Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
of Grace and receive a right to eternal Life I cannot deny but they may be sav'd without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed Means to which they are annex'd Nay Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly to the promises of the Spirit 's assistance which they shall certainly receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes Now since these are the benefits of Baptism and since Infants are capable of them let any impartial Man judge whether it is more for their benefit that they shou'd receive them by being Baptiz'd in their infancy or stay for them till they come to years of discretion Is it better for a Child that has the Evil to be touch'd for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit Or is it best for a Traytor 's Child to be presently restor'd to his Blood and Estate and his Prince's Favour or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restor'd till he is a man I must add that Baptism laies such an early pre-engagement upon Children as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract For there is no person of common Ingenuity Honour or Conscience but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges before he cou'd understand his own good or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood wou'd be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses and make them regret to be Baptiz'd 2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient because it conduces much to the Well-being and Edification of the Church in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons wou'd be apt to make in these as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church but most Expedient in it self and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and to the Will of Christ it must needs be concluded that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children as there do's upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion laies at least an implicit obligation upon Parents to see that it be perform'd For if in the time of a general contagion the Supreme Power shou'd Command that all Men Women and Children shou'd every Morning take such an Antidote that Command wou'd oblige Parents to give it to their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it What I have here said about the obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism concerns all Guardians c. to whose care Children are committed And if any ask at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism I answer at any time for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude but forbids the wilful neglect and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof V. As to Communion with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy 't is certainly Lawful and has ever been thought so nay 't is an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them because that wou'd be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such Nothing now remains but that I take off two objections First 'T is said that Infant-Communion may be practis'd as well as Infant-Baptism But I answer 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Cyril of Jerusalem mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and St. Austin in the Fifth whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers over which he Presided of Origen Tertullian Irenaeus St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of it as a thing generally practis'd and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practis'd in the Church I may add that none of the Four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen do's of Infant-Baptism 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for Infant-Communion it being grounded only upon John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Now 't is doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no because it was not as yet instituted but if it be so to be understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution Do this in remembrance of me Nay the Western Church discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded have long since laid it aside tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism But in truth the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or cou'd be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly Baptiz'd And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves that all the Churches wherein it ever was or still (e) As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies is practis'd were of opinion that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful as that of grown Persons Secondly 't is objected that Children who have not the use of Reason cannot know what a Covenant means and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate tho' St. Peter says the Baptism which saveth us must have the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God To this I Answer 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as against Infant-Baptism 2. That God was pleas'd to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcis'd Infants upon an implicite and imputative
themselves do grant because there is no such prohibition to be found in the New Testament but then they pretend that it was Christ's intention that none but grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd because the Gospel requires that persons to be Baptiz'd shou'd 1. be Taught Matth. 28.29 2. Believe Mark 16.16 3. Repent Acts 2.38 But those and the like Texts do no more prove that none but grown persons ought to be Baptiz'd than the Apostle's words 2 Thess 3.10 do prove that none but grown persons ought to eat For he requires that if any wou'd not work neither shou'd he eat now none but grown persons can work and therefore by this way of arguing none but grown persons ought to eat Again suppose there were a Plague in any Country and God shou'd miraculously call 11 or 12 Men and give them a Meditine against this Plague and say Go into such a Country and call the People of it together and Teach them the Vertues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Now since Children are capable of the Medicine tho' they are ignorant of the Benefits of it wou'd any Man conclude that it was God's intention that none but grown persons shou'd receive it because they only cou'd be call'd together and be taught the Vertues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly Wherefore seeing Children as I have prov'd are capable of the Benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who were sent to Baptize all Nations knew them to be capable of it and to have receiv'd both Circumcision and Baptism in the Jewish Church how shou'd it be thought but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd Shou'd God in the daies of David have order'd some Prophets to go and Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damn'd wou'd those Prophets have Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd only grown persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission we shou'd have read that they Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd as many Proselytes as gladly receiv'd their word wou'd this have prov'd that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church Or shou'd God bid 12 Men of a Church that had always practis'd Infant-Baptism go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies saying He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd wou'd those Men that were bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism think it was God's intention that Baptism shou'd be deny'd to Infants No certainly and therefore by parity of Reason the Apostles cou'd not so understand their Commission as to exclude Infants from Baptism Now since our Saviour has not either expresly or otherwise excluded Infants from Baptism certainly his Command to Baptize all Nations do's comprehend Infants as well as Men. For the Apostles liv'd under a dispensation where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church and unless they had been instructed to the contrary they must naturally understand their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants as well as actual Believers Our Adversaries indeed put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but if they wou'd well consider the next words they wou'd find that Infants are not at all concern'd in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be damn'd The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore 't is plain that the believing or not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in a capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown persons just as the words John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him But they urge also that Baptism is unprofitable for Infants because putting away the filth of the Flesh which is all that Infants are capable of signifies nothing but only the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are wholly uncapable To this I answer that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision which is all that infants are capable of profiteth nothing without keeping the Law which Infants cou'd not keep but that the inward Circumcision of the Heart and in the Spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants are uncapable of it So that their way of arguing proves nothing because it stretches the words of the Apostles beyond their just meaning which was to let both Jews and Christians know not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcis'd or Baptiz'd but that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism But farther had not the Church been alwaies in possession of this practice or cou'd any time be shew'd on this side the Apostles when it began nay cou'd it be prov'd that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same principles that these Men do now then I shou'd suspect that their arguments are better than they really are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the Rule of Christ But since it is so Universal and Ancient a practice that there never was any Church Ancient or Modern which did not practise it it can be nothing less than an Apostolical practice and tradition If it be said that False Apostles and False Teachers brought in Infant-Baptism in the very first Ages I wou'd fain know how it came to pass that the very Companions and Contemporaries of the Apostles and the Ancient Saints and Martyrs who wrote against other Heresies pass'd it over in silence tho' we are sure from Irenaeus and Tertullian that it was (a) See Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hammond on Matth. 19.28 John 3.5 Selden De Jure lib. 2. c. 4. Vossius De Baptismo p. 181. practis'd in those early times 'T is impossible that they shou'd all consent in such a dangerous Errour or that they shou'd all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration shou'd be made without observation no body can tell how or when Certainly those places of the New Testament which require a profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the ancient Fathers and yet they never concluded from thence that Infants ought not
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
and as to the truth of the Matters of fact she places it not in the testimony of any particular Church but in the Vniversal Tradition of Jews and Pagans as well as of all Christians II. I am to shew that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing The Dissenters tell us that those things which are indifferent in their own nature do cease to be indifferent and become sinful if they have been us'd by the Church of Rome For say they we read Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances Now not to insist on the vast difference of our circumstances from those of the Israelites I answer that it is an absurd thing to imagin that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be obliged to be unlike those People in all their actions The things forbidden from verse 5 th to 24 th are not Indifferent but Incestuous Copulations and acts of uncleaness and God do's expresly enough restrain that general Prohibition to those particulars in saying v. 24 th Defile not your selves in any part of these things for in all these the Nations are defil'd which I cast out before you And they were therefore forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites because they were the doings of those People whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even in their greatest immoralities If it be said that in other places God forbids the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in things of an indifferent nature I answer 1. That supposing this were so it do's not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But 2. That God has any where prohibited the Israelites to symbolize with Heathens in things of a mere indifferent and innocent nature I mean that he has made it unlawful for them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens merely upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.2 You shall not cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who sees not that 't is unnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by cutting off their Eye-brows this was not merely indifferent neither it being a Custom at Funerals misbecoming the People of God and which wou'd make them look as if they sorrow'd for the Dead as Men without Hope Another place is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse Kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled Seed nor shall a garment of linnen and woollen come upon thee But I answer that tho' these things are indeed indifferent in their own nature yet they are forbidden not because the Heathens us'd them but because they were mystical instructions in moral duties If it be objected also that God forbad the Jews Hos 2.16 17. to call him by the Name of Baali which was a very good Name and signify'd only My Lord because that word was abus'd in being the name of the Idol Baal I answer that God did not forbid the Name Baali because an Idol was call'd by that Name for he is call'd Baal in other places of the Hebrew Bible and also Jah which the Heathens us'd for an Idol but because the word Baali signifies an unkind husband or Lord such as Baal was to his worshippers whereas God Promises he wou'd be call'd Ishi that is a tenderly-loving husband for he design'd to be kind to his People Israel I shall add that Baalim in the next verse signifies Idols which God there Promises to destroy But suppose that God forbad the Jews to call him Baal for the future yet it might be because of their vehement inclination to the worship of Baal lest by using it they shou'd be tempted to worship him again whereas our Ceremonies were us'd by the ancient Fathers without any Superstition or Idolatry and we are not in danger of returning to Popery by retaining them Well but they say it appears from Scripture-precepts and examples that it is unlawful to symbolize with the Church of Rome in things that have been notoriously abus'd in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services To this I answer First that it is not sinful to use those things which have been abus'd to Idolatry as I shall prove by these following Arguments 1. No abuse of any Gesture tho' it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be us'd in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in it's own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abus'd by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be us'd at all then the Jews sinn'd in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observ'd in the worship of their false gods If the Dissenters say they except all such Rites as were commanded or approv'd of by God I reply that such an exception avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be us'd at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what has been once abus'd must ever remain so that is an infinite Power can't undo what has been done and clear it from ever having been abus'd And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practise in the worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry For if it be God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position wou'd plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This principle intrenches upon Christian liberty if St. Paul himself may judge who tells us 1 Cor. 10.25 c. that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and to eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 1 Kings 11.7 Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can But what reason is there for this For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill and not in things wherein they do well No Man can shew a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the Reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Lastly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in the use of Ceremonies will not justify a separation For ours are scarce the hundredth part of hers nor are ours impos'd as necessary If it be said that Christ severely condemn'd the Jewish Traditions I answer that he condemn'd only those by which they made the commandments of God of none effect and in which they placed special holiness But to descend to particulars 1. The Surplice in the Church of Rome is solemnly hallow'd c. but we use it only for Distinction and Uniformity and place no more holiness in it than in the hoods which denote Degrees Besides in the Primitive Church Ministers did officiate in White Garments and Beza and Calvin were (f) Cont. Westph Vol. 1. p. 55. Epist ad Bull. against contending about the Surplice and I pray why is a Minister 's Linnen Garment more Popish than a Lawyer 's Gown or a Judge's Robes Our famous Hooker (g) Eccles Pol. Book 5.228 saies To solemn actions of Royalty and Justice there sutable Ornaments are a beauty are they only in Religion a stain 2. The Cross in Baptism is not us'd by us as 't is by the Church of Rome She enjoins numberless Crossings in the Administration of that Sacrament but we retain it in Conformity to the ancient practice and have abolish'd all Superstitious abuses of it 3. Kneeling at the Sacrament is requir'd by us only as a reverent Gesture and the abuses of this kneeling in the Church of Rome are perfectly remov'd The Papists indeed kneel to their Host as to their God but we do nothing like them for we kneel not to the Bread and Wine but at our Receiving of them Now what they do on no reason why may not we do on the best especially when our Church declares that Adoration of the of the Elements is Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians As we are not to disuse the Holy Sacrament because the Papists have made it an Idol so we may continue our Reverence tho' they have paid it Adoration 4. The Ring in Marriage is most notoriously abus'd in the Church of Rome as may be seen in their Office but we practise no Superstition about it and use it not as a Sacramental sign but as a token of the Marriage Vow Lastly The Feasts and Fasts of our Church cannot be justly accounted Popish For the time of Assembling is a Circumstance of our Worship that cannot be left to particular choice but must be determin'd in Common and what is to be done at that time must be determin'd too in an Ordinary orderly Assembly so that it must be left to the discretion of the Governours when we are to keep a Festival and when a Fast As to the Keeping of the Lord's-Day our Church was not at Liberty unless she wou'd have rashly departed from Apostolical observation and the continu'd practice of all Ages and Places since the beginning of Christianity As for the Keeping of Easter she was under the like Obligation the Annual Feast of the Resurrection the Great Lord's-Day being known to have been the Chief and the Cause of all the Weekly And as to the Fast of Good Friday it was nigh as early as the Feast of the Resurrection They lamented their Sins our Saviour died for on the Friday before as constantly as they Commemorated His Rising again for our Salvation the Sunday after And in Order to the keeping of those two Great Daies with more Devotion there was likewise in the Church some time before-hand set apart for better Recollection and greater Preparation the number of Daies was in some places more in some less That of Forty had obtain'd in the Western Country and therefore was still kept and wou'd to God it were as Religiously observ'd as it was Piously appointed Whitsunday too the Day on which the Holy Ghost descended was observ'd alwaies and Universally by the Ancient Church Only the Nativity of our Saviour was of latter remembrance but yet before Popery came in 'T was first observ'd in the Western Church and afterwards taken up by the Eastern in St. Chrysostom's time as it stands recommended by him to the People of Antioch Other times besides these have been appointed for our Religious Assemblies in which besides the general Worship of God the Examples of his Saints and Martyrs are gratefully remembred and piously propos'd Those Daies are call'd commonly by the Name of the Person then particularly Commemorated Not that the Worship is to the Saint or that the Day is imploy'd in his Honour but because on the occasion of his Memory or Martyrdom we come together as to pay our other Duties to our God so to thank him for the Graces of his Servant and to be Edify'd and Instructed by the Example It is true the Church heretofore when God had been bountiful to them in the Number of his Saints increas'd in some proportion the Daies of his Worship and it is to be Confess'd that Popery had both acknowledg'd Saints to God which he might not own and gave the true Saints an Honour which they must disclaim but with us the number of those Daies is not greater than what the Affairs of the World may well comply with and as the number of the Apostles is not large so their Sanctity sure is unquestionable and then on those Daies we neither Beseech by their Merits nor recommend our selves to their Intercession You see then how unreasonable the Objection of Popery is here too But see to what absurdity it go's on First it is suppos'd Popery to keep a Day in the Memory of an Apostle and then it is thought as Popish to call him a Saint A Great Person at Geneva it seems presum'd it somewhat Popish to observe Sunday it self and consider'd about changing the Day Nay some are so perversely Superstitious on the other hand as that That day on which all the Christian World Remembers our Saviour's Bitter Passion has seem'd to them the fitter for a Feast and the time Universally now set apart for the Joyful Memory of his Blessed Nativity the more proper for a Fast This indeed is not like the Papists No it is like a Jew or a Heathen To conclude by Popery nothing can be meant but the corruptions and usurpations of the Church of Rome For the Faith of that Church was once as fair spoken of as it's Errors are now and had she continu'd in that purity we ought to have been of her Communion and now we are to depart from her no otherwise than she shall be found to have departed from her self and to have corrupted that Doctrine which was once deliver'd unto the Saints As we must not receive the Evil for the sake of the Good so we must not reject the