together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus unus est Exitus variasse debueâ—at error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Quod autem apud multos unum invenitur non est eâ—ratum sed traditum Tertull. de praescriptione Haeret. c. 28. Churches erred they would have varied saith Tertullian but what is one and the same amongst them all proceeds not from error but Tradition Or as St. †††De Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Augustine saith upon this Subject That which the Universal Church doth hold and was never instituted by Councils but was always retained in the Church we most rightly believe to have descended from nothing less than Apostolical Tradition * * * Cassand advers Anabapt p. 675. Menno one of the most learned of the Anabaptists about the time of the Reformation was so pressed with this way of arguing that he acknowledged Infant-Baptism to be as old as the time of the Apostles but then he said it proceeded from false-Apostles and false-Teachers in the Apostles times But if it came first from false Apostles and false-Teachers in the time of the Apostles how came it to pass that we heard nothing of that Innovation in the Writings of the Apostles or of their Companions and Contemporaries such as St. Clement St. Ignatius St. Polycarp c How came St. John who survived unto the latter end of the first Century to pass it over in silence or how came the Spirit in the Revelations which by his Pen reproved so many abuses in the Churches not to censure this It is very strange that none of the Pen-men of the Holy-Ghost nor none of their Assistants and Companions should animadvert upon so scandalous an abuse of the Holy-Ordinance of Baptism which in a short time would fill the Church with sham Christians and destroy the Essence thereof In like manner if it came in by false Teachers in the next Age to the Apostles how came it to pass that none of the famous Saints and Martyrs who flourished then opposed it as a dangerous Innovation nor gave us any account thereof They wrote against the Heresies of Simon Menander Saturnus Cerinthus Ebion Valentinus Basilides Marcion c. but we find nothing in them against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from * * * Omnes enim venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur ad deum infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores i. e. Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born again to God Infants and little Ones and Boys and Young and Old In the Ancient Writers Baptism is called Regeneration and Baptized Persons are said to be Regenerate or born again according to the Scripture which calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Hence saith Just Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So hath Phavorinus observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Baptism is called Regeneration and those who would see more proofs of it may consult Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19. 28. John 3. 5. Selden de jure l. 2. c. 4. But if after all this evidence any Anabaptist will say that renascuntur in this place of Irenaeus doth not signifie Baptized or born again of Water then it must signifie Regenerated or born again of the Spirit and if Infants and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit then they are capable of being born again of Water or of being Baptized as Vossius argues disp de Baptismo p. 181. Irenaeus and †††De Baptisma Where what he speaks about deferring the Baptism of Infants shews that it was the practice of the Christians in that Age Pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipuè tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tum necesse sponsores periculo ingeri Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum But this Opinion of his that it was more convenient to defer the Baptism of Infants was his own singular opinion as much as that was of deferring the Baptism of Virgins and Widows till they were Married which follows in the next words Non minore de causâ innupti procrastinandi c. And he shews the same cause why he would have the Baptism of Children and un-married Women deferred for fear they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism Siqui pondus intelligant Baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem fides integra secura est de salute But then how absolutely necessary he thought Baptism for Infants in case of extream danger is evident from other Passages as Cap. 13. Quum vero praescribitur nomini sine Baptismo competere salutem and Cap. 17. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut personae conditio compellit Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur quoniam reus erit perditi hominis si supersederet praestare quod liberè potuit So likewise in his Book de anima Cap. 39. Adeo nulla fermè Nativitas munda est Ethnicorum Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ Spiritu non ibit in regnum Dei i. e. Non erit Sanctus Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Tertullian that it was practised in that Age. Ignatius Polycarp Papias who were all the * * * Act. Mart. Ignat. Scholars of St. John as likewise Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Hegesippus were all contemporary with Irenaeus who was a a a Ep. Irenaei ad Florinum advers Haeres l. 3. cap. 3. l. 5. cap. 33. the Disciple of Polycarp and who as he tells us in several places of his Works conversed with several Antient b b b Epist ad Florinum advers Haeres lib. 2. cap. 39. Presbyters that had lived in the Apostles times of whom he had enquired after the Apostles practices and yet this inquisitive Father says nothing against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from him and his contemporary Tertullian that it was then of general practice in the Church What meaned all these Men to let such a pestilent practice pass uncondemned which in a short time would leave none in the Church but Mock Christians and so prevail against the Catholick Church which our Lord promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against What would not the Holy Ghost preserve so much as one Church among so many from such a dangerous error but suffer them all to embrace it without Opposition * * * Nunc omnes Ecclesiae erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus uti eam in
Lord Jesus Christ whereunto you are now called through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit Amen I received Yesternight from you Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel a Letter wherein you gently require my Judgment concerning the Baptism of Infants which is the effect thereof And before I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word and of his true Infallible Church touching the same I think it not out of the matter first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend Being in the midst of my sweet rest it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure and white four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof yea the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy And as Charity is no Churle but would have others to be Partakers of his delight some thought I called to others I cannot tell whom and whilst they came and we together beheld the same by and by to my great Grief it vaded away This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ and the appearance of it in the Sky signifieth the Heavenly State thereof whose Conversation is in Heaven and that according to the Primitive Church which is now in Heaven Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth for as the Prophet David saith The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World as the Prophet affirmeth saying God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost and Peace which passeth all Understanding as it is written in the Psalms As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision and to behold this wonderful City I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me musing on your Letter to the end that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith and to conform your self in all points to the same which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments and having with a greater fulness than we have now the first fruits of the Holy Ghost did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter which should teach them all truth And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church which is our Mother let us all that be obedient Children of God submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture Let us not go about to shew in us by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had lest we deceive our selves For there is but one Faith and one Spirit which is not contrary to himself neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures and be at peace with them according as the true Catholick Church is at this day And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss through our Obedience to Faith with them Therefore God commandeth us in Job to ask of the Elder Generation and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers For we are but Yesterdays Children and be Job 8. ignorant and our days are like a Shadow and they shall teach thee saith the Lord and speak to thee and shall utter words from their Hearts And by Solomon we are Prov. 6. commanded not to reject the direction of our Mother The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her and to abhor contention with her For as St. Paul writeth If any Man be contentious neither we neither the 1 Cor. 11. Church of God hath any such custom Hitherto I have shewed you good Brother S. my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable and then doubtless you cannot err but boldly may be glad in your Troubles and Triumph at the hour of your Death that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only and not after God's Word I will take the ground of your Letter and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful commendable and necessary whereof you seem to stand in doubt Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Auxentius one of the Arrians Sect with his Adherents was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up
practice to them And if Christians in the several places of their abode did walk according to this Rule they would greatly promote the Peace and Welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and Peace to themselves with unspeakable Comfort and Satisfaction Whosoever would be esteemed and rewarded as a Peacemaker and avoid the ill reputation and Mat. 5. 9. guilt of a Turbulent Person ought among other things carefully to observe this viz. to Submit to and Comply with the Innocent Customs of the Church whereof he is a Member For thus the same Divine Writer after he had Argued against Womens being Uncovered in the publick Assemblies concludes all after this manner 1 Cor. 11. 6 If any Man seem to be Contentious we have no such Customs nor the Churches of God Pray by the way let this be observed from this place That we may Lawfully do some things in the Worship and Service of God for which we have no Command or Example in Scripture or else St. Paul's Argument from Custom is of no force To sum up all upon this second Query Seeing that we can never be certain of the particular Gesture used by Christ at the Institution of the Holy Sacrament Seeing his bare Example supposing he did Sit doth not oblige us in Conscience to Imitate it Seeing they who urge his Example do not follow it themselves even in that particular they urge it for Seeing Conformity to the Gesture prescribed by Law is a plain Conformity to the Example and Practice of Christ considered as to the Equity Reason and Spiritual Meaning and Instruction of it I think no Man can reasonably object against Kneeling and scruple in Conscience a Conformity to it as being repugnant to the Example of our Lord. Query III. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Vnsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be requisite to premise something which may explain the true sense of it and Discover upon what Grounds and Reasons our Dissenting Brethren build their scruples against Kneeling as being no Table-Gesture By a Table-Gesture we are to understand thus much That at the Lord's Supper we ought in their Judgment to use the same Gesture as we do at our ordinary Meals and Tables at our Civil Feasts and Entertainments And because divers Gestures are used at Meals according to the different Modes and Customs of several Nations therefore we are obliged to use that at the Sacrament which the Custom of our Country hath prescribed at our Ordinary and Civil Meals Thus saith the Author of Altare Damascenum a Stout and Learned Champion for a Table-Gesture Sitting cross-legged Altar Dam. p. 762. as the Turks do at their Meals would be amongst them if they were Converted a Comely fashion of Receiving the Lord's Supper The Sacrament is a Supper a Feast Disput against Kneeling p. 2. p. 56. arg 4. a Banquet and therefore requires a Supper a Feast a Banquet-Gesture And such a Gesture must be used as Standeth with the Custom of the Country In no Nation was it ever held Comely to Kneel at their Banquets or Abridgment p. 61. reply to Bp. Morton 3 Innoc. Cer. p. 37. set forth in K. James's Reign to Receive their food Kneeling So that according to the sense of their own Writers and great Patrons of Sitting this is the reason why they question the Lawfulness of Kneeling That the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same with that which we use and observe at our Ordinary Tables according to the Custom and Fashion of our Native Country wherein we live And then the full Import and meaning of the Query is this Whether the nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast doth not require and oblige us to Sit and not Kneel because Sitting and not Kneeling is the Ordinary Table-Gesture according to the Mode and Fashion of England Here the Reader may observe that this Argument for Sitting drawn from the nature of this Holy Feast quite overthrows the two former Arguments drawn from the express Command and Example of our Saviour and renders them useless and unserviceable to their cause 1. For they don't say we are obliged to use the same Gesture with our Lord but only a Table-Gesture though never so different from that which he used according to the Custom of our Country where we live Various Gestures according to the Variety of Fashions and Usages of several Nations at their Common Feasts may be all Comely and Sutable to the Nature of this Holy Feast According to this Argument therefore we are not obliged to Sit because Christ did at the Sacrament and then his bare Example is no Rule to us in this matter His Example was Governed and Guided by the Nature of the Sacrament and the Custom of the Jews Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament before the Paschal Feast was over and he continued in the same posture which he used at the Passover say they and that was Sitting Suppose this what follows Why therefore we are bound to Sit too after his Example No by no means say I unless it be the Custom of our Country to Sit at our Meals and Sitting be our Common Table-Gesture Which is the strength of this Argument drawn from the Nature of the thing if we may believe what they say themselves 2. Again if the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-Gesture and we are obliged to use that in particular which standeth with the Custom of our Country and the Gestures may be different according as their Customs differ then God hath no where Commanded the use of any particular Gesture nor obliged all Christians in all places to observe one and the same 3. And then Thirdly we may Lawfully observe some things in the Worship of God for which we have no Command or Example in the Holy Scriptures if this Argument of the Table-Gesture be good And this principle viz. that we ought not to do any thing in the Worship of God but what we have some Command or Example for in Scripture is the great battering Engine which hath been constantly imployed against the Ceremonies enjoyned by our Church and it is a Principle wherein the Mystery of Puritanisme doth Preface to his Serm. last Edit 1681. consist as Bishop Sanderson Notes Therefore it behoves our Brethren not to be fond of this Table-Gesture as they love the Life of their Cause I am sure no greater Argument can be afforded of a routed baffled Cause in the matter of Sitting at the Sacrament than to see the Patrons of it running up and down in Confusion and flying for Refuge sometime to the Command of Christ then to his Example when driven out there then to the Nature of the thing and Civil Customs and about again to the Example For thus the Authors of the fore-mentioned Tracts do Thus much being premised I proceed to Consider the
the worldly increase with their Power And for illustration-sake when the House being garbell'd had much less right but more force the Army as yet agreeing with them and the good King being in their hands than they gave to the Declarations of their Pleasure the Title not as before of Ordinances but of Acts of Parliament * * * Whill Memoirs p. 363. Oliver likewise declared plainly That there was as much need to keep the Cause by Power as to get it And being potent he entred the House and mock'd at his Masters and commanded with insolent disdain that That Bawble * * * Speech at the Dissol of the House Jan. 22. 1654. p. 22 meaning the Mace of the Speaker should be taken away Men may intend well but using the help of the illegal secular Arm they can never secure * * * Id. ibid. â— 529. what they propose but frequently render that which was well settled much worse by their unhinging of it But such means it comes to pass that the Civil State is embroyl'd and Religion sensibly decays in stead of growing towards perfection where publick order is interrupted and Men gain a Liberty which they know not how to use Secondly It appeareth by the History of our late Revolutions which began with pretence of a more pure Religion that our Dissentions occasion'd great Corruptions both in Faith and manners Then the War was Preached up as the Christian Cause And one of the City-Soldiers mortally wounded at Newberry-fight was applauded in an Epistle * * * Hill 's Ser. called Temple work A. 1644. to the Houses as one whose Voice was more than humane when he cryed out O that I had another Life to lose for Jesus Christ Then this Doctrine so very immoral and unchristian was by some * * * D. Crisp in Ser. called Our sins are already laid on Christ p 274 275. Preached and by great numbers embrac'd The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect Person yet in the heighth of Iniquity and the excess of Riot and committing all the Abominations that can be committed than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint Triumphant in Glory Then certain Soldiers * * * H. of Indep part 2. p 152 153. enter'd a Church with five Lights as Emblems of five things thought fit to be extinguish'd viz. The Lord's-day Tythes Ministers Magistrates the Bible Then by a publick Intelligencer who called himself Mercurius Britanicus ** ** ** Merc. Brit. N 13. Nov. A. 43 p. 97. the Lord Primate Vsher himself was reproach'd as an Old Doting Apostating Bishop Instances are endless but what need have we of further Witnesses than the Lords and Commons and the Ministers of the Province of London whose Complaints and Acknowledgments are here subjoyned The Lords and Commons in one of their Ordinances * * * Die Jovâ—z Febr. 4 1646. use these words We have thought fit lest we partake in other Mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their Plagues to set forth this our deep sense of the great dishonour of God and perillous condition that this Kingdom is in through the abominable Blasphemies and damnable Heresies vented and spread abroad therein tending to the Subversion of the Faith contempt of the Ministry and Ordinance of Jesus Christ The Ministers made a like acknowledgment saying Instead ** ** ** Testim to Truth of J. Chr. p. 31. of extirpating Heresie Schism Profaness we have such an impudent and general inundation of all these evils that Multitudes are not asham'd to press and plead for publick formal and universal Toleration And again We the Ministers of Jesus Christ do hereby testify to all our Flocks to all the Kingdom and to all the Reformed Churches as our great dislike of Pilacy Erastianism Brownism and Independency so our utter abhorrence of Anti-Scripturism Popery Arianism Socinianism Arminianism Antimonianism Anabaptism Libertinism and Familism with all such like now too rife among us Thirdly some Dissenters by the Purity of Religion mean agreeableness of Doctrine Discipline and Life to the dispensation of the New Testament and a removal of humane Inventions and thus far the Notion is true but with reference to our Church it is an unwarrantable Reflexion For it hath but one Principal Rule and that is the Holy Scripture and Subordinate rules in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ are not to be called in our Church any more than in the pure and Primitive Christian Church whose Pattern it follows humane Imaginations but rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom and Discretion But there are others among the Dissenters who by the Purity of Religion mean a simplicity as oppos'd to composition and not to such mixtures as corrupt the Circumstances or parts of Worship which in themselves are pure Quakers and some others believe their way the purer because they have taken out of it Sacraments and External Forms of Worship and endeavoured as they phrase it * * * G. Fox in J. Perrot's Hidden things brought to light p. 11. to bring the Peoples minds out of all Visibles By equal reason the Papists may say their Eucharist is more pure than that of the Protestants because they have taken the Cup from it But that which maketh a pure Church is like that which maketh a pure Medicine not the fewness of the Ingredients but the good quality of them how many soever they be and the aptness of their Nature for the procuring of Health Men who have this false Notion of the purity of Religion distill it till it evaporates and all that is left is a dead and corrupt Sediment And here I have judged the following words of Sir Walter Rawleigh not unfit to be by me transcribed and considered by all * * * Hist of the World l. 2. 1. part c. 5. p. 249. The Reverend Care which Moses had in all that belong'd even to the outward and least parts of the Tabernacle Ark and Sanctury is now so forgotten and cast away in this Superfine Age by those of the Family by the Anabaptist Brownist and other Sectaries as all cost and care bestow'd and had of the Church wherein God is to be served and worshipped is accounted a kind of Popery and as proceeding from an Idolatrous Disposition Insomuch as time would soon bring to pass if it were not resisted that God would be turned out of Churches into Barns and from thence again into the Fields and Mountains and under the Hedges and the Officers of the Ministry robbed of all Dignity and Respect be as contemptible as these places all Order Discipline and Church-Government left to newness of Opinion and Men's Fancies Yea and soon after as many kinds of Religions would spring up as there are Parish Churches within England Every Contentious and ignorant person clothing his Fancy with the Spirit of God and his Imagination with the gift of
Printed Licensed dispersed up and down in City and Country openly a Quarter of these Errours Heresies Blasphemies which have been all these ways vented by the Sectaries the People would have risen up and stoned them and pulled down their Houses and forced them to forbear such Doctrines O how is the Scene changed within these few Years and not long after he tells us that These are Risen Increased Reign and Prevail so far under a Parliament Sitting not under the Bishops Corrupt-Clergy Court-party but under a Parliament And in his Epistle to the Lords and Commons before the first part of his Gangraena he tells them That the Errours Heresies Blasphemies and Practices of the Sectaries of this Time had been Broached and Acted within these Four last Years in England and that in Your Quarters and in the places under your Government and power for which I tremble to think least the whole Kingdom should be in Gods Black Bill that together with their Reformation come in a Deformation and worse things were come upon them than ever they had before they had put down the Book of Common-Prayer but there were many amongst them that had put down the Scriptures slighting yea Blaspheming them he tells them they had cast out the Bishops and their Officers and they had many that had cast down to the ground all Ministers in all the Reformed Churches they had cast out Ceremonies in the Sacraments and they had many that had cast out the Sacraments themselves with many more sad complaints which he there makes To sum up all in the words of my Author Vbi supra p. 73. In this Catalogue the Reader may see great Errors and yet may turn himself again and behold greater namely damnable Heresies and yet turn himself again and read Horrid Blasphemies and a third time and read Horrible Disorders Confusions strange and unheard of Practices not only against the Light of Scripture but Nature as in Women's Preaching in Stealing away Men's Wives and Children from Husbands and Parents in Baptizing Women Naked in the Presence and Sight of Men c. And thus we see by what means it was that the Nation came to be Pestred with Opinions and Practices Impious beyond the Example of former Ages and such as were not once named among the Gentiles to the A Letter from a Noble Venetian to Card Barbarino translated and Printed 1648. p. 19. Infinite Prejudice and dishonour both of our Religion and our Nation It being the Observation which an Ingenious Foreigner who resided at London in those times made upon this occasion one of the Fruits says He of this Blessed Parliament and of these two Sectaries Presbyterians and Independents is that they have made more Jews and Atheists than I think there is in all Europe besides I doubt not but that the greatest part of our Dissenters do from their Souls detest the Heresies Blasphemies and Wickednesses that have been mentioned but then the Consideration ought to oblige them to double their diligence to prevent the like dismal Effects for the time to come and not to open the Gap again at which they must necessarily flow in upon us By what has been done they may see what a Blessed Reformation they may expect by the Ruin of this Church for the thing that hath been is that which shall be the same causes set on foot by the same Principles will Eternally produce the same Effects and though Men at first may mean never so well yet Temptations will insensibly grow upon them and Accidents happen which in the Progress will carry them infinitely beyond the Line of their first Intentions and engage them in Courses out of which when they come to discern their Errour it may be too late for them to Retire In the beginning of the long Parliament I make no question but the far greatest part of them met together with very honest and good Intentions and designed no more than to Correct some little Irregularities which they apprehended to be in Church or State But wee see how these very Persons where cariied from one passage to another and in time transported to those very things which at first they had so vehemently protested and declared against till at length Horrid Enormities came to be acted by and under them which no age can Paralel which ought to be a Sufficient Caution to all how they shake the least Stone that belongs to the Foundation least by picking out one after another the whole House tumble about their Ears when it is beyond their own Power to support it I shall shut up this Head with a brief Recapitulation of some of those Inferencs which Mr. Edwards makes from the State of those Loose and Licentious times we have been speaking of and then leave the Reader to judg whether they be not as Applicable to present Circumstances under which we are He infers thus First we may hence see how dangerous it is to Cat. and Discov Part 3 d. p. 52 53 57 70. Further Discov p. 195 203. despise and let alone a small Party Secondly That it is more than time fully and Effectually to settle the Government and Discipline of the Church Thirdly What the Mischief Evil and Danger of a Toleration and pretended Liberty of Conscience would be to this Kingdom and what it would Prove and Produce Fourthly That it sufficiently Justifies in the Sight of the World those Ministers and People who are Zealous for setling Religion and cry out for Government who Preach Petition speak often one to another of these things Fifthly what a great Evil and Sin Separation is from the Communion of the Reformed Churches and how highly displeasing to God for Men to make a Rent and Schism in the Church of God Sixthly That all such who have been deceived and drawn away under pretence of greater Purity Holiness c. and have any Fear and Awe of God and his Word be Exhorted to leave and forsake them and return to the Publick Assemblies and Communion of this and other Reformed Churches And God grant we may hearken to this Counsel and may seriously lay these things to heart VIII Eighthly We desire it may be considered what plain and apparent Advantages Separation gives to the Common Enemy of the Protestant Religion in these Nations The Church of England is notoriously known to have been the most strong and standing Bulwark of Protestancy ever since the Reformation for being Founded on Scripture-grounds and the Practice of True Genuine Primitive Antiquity and having been reformed by the most wise regular and justifiable Methods it stands like a Rock impregnable against all the Assaults which the Church of Rome makes upon it This has engag'd them to Plant all their Batteries to beat it down as being the only Church considerable enough to stand in their way and when not able to effect it by any other Arts they have betaken themselves to the old Artifice of Ruining us by dividing us In
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
may 1 Cor. 14. 5. 12. receive Edifying That ye may excel to the Edifying Eph. 4. 12. of the Church For the Edifying of the Body of Christ And it is very observable wherein the Apostle places the Edification of the Body of Christ viz. in Unity and Love Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the 13. knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Till we are united by one Faith into one Body and perfect Man And speaking the truth in love may grow up in him into 15 16. all things which is the head Even Christ from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the Effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the Edifying it self in love This is an admirable description of the Unity of the Church in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together as Stones and Timber are to make one House and thus they grow into one Body and increase in mutual Love and Charity which is the very Building and Edification of the Church which is Edifyed and Built up in love as the Apostle adds 1 Cor. 8. 1. that knowledge puffeth up but charity Edifieth this Builds up the Church of Christ and that not such a common Charity as we have for all Mankind but such a love and Sympathy as is peculiar to the Members of the same Body and which none but Members can have for each other and now methinks I need not prove that Schism and Separation is not for the Edification of the Church to Separate for Edification is to Pull down in stead of Building up But these Men do not seem to have any great regard to the Edification of the Church but only to their own particular Edification and we must grant that Edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture according to St. Pauls Exhortation Comfort your selves together and Edifie one another 1 Thes 5. 11. even as also ye do And this Edifying one another without question signifies our promoting each others growth and progress in all Christian Graces and vertues and so the Building and Edification of the Church signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all Spiritual Wisdom and knowledge and Christian graces the Edification of the Church consists in the Edification of particular Christians but then this is called Edification or Building because this growth and improvement is in the Unity and Communion of the Church and makes them one Spiritual House and Temple Thus the Church is called the Temple of God and every particular Christian is Gods Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells and yet God has but one Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells only in the Church of Christ but particular Christians are Gods Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells in them as living Members of the Christian Church and thus by the same reason the Church is Edified and Built up as it grows into a Spiritual House and Holy Temple by a firm and close Union and Communion of all its parts and every Christian is Edified as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And therefore whatever extraordinary means of Edification Men may fancy to themselves in a Separation the Apostle knew no Edification but in the Communion of the Church and indeed if our growth and increase in all Grace and Vertue be more owing to the internal assistances of the Divine Spirit than to the external Administrations as St. Paul tells us I have planted and Apollos watered but God gave the 1 Cor. 3. 6 7. increase So then neither is he that planteth any thing nor he that watereth but God that gave the increase And the Divine Spirit confines his influences and operations to the Unity of the Church as the same Apostle tells us that there is but one Body and Eph. 4. 4. one Spirit which plainly signifies that the operations of this one Spirit are appropriated to this one Body as the Soul is to the Body iâ— Animates then it does not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christs Body 3. The Third and Last Case still remains which Case 3 will be resolved in a few words according to the Principles now laid down which is this Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two distinct and Separate Churches For this is thought of late days not only a very Innocent and Lawful thing but the true Catholick-Spirit and Catholick-Communion to Communicate with Churches of all Communions unless perhaps they may except the Papists and Quakers It is thought a Schismatical Principle to refuse to Communicate with those Churches which withdraw Communion from us And thus some who Communicate ordinarily with the Church of England make no Scruple to Communicate in Prayers and Sacraments with Presbyterian and Independent Churches and Presbyterians can Communicate with the Church of England and with Independents whom formerly they charged with down-right Schism and some think it very indifferent whom they Communicate with and therefore take their turns in all But this is as contrary to all the Principles of Church-Communion as any thing can possibly be To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two Separate and Opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those Separate Churches are to each other Christ hath but one Church and one Body and therefore where there are two Churches divided from each other by Separate Communions there is a Schism and Rent in the Body and whoever Communicates with both these Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have made an Actual Separation from the Church of England I have evidently proved already and therefore if the Communion of the Church of England be Lawful as those who can and ordinarily do Communicate with the Church of England must be presumed to acknowledge then they are Schismaticks and to Communicate with them is to partake in their Schism Now if Schism be an Innocent thing and the true Catholick Spirit I have no more to say but that the whole Christian Church ever since the Apostles times has been in a very great mistake but if Schism be a very great Sin and that which will Damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder then it must needs be a dangerous thing to Communicate with Schismaticks The Sum of all in short is this Besides these Men who justifie their Separation from the Church of England by charging Her with requiring Sinful terms of Communion which is the only thing that can justifie their Separation if it could be proved there are others who Separate lightly and wantonly for want of a due sense of the Nature of
safely Communicate with such or in a Church where such are without Sin Thirdly To separate upon this Ground is to maintain Arg. 3 Vines on the Sacrament p. 244. a Principle destructive to the Communion of the Church visible which consists of good and bad This Mr. Cotton is peremptory in It is utterly untrue Infant Baptism p. 102. V. Bains on the Ephes c. 1. v. 1. p. 5. to say that Christ admits not of any dead Plants to be set in his Vineyard or that he takes not to himself a compounded Body of living and dead Members or that the Church of God is not a mixed Company c. From the ill Effects of which Mr. Cartwright used to call this Separation upon In Proverb Edward's Apol. pretence of greater purity the white Devil And because there are some Scriptures that seem to look this way and are made use of by those that make mixed Communion an Argument for Separation therefore they have taken off the force of them If a Brother be a Fornicator c. the Apostle exhorteth Object 1 not to eat with him 1 Cor. 5. 11. To this they Answer That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion it must be done by the Church Answ 1 Defence Part 2. p. 27. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 126. and not a private Person But you are not commanded to separate from the Church if they exclude him not So Mr. Baxter c. That it concerns not Religious but Civil-Communion Answ 2 and that not all Civil Society or Commerce but Familiar also For which they produce several Reasons 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread which is a Token of Love and Friendship in phrase of Ball 's Tryal p. 200. Brinsley's Arraignment p. 45. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Tomb's Theodulia p. 210. Scripture not to partake of or to be shut from the Table is a sign of Familiarity broken off So Mr. Ball c. 2. The eating which is here forbidden is allowed to be with an Heathen but it 's the civil eating which is only allowed to be with an Heathen therefore it 's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother So Mr. Jenkin c. 3. The eating here forbidden is for the punishment of the Nocent not of the Innocent To these there are added others by the Old Non-Conformists Grave Confut. Part 4. p. 57. Tomb's Theodulia p. 167. Cawdrey's Reformat p. 75. Cure Dir. 9. p. 81. As for other Objections they are also undertaken by the same Hands and to which Mr. Baxter's Answer is sufficient If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases besides our separation from the Infidels and Idolatrous World or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies and No-Churches is but one of these two sorts 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys Or 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them but that the private Members should separate from the Church because such Persons are not cast out of it shew me one Text to prove it if you can This saith Mr. Vines hath not On the Sacrament p. 246. Tomb's Theod. p. 128. a syllable of Scripture to allow or countenance it But supposing it be allowed that we ought not to separate from a Church where corrupt Members are tolerated or connived at under some present circumstances as for want of due proof or through particular favour yet it seems to be allowable where there is no Discipline exercised or taken care of For then we are without an Ordinance To avoid this Objection I shall consider 2. The Case with respect to Discipline and shall Sect. 2. shew from them 1. That the want of that or defects in it are no sufficient reason for Separation 2. What Discipline is exercised or taken care of in the Church of England The former of these they do own and prove First As Discipline is not necessary to the being Arg. 1 of a Church This was of old maintained by Mr. T. C's Letter to Harrison against Separation in the Defence of the Admonit p. 98 99. Cartwright who thus argues That Church-Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the Right and Title of so being the Church of Christ For though there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet they be necessary to the comely and stable Being and not simply to the Being of the Church And afterward he gives an Instance in the Dutch Assemblies or Lutheran Churches which he saith are maintained in P. 106. Discipline So Dr. T. Goodwin Whereas now in Com. on the Ephes p 487 488. some of the Parishes of this Kingdom there are many Godly Men that do constantly give themselves up to the Worship of God in Publick c. These notwithstanding their mixture and want of Discipline I never thought for my part but that they were True Churches of Christ and Sister Churches and so ought to be acknowledged So that if Discipline be not essential to a True Church and a True Church is not to be separated from as has been proved above then the want of Discipline is no sufficient reason for Separation Secondly This they further prove by an Induction Arg. 2 of Particulars This way Mr. Blake proceeds in Vindiciae c. 31. p. 236 238. Discipline was neglected in the Church of Israel yet none of the Prophets or Men of God ever made attempt of getting up purer select Churches V. Grave Confut Part 1. p. 18. or made Separation from that which was in this sort faulty All was not right in the exercise of Discipline in the Churches planted by the Apostles some are censured as foully faulty c. yet nothing heard by way of Advice for any to make Separation nor any one Instance of a Separatist given To come lower we are told by Mr. Vines On Sacram. c. 19. p. 226. That the Helvetian or Switzerland Churches claim to be Churches and have the Notes Word and Sacraments though the Order of Discipline be not setled among V. Gillespie's Nihil respondes p. 33. them and I am not he that shall blot out their Name To come nearer Home it was so in the late Times when this was wanting as was acknowledged (a) (a) (a) Knutton's seven Queries Brinsley's Arraign p. 48. and of which Mr. Vines saith (b) (b) (b) On Sacram. p. 219. Troughton's Apol. p. 65. we know rather the Name than the Thing And if we shall look into the several Church-Assemblies amongst the Dissenters we shall find that as there are many Preachers without full Pastoral Charge as it is acknowledged that have little Authority over their Flocks in this
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
of a Doubting Conscience in all Cases to follow the safer side that in many Cases it will be very unadvisable so to do Sure I am that in Doubtful Cases which concern the Civil Life no Wise man doth alwaies make this a Rule to himself We see a hundred Instances every day where men venture upon the less safe and the more hazardous side upon the account of other Reasons and considerations which they think ought more to prevail with them It is certainly in general speaking more safe that is more free from hazard or danger to Travel on Foot than on Horseback to stay at home than to go into Foreign Countries to Traffick by Land than to venture ones Stock on the uncertain Seas But yet for all this the consideration of the Ease and Expedition that is to be had in the first Case and the Improvement and Benefit that is to be hoped for in the second and the Gain and Profit in the last do we see every day overballance the consideration of Safety in these Cases and determine a man not to that side which is freest from Danger but to that which is more Convenient or more Vseful or more Advantageous And thus it is likewise as to those Doubtful Cases wherein a mans Conscience is concerned I suppose that when we speak of the safer side of any Action with reference to Conscience we generally mean that side on which there appears the least Hazard or Danger of transgressing any Law of God But now in this Sense of safety I do not think that it is always a good Rule for a Doubting Conscience to chuse the safer side On the contrary I think that if the Rule be thus put and thus understood it will often prove a Snare to a mans Mind and rather entangle him further in Difficulties than help him out of them If it was receiv'd as a Rule That a man is in all his Actions to keep himself at the greatest distance he can from the Danger of sinning which is the Notion of safety I here speak of I dare say there are very few Persons that converse much in the World but have reason almost every day to call themselves to account for transgressing this Rule For they do every day ingage in such Actions in which they cannot but acknowledge that they do expose themselves to a greater danger of sinning than if they had not ingaged in them Thus for instance what man is there among us who although he know himself to be prone enough to the sin of Intemperance in eating or drinking when Temptations are offered and accordingly for this reason doth most seriously set himself against this particular sin yet makes any great Scruple of going to Feasts and Entertainments when he is invited by others nay or of making them himself when Decency or Civility or the serving any of his Temporal affairs doth require him so to do But yet it is certain that by thus doing he runs a much greater Hazard of falling into the sin he fears than if he should forbear all such Occasions or Temptations of Intemperance Many other Instances which daily occur in Humane Life might be given wherein good men nay even the best of men do for the sake of their Business or other Laudable Designs which they think fit to pursue frequently venture to expose themselves to such dangers of sinning as they might have avoided and this without any Reproach from their own Conscience or any Censure from other Men. The truth is God hath no where commanded us to avoid all possible danger of sinning but onely to avoid all sin when we are in danger It is enough for the securing a mans Duty that he doth not transgress the Laws of God in any Action that he takes in hand But it is not required that he should in every instance of his Conversation preserve himself from the utmost possibility or if you will Danger of so doing For upon this Supposition it would be impossible for one to live like a man of this World and perform the common Offices of Civil Life and much more to live to any great purposes for the serving his Generation Indeed the Result of all would be That whoever would approve himself to be truly Religious and Conscientious must abandon all Secular Affairs and retire to a Cloyster or a Desart But it may be said What is this to our Business Those we now spoke of are supposed to be fully satisfied in their own Minds that they may safely venture on the more dangerous side of an Action for the sake of some considerable good that they design in that Action But the Case we are now concerned in is that of one who is altogether Doubtful whether he may Lawfully do the Action or no. To this I answer That my Business is now to give an account of the Rule by which men are to proceed in determining themselves in Doubtful Cases and that which I have said doth thus far I think come home to that Business that if it be allowed that it is advisable in any Case to forsake the more safe side of an Action and to chuse the more hazardous we will take it for granted that it may be as advisable in a Doubtful Case as in any other untill it be made to appear that God hath apointed a Rule for Doubting persons to govern themselves by different from that he hath given to other men Or to speak the thing more plainly till it be made to appear that those who are so unhappy as to Doubt are debarred of the priviledge of Acting according to the best of their Reason and Discretion which men that do not Doubt are allowed to do But to come more strictly to the Point I do believe there do abundance of Doubtful Cases properly so called frequently happen in which no Man of Understanding although we suppose him never so Honest doth think he is obliged to determine himself to that side of the Action on which he apprehends there is least Danger of sinning But on the contrary he will often forsake that side which is safer in this sense for that which doth more recommend it self to him upon other Accounts Thus for instance some times Doubtful Cases do happen in which the greater Probability on one side will turn the Ballance against the greater Safety on the other Thus if a Man should Doubt whether it may be Lawful to eat any thing Strangled or that hath Bloud in it because there are some Passages in the Scripture that seem to forbid these Meats and should repair to some intelligent Person about this matter who should give him such an account of those Texts and of all the other Difficulties in this Affair that the Man comes away satisfied that it is far more Probable that all kinds of Meats are allowed by the Christian Religion than that any are forbidden I ask now Whether this degree of Satisfaction have not weight enough to put an
favourable Interpretations upon things to take them by the best handle and not strain things on purpose that they might cavil the more plausibly and raise more considerable Objections against them We must not make personal accidental Faults nor any thing a pretence for our leaving the Communion of our Church which ariseth only from the necessary condition and temper of all humane Affairs that nothing here is absolutely perfect 6. And lastly if you cannot by these and other the like considerations not now to be mentioned get rid of and conquer your Scruples then be advised to lay them aside to throw them out of your Minds as dangerous Temptations and act positively against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you perswade us to conform to the Orders of the Church tho we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this the best Advice that can be given to such scrupulous Persons It would be an endless infinite thing and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joyning himself to it till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required or was in use in that Church for indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Government Discipline or publick Worship no more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Common People generally have neither Patience to consider nor Judgment to weigh all Circumstances nor Wisdom to choose that which is best these things of a Publick Nature belong only to our Superiours and Governours and if they appoint what is unfit indecent or inconvenient they only are accountable for it It is not the fault of those that joyn with such Worship or yield to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I know therefore no better Rule for the directing and quieting Mens Consciences than this that as to all such Matters as relate to Publick Order and decent Administration of God's Worship they should without any superstitious Fearfulness comply with the Customs of the Church they live in never troubling themselves nor curiously examining what is best and fittest as long as there is nothing enjoyned or done which after due enquiry appears to us contrary to any Law of God Thus St. Augustin directs us in that often quoted place where he tells us He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take in matters of Rites and Customs than to follow the Churches Example where he is for whatsoever is prescribed neither against Faith or Manners is a matter in its self indifferent and to be observed according to the Custom of those he lives among This was agreeable to the Counsel St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave him when he was sent by his Mother to enquire his Judgment about the Saturday Fast When I am at Rome saith the Bishop I fast on the Sabbath but at Milan I do not So thou likewise when thou comest to any Church observe its Custom if thou wouldest neither be an offence to them nor have them be so to thee Which St. Augustin ever after looked upon as an Oracle from Heaven I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and Objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easie consequence contrary to the revealed Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens Minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Should all those that have some little Arguments against the Sign of the Cross puzzle themselves with the Objections usually urged against Infant Baptism and defer baptizing their Children till they were fully satisfied about it I doubt not but the baptizing of Infants would soon be as much scrupled at as the crossing them now is But there is no apparent Evil in it it is the Practise of the Church we live in it is no where forbid in Scripture this ordinarily is sufficient Warrant for what we do Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with its Orders we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded of the Unlawfulness of what is required that it is forbid by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful causes but there is not the same necessity that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise The Judicious and Learned Bishop Sanderson thus expresseth it in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum The Law taketh every Man for a good Man and true till his Truth and Honesty be legally disproved and as our Saviour sometimes said He that is not against us is for us so in these matters he speaks of those Ceremonies that for Order's sake and to add the greater Solemnity to sacred Actions are appointed in the Church we are to believe all things to be lawful for us to do which cannot be shewn by good Evidence either of Scripture or Reason to be unlawful If any one be afraid that this Principle once imbibed would introduce Popery make People greedily swallow and without any Examination submit to every thing their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only consider which we all agree in that there are many things in the Popish Worship and Religion manifestly evil and forbidden by the revealed Will of God which renders our Separation from them necessary and so consequently justifiable whereas the things objected against in our Church are at worst only doubtful and suspicious or rather not so good and expedient as might be devised and this surely makes a wide difference in the case But doth not St. Paul say Rom. 14. 19. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean it is unclean Doth not he expresly tell us That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin that is Whatever we do without a full Persuasion of the lawfulness of it tho it be not so in it self yet is a Sin in him that doth it against his Conscience And doth not the Apostle say He that doubteth is damned if he eat before he is convinced that it may be done I desire here therefore only to be rightly understood and then these things are soon reconciled 1. When I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well perswaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
Leen offered in Sacrifice by the Gentiles to their Daemons which I shall have occasion to explain at large hereafter to you But it is equally applicable to all things of the like Indifferent nature And there are two Rules laid down by him there which men ought to govern themselves by in the use of such things 1. The First is the Glory of God v. 31. Whatsoever therefore ye do whether ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God i. e. whatever ye do in these things be sure you have respect to the Law and Will of God and take heed that you violate none of the divine Commandments either by what you do or what you refuse to do in things of this nature For this is the true notion and meaning of doing all to the glory of God i. e. Keeping us close to the observance of those Laws and Rules that he hath commanded us For then God is most truly glorified by us when we express a great sense of his Soveraignty and Laws in all that we do But this by the way The 2d Rule is Charity and respect to the benefit and advantage of those we converse with and live among that we neither grieve nor injure them by any thing that we do or neglect to do and this is the meaning of these words so often quoted by our dissenting Brethren Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God This is that Rule of our actions in all indifferent things which I have chosen to consider in this discourse and the rather because we have some contest with our dissenting Brethren about it There hath been great talk about Scandal and giving Offence to weak and tender Consciences by Conformty and Compliance with all those things which the Church of England requires in her Liturgie and amongst all the other Arguments and Pretences against it this hath been prest to serve in the Cause either to add some real weight to the rest or at least to add to their number Though to tell you plainly I think it is onely to make a shew and to render the bulk of their Exceptions the bigger that this is summoned to the Muster and not for any real weight that there is in it to serve the Cause However whatever there is in it a great noise is made with it and as a mighty noise hath been made about Scandal and great pains used to wrest the notion of it to serve mens purposes in these things so great art hath been employed to accommodate it to the present purpose and to fright men with the guilt and danger of it from complying with the Institutions of the Church which as is pretended are so very great a Scandal and Offence to weak Consciences Two great and popular Pleas against the Liturgie of the Church of England and the Ceremonies retained by it have been these tenderness and scruples of Conscience in some and fear of Scandal and giving Offence to such in others Some men have pleaded their own Scruples and want of sufficient Conviction and Information and excused their omission of these things from that saying of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin And some have alledged their fear of Scandal and offending others and pleaded that in bar of their compliance from these words of the same Apostle Give none offence c. How much the sence of the first place is mistaken and how false the consequence that is made from it is I am not now obliged to shew My Province at this time is about the second this place that I have now quoted in order to which I intend to do these two things 1. Shew that this place is not at all concerned in our present Question nor will serve that purpose that the Dissenters from our Church alledge it for 2. That if it were it would conclude against them and their practice in the present Case betwixt us 1. I begin with the first which is to shew that this place is not concerned in our present Case nor pertinently urged by our Brethren against their Conformity to the present Rites and Usages of the Church And this I might do from two things mistaken greatly in the application of this Text. 1. The true notion of Scandal and Offence here mentioned 2. The nature of the things to which it is applied which is vastly different from what men scruple or forbear in our Case 1. From the true notion of Scandal and Offence that is mentioned in this place and in many other places in the New Testament I do not intend here a large Discourse of the nature of Scandal in the general or a removing and rectifying those many common mistakes in the world about it but only to observe so much as will be sufficient to my present purpose 1. Then I observe that as there are onely two notions of Scandal in the New Testament so there are only two Cases in which men are properly and primarily capable of being guilty of it I mean in giving it to others 1. The first notion of Scandal is That it is a Snare or a Gin by which men are intrapped and drawn into some plain sin and wickedness In which sence it is used in many places and particularly in that famous Speech of our Saviours Matth. 18. 6. to 10. And men do then give offence or scandalize others when they do that which directly and in its own nature tends to induce others either to do that which God hath forbidden and is a sin or omit that which he hath commanded and is a plain Duty both which men may do several ways which it is not now so very needful to reckon up singly 2. The second notion of Scandalâ—is That it is some just cause of grief or trouble to others in their Christian course and that which hinders them from walking in it with that chearfulness and security that they otherwise would According to which sence it is rendred Offence in this and many other Texts of Scripture i. e. some just cause of offence of trouble or grief given to another by something that he sees us either omit or do In this sence it is used in many places of the New Testament not for that which is a direct occasion of another mans sin but a just cause of his grief and sorrow and discouragement in the way of Duty So it is used particularly Joh. 16. 1. and Rom. 14. 15. it is expressed by grieving And in this sence men give offence to others when either by doing or neglecting something themselves they give just cause of sorrow or grief to others and discourage them in their Christian course and occasion to them some trouble and grief of mind that otherwise might be free from 2. Having observed this therefore I proceed in the second place to observe that neither of these notions of Scandal can be accommodated to our present case nor can
to grieve or offend some private persons than to trouble and disturb and endanger the Constitution of the whole Church which we must needs do if at every private persons pleasure we take upon us a liberty to dispense with the Commands and Institutions of it And this is a Rule that not only all wise Nations but even all men still act by in Cases that are any way like to this All Nations prefer the Publick good before the Private and think it much better that some single persons suffer inconvenience than that the Publick be endangered and have ever set the worst Characters upon those men that have sacrificed the good of their Country to their own private Ambition and Revenge and never regarded what Confusion and Mischief thus bring upon it so they may please and gratifie their own Passions All the world hath ever hated and reproached these as Monsters of men and I hope we in time shall learn to do so also Nay we see nothing more common among the wisest Nations than to punish single persons for the correction and good of the whole and many times to cut off those whose crimes in their own nature were not so great and who seemed fairly capable of mercy onely to be Examples and Warnings to others and to deter them from any thing by which the Publick might be endangered and which were but the least steps to the dissolution of its Government And we shall see all men act by this Rule too in their own concerns even any of our dissenting Brethren themselves They do not suffer every particular person to neglect and speak against their establishments but chuse rather to punish and molest them than endanger their whole Constitution And they prefer their own Body and the health of it before any particular Member they readily gash and cut one to save all yea and will have a putrid and mortified Member taken off rather than it shall endanger the good of the whole Body So true is it that the more Publick good ought to be preferred to the more private and that all men naturally yield a greater respect to the whole Society than they do to any single Member of it And that the same Rule ought to be observed by us in our present Case of giving Offence I shall endeavour to make evident both by plain Warrant of Scripture and by some proper Considerations which all men allow the reasonableness of in other cases 1. I begin first with searching what warrant for this we can find in holy Scripture either in the Precepts and Directions of it or in the Lives and Actions of those who are proposed there to our imitation And first as for Precept and Direction I think that of St. Paul Gal. 6. 10. to be very plain and a firm foundation for what I am upon As we have therefore opportunity let us do good to all especially to those of the houshold of faith Where it is plain the Apostle not only allows but enjoyns us to make a difference in our Charity and to shew this upon all occasions rather to the houshold of Faith i. e. to the Church of God than to any other person or persons whatsoever This place is full and directly comes up to our present Case and the pretences made about it For Charity is as direct and plain a duty as the not giving offence it is as strictly enjoyned as the other and the neglect of Charity is as severely threatned as the giving Offence is or can be And yet for all this when the Church of Christ and any other persons whatever come in competition and are Candidates for our Charity we ought to shew it unto that and not unto these And the same reasons that determine thus our Charity will determine as well our care of not giving Offence especially since this is a proper and principal act of Charity and no one that I know of more so This will be a sufficient answer to all the tragical stories of the sin of Scandal and the great necessity of not giving it to any We are expresly charged not to give Offence and so we are expresly charged above all things to put on Charity In giving Offence we must have a regard to the meanest person in the Church and a woe is denounced against him that offends a little one And so we are in charity commanded too and a woe threatned to him that shuts up his bowels of Compassion from the meanest servant of God Yea this is commanded even to the creatures below us And yet for all this we must prefer the Church before all others and if it should so happen that Charity could not be shewed unto both we ought to determine our respects and Charity to the Church and to suspend the acts of it unto the others and must do so too in our Charity of not offending or grieving the Church unless some disproportion could be shewed in this from the other acts of Charity or some reasons here to alter the case which I am very sure cannot This place alone if there were none others sufficiently determines this Case And that we are warranted also by the Precedents of the New Testament to act by this Rule the actions of those great men whose lives are there recorded for our imitation do shew us The Life of our blessed Saviour is a good example for us in this as well as in all other instances of duty that are incumbent on us We find him in every thing paying a mighty deference to the Church of the Jews and studiously avoiding to give any displeasure or offence unto them and this in many things which they themselves had introduced without any express Warrant or Command from God as were easie to shew and hath been by many learned men of late But there is one instance which comes pretty well up to our present case and that is his paying Tribute of which you have the story Matth. 17. 27. there is no doubt but by this he might give some offence in this loose notion of offence i. e. occasion some trouble in his followers by owning himself a stranger and paying Tribute as such nevertheless he chose to do that rather than to give any offence to the Publick Notwithstanding that we offend them not c. Whether the persons he was so careful here not to offend were the Roman Government or the Church of the Jews it is all one to our present Case If it were the Church of the Jews then we see he was more careful not to offend them than his own Followers But if it were the Government of the Romans it concludes more strongly for us and for our present Case where the Government is Christian and that of the Church and of the Kingdom one and the same where we cannot offend the Church but we must offend the Government and Civil Power too under whose protection and favour it is established and whose Canons it hath adopted
are necessary to their Spiritual Life as the parallel plainly implies upon them that ask him So that all we can expect by vertue of these promises is only this That the Spirit of God will be ready to aid and assist us in all those necessary cases wherein our Duty and Spiritual Life is concern'd and therefore if there be no necessity of an immediate inspiration of either Matter or Words to inable us to Pray it is an unwarrantable presumption to expect it by vertue of these or such like promises And that there is no necessity I conceive is very apparent for First As for the Matter of our Prayers the Holy Spirit hath already sufficiently reveal'd it to us in the Gospel and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for as he can be suppos'd to do by any immediate inspiration so that with a very little consideration we may thence easily recollect what it is that we need and what we are warranted and commanded to pray for and for a summary of the whole we need go no further than our Churches Catechism which in answer to that Question after the Lord's Prayer What desirest thou of God in this Prayer sums up the whole matter of our Prayer in a few plain and easie words And to suppose after such a clear revelation of the matter of Prayer a necessity of immediate inspiration of it is in effect to suppose that we have neither reason enough to understand the sense of plain words nor memory enough to retain and recollect it But against this that passage of St. Paul is objected by our Brethren Rom. 8. 26. We know not what we should pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be utter'd For which words We know not what to pray for as we ought they infer that how plainly soever the matter of Prayer is reveal'd to us we cannot in all cases know what it is without an immediate inspiration which must either suppose that all matter of Prayer is not plainly reveal'd to us or that though it be we cannot understand it whereas the Apostles words imply neither the one nor t'other for it 's plain those words we know not what to pray for are not to be understood simply but with reference to as we ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what to pray for as we ought we know not which plainly refers to the manner and not to the matter of our Prayer how to pray for any thing with that fervency of desire that dependance upon and resignation to God as we ought of our selves we know not without the assistance of the Spirit of God if therefore the Spirit hath already sufficiently reveal'd to us what the matter of Prayer is as he must be suppos'd to do if the Scriptures be sufficient I see no reason why he should reveal it again by immediate inspiration and if there be no necessity of it I know no warrant we have to expect it But then 2. As for the Words of Prayer by which we are to express the Matter of it what necessity can there be that these should be immediately dictated to us when as if we have not quickness enough of fancy and invention to express our wants and desires in our own words we may readily supply that defect by Forms of Prayer of other Mens composure which with very short additions and variations of our own we may easily adapt to all our particular cases and circumstances and to imagin that with such helps and assistances we cannot word our desires to God without an immediate inspiration is to suppose that we are meer whispering Pipes that can breath out nothing but what is breath'd into us 3. That as there is neither promise nor need of any such immediate inspiration of Prayer so there is no certain sign or testimony of it remaining among us whenever God inspir'd men with Divine matter and words his Way was always to attest the divinity of their inspiration with some certain sign by which themselves and others might be well assur'd of it and though at this distance from the inspired Ages we cannot certainly determin by what token it was that the Prophets knew the divinity of their own inspirations while they were seiz'd with them yet this we know that after they were deliver'd of them God always took care to attest them by some miraculous operation for so Miracles are styled by the Apostle the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit as being the constant signs and tokens of Divine inspiration and indeed without such signs to distinguish it from false pretences we were better be without inspiration than with it because we shall be left under an unavoidable necessity either of admitting all inspirations which pretend to be divine or of rejecting all that are truly so as to instance in this case of Prayer we know 't is possible for men to have the matter and words of it dictated to them by a natural or Diabolical as well as a Divine Enthusiasm and therefore it is highly requisit if such Divine Enthusiasm or Inspiration be continu'd to us that the proper signs and testimonies of it should be continu'd too that so we may be able to distinguish that which is divine from that which is natural or diabolical otherwise we must either conclude them all to be natural or diabolical or believe them all to be divine and entertain them accordingly If you say there is no need of either because the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them I answer that thought the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish the matter of the inspiration whether it be true or false yet it is not sufficient to distinguish the inspiration it self whether it be divine or natural or diabolical For First as for natural Enthusiasm it is not at all impossible for a man to pray agreeably to Scripture by natural inspiration by which I mean a natural or accidental fervency of temper arising either from a constant heat of constitution or a casual agitation of the spirits occasion'd either by vapours of heated melancholy or an intermixture of sharp and feaverish humours with the blood which as all men know who understand any thing of the nature and composition of humane bodies naturally heightens and impregnates the fancy and causes the images of things to come faster into it and appear more distinct in it and consequently produces a very ready invention of matter and extraordinary fluency of words so that if under a fit of this natural fervency a man's fancy happens to run upon God and Religion he cannot fail to pray with great readiness and fluency and sometimes with that extraordinary passion and enlargement as shall cause him assuredly to believe himself immediately inspired by the Spirit of God of the truth of which instances enough might be given not only among Christians but also among the Devoto's of Mahomet and
would have ours to be And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of Thus did Jeremiah Nehemiah Ezra c. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and publick Idolatries of the Nation which had brought Gods heavy Judgments upon them or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness and confessed the Common Sins with such humility as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrey-men had done But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin that such extraordinary occasions of Publick Humiliation require and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church But it ought not to be forgot that those particular Confessions of Sin which some Men want in our Liturgie are not properly the matter of that Publick Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining our selves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed and then to humble our selves before God for them with particular Confessions and sutable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin which we make with the whole Congregation we should then have less reason to complain that those Confessions are not apt to move us because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts which commonly are most to blame when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us To conclude this Matter There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation for the satisfaction of the Church and the declaration of a true Repentance This is not properly an Act of Worship but of Discipline but alas almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church a loss never enough to be lamented For so it has fallen out that by quarreling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature that ought to be left to the Prudence of Governours and the Communion of Christians is broken and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern then all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are The second Objection I shall take notice of is that against the shortness of the Collects by reason of which it is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together Now in answer to this I say 1. That the meer shortness of a Prayer is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples it being not much longer than most of our Collects and not so long as some of them 2. That it will be hard to prove That many of these short Prayers being offer'd up unto God one immediately after another is either not so Grave or not so Edifying as one Continued Form I do not believe the difference to be so great as it is made by those that do not approve our way For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while as if there were but one Continued Form Indeed in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often and there is a distinction made between the several Collects by a New Title shewing the Matter of the Prayer and by beginning a New Line But I hope our Brethren do not mean that in this there is a defect of Gravity or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God and without breaking off pass from one Petition or Matter of Invocation to another as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One. And as there is no Interruption of our Praying caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen which this way requires Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection and Godly Disposition of Mind which is the best thing in Prayer But on the other hand this may be kept alive and more effectually secured by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do I know some have said this is done more frequently than is meet But it would be a lamentable thing if there should be any difference about this Matter When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority and to the Judgment of Prudent and Holy Men such as our first Reformers were and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying And I believe others would be of the same Mind if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way but attend a little to those considerations that favour it and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will shew to all Men much more to their Governours Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes does of it self tend to maintain in our Minds a reverent sense of his Majesty and Presence which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord Lord so very often in their Extempore Prayers would think themselves somewhat hardly used if they should not be believed in saying that this was not for want of Matter but for the exciting of a reverent sense of Gods Authority in
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can But what reason is there for this For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies No Man can shew a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de patre ut esset doctor veritatis Neglexerit Officium Dei villicus Christi Vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere aliter credere quam ipse per Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Tertul. de praescript Haereticorum c. 28. Would he suffer them all so soon to Apostatize and to practise and believe otherwise than Christ had taught and the Apostles preached No! It is impossible that they should all consent in such a dangerous error or that they should all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration should be made without Observation no body can tell how or when Wherefore these Dissenters are very unreasonable in charging the Church universal with apostasie from Christ upon the account of Infant-Baptism and in striving to throw her out of the possession of such an ancient and general practice merely by such indirect and consequential Arguments from the Scriptures as the Ancient Fathers never drew from them nor we can admit against their general practice and consent Certainly those places of the * * * Neque verò ignota fuerunt Ecclesiae priscis Ecclesiae patribus Evangelicae Apostolicae Scripturae loca in quibus poenitentia fides unà cum Baptismo requiri videntur Sciebant enim probe haec ad adultos Cassand Praefat advers Anabapt New Testament which require a Profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the Ancient Fathers they undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but yet they never drew this absurd Consequence from them that because Faith and Repentance were to go before Baptism which is an Institution of Latitude in Adult Persons that therefore Baptism was not to go before Faith and Repentance in Children and Minors as both Circumcision and Baptism in the like Case were wont to go before them in the Jewish Church They knew the difference betwixt the admission of actual and potential See Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants great Exemplar Sect. 9. part 2. Believers and also knew it was a very great inconsequence to argue from the Qualifications which the Gospel requires in those to the Exclusion of these I freely acknowledge to them that no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful yet when they are so I appeal to any sober Dissenter of this or any other Perswasion whether the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentical Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men. They thought Infant-Baptism lawful and valid and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism and let any modest and moderate Man judge whether so many Famous * * * Hanc desipuere praeterita saecula ut tot millibus parvulorum per mille eo amplius annos illusorium Baptisma tribuerent à Christi temporibus usque ad vos non veros ei Christianos sed Phantasticos crearent Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum tantaque huc usque caligine involutus ut ad aperiendos oculos suos ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam post tot Patres Martyres Pontifices universalem Ecclesiarum Principes vos tamdiu expectarit Petrus Abbas Cluniacens apud Cassandr Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times should fall into such a Delusion as to conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians and Mock-Churches or that a little Sect which must have separated from all the Ancient as well as Modern Churches that were ever yet discovered should be in a great and grievous Error themselves Let them begin with the first Testimonies about the practice of Infant-Baptism viz. at the latter end of the second and beginning of the third Century and take the pains to consult the successive Writers of the Church St. Irenaeus as I have observed was the Disciple of St. Polycarp who was the Disciple of St. John and Tertullian was contemporary with the last days of St. Irenaeus and the next Writer in whom we find Infant-Baptism mentioned as an a a a In Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam Spiritum ablui deberent In Lucam Homil. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum in lib. Homil. 8. quia per Baptismi Sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli Apostolical and Universal Practice I mean Origen flourished within fifteen years after Tertullian's Death St. Cyprian was Contemporary with the latter days of Origen and his Epistle to Fidus the Presbyter is such an account of Infant-Baptism that it alone is enough to Convince any Soul where Prejudice doth not reign that it always was the practice of the Church Fidus had written unto him to let him know that he thought it was not lawful to Baptize Children before the Eighth Day according to the Law of Circumcision to which he returned this Answer b b b Quantum autem ad causam Infantum pertinet quas dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos Baptizari non oportere considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae ut infra octavum diem eum qui natus est Baptizandum Sanctificandum non putares longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est Ep. 58. p. 95. Ed. Rigalt That he and the Council which consisted of 66 Bishops were of another Opinion having determined that as God under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons So he was no accepter of Ages but that Infants might be Baptized as soon as they were born to wash away their Original Sin The African Church was one of the most flourishing strict and pious of the Primitive Churches and this resolution of the Council which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after was not novum decretum supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original and immemorial practice of that Church This Council sat about the middle of the third Century 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus c c c Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou a Child Let not Sin get the advantage but let him be sanctified from his Infancy and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned because of the weakness of his Nature what a silly Mother art thou and how weak in Faith Anna promised Samuel to God before he was born and
275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * * * Exod. 12. 26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * * * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a a a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men all who enter into Covenant and receive the Seal of the Covenant must contract and stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his and therefore St. Peter saith That the Baptism which saveth us must 1 Ep. 3. 21. have the answer or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God But how can Infants restipulate or what Conscience can be in them who have not the use of reason nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means To this Objection I answer as formerly That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as Infant-Baptism for the Infants
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
towards them which he might as well have done after Supper if it had not been usual to have Washed in Supper-time Seeing then it appears partly from Scripture and partly from Ancient Monuments of Jewish customs that the Jews were wont both before and at their Civil and Religious Feasts to Wash and particularly at the Passover then it 's very probable our Lord did so too and altered his posture as they did nay it is very probable that our Lord to make his Discipels understand what he was about to do did at the Institution of this new Feast the Holy Sacrament of his Body and Bloud Wash before it and having changed the posture that he was in before at the Eating of the Paschal Supper did not resume it but used a new posture at this new Festival-Solemnity but what that was is not certain 2. At the beginning of the Paschal Feast the Jews did put themselves into this Discumbing or Leaning posture and used it while they Eat and Drank the two first Cups of Wine for every Guest was obliged to As the Talmudist and forementioned Writers testify Vid. Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. 291. Drink four Cups at this Feast but at the third Cup called the Cup of blessing in their Language and the fourth styled the Song or Psalm-Cup when they Sung the Hymn there was no necessity of lying along and it 's likely our Lord took an opportunity when he took the third Cup to change the use and signification of it and to Institute the Eucharistical Cup called by St. Paul the Cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10. 16. 3. Before they Drank of the third Cup the Master of the Feast took a piece of Unleavened Bread and brake it and after he had Eat some himself he offers the remainder See Mr. Ainsworth a Learned Non-Conformist in Ex. 12. 8. 11. to the rest of the Company to do the like After this he proceeds to take some of the bitter Herbs and to dip them in a thick Sawce called by them Charoseth which was formed in the shape of a Brick to represent the hard slavery undergone by their Fore-fathers in the Brick-Kilns of Egypt and commanded all the Societie to follow his example Now this was not done in an inclining posture as the Jewish Doctors Buxt Syn. c. 13. p. 300. teach us and they give this reason for it because this was to put them in mind of the Egyptian Bondage and therefore here they stood in all probability because to eat Standing was the manner of Slaves whereas Lying along Pesachin fol. 37. 2. Hor. Heb. 291 292. after a Lordly manner was in token of that ease and rest they enjoyed in the Land of Canaan and of their redemption from the House of Bondage So often therefore as they Eat the bitter Herbs so often they changed their Gesture 4. Though the Jews in their Solemn Feasts used Discumbing yet in blessing and giving thanks before those Feasts they were as Philo relateth in a Standing Gesture In vita contemplat p. 663 Col. Allobro edit 1613. p. 695. with their Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven And therefore it 's no way probable that Christ and his Apostles would continue in their Table-Gesture at the blessing of the Holy Supper which is an higher Ordinance than the Passover Because this would be very unsutable to so great a Solemnity Especially too if Dr. Lightfoot's Opinion be true and it may be so for any thing that appears to the contrary viz. that Christ changed the third Cup at the Passover called the Cup of blessing into the Sacramental Cup because it was the custom of the Jews then to alter their Table-Gesture that was peculiar to the Passover and it 's highly Improbable that our Lord would continue in the Table-Gesture contrary to the General and Currant Custom of the Jews They that don't think so as I do in this particular will receive little advantage by being cross For if it may be supposed that our Lord Sate sometimes when the Jews were wont to Stand it may equally be supposed that he Stood sometimes when the Jews were wont to Sit and what becomes of their Argument for Sitting at the Sacrament after the example of Christ because that stands built upon supposition that our Lord Sate at the Passover as the Jews did and continued in the same Gesture when he Instituted the Sacrament which was before the Paschal-Solemnity was over I will onely observe this briefly by the way and then proceed to shut up all upon this Head That those Nonconformists who cry out so vehemently against the Church for Imposing and her Members for using a Kneeling Gesture were very unfortunate in their choice when they pitcht upon Sitting and urged it as the onely necessary Gesture to receive in in Conformity to our Saviours Practice and Example Because the Standing Gesture may be much better maintained and defended than Sitting and hath more and greater probabilities attending it If therefore variety of Gestures were used by the Jews at the Passover and it no where appears from Scripture that our Lord did not comply in this matter then we cannot know for certain what the particular Gesture was which Christ used at the Institution of the Sacrament it might be Lying along and it might be Sitting upright it might be Standing in an adoring posture with his hands and eyes lifted up to Heaven which is much more probable than either of the former for the reasons forementioned we cannot certainly say which and yet we must be certain of one before we can build upon it as an Infallible Rule of Conscience Let it be therefore granted to our Brethren who differ from us in this point that our Saviour Sate at the Passover that the Sacrament was Instituted by him before the Paschal Feast was fully ended that the Disciples Eat the Sacramental Bread and Drank the Sacramental Cup in the same posture as they Eat and Drank at the Passover What of all this how will the necessity of a Sitting Gesture appear from these premises Why thus Therefore our Lord Instituted and Administred the Holy Sacrament Sitting say they How doth this follow of course I ask Since they Eat and Drank in several postures at the Paschal Feast I confess the Argument had been strong if they could make it appear that throughout the whole Solemnity of the Passover no other Gesture but Sitting was used by our Lord. But this I am sure can never be done and consequently their conclusion can never be good From the whole I conclude thus much Since the example of our Lord cannot be certainly known in this matter our Church cannot be charged for deviating from it And consequently to scruple Conformity to the practice of our Church because she doth not Conform to the practice of Christ which no body can certify us of is very Unjust and Unreasonable 2. Supposing our Lord did Sit as they will have it yet his bare example doth
and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations and gave it no Entertainment for the space of 1200 years That Kneeling to receive the Sacrament was not used at the Institution of the Lords Supper nor after in any Age of the Church before the time of Honorius the Third about the year 1220. So also another great Champion for sitting writes Didoclavius maintaineth saith he that which none of our opposites Gillesp Disp against Eng. Pop. Cer. p. 191. Altar Damascen 784. lib. 1. c. 1. are able to infringe viz. That no Testimony can be produced which may evince that ever Kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the Third He further observes from the History of the Waldenses That bowing of the Knees before the Host was then onely enjoyned when the opinion of Transubstantiation got place By the Practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages I conceive they mean thus much That from the Age wherein the holy Apostles lived down to that wherein Transubstantiation was set on foot or that wherein Honorius the Third enjoyned the Adoration of the Host Kneeling in the act of Receiving the Lords Supper was never heard of nor used or as one Author expresly asserts it till the year 1220. Howsoever for sureness sake and in order to the clearing of this matter under our present Consideration I think it will be requisite to fix the time wherein Transubstantiation was first broacht as well as when it was establisht or imposed as an Article of Faith and so too wherein the Adoration of the Host was enjoyned whereby the just bounds and limits will be known beyond which we are not to pass to fetch in Evidence and consequently all extravagancy will be prevented on our part and all cavilling if possible on theirs As for the Time then which we enquire after I think we may safely relie on the judgment of a very Learned Prelate of our own which he delivers after this manner The word Transubstantiation Histori Transub Papal Josian Ep. Dunelm Edit 1675. p. 53 54. is so far from being found in the sacred Scriptures or the Writings of the ancient Fathers that the great Patrons of it do themselves acknowledge it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century Nay that the Thing it self without the Word that the Doctrine without the Expression cannot be proved from Scripture is ingenuously acknowledged by the most Learned Schoolmen who endeavour by other Arguments Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracen Cajetan c. therefore to defend it and allow it to be brought in by the Authority of the Pope and not received in the Church of Rome till 1200 years after Christ The first Authors who mention this new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third about the year 1159 and Stephanus Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful The Pope who first establisht this An. Dom. 1215. An. Dom. 1217 or thereabouts monstrous Doctrine by his own Arbitrary power as an Article of Faith was Innocent the Third And his Successor Honorius was the man who decreed Adoration to the Host The first Council which took notice and approved of the Papal Decree for Transubstantiation was that assembled at Constance which condemned A D. 1415. Wiclif for an Heretick because among other truths he had asserted this That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread an t Wine remain without a Substance and for this Opinion they ordered his Body to be taken out of his Grave and burnt to ashes Thus things stood till the year 1551. when the Council of Trent publisht it to the world for an infallible Truth and imposed the belief of it upon all under the pain of an Anathema As for the Doctrine of Consubstantiation and the Corporal presence of Christ at with and in the Sacrament it was started long before that of Transubstantiation and was much disputed among learned men He who first broacht it in the East was John Damascen in the days of Gregory the Third And about About the year 740. an hundred years afterwards it was set a-foot in the West by the means of Paschasius Radbertus a Monk of Corbie and one Amalarius a Who wrote de Ecclesias Officiis de ord Antiphon c. contemporary with Amalarius Fortunatus Ar. bp of Triers who wrote de Sac. Baptis ad Carol. M. Deacon of Metz. The former taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather enclosed in the Bread and Corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread The latter gives Amalar. de Ecclesi Offic. lib. 3. c. 24. vid. lib. 3. c. 35. it as part of his Belief That the simple nature of the Bread and Wine mixed is turned into a reasonable nature viz. of the Body and Bloud of Christ Moreover he in another place confesseth that it was past his skill to determine what became of his Body after it was eaten When the Body of Christ is taken with a good intention it is not for me to dispute saith he whether it Amalar. Epist ad Guitardum MS in Biblioth Coll. S. Benedic Cantabri Cod. 55. cited by A. Bp. Vsher Ans Jesuits Chall p. 75. Rabanus Maurus John Erigena Wala Strabo Ratramus or Bertramus be invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept in our Body until the day of our burial or exhaled into the Air or whether it go out of the Body with the Bloud or be sent out by the mouth c. For this and another Foolery of the three parts or kinds of Christs Body he was censured by a Synod held at Cressy wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France That the Bread and Wine are spiritually made the Body of Christ which being a meat of the Mind and not of the Belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life From whence we may learn as also from the Writings of several Learned men of that Age who opposed these Dotages of the Corporal presence that the Western Church had not then adulterated the Doctrine of the Sacrament but followed the pure and sound sence of the Ancient Fathers and condemned these Whimseys and gross conceits of the carnal or Oral eating of Christ in the Sacrament Nay in the year 1079. when Hildebrand called Gregory the 7th came to the Papal Chair the Bishops and Doctors were divided in their Opinions concerning the Corporal Presence some maintaining Berengarius his opinion who denied it and some following that of Paschasius as appears from the Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction which was called on purpose to condemn Berengarius Moreover it 's recorded that Hildebrand himself doubted whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion For three
de Sacramentis lib. 2. c. 3. * * * A Monk of Corbie who wrote against Berengar and liv'd about the year 1074. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And †††Coster Enchirid p. 353. edit 1590. Coster another Popish Writer is so far from saying the Pope introduced it and that after Transubstantiation took place that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continued from the Apostles times Seeing then upon the whole matter it appears by the confession of some who oppose Kneeling that Honorius did not institute or ordain that Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing the Decree which he made and which others appeal to doth not at all relate to this matter but onely to the Adoration of the Host at the Priests elevation of it seeing no other Pope is alledged as the Author of this Custom seeing Kneeling was never any instituted Ceremony in the Church of Rome nor is there any Canon or Decree or Rubrick extant which requires the use of that Gesture seeing the Pope himself and the Priests who celebrate use another Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing their own Writers look on it as an ancient Usage derived to them from the first and purest Ages it follows that what is pretended and supposed in the Question is without all Warrant and Proof viz. that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters And now to close up all I will appeal to any man of sense and understanding whether this be not a very silly and extravagant way of Arguing Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is sinful because it was first introduced by Antichrist and the man of sin and that after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was started and took place in the world and yet after all when you come up close to them and enquire into particulars they are not able to date the original of it nor name the Authors who first invented it and set it up At this rate of talking it were the easiest matter imaginable to evince that Sitting and Standing were equally unlawful with Kneeling For it is but affirming boldly that they were first brought in and used by Idolaters and then the work is done effectually And if such slender Objections must drive us away from the Lords Supper we shall never communicate as long as we live But besides the folly of such Arguments I think it 's a very wicked thing for men to invent and urge them as the Case stands with us at present For what is there more desired and wisht for by all good Christians than Brotherly Love and Concord than that we may all meet together with one accord in one place and with one mind and one mouth glorifie God in the publick Churches What more talkt of now adays then Peace and Vnion Whosoever therefore shall any ways obstruct so blessed and desirable a Work must be concluded every ill man And such a one most certainly is he whatsoever we may think of it who withdraws himself from the Holy Communion upon groundless jealousies and unreasonable fears of incurring the divine displeasure if he receive Kneeling and shall go about by the Bugbear-words of Idolaters Antichrist the man of sin to scare weak and honest men from Receiving the Holy Sacrament in our Churches Because the Lords Supper was instituted for this peculiar end among others viz. to be an uniting Ordinance to bind Christians together in the strictest bonds of Love and Friendship to dispose and engage them to put on Bowels of Mercy to exercise the most kind and tender affections and the most fervent Charity one towards another that is possible for men to do Those Nonconforming Ministers therefore who possess the people with these Arguments which they themselves know unless they be grosly ignorant to be false and senceless to render them averse from the Lords Supper as it is administred in our Churches are in plain English the Authors and Fomenters of our Divisions and the Disturbers of our Peace In the second place to proceed it is not unlawful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Before I produce my Reasons for the proof of this Proposition I think it will not be amiss to inform the Reader with those Arguments which Dissenters use to overthrow it and they are these two in general 1. All Things and Rites which have been notoriously abused to Gillesp Eng. Pop. Cer. c. 2. par 3. p. 130. Idolatry if they were such as were devised by man and not by God and Nature made to be of necessary use should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine Worship But Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is one of these Rites therefore it should utterly be Abridgment of Linc. Min. p. 17. Vid. Mr. Hook Eccles Pol. lib. 4. p. 160. abolished 2. To imitate and agree with Idolaters by using such Rites and Ceremonies as they do though in themselves indifferent and though they contain nothing which is not agreeable to the Word of God is sinful So that not to abolish utterly whatsoever we know to have been abused heretofore to Idolatry to take up any old Heathenish and Idolatrous Customs and Rites though at present disused by Idolaters is sinful and then to use the same Rites Gillesp p. 141. c. 3. with Idolaters at present to sort our selves and communicate with them in their Rites is to partake of their sins and to become Altar Dam. p. 536 549. guilty of Idolatry too With these Arguments they make a great noise and endeavour to confirm them by Scripture and Reason I shall not offer at a Confutation of these Proofs which stand built upon a weak and sandy Foundation upon trifling and sorry Reasons upon Scripture-Precepts whose sence is horribly wrested and Scripture-Examples falsly applied and nothing to the purpose There is a Case of Conscience lately published wherein the Author hath done this Work to my hands For he clearly shews That a Vid Case resolved whether the Ch. of Eng. Symbolizing c. p. 24. to p. 47. p. 38. Churches agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing and particularly instanceth in our Churches agreement with the Church of Rome by Kneeling at the Sacrament There you will find the most considerable Texts and Examples which they drag from Scripture and urge for themselves rendred utterly unserviceable to their Cause and rescued from their Tortures All that I shall do therefore at present is onely this briefly to propound my Reasons for the proof of my Assertion by which I hope to make it evidently appear that our Dissenting Brethren lie under a great errour and mistake by thinking that all those Rites and Ceremonies which are in themselves indifferent and of mans devising ought to be utterly abolished and become sinful for us to use purely because they either have been or are notoriously abused
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
thing and somewhat favoured by Scripture and by Experience has been found to be of such Convenience Advantage and Security to Religion that Mr. Baxter hath more than once said †††Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace Epist Serm. on Gal. 6. 10. p. 24. Defence p. 21. par 1. p. 36. I doubt not but he that will preserve Religion here in its due Advantages must endeavour to preserve the Soundness Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches And Mr. Corbet saith | | | Mr. Corbet's Account of the Principles c. of several Non-Conformists p. 26. That the nullifying and treading down the Parish-Churches is a Popish Design But whatever Opinion others may have of that Form yet all of one sort and another agree that the Churches so called are or may be true Churches This was the general Opinion of the old Non-Conformists Thus saith a late * * * Troughton's Apol. p. 103. Writer who though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church yet doth admit as he needs must at least that they did own the several Parishes or Congregations in England to be true Churches both in respect of their Constitution and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship and that there were in them no such intolerable Corruptions as that all Christians should fly from them And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church did so declare It was saith Mr. Baxter the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy Defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. V. Letter of Ministers of Old England to New p. 49. which Mr. H. Jacob the Father of the Congregational Party wrote for Communion with against Fr. Johnson and in respect to which he called them Separatists against whom he wrote The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw Dr. Ames and other Non-conformists whom the Congregational Brethren think were favourable to their way And if you will hearken to the abovesaid Apologist he saith again and again That the general Sence Apol. c. 4. p. â—17 of the present Non-conformists both Ministers and People is that the Parishes of England generally are true Churches both as to the Matter of them the People being Christians and as to the form their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine and Manners deserve not to be degraded But lest he should be thought to incline to one side I shall produce the Testimony of such as are of the Congregational Way As for those of New-England Mr. Baxter doth say That Defence of his Cure part 2 p. 177. their own Expressions signify that they take the English Parishes that have godly Ministers for true Churches though faulty Mr. Cotton professeth that Robinson's denial of Way cleared p. 8. the Parishional Churches to be true Churches was never received into any Hearts amongst them and otherwhere saith We dare not deny to bless the Womb that bare us His Letter p. 3. printed 1641. and the Papes that gave us suck The five Dissâ—nting Brethren do declare * * * Apologet. Narr V. Hooker's Survey Pref. and part 1. p. 47. We have this sincere Profession to make before God and the World that all the Conscience of the Defilements in the Church of England c. did never work in us any other Thought much less Opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the true Churches and Body of Christ To come nearer Dr. T. Goodwin On the Ephes p. 477 488 489. doth condemn it as an Error in those who hold particular Churches those you call Parish-Churches to be no true Churches of Christ and their Ministers to be no true Ministers and upon that Ground forbear all Church-Communion with them in hearing or in any other Ordinance c. and saith I acquitted my self before from this and my Brethren in the Ministry But the Church of England is not only thus acknowledged a true Church but hath been also looked upon as the most valuable in the World whether we consider the Church it self or those that minister in it The Church it self of which the Authors of the grave and modest Confutation thus write All the known Pag. 6. Churches in the World acknowledg our Church for their Sister and give unto us the Right-hand of Fellowship c. Dr. Goodwin saith If we should not acknowledg these Ibid. Churches so stated i. e. Parish-Churches to be the true Churches of Christ and their Ministers true Ministers and their Order such and hold Communion with them too in the Sence spoken of we must acknowledg no Church in all the Reformed Churches c. for they are all as full of Mixtures as ours And Mr. J. Goodwin saith Sion College visited that there was more of the Truth and Power of Religion in England under the late Prelatical Government than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England as it was then Mr. Bradshaw Unreasonableness of the Separat p. 97. gives it Our Churches are not inferiour for number of able Men yea and painful Ministers to any of the Reformed Churches of Christ in foreign Parts c. And certainly the Number of such is much advanced since his time But I cannot say more of this Subject than I find in a Page or two of an Author I must frequently Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 56. p. 263. use to which I refer the Reader Before I proceed I shall only make this Inference from what hath been said That if the Church of England be a true Church the Churches true Churches the Ministry a true Ministry the Doctrine sound and Orthodox the Worship in the main good and allowable and the Defects such as render not the Ordinances unacceptable to God and ineffectual to us I think there is much said towards the proving Communion with that Church lawful and to justify those that do joyn in it Which brings to the second General which is to consider II. What Opinion the sober and eminent Non-conformists Sect. II. have of Communion with the Church of England And they generally hold 1. That they are not totally to separate from it this follows from the former and must be own'd by all them that hold she is a true Church for to own it to be such and yet to separate totally from it would be to own and disown it at the same time So say the Members of the Assembly of Divines Thus to Papers for Accommodation p. 47. depart from true Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such And saith Mr. Baxter Nothing will Reasons for the Christian Relig. p. 464. warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church which yet is the case in total Separation but the want of
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she