Against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies, Title page – To the reader
Mr. Baxter's JUDGMENT AND REASONS Againſt Communicating with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, As by LAW Required. Impartially Stated and Propoſed.
Great Men are not alwayes Wiſe, &c.
Job 32. 9.
Surely in vain the Net is ſpread in the ſight of any Bird
Prov. 1. 17.
Happy is he that condemneth not himſelf in that thing which he alloweth,
Rom. 14. 22.
Printed in the Year 1684.
TO THE READER▪
THou art deſired to conſider, That the Reaſon why the Author of theſe Papers has given thee the Judgment of Mr. Baxter againſt communicating with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, as by Law required, is to undeceive thoſe who think, that he has been of late writing for it; whereas that which he hath written does hold good only on Suppoſition, the Pariſh Aſſemblies are Congregational Churches, independent on the Dioceſane Biſhop, who is for our holding Communion with them only as ſuch.
It has very much grieved the Author to ſee how many have been led from their Principles by ſome men, who though otherwiſe Diſſenters, have ſince the late vigorous Execution of the paenal Laws, not only gone themſelves to Church, but done their beſt to engage Others to do ſo too; and to that end have obſerved the Rule of the Polititian, To preſs the Examples and Practices of ſome Eminent Men, as a good means to draw on the reſt. Thus have they publiſhed the Names of Nye, Robinſon, Owen, and Goodwin to countenance their Commnnicating with the Pariſh Aſſemblies in the Liturgy-Worſhip, which is manifeſt Abuſing thoſe Perſons, while they are made to plead for a Practice they Diſavow.
The Deſigne of the Publiſher of Mr. Nye, Robinſon, &c. (as he himſelf profeſſeth) Is as well to ſatisfie thoſe that ſcruple Communion with the Church [To wit, with the Pariſh Aſſemblies in their Liturgy-Worſhip] as to vindicate thoſe who have complyed; whereas there is not one of theſe men that ſpake a word in favour of Pariſh Communion.
Mr. Nye's and Mr. Robinſon's Rapers are ONLY for the Lawfulneſs of Hearing the Conformiſt Miniſters preach, not for Communicating with the Pariſh in their Liturgy-Worſhip. Beſides, it muſt be noted, That what they wrote was confined to private Manuſcript, until ſome Years after their Death, and never, it may be, deſigned for publick view. And the Author of A ſpeedy Remedy againſt Spiritual Incontinency, pag. 4. doth aſſure us, That at Leyden, Mr. Robinſon being confuted in the preſence of above Three Hundred People, did revoke his Opinion about Hearing, and acknowledged that Hearing was a ſinful partaking with that Miniſtry. That this was Nine Years before Mr. Robinſon's Death, and that Mr. Robinſon's Papers were not publiſhed in ſome years after his Death, and had not been publiſhed then neither, had they not through Inadvertency eſcaped the Flames, and fell into the hands of an Inverterate Enem… who printed them. Soon after they were printed, Mr Cann wrote an Anſwer; notwithſtanding which, theſ… Papers are now Re-publiſhed, and Mr. Robinſon's Authority urged to juſtifie the LAWFULNESS Communicating with the Pariſh Aſſemblies in the Liturgy-Worſhip.
In like manner, Dr. Owen, who did grant that Forms of Pra…ers, in Theſi, may be lawful, is introduced as an Approver of the Lawfulneſs of the impoſed Liturgy and Ceremonies in particular; than which there cannot be a greater Abuſe.
Dr. Goodwin likewiſe, after the Dioceſane Epiſcopacy was laid aſide, did ſay, That in ſome of the Pariſhes in this Kingdom there are many Godly Men, that do conſtantly give up themſelves to the Worſhip of God in publick, and meet together in one place, to that end in a conſtant Way, under a Godly Miniſtry, whom they themſelves have choſen to cleave unto (though they did not chuſe him at firſt) Theſe (ſaith the Doctor) 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; And as for holding Communion with them, I ſay, as Siſter-Churches, occaſionally, as Strangers, men might hold Communion with them. So far Dr. Goodwin.
Note here, 1ſt. That he deſcribes a Church, which for its kind is Congregational, though in it there is a Mixture and want of Diſcipline. His Diſcourſe is of a compleat Congregational Church, not of an incompleat part of the Dioceſane. 2dly. He writes for our acknowledging 'em to be Siſter Churches, and communicating with them occaſionally as Strangers; but ſpeaks not of our communicating with ſuch Pariſh-Aſſemblies as are of the Dioceſane Frame, nor of fixing our Communion there, as the Law now requires. 3dly, He inſiſts only on the Faultineſs of Mixture, and want of Diſcipline, not on the Liturgy-Worſhip, which ſufficiently evinceth that he meant it of the Presbyterian Congregations, which had no Liturgy; not of the Epiſcopals which have. For whoever conſults what he has in his Expoſition on the Revelations, will find enough that ſhews how much he was againſt the Liturgy-Worſhip. But yet this Doctor's Judgment muſt be produced for the juſtifying our communicating with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, that are but incompleat parts of a Dioceſane ſingle Church in their Liturgy-Worſhip, as by Law required.
Much after the ſame manner doth the Reverend Mr. Baxter deal with us, when he refers us to the Judgment of the Old Nonconformiſts, who though they were for Communion with the Pariſh Aſſemblies then in being, yet eſteemed the Dioceſane kind of Churches, Miniſtry and Ceremonies to be Violations of the ſecond Commandment, Idolatrous and Antichriſtian. And as to the controverted Ceremonies (for inſtance, Kneeling at the Sacrament) Mr. Baxter knows best how much he differs from ſeveral of them, to whom he refers us; for they aſſert theſe Ceremonies to be Antichriſtian and Idolatrous. But Mr. Baxter, notwithſtanding the high Applauſes he gives 'em, has openly relinquiſhed their Doctrine, and fallen in with Morton and Burgeſſe, having alſo eſpouſed that very Diſtinction of Primary and Secondary Worſhip, which they received from Bellarmine and Suarez; the inſufficiency whereof has been long a go detected by Doctor Ames in his Reply and Freſh Suite.
Moreover, it must be obſerved, that Mr. Baxter has not given us ſo full and diſtinct a ſtate of the preſent Controverſie, between him and thoſe he calls Separatiſts, as was neceſſary; for, his Diſcourſes for Communion with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, without fuller Explanation, will (as now they are) be generally taken as if he meant it of the Pariſh Aſſemblies by Law eſtabliſhed, which are in a kind deſtructive of Chriſt's Churches, Miniſtry and Diſcipline, as Mr. Baxter himſelf avers; whereby the weaker ſort miſtaking Mr. Baxter, are induced to conclude the eſtabliſhed Conſtitution to be good. But what is this leſs than the caſting a ſtumbling Block in the way of his weak Brethren?
Theſe things then being ſo, 'tis become neceſſary that ſome-what be done to undeceive the World; and ſeeing Mr. Baxter is the Perſon on whoſe Authority moſt of thoſe Diſſenters who are now for Pariſh Communion, do lean, I have thought it expedient to lay before them an impartial ſtate of Mr. Baxter's Judgment, as I find it in ſome of his late Writings, together with thoſe Reaſons that he doth furniſh us with, (as Arrows which we may gather up to ſhoot back upon him) againſt communicating with the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as by Law required. The giving a juſt Account of Mr. Baxter's Judgment againſt Pariſh-Communion is, I acknowledge, but Argumentum ad hominem, adapted chiefly for the ſilencing Mr. Baxter; but the Reaſons that are couched in what is given out of Mr. Baxter, are more than ſo, and ſuch as muſt receive another Anſwer than meerly the ſaying▪ That Mr. Baxter is grown wiſer, and hath changed his Judgment; for until Mr. Baxter or ſome other do validly anſwer what Mr. Baxter has ſaid in his Five Diſputations againſt Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies, and in his late Treatiſe againſt Epiſcopacy, what I have here urged will abide in its ſtrength, and carry alſo with it the Authority and Weight of the Vnanſwerable Mr. Richard-Baxter.