereby the Ministers in England do administer the Word and Sacraments is either spiritual and proper essential to their Calling or advantitious and accidental The former they have received from Christ c. The latter from the Patron who presents or the Bishop who ordains c. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordination defended may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici part 2 p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Divinum Regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism pag. 116. and his Defence of it pag. 35 37. Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed that the Church of England is a true Church in its Doctrine Worship and Ministry But when we come to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true there we shall find that they do differ The Presbyterians generally own a National Church and have writ much in the behalf of it as may be seen in the Books quoted in the * * * Jus Divinum Minist Evang. p 12 c. Brinsly's Church-remedy p 41 42. Cawdry Independ a great Schism p. 60 89 172. Margin Others look upon it as a prudential thing and what may lawfully be complied with So Mr. Tombs | | | Theodulia or just Defence § 15 16. Preface c. 9. § 3. It is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England the Church of England than it is to term Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any Institution of our Lord more for the one than the other But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a Constitution or that speak doubtfully of it do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches It 's acknowledged by all that the Distribution into Parishes is not of Divine but Humane Institution but withal its thought by some * * * Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh clouded p. 101 c. Cawdrey's Independ a great Schism p. 132 c. Church-Reformation p. 42. agreeable to the reason of the
are for a Form This do they urge that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper and this they say that are for Kneeling so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion and are for Edification is an argument used by both Now if Adjuncts are not part of VVorship and may be yet used to further Devotion then the furthering Devotion by any Rite doth not in it self make that Rite so used to be VVorship I acknowledg there is False VVorship as well as True True VVorship is of Divine Institution and False VVorship is of Humane Appointment and becomes Worship when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it s used for the same special ends that Gods VVorship is instituted for that is as necessary to acceptance or as a means of Grace And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False VVorship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of VVorship in our Church we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them use them not as necessary nor as means of Grace after the manner we do the VVord of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in VVorship that They are used to further Devotion VVithout this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine VVorship being the acknowledgment of God and a giving Honour to Him should have all things about it Grave and Solemn that may best sute it and promote the ends for which it s used But if Rites are used in it that have no respect to such ends they become Vain and Trifling neither worthy of that nor our Defence And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their VVorship and for such that either have no signification or whose signification is so obscure as is not easie to be observed or traced and that rather hinder than further Devotion Surely it would not so well answer the end if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book as when on the Gospel nor if the Love-feasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal without respect to Charity signified by it 3. It s another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men and used for the furthering Devotion are made to be of the same Nature with Images This there is no foundation for for the Religious use of Images is expresly contrary to the Command of God and Forbidden because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that VVorship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries as are before spoken of that fall under the censure of either of these but that we may lawfully use them and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the VVorship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than Object IV the Law and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses in the care of his Church Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined but by what they have It s a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided and the Peace of the Church secured But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify there is not one Word in Scripture which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary that doth shew that it is necessary or were it so who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion Thus it is in the matter before us the pretence is very Popular and Plausible that Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God than God whose Worship it is And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for But when we come to enquire into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the VVord of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things Rev. 22. 18. God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intollerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their
do appear that all Men do agree in their Notions and Sense about this matter That without doubt which they all thus agree in is the true Notion and Sense of Conscience Now as to this we may oberve in the first Place that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own Actions or to something that hath the Nature of an Action which is done or omitted by him or is to be done or omitted Matters of meer Knowledg and Speculation we do not concern our Conscience with as neither with those things in which we are purely Passive as neither with Actions if they be not our own We do not for instance make it a Point of Conscience one way or other whether a thing be true or false or whether this or the other Accident that befals us be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man hath done good or bad Actions in which we are no way concerned These kind of things may indeed prove matters of great Satisfaction or Disquiet of Joy or Grief to us But we do not take our Conscience to be affected with them That word never comes in but with respect to something willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly we may observe that in Common Speech we do not neither use this word Conscience about our Actions but only so far as those Actions fall under a Moral consideration that is as they have the Nature of Duties or Sins or as they are Lawful or Vnlawful Always when we speak of Conscience in our Actions we have respect to some Law or Rule by which those Actions are to be directed and govern'd and by their agreeableness or disagreeableness with which they become morally Good or Evil. Thirdly this being so the only thing remaining to be enquired into for the finding out what Conscience is is what can be reasonably thought to be our Sense and meaning when we use the word Conscience with such Application to our Actions as we have now said Now for that I desire it may be considered that when we talk of our Actions as we concern our Conscience in them they can but fall under these two Heads of Distinction that is to say in the first place we either consider our Actions as already done or omitted or we consider them as yet not done but as we are deliberating about them And then Secondly whether we consider them as done or not done as past or future yet we Rank them under one of these three Notions We either look upon them as Commanded by God and so to be Duties or as forbidden by God and so to be Sins or as neither Commanded nor forbidden and so to be indifferent Actions With these last Actions indeed Conscience is not properly or directly concerned but only by accident to wit as those indifferent Actions do approach to the Nature of Duties or Sins Our Actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under some of these Heads Now in all these Respects we have indeed different ways of bringing in Conscience but yet as it will appear we mean the same thing by it in them all First of all when we are considering an Action as yet not done if we look upon it as Commanded by God we say we are bound in Conscience to do it if we look upon it as a Sinful Action we say it is against our Conscience to do it if we look upon it as an indifferent thing we say we may do it or not do it with a Safe Conscience Now I pray what do we mean by these expressions I desire that every one would consult his own Mind and deny if he can that this is the Sense of his words If he saith he is bound in Conscience to do this or the other thing whether he doth not mean this that he verily thinks it is his Duty to do that Action If he saith that it is against his Conscience to do such an Action whether he means any more than this that he is perswaded in his Judgment that to do such an Action is an Offence against God If he saith that he can do it with a Safe Conscience whether he hath any other meaning than this that to the best of his Knowledg and Judgment the Action may be done without Transgressing any Law of God This is now undeniably the Sense that every Man in the World hath when he makes mention of Conscience as to Actions that are not yet done but only proposed to his Consideration So that taking Conscience as it respects our Actions to be done or omitted and as it is to Govern and Conduct them in which Sense we call Conscience a Guide or a Monitor and sometimes though very improperly a Rule of our Actions it can be nothing else in the Sense of all Men that use that word but a Mans Judgment concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Actions in order to the Conduct of his own Life But Secondly if we speak of our Actions that are done and past and consider Conscience with Reference to them here indeed we do a little vary the Expression about Conscience but the Notion of it is the same we have now given As for instance when we talk of Peace of Conscience or Trouble of Conscience with Reference to some Action we have done or omitted when we say My Conscience bears me Witness that I have Acted rightly and honestly in this Affair or my Conscience acquits me from blame as to this or the other Action or I am troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done If we turn these Phrases into other words we shall find that there is nothing more at the bottom of them than this that reflecting upon our own Actions we find that in this or the other instance we have either Acted or omitted as we are convinced in our Judgment we ought to do and the remembrance of this is some Pleasure and Satisfaction to us or we have done or forborn something contrary to what we take to be our Duty and the remembrance of this affects us with grief and trouble But still in both these instances of Expression that which we mean by Conscience is the same thing as in the former Cases viz. It is our Judgment and Perswasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do or Lawfully may do only here we add to it this Consideration that the Action which we are perswaded to be good or bad or indifferent is now done or omitted by us and we do remember it In the Former Case Conscience was considered as the Guide of our Actions In the latter Case it is considered as the Witness of our Actions But in both Cases Conscience is the Judge and consequently in both Cases the Notion of it is the same only with this difference that in the former it was a Mans mind making a Judgment what he ought
to do or not to do in the latter it is a Mans mind reflecting upon what he hath done or not done and Judging whether he be Innocent or Culpable in the matter he reflects upon I do not know how to give a clearer account of the Nature of Conscience in general than this I have now given This I believe is the Natural Notion that all Men have of it and there is no Expression in Scripture about it but what doth confirm this Notion If indeed we put Epithites to Conscience and talk of a Good Conscience or an Evil Conscience A Tender Conscience or a Seared Conscience or the like Then it includes more both in Scripture and in Common Language than I have now mentioned But to give an account of those things I am not now concerned as being without the Limits of our present enquiry II. And now we are sufficiently prepared for our Second general Point which is touching the Rule of Conscience if indeed after what we have already said it be not superfluous to insist upon that It appears plainly by what I have represented that Conscience must always have a Rule which it is to follow and by which it is to be Govern'd For since Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions as good or bad or Indifferent it is certain that a Man must have some measures to proceed by in order to the framing such a Judgment about Actions that is to say there must be something distinct from the Man himself that makes Actions to be good or bad or indifferent and from which by applying particular Actions to it or comparing them with it a Man may be able to Judge whether they be of the one sort or the other Now this whatever it be is that which we call the Rule of Conscience and so much it is its Rule that Conscience can be no farther a safe guide than as it follows that Rule If now it be asked what this Rule of Conscience is or what that is which makes a difference between Actions as to the Moral goodness or badness of them the Answer to it is Obvious to every Body That it can be nothing else but the Law of God For nothing can be a Duty but what Gods Law hath made so and nothing can be a Sin but what Gods Law hath forbidden the very Notion of Sin being that it is a Transgression of the Law and lastly we call a thing Lawful or Indifferent upon this very account that there is no Law of God either Commanding or Forbidding it and where there is no Law there is no Transgression So that undeniably the great nay I say the only Rule by which Conscience is to be Governed is the Law of God considered either as it Commands Actions or Forbids them or as it neither Commands them nor Forbids them But in order to the giving a more distinct account of this Rule of Conscience there is this needful to be enquired into viz. In what Sense we take or what we mean by the Law of God when we say it is the Rule of Conscience Now to this our Answer is That by the Law of God we here understand Gods Will for the Government of Mens Actions in what way soever that Will is declared to them Now the will of God is declared to Men two ways either by Nature or by Revelation so that the just and adequate Rule of Conscience is made up of two parts the Law of Nature and Gods Revealed Law By the Law of Nature we mean those Principles of Good and Evil Just and Unjust which God hath Stamp'd upon the Minds of all Men in the very Constitution of their Natures There are some things Eternally good in themselves Such as to Worship God to Honour our Parents to stand to our Covenants to Live Peaceably in the Government from which we receive Protection and the contrary to these will be Eternally Evil the Heads of all which things thus good in themselves are writ so plainly and Legibly in the Minds of Mankind that there is no Man who is come to the use of his Reason but must of necessity be convinced that to Practice these things will alway be his Duty and not to Practice them will always be Evil and a Sin Now all these Heads and Principles put together is that we call the Law of Nature and this is all the Rule of Conscience that Mankind had before God was pleased to discover his Will by more particular Revelation And this is that Law which the Apostle speaks of when he saith that the Gentiles who had not the Law of Moses yet had a Law written in their Hearts by their Acting according to which or contrary to which their Conscience did bear Witness to them and did either Accuse them or Excuse them But then Secondly to us Christians God to this Law of Nature hath superadded a Revealed Law which is contained in the Books of Holy Scriptures Which Revealed Law yet is not wholly of a different kind from the former nor doth it at all void the Obligation of it But only thus God hath in his Revealed Law declared the Precepts of the Law of Nature more certainly and accurately than before He hath given greater Force and Strength to them than they had before by the Sanctions of greater Rewards and Punishments He hath likewise herein perfected the Law of Nature and hath Obliged us in point of Duty to more and higher Instances of Vertue than Nature did strictly Oblige us to And Lastly He hath added some Positive Laws for us to observe which were not at all contained in the Law of Nature as for instance to believe in Jesus Christ in order to Salvation to make all our Applications to God in the Name of that Mediatour Christ Jesus to enter into a Christian Society by Baptism and to Exercise Communion with that Society by partaking of the Lords Supper And this is that Law which we Christians are Obliged to as well as to the Law of our Natures and which as it is a Summary of all the Laws of Nature so indeed is it a Summary of all our Duty So that if any Man will call it the great or only Rule of Christian Conscience I shall not much oppose him provided that this be always Remembred that In the Third Place when we say that the Natural and Revealed Law of God is the just Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience or when we say that the Law of God as Revealed and contained in the Bible is to us Christians the just Rule We are so to understand this Proposition as to take into it not only all that is directly and expresly Commanded or Forbidden by either of those Laws But also all that by plain Collection of Right Reason in Applying Generals to Particulars or comparing one thing with another doth appear to be Commanded or Forbidden by them So that by the Law of Nature as it
is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâ—th all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
Conscience hath passed no Dictate no Verdict in this matter and therefore he cannot be supposed to act against any such Dictate or Verdict The man is in such a state that he either believes he may act as he doth without violation of his Duty Or at least he hath no belief to the contrary so that his Conscience doth not any way Condemn him And as for the other thing of his not chusing that side of the Doubtful Case which appeared to him most reasonable it is true if there was any Law of God which obliged him to make such a Choice he would be guilty of sin if he chose otherwise But now it doth not appear that there is any such Law of God Nay so far from that that it appears from St. Paul that there is no such Law but that every man is left to his own liberty in this matter always supposing that he take care not to chuse or do any thing that he judgeth to be inconsistent with his Duty which in our Case we do likâ—wise suppose But then having said this we must add further That though we here have concluded that no man in a Doubtful Case properly so called is strictly obliged by any Law of God under the penalty of sin to chuse one side more than another but may indifferently chuse either Yet in the first place Whoever doth believe or is perswaded in his own Mind either that he ought not at all to Act against a Doubt or that in every Doubtful Case he is bound to follow the safer side such a man so long as he so believes cannot without sin Act according to the Principles we have now laid down And Secondly We are far from encouraging any man to act thus hand over head in a Doubtful Case much less from commending him for so doing For though we say that strictly speaking a man doth not sin which way soever he Act in a purely doubtful Case yet on the other hand I think he is but in a low Dispensation as to Vertue and Goodness that never looks further into his Actions nor takes more care about them than only that they be not directly sinful He that is heartily Good will with St. Paul not only consider what things are Lawful but what things are Expedient and do Edifie It will not ordinarily be sufficient to ingage such a man in an Action to satisfie him that he may do that Action without transgressing any Law of God But he will examine whether the doing or forbearing the Action doth more serve the ends of Vertue and Charity And accordingly as that appears to him so will he determine his Choice In a word The Better and the more Vertuous any man is the more delicate and tender sense will he have not only of that which the Law of God hath precisely made his Duty and so in a proper Sense doth oblige his Conscience but also of every thing that is Reasonable and Excellent and Praise-worthy So that it will really grate upon his mind to do many things which in strict speaking cannot be accounted unlawful or forbidden And thus it is in our present Case If we suppose a man to be a Devout Christian and a sincere Lover of God he will not be able to prevail with himself in a Case where he Doubteth to chuse either side indiscriminately though if he should I do not know as I said before what Law of God he transgresseth but he will weigh and consider the Reasons on both sides and that which appears to him after such Consideration to be most reasonable and conducing to Gods Glory and his own and the Worlds good that shall have the preference To come to a conclusion The sum of what I have now said is this As Conscience is the immediate Guide of our Actions So the Rule by which Conscience it self is to be guided is the Law of God and nothing else Though therefore we cannot be safe in following our Conscience where our Conscience is not guided by the Law of God because as I have often said our false Judgment of things doth not cancel our Obligation to act according to what the Laws of God require of us unless we can justly plead unblameable Ignorance of those Laws Yet on the other hand where-ever Conscience tells us that we must do this Action because the Law of God hath commanded it we must do it or we sin And again Where-ever Conscience tells us that we must avoid this Action because the Law of God hath forbidden it we must forbear that Action or we sin But if Conscience cannot say that this Action is commanded or forbidden there we are not tyed under the penalty of sinning either to do or to forbear that Action But yet if a Mans Conscience should thus suggest to him Though I cannot say directly that this Action is a Duty or that it is a sin because I am at a loss how the Law of God stands as to this matter and consequently I cannot lay any direct Obligation upon you either way yet my advice is that you would chuse this way rather than the other For this way all things considered appears most fit and reasonable to be chosen for there is more Probability that this is the right way than the other or there is less harm though you should be mistaken in going this way than the other Now in this Case though a man be not properly obliged under the Guilt of Sin to obey his Conscience because Conscience doth not propose the Choice to him under that Condition yet if he be a Wise and a Good man he will undoubtedly chuse that side which Conscience all things considered hath represented to him to be the most fit and reasonable to be chosen And thus much concerning our Fourth and last General Head Thus have I largely discussed the Case of a Doubting Conscience in general and answered all the Considerable Enquiries that can be made about it I am not sensible that I have left any material difficulty in this Argument untouched though I am very sensible I have said a great deal more than needed in order to the Resolution of that Case for the sake of which I undertook this Discourse But I intended such a discussion of this Argument as would serve for all other Cases as well as that I do not know whether it be needful to make a particular Application of what I have said upon a Doubting Conscience to the Case of our present Dissenters However it will not be amiss if I offer something towards it if it be but to save the Reader who is concerned in that Case the Labour and Trouble of doing it The Case which I am to speak to is briefly this There are several Persons that are unsatisfied about the Lawfulness of our Communion as it is established and enjoyned and that upon several Accounts Some perhaps Doubt of the Lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer Others about the Lawfulness of our
Authority for it is not so absurd as may by some be imagined for the Common People to take upon trust from their lawful Teachers what they are not competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty here is how shall a private Christian govern himself when the very Guides and Ministers of Religion determine differently concerning these matters in question amongst us Some warranting and allowing them others as much disapproving and condemning them by what Rule shall he choose his Guide To which I briefly reply 1. As for those who scruple at Conformity and are tolerably able to judge for themselves let not such relye barely upon the Authority either of the one or the other All we desire of them is that they would equally hear both sides that they would think that the Ministers of the Church of England have some Sense and Conscience too as well as other Men and are able to say somewhat for what they do themselves or require of others that laying aside all Prejudices Favour to or admiration of Mens Persons they would weigh and consider the Arguments that may be propounded to them being diffident of their own Apprehensions and indifferent to either part of the Question that they would think it no shame to change their Mind when they see good reason for it Could we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church would every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men for we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. But as for those who are not so capable of examining or judging for themselves as few of the common People who separate from us really are they not being able to give any tolerable account of their dissent from us only in general Words declaiming against Popery Superstition Antichristian and Unscriptural Ceremonies Humane Traditions c. such had better trust to and depend on those Ministers of known Sufficiency for their Office who are regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than any other Guides or Teachers that they can choose for themselves This to be sure is the safer course which in doubtful cases is always to be taken I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies so hotly agitated amongst us which are above the Sphere of common People out of their profession not of such things as concern the Salvation of all men which are plain and evident to the meanest Capacities When therefore in such cases about which we cannot easily satisfie our selves we follow the Advice of the publickly authorized Guides and Preachers of Religion if they chance to mislead us we have something to say or apologize for our selves Our Error is more excusable and pardonable as being occasion'd by those to whose Judgment by God's Command we did owe a great Respect and Submission But when we choose Instructors and Counsellors to our selves according to our own Fancy and liking and they teach us contrary to the Doctrine of our lawful Ministers if then we prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into Sin we may thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely accomptable for such Mistakes Thus let a Man that is troubled with any threatning disease apply himself rather to the Licensed Physicians or Chyrurgions of approved Skill and Honesty and if he chance to miscarry under them yet he hath this contentment that he used the best and wisest means for his Health and Recovery But if he leaves them all and will hearken only to Quacks and Empiricks tho they advise him quite contrary to what the others prescribed if under their hands he grows worse and worse he must then charge his own perverse Folly or idle Humour as the cause of his Ruine 4. In order to the curing of our Scruples we should thoroughly understand and consider what is the true Notion of lawful and how it differs from what is necessary and from what is sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God hath expresly commanded that is sinful which God hath forbid that is lawful which God hath not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbid for Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where kneeling at the Sacrament is forbid in Scripture where fitting is required where praying by a Form is forbid and extemporary Prayers are enjoyned then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end but if neither the one nor the other can be found as most certainly they cannot then kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin nay where they are required by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another Notion of Lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself hath not prescribed and appointed or that hath been abused to evil Purposes And on these two Mistakes are chiefly grounded Mens Scruples about indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in God's Worship 1. That only is said to be lawful in God's Worship which he himself hath prescribed and appointed so that this is thought Exception sufficient against the Forms and Usages of our Church that though they are not forbid yet they are no where commanded in Scripture Who hath required these things at your hands Now here I only ask Where our Saviour or his Apostles have forbid us doing any thing in God's Worship which is not by himself commanded or where in the New Testament we are told that God will be angry with us for doing any thing which he hath no where forbid either by general or particular Laws For unless this can be shewn there can be no colour for this Pretence and we are sufficiently sure that no such Place can be produced out of the Bible It is acknowledged by all that the Holy Scriptures as to all that is necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation as to all the essential and substantial Parts of Divine Worship is a plain and perfect Rule but it is as certain that the outward Circumstances of Time Place Habit and Gesture are not determined in the New Testament as they were in many cases by Moses's Law and yet God cannot be at least visibly and publickly worshipped without them If therefore these be not determined in Scripture and it is unlawful to
might by all means save some And this I do for the Gospels sake that I might be partaker thereof with you This was the Apostles design in all these Compliances and Civilities to win many to the Faith of Christ by these wise arts to insinuate himself and his Doctrine into them but when he had once made his way he then taught them another lesson and behaved himself after a far different manner Now to do as St. Paul did would always be the duty and wisdom of one in his circumstances who had his office and was to propagate any Religion amongst Heathens and Infidels like a Master that dealeth not so sharply with his Scholar at his first entrance into the School as he thinketh fit to do afterwards But the directions St. Paul gave and according to which himself practis'd at the first planting of Christianity do no more agree with our times wherein Christianity is become the National Religion countenanced by the Civil Laws and Authority and so generally professed by every one amongst us that we hardly know of any other Religion than the same Cloaths we did wear in our Infancy would serve us now when we are of full Age. We ought indeed to be very careful of Children and lead them by strings and remove every straw and rub out of their way lest they stumble and fall but it is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown men None of us Labour under those prejudices the first Christians did who forsook a Religion in which they had been bred and long lived and as to the Jews had left a way of Worship commanded them by God himself confirmed to them by many Miracles and Wonders delivered to them from their Fathers by a constant succession of Prophets sent from God There is not now amongst us any such competition between two Religions but every one learneth Christianity as he doth his Mothers Tongue The Apostles therefore and Governours of the Church carried themselves towards these new Converts as God Almighty did towards the Children of Israel when he brought them first out of Aegypt He for a while led them by a Pillar of Fire and of a Cloud gave them Water out of the Rock and rain'd down Bread and Flesh from Heaven This he did for them whilest in their passage thus extraordinarily provide for them and in some cases even humour that People lest upon every little pretence they should return back to the Garlick and Onyons of Aegypt but after they were setled in the Land of Canaan he then left them in their own hands by ordinary Common means to take care of and provide for themselves he did not shew the same indulgence to them as he did whilst they were in the Wilderness St. Paul would not take that reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself Laboured hard night and day because he would not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2. 9. and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly But surely our Dissenting Brethren do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where Publick maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual occupation tho thereby they avoid giving offence to Quakers and those who call them hirelings and say they prophesie only for filthy lucre Thus it is usually observed that St. Paul writes quite after a different manner to the Romans and to the Galatians tho upon the same subject In his Epistle to the Romans amongst whom he had never yet been he pitieth and pleadeth for the weak Christians chargeth that they should not be despised or cast off that no cause of offence should be given them but to the Galatians a People that had been fully instructed in the nature of their Christian Liberty amongst whom himself had planted the Gospel and had been present in person and so knew that they understood better when some of them fell into the same Error thinking Circumcision and the observation of the Mosaical Law necessary to Christians he chides them sharply and rebukes them more severely Who hath bewitched you O foolish Galatians c. He who would condescend to the Ignorant Novices amongst the Romans would not in the least comply with the Galatians that had or ought to have had more knowledge and light and afterwards when the reason of such forbearance ceased when the nation of the Jews had rejected Christ and the Gentile world was come into the Church the observation of the Mosaical Law and the distinction of meats contained therein was so far from being tolerated in those whether Jews or Gentiles who through mistake thought themselves obliged to it that it was condemned by the Rules and Canons of the Church The sum of all this is that whatever Argument may be drawn from St. Paul's discourses about weak Brethren by way of Analogy or Similitude or Parity of reason yet there are no such weak persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provideth or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concerned 2ly I would desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider by what pretence they can challenge any priviledge belonging to them under the notion of weak Christians when according to their own opinion and conceit of themselves they are of all men furthest off from being such in any sense This is as if a man worth a Thousand pound per annum should Sue in formâ pauperis They who take upon themselves to be teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only Sober and Godly party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as Ignorant or Prophane with what colour of reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho they love to argue against us from the example of St. Pauls condescension to the uninstructed Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other cases willingly liken themselves to those weak believers or Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and would be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and do prefer their own private opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest men or the determinations of their Lawful Superiours And if in all instances we should deal with them as weak persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they would think themselves highly wrong'd and injured If the several Dissenters amongst us did in good earnest look upon themselves as weak that is Ignorant Wavering half Christians did they think their dislike of the Constitutions of our Church to be the effect of such weakness they would be either more careful to hide it or would more diligently seek out for remedy
prejudice them against his Person and Doctrine Thus our Saviours own Country-men who were acquainted with his Father and Mother and Kindred who knew the meanness of his Birth and Education Mark 6. 3. were Offended or Scandalized at him They were astonished at the great things he did and the greater things he spoke and would in all probability have believed on him had they not known his mean Original and employment Is not this the Carpenter the Son of Mary c. After the same manner when our Lord St. John 6. 61. had discoursed of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man they that heard him taking it in a gross carnal sense were Offended or Scandalized at him They began to doubt of his being a true Prophet or the Messiah who would teach his Disciples to turn Cannibals Thus again our Saviour before the night in which he was betrayed told his Disciples St. Matt. 26. 31. all of ye shall be Offended or Scandalized because of me this Night that is shall fly away and shamefully forsake me when you behold my hard usage and dismal sufferings So Christ Crucified 1 Cor. 1. 23. to the Jews was a Scandal or stumbling-block that is they had set their minds and hearts on a temporal earthly King and expected to be freed from the Roman Yoke and to be restored to their former Dominions and greatness as the effect of the coming of their Messiah and therefore could not be persuaded to own him for their Prince and Saviour and the Son of God who was put to such a Cursed and Ignominious death In the same sense they who heard the Word of God Mark 4. 17. and received it with gladness but having no root in themselves when Affliction or Persecution arose for the Words sake were presently offended or Scandalized that is were ready to leave and renounce that Profession that was likely to cost them so dear After the publishing of the Gospel by the Apostles that which most stumbled the Jewish Converts was the danger Moses's Law and their Temple Worship and the singular preeminences of the Seed of Abraham seemed to be in of being undermined by Christianity They were strangely wedded to their Legal observances fond of Circumcision and those peculiarities which distinguished their Nation from the rest of mankind they were jealous of any Doctrine that encroached upon their Priviledges or tended to bring them down to the same level with the Uncircumcised World This mightily Offended them and hardned them against Christianity whereas on the other side the Gentile Converts with as much reason were afraid of putting their Necks under so heavy a Yoke or being brought into subjection to the Jewish Law and there was no such effectual way to scare them from Christianity as when it came attended with the burden of the Mosaical Ceremonies which were an Offence to them that is did discourage them from believing in Christ or continuing in his Faith Now to prevent the mischiefs that might arise from these different apprehensions amongst the Christian Proselites was the occasion of the meeting of that first Council at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 15. and of those directions which St. Paul gives Rom. 14. concerning our behaviour towards weak Brethren Another case there was concerning eating of things offered to Idols of which St. Paul discourseth in his first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 8. and 10. the sum of which seems to be this that the stronger and wiser Christians ought to abstain from eating what had been offered to Idols tho as ordinary meat in the presence of any one who with Conscience of the Idol did eat it as a thing offered to an Idol For such there were in the Church of Corinth so weak as not yet to have quite left off their Idolatrous Worship and a Christians eating what had been Offered in Sacrifice before such an one might serve to harden and confirm him in his Error whose Conscience being weak is defiled Of whose Soul St. Paul professed himself to have so great regard that he would eat no such meat as long as the World lasted rather than lay such a stumbling-block before or wound their weak Consciences In all these places and many more that might be named for the fuller explication of which I refer you to interpreters and those that have written largely on this subject no less than Apostacy from the Christian Faith was the sin into which these weak Christians were so apt to fall and by an undue use of our Liberty to give occasion to anothers forsaking the Christian Religion whereby our Saviour loseth a Disciple and the Soul of our Brother perisheth is the proper sin of Offending or giving Scandal I shall mention but one place more which is Revel 2. 14. where Balaam is said to have taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block or Scandal before the Children of Israel which relates othis inticing them by the Daughters of Moab to Fornication and Idolatry and by that means provoking God against them So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the meer sound of words Hence I shall conclude these few things 1. The better Men are the harder it is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly persons as they would be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended for how can they be reckon'd to excel others in knowledg or goodness who are so easily upon every occasion drawn or tempted to sin Thus Mr. Baxter himself tells the Separatists in his Cure of Church Divisions Vsually saith he men talk most against Scandalizing those whom they account to be the best and the best are least in danger of sinning and so they accuse them to be the worst or else they know not what they say for suppose a Separatist should say if you hold Communion with any Parish Minister or Church in England it will be a Scandal to many good people I would ask such an one Why call you those good people that are easily drawn to sin against God Nay that will sin because I do my duty Therefore if you know what you say you make the Separatists almost the worst of men that will sin against God because another will not sin The great thing our Nonconformists pretend unto above other men is tenderness of Conscience by which they must mean if they mean any Vertue by it a great fear of doing any thing that is evil and this where it is in truth is the best security that can be devised against being Scandalized or Offended by what other Men do that is against being drawn into sin by it So that they do really disparage and severely reflect upon the Dissenters who are thus afraid of giving them Offence as I have explained it 2. No man can with sense say of himself that he
one in this Question a lawful command of our Superiours for fear of some evil that may by chance happen to some others through their own fault and we prove it by this reason which our Dissenting Brethren must own for true and good because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others Salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren If it be here asked as it is by some whether any human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such Command had been criminal upon the account of the Scandal that followed it I Answer that no Authority whether divine or human can secure that others shall not be Offended by what I do out of obedience to their Commands but then it doth free me from all guilt and blame by making that to become my duty to do which if I had done needlesly without any great reason and my Brother had been hurt and his Conscience wounded by it might have been justly charged with uncharitableness greater or less according as the Scandal was more or less probable to follow This must be granted that the Laws of God or Man otherwise obligatory do not lose their binding force because of some Scandal that may possibly happen from our Complyance with them or else all Authority is utterly void and insignificant and every Man is at liberty to do all things as himself pleaseth for to borrow the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Man or other either did or might take offence thereat Whether such a Constitution or Command of our Superiours be Scandalous or no every one must judge for himself and so according to his own private opinion of the goodness or hurtfulness of what is required he is free to obey it or not which is directly to dissolve all Government and to bring in certain disorder and everlasting confusion every one doing what is good in his own Eyes 3. It is said that Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity May Superiours therefore at their pleasure appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brothers Soul then surely an inferiour Earthly Court may cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven This Mr. Jeans urgeth also out of Amesius but it is easily replyed That here is no Crossing the determinations of God since it is his express will that in all lawful things we should obey our Governours and he who hath made this our duty will not lay to our charge the mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault through the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it and certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours should appoint how far I shall exercise my charity towards my Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set bounds to their Power and Authority Cancel the publick Laws or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determin how far we shall be obedient to those whom God hath set over us either in Church or State But to give a more full Answer to this we must know that tho charity be the great duty especially of the Christian Religion yet duties of justice as they are commonly called are of stricter obligation than duties of charity and we are bound to pay our debts before we give an alms Now obedience to Superiours is a debt we owe to them which they have right to exact of us so that they may accuse us of injury if we perform it not But a great care to hinder sin in others or not to Scandalize them is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged unto as far as we can but not till after we have given to every one what is his due and right It is therefore no more Lawful for me saith the forenamed most Judicious Bishop Sanderson to disobey the lawful Command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few Brethren then it is lawful for me to do one man wrong to do another man a courtesie withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to relieve an Hospital According to that known saying of St. Austin Quis est qui dicat ut habeamus quod demus pauperibus faciamus furta divitibus Who is it that saith it is lawful to steal from the rich what we may bestow on the poor or to refuse to pay Taxes on pretence that you know those who have more need of your money To this Mr. Jeans replies Suppose saith he the care of not giving offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Here I grant indeed that both are required by God at our hands that we should be obedient to our Superiours and that we should be always ready to shew charity to our Brethren but then I say this is not the charity which God requires when I give to those in want what is none of mine own This is not an instance or expression of that love and kindness which by the Law of God we owe to our Brother to do him good by wronging our Superiours God hath obliged Servants to be merciful to the poor to their power as well as to be true and faithful to their Masters but that is no part of the mercy which God requires from them to give away their Masters goods without his leave tho it were to those who stand in great need of relief God hath Commanded all Christians to have a great care of being any occasion of their Brothers sin or fall but then this must necessarily be understood only of things subject to our own ordering and management In all cases wherein we are at our own disposal we are bound charitably to regard our Brother But in instances where our practice is determined by Authority our Superiours only are to consider the danger of Scandal we must consider the duty we owe to them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours It remains then in the words of another great Bishop in what case soever we are bound to obey God or Man in that case and in that conjunction of circumstances we have nothing permitted to our choice and consequently there is no place for any act of charity and have no Authority to remit of the right of God or our Superiour and to comply with our Neighbour in such
to give a brief state of it according as it is put and urg'd by our Brethren By the Gift of Prayer then they mean an ability to express our minds to God in Prayer or to offer up our desires and affections to him in words befitting the matter of them which ability say they is given by God to his Ministers as a means of publick Prayer and in order to their being the Mouths of their Congregations to God to represent to him the common Cases and Necessities of their People and therefore since God say they hath given us this Gift as a means of publick Devotion and in order to our offering up the Prayers of the People it may be justly question'd whether we may lawfully omit the use of it by using publick Forms of other mens composure Now before I enter into a particular consideration of this Case I shall briefly premise these two things 1. That this Case concerns the Clergy only and not the Laity For suppose that it be unlawful for Ministers to omit the use of their own abilities to express the Devotions of their Congregations what is that to the People are they accountable for their Ministers faults or will God reject their sincere Devotions because the Person that utters them is guilty of a sinful omission if so it will be of dangerous consequence to them to joyn in any publick Prayers at all whether they be Forms or Extemporary they being every whit as accountable for the nonsense impertinence and irreverence of their Ministers in the latter as for their omitting the use of their own abilities in the former if therefore this omission be a sin it is the sin of the Minister as for the People they joyn with him indeed in offering up the matter of Prayer which is contain'd in the Form he pronounces but they join not with him in the omission of the use of his ability that is his own proper act and deed and therefore if it be unlawful it 's he and he only that is accountable for it and if the matter of Prayer in which they join with him be good and express'd in decent and suitable words they join with him in nothing but what is acceptable to God and 't is not to be imagin'd that God will be angry with them because he neglected to express their desires in words of his own composure and invention 2. I shall also premise that this is not the case of the Clergy of the Church of England who though they stand obliged to the constant use of a stated Liturgy yet are not hereby restrain'd from the exercise of their own abilities in publick Prayer for after they have finish'd the Service appointed in the Liturgy they are permitted to use their own conceiv'd Prayers in the Pulpit in which they have the same liberty that the dissenting Ministers can claim or pretend to that is to express in their own words all the matter of publick Prayer with all the sobriety affection and seriousness they are able And a long and unrestrain'd permission of our Governours though it be against Law is a kind of allowance untill they reinforce the Law upon our parties and some there are who believe the conceiv'd Prayers which we generally use to be expresly allow'd in our 55th Canon which directs that before all Sermons Lectures and Homilies the Preachers and Ministers shall move the People to join with them in Prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they may Now that to this effect as it stands opposed to this form is meant some Prayer of our own composed to this purpose seems in their opinion very probable from what is generally practised in the Church which in doubtful cases is the best explication of her meaning Since therefore the use of our Liturgy doth not exclude the exercise of our Gift of Prayer But leaves us free to exert it so far as it is fit that is with convenient brevity I see not how this Case can concern our Clergy for if the evil of Forms consists in the Ministers omission of his own Gift as this Case supposes then where the use of Forms doth not oblige us to this omission but leaves us as free to exercise this Gift as those are who use no Forms at all the supposed evil is remov'd from it Having premised these things I shall proceed to a particular resolution of the Case which I shall do in these following Propositions 1. That this Ministerial Gift of Prayer or ability to express in our own words the common Devotions of our Congregations to God is either natural or acquir'd 'T is true if we had any reason to believe that in their admission to holy Orders God did inspire his Ministers with this ability we might thence more plausibly infer that 't was his will that we should ordinarily exercise it and that it was not lawful to neglect or omit it by using Forms of other mens composure it being unlikely that God should inspire them with an ability which he did not intend they should make use of but of Gods inspiring us in our Ordination with this Gift or Ability we have not only no promise in Scripture which is the only foundation upon which we can reasonably expect it but in fact we have no experience of any such matter among us for not only we but the Dissenting Ministers must own if they will speak ingenuously that just before their Ordination they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation as they were just after which shews that they had no new ability to Pray inspired in their Ordination and as yet I could never find any proof either from Scripture or Experience that this ability to Pray in words of our own composure had any thing more in it than a promptness of invention and speech which some men have by nature and which others have acquired by art and practice and if so this ability is no otherwise the Gift of God than our natural strength and vigour or our skill in Languages and History And methinks it 's very strange that after all this talk of the gift of Prayer which is supposed ordinarily at least to be conferr'd on rightly ordained Ministers our Brethren should not be able to produce one Promise wherein God hath ingag'd himself to confer it no nor one Text of Scripture which implies such a Promise all that he hath promised his Ministers is to concur with their honest indeavours so far forth as it 's necessary to inable them to discharge the Duties of their Office and to suppose that they cannot do this without praying Extempore or in their own words is to take the matter in question for granted 2. That this natural or acquired Gift is no where appropriated by God to prayer but left common to other uses and purposes For though in Ministers especially it is ordinarily called a Gift of Prayer yet it is no where stiled so
comparatively few but you much doubt whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world unless he means Popery at its full growth for that Mystery of Iniquity as to Rituals began to work very early To this I answer that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Fathers and Christians were for the most part Papists though not fully grown Papists And as to those words of St. Paul The Mystery of iniquity doth already work if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity which began to work in his days the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church I will engage for our Author that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist You say in your Third Page that you cannot well understand how our Author saith that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary you found he did if you read the whole Sentence which runs thus pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome does her's as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article c. And why Sir did you conceal this part of the Sentence and thus stop at a Comma You thus proceed Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of them is made sinfull and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church c. And I assure you that I do as little understand if this be good arguing how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects or a Master of his Servants is not made by them necessary to Salvation since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each is acknowledged to be sinfull by all that believe these Precepts binding viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake c. And Servants obey in all things your Masters c. And as to the Penalty you mention of being cast out of the Church and cut off from the Body of Christ which is the same thing it amounts to thus much That those who will by no means be prevailed with to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members shall be cast out of it which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever have ever thought fit to have inflicted upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws in order to the preservation of themselves and the upholding of Government amongst them And our Author I am certain will readily grant that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed oughâ— to be cast out of the Church and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them but as the last Remedy As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender as well as for example to others never his Destruction But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority and when this Penalty is never according to the Rules of our Church to be inflicted but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity who are humble and modest and peaceable and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons not of our Constitution But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page wherein our Author is concerned hath been replied to And there you thus speak As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles but this is but Ecclesia Muta How many have we that will tell us We are Ecclesia Loquens the Living Church of England and we tell you c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens contradictory to the 39 Articles But 1. You have given us we thank you the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens But why do you expect unless we knew you better that we should take your bare word for it Nay we have hardly that for you do not in express terms affirm but ask this Question How many have we that will tell us we are Ecclesia Loquens And therefore it might suffice to give you onely this short answer Do you tell us how many or whether there are any if you know Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church or if not none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it But the truth of it is 't is a mere Figment and the very Dream of a Shadow But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question you cannot well be otherwise understood than as asserting that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies as Articles of Faith and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church except you will separate from and bid adieu to the Old And in good earnest if this be so Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England as by Law Established and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may
from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge * * * p. 7. That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say †††p. 9. That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divâ—nes is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas some things that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the mere Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this * * * p. 10. Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God as it is an humane Act. It being so too to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship It being a contradiction again to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent things that are so in Divine Worship for otherwise you trifle egregiously in putting this Question or make your Nonconformists so to doe for whom you put it But you abuse them if you do so for that which divers of them do
eight days shall be circumcis'd among you God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental Initiation upon the account of natural incapacity that he limited the time for the administration of it beyond which he would not have it deferr'd And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist and Christ who were both Circumcised the * * * Luke 1. 59. 2. 21. eighth day Nay when any Gentile turned Jew they immediately Circumcised his Children if he desired it always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents Thus saith God unto Abraham I will establish my Covenant between thee and me and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and of a religious Consideration and differed from the Children of Unbelievers as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents and look upon them as Holy upon their account it is no wonder that he should oblige them to dedicate and devote them betimes unto him by solemn initiation into his Church I say he called and elected them in their Parents and with them separated them unto himself from the World and agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call and separation he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church by the initiating Ordinance which the Children of Heathens were not capable of because they were not so called and chosen and separated of God This was ground enough for their admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers though they could not make open Profession of their Faith as Abraham did before he was Baptized and it is certain after the example of Abraham all * * * Selden de Synedr l. 2. c. 3. adult Proselytes did But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Circumcised Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circumcised before he professed or could profess his Faith because if he lived he was as sure to profess it by vertue of his Calling and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father or if the Child had none of the Susceptor or God-father 1 Maccab. 2. 46. and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be †††Seld. de jure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c 3. imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant when they were not circumcised as it is written Every uncircumcised Male whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant and therefore if the Act of Parents Cassand de Baptism Infant p. 732. 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 in 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 trained up unto it and in Deut. 29. 11 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into Covenant with God because the Men of Israel did so and thus also our Blessed Lord who took upon him the Seed of Abraham although he healed * * * Matth. 9. 29. grown Persons for their own Faith yet he healed †††Mark 9. 23. Matth. 8. 13. Joh. 4. 50. Vid. Cassand de Baptismo Infant p. 729. Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants Great Exemplar Part. 1. Sect. 9. Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents or others who besought him for them as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith Having now briefly discoursed of the Original and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church and the Initiatory Sacrament of it and the persons that were initiated thereinto I now proceed to make a few Observations upon the Alteration of it from the Mosaical into the Christian Oeconomy or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament into the Evangelical under the New For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel that it was under the Law The Foundation is the same tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different For Abraham is still the Father of the Faithful and we that believe under the Gospel are as much his Seed and Children in God's prime Intention and the true meaning of the Words as those that were Believers under the Law Hence it comes to pass that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament the New and Supernal Jerusalem to let us know that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism the same City new reformed constituted upon a new Charter blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly and every way better built and more August than it was Thus in Rev. 3. 12. Unto him that overcometh saith the Son of Man I will write the Name of my God and the Name of the City of my God which is New Jerusalem which is come down out of Heaven from my God that is I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly and for a true Member of the pure Catholick Christian-Church which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband meaning Jesus Christ So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above or the Supernal Jerusalem is a free City which is the Mother of us all Hence also it comes to pass that St. Peter in his first General Epistle calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews as unto his peculiar People viz. a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an Holy Nation a peculiar People which must needs imply that the Christian Church is fundamentally and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild
place of the Type but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments which otherwise are not to be evaded by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Fore-runner of Baptism 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 * * * Deinde quod maximè advertendum id inter Antitypum Typum interest quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est ea non nisi specie tenus aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit Enimvero quamvis Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo quam in Antitypo semper valet ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species aut tam exilis gradus fuerit ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit Outramus de Sacrif l. 2. c. 18. insomuch that what was really literally and properly in the Antitype and of perfect Efficacy and Power was generally but Symbolically and representatively in the Type and figurative of something which did in a more noble perfect eminent and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype than it did to it Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows and Representations of the Blood of Christ and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood serving to the purifying of the Flesh was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross and the healing Virtue which belonged to it was but a figure or shadow of that more eminent and powerfully healing Virtue which was in Jesus Christ But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism which doth not as literally properly fully and eminently belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For First Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel So was Circumcision before and under the Law Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So was Circumcision then Doth it properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now So did Circumcision then as it is written you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually under the Law This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament as that now is This did then as really initiate true Believers as that now doth It never was an Umbratical Sacrament or shadow of another Sacrament it never did Umbratically initiate Believers or Umbratically and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God and the Seed of Abraham and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but on the contrary the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel are such things which have some Symbolical likeness with it and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof The First Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the * * * Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Dicens nolo enim vos ignorare Et addidit dicens haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt Cyprian Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism their passing through it when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host a Type of our passing through that and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil and his Angels and their Captain and Deliverer Moses a Type of our Saviour Christ The Second Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark the like figure whereunto saith the Apostle even Baptism doth also save us †††Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans c. Cyprian Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani in Firmilian Ep. contra eandem Epist ad Cyprian in Ep. 69. Quod Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Here it is plain that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism the Ark a Type of the Church and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism nor was it an Umbratical but a real Confignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism now is and therefore 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 doth in the place of another according to the Apostle who saith unto the Colossians In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in Baptism Col. 2. 11 12. But in the second place if we consider the Original of Baptism as a Jewish Institution we shall find it very improbable that Circumcision should be a Type of it because a Type properly speaking is a * * * Typus quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud praefiguret Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificiis l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of something future or 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 could not be Typified and prefigured by Circumcision with which it was coexistent and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continued the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel superadding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned 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 with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 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 Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved 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 should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they 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 no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel But the Catholick truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures plainly determineth that all such are to be Baptized as whom God acknowledgeth for his People and vouchsufeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sins Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ it must needs follow thereby that they ought to be Baptized as well as those that can Profess their Faith For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God as by the Confession of Faith For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God and whom he acknowledgeth for his those no Man without great Impiety may exclude from the number of the Faithful But God promiseth that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him but also of Infants promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto Abraham I will set my Covenant between thee and me saith Gen. 17. the Lord and between thy Seed after thee in their Generations with an everlasting Covenant to be thy God and the God of thy Seed after thee To the which Covenant Circumcision was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Ceremonial Laws For Christ came to fulfil the Promises and Matth. 5. not to dissolve them Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants that is of such as yet believed not Let the little Matth. 10. Ones come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Again It is not the Will of your Father which Matth. 19. is in Heaven that any of these little Ones do perish Also He Matth. 18. that receiveth one such little Child in my Name receiveth me Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes for I tell you their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face And what may be said more plainer than this It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father that the Infants should perish Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace although as yet they confess not their Faith Since then that the Word of the Promise which is contained in Baptism pertaineth as well to Children as Men why should the sign of the Promise which is Baptism in Water be withdrawn from Children when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant as he for an Example did put before his Disciples Now will I prove with manifest Arguments that Children Matth. 28. ought to be Baptized and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptize Children The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations therefore also Children ought to be Baptized for they are comprehended under this Word All Nations Further whom God doth account among the faithful they are faithful for it was said to Peter That thing which Acts 10. God hath purified thou shalt not say to be common or unclean But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful Ergo they be faithful except we had rather to resist God and seem stronger and wiser than he And without all doubt the Apostles Baptized those 1 Cor. 1. which Christ commanded But he commanded the Faithful to be Baptized among the which Infants be reckoned The Apostles then Baptized Infants The Gospel is more than Baptism for Paul said The 1 Cor. 1. Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel and not to Baptize Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptize but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism for the Lord commanded both to the Apostles but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God and not refused Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism which is a thing lesser than the Gospel For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered the thing signified and the Sign and thing signified is greater than the Sign and from the thing signified in Baptism Children are not excluded who therefore may deny them the Sign which is Baptism in Water St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in Water to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given which is the certain Sign of God's People For he saith in the Acts May Acts 10. any body forbid them to be Baptized in Water who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants for he knew certainly both by the Doctrine of Christ and by the Covenant which is everlasting that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven but Rom. 8. such as God loveth and which are endued with his Spirit For whoso hath not the Spirit of God he is none of his But Infants be beloved of God and therefore want not the Spirit of God Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men if they be numbred among the People of God as well as we that be of Age who I pray you may well withstand Children to be Baptized with Water in the Name of the Lord. The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently instructed did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord but the Lord rebuked them and said Let the Babes come unto me Why then do not these Rebellious Matth. 10. Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism than that they did in times past which brought their Children to the Lord and our Lord received them and putting his hands on them Blessed them and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them declared manifestly that Children be the People of God and entirely beloved of GOD But some will say Why then did not Christ Baptize them Because it is Written Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples Moreover Circumcision in the Old Law was ministred John 4. to Infants therefore Baptism ought to be ministred in the New Law unto Children For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision as St. Paul witnesseth saying to the Colossians By Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is Colos 2. without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the
will not Wash out For this in effect is Trampling upon and Vilifying of the Precious Blood of our Saviour and to detract from the Virtue and Merits of his Sacrifice and thereby render it weak and insufficient to save us Blindly therefore to follow the Example of Christ is a certain way to run into Error and Mischief We must then of necessity if we would follow him safely seek out for a plain Rule in the Word of God or guide our Selves by the Dictates of Reason and Prudence and either way is a sufficent Demonstration that a bare Example is not to be trusted to Those who urge the example of Christ for Sitting were somewhat ware of this namely that his example and those of his Apostles are not to be Imitated by us in all things and therefore they lay down this Gillesp against Cer. p. 339. for their Maxim and Guide We are bound to Imitate Christ and the commendable example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I would willingly be informed how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to Imitate them in such things which they were moved to do upon special reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to Imitate their examples in such things as they did upon general and common reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not obliged at all by any Example and if so then those reasons are our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Without we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example To bring their own Rule to the case in Hand How do they know but our Lord was moved to Sit at the Sacrament by Special reasons drawn from that Time and Place from the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have used 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 complyed with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was onely temporary and not designed 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 When ever they do this I am sure they will expose their own Principle which they have built so much upon to the Scorn and Contempt of the World which is this That the bare example of Christ and good Gillesp 338. disp against Ceremo Men in Scripture are a compleat Rule and Sufficient Warrant for our Actions in such things as we have no Precept or Prohibition for in the Word of God That a Christians Duty in a great measure flows purely from Examples Recorded in the Word of God and not from the express Laws of God which he hath revealed to us 4. It 's absurd to talk of Christs 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 all the while the World enjoyed the benefit of his example governed his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man like unto us in all things Sin onely excepted he was Born under the obligation of the Moral and Natural Law as a Jew under the Mosaick Law as the Messias sent of God into the World to compass the great Work of our Redemption which he had freely undertaken he still acted by Divine appointment and was under the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to teach us the whole Mind and Will of God and Exemplify to us what he taught and delivered That which made that bitter and deadly Cup which ended his Days relish with him was this consideration that it was a Cup given him by John 18. 11. his Father and the Drinking it was agreeable to his will and it was the comfort and support of his Soul a little before his Death that he had finished the Work that his Father had given him He frequently professed Joh. 17. 4. v. Mat. 11. 27. Luke 2. 49. Joh. 4. 34. Joh. 5. 30. 8 c. 28 29. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 24 31. Joh. 15. 10 15. in his life-time that he did as his Father gave him Commandment and that it was his great business and delight to do the will of his Father and many such expressions he used which may be consulted at leisure If therefore we onely look 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 bewilder our selves we shall Act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus to give but one instance if we should Subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did for he fulfilled the Ceremonial Law which he came to abolish we should thereby frustrate the great Design of the Gospel and of our Saviours coming into the World And yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient Warrant for our Actions I have staid the longer upon this Head because so ill a use hath been made of Scripture-Examples and to shew how far forth we may safely steer by them I scarce know any one Doctrine so teeming and big with Error so Fatal to the Souls of private Persons and the Peace of Publick Societies both Civil and Ecclesiastical as that which teaches us to Learn and Derive our Duty from and to Judge of the Goodness and Badness of our Actions by the Examples of Christ and good Men over and above what we are obliged to do by the Precepts and Laws of the Gospel 3. They who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament as our Rule to which we ought to Conform do not follow it themselves Because the posture he Instituted the Sacrament in which they say was a Passover-Gesture was if so very different from that which they so earnestly plead for