The Harmony Between the Old and Present Non-Conformists, Treatise · Argument 6
Argument VI.
Notwithſtanding the great Cry that has been made about the Antiquity of the Engliſh Service, and the reaſonableneſs of conforming unto it, for that reaſon, ſome Diſſenters refuſe to joyn in the uſe of it, becauſe ſuch a practice is not agreeable to the beſt Antiquity.
They think that the Apoſtles were beſt acquainted with the Mind and VVit of Jeſus Chriſt, and that the Primitive Chriſtians in the Firſt, Second and Third Centuries kept more exactly to the Rule of Chriſt than thoſe, who lived in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh, &c. whence the Antiquity the Diſſenter pleads for is that which is moſt Ancient, and moſt pure, unto which pattern ſuch as will aim at a thorough Reformation, muſt attempt the reducing all things in matters of Religion.
'Tis generally agreed by all Proteſtants, that in the Apoſtolical and moſt Primitive Dayes of the Goſpel all things were moſt exactly conformed to the VVill of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and that the nearer any keep to his Rule, the better. A Deviating from the Primitive practice has been but the beginning of all thoſe many corruptions that have infeſted the Church of Chriſt.
Seeing this is a truth acknowledged by moſt, let us enquire after the Antiquity of ſuch Liturgies as this in uſe among us, and after the time when Liturgies were firſt impoſed, and from whom and when the preſent Engliſh Liturgy had its riſe.
1. From what has been already ſuggeſted, 'tis manifeſt That there were no ſtinted Liturgies impos'd on any Paſtors of particular Churches, the Firſt Four Hundred years after Chriſt. The which may be be further confirm'd out of what Dr. Burnet in the Second part of the Hiſtory of the Reformation doth acknowledge, who, ſpeaking of Liturgies, doth ſay, That they were not made the Subject of any publick Conſultation till St. Auſtins time; when in their Dealings with Hereticks, they found they took advantages from ſome of the Prayers, that were in ſome Churches. Upon this, he tells us, it was order'd, that there ſhould be no Prayers uſed in the Church, but upon common Advice. After that the Liturgie came to be more carefully confidered. Formerly the Worſhip of God was a pure, and ſimple thing, and ſo it continued till Superſtition had ſo infected the Church, that thoſe Formes were thought too naked, unleſs they were put under more Artificial Rules, and dreſſed up with much Ceremony, &c. So far Dr. Burnet.
About this time, which was in the Fourth Century St. Ambroſe compos'd his Service Book, which was the firſt that gained any confiderable Reputation in the VVorld. The Spurious Liturgies that are aſcribed unto the Apoſtles are ſuch, as have enough in 'em to convince the Reader, that they were not ſo ancient as is pretended. After this time the Paſtors, or Biſhops of Churches were very buſie in compoſing Prayers, in making Additions to what was done by ſuch as went before 'em. But no Liturgie as yet impos'd on any Churches, Every Paſtor, tho' he communicated the prayers he had compoſed for his own uſe unto others (The which he did only for the ſatisfaction of his Brethren that they might be aſſur'd, there was nothing of Error in 'em) yet none impos'd. 'Tis very probable that St. Ambroſe's Liturgie in Divers places finding Acceptance was much in uſe: But 'tis moſt certain, that until Pope Adrian the firſt, who liv'd in the Eighth Century there was no general Impoſition of any Liturgie.
In Petries Church Hiſtory 'tis ſtoryed. That about the later end of the Eighth Century, there was a great contention for receiving the Maſs of Pope Gregory into the Churches, firſt by Authority of Pope Adrian, and then of Charles the Great; ſome Churches had one Directory, and ſome another, who would not change, VVhen the Pope ſaw ſo great Oppoſition (and it may be underſtood, that it was not ſmall, when the Pope was put to ſuch a ſhift) he ſaid he would refer it to the VVill of God, whither he would by any viſible ſign approve the Maſs of Gregory, or Ambroſe: ſo theſe two Books were laid together upon the Altar in St. Peters Church, and he cal'd upon God which of the Two he approved. The Doors were ſhut all Night, and the next Morning, when they were return'd into the Church, the Book of Ambroſe was found lying as it was laid down, and the other was all torn and diſperſed through the Church. The Pope maketh the Comment (if we will belive Jacob de Voragine in Vita Gregorij) That the Maſs of Ambroſe ſhould be untouch'd, and the Maſs of Gregory ſhould be uſed through the VVorld, and ſo he did Authorize and Command that it ſhould be uſed in all Churches, and Chappels. But many did expound that ſign the contrary way, and would not receive it, till Charles did command all Biſhops and Prieſts to uſe it through his Dominions, he cauſed the Maſs of Ambroſe to be burned and threw many Prieſts into Priſon, who refuſed to accept the new Maſs [or Pope Gregories Liturgy] The Church of Millaine would not change. Walifred Strabo (who lived about the year 900) teſtifieth in his Book de Exordijs rerum cap. 25. That in his time the Roman Maſs was not univerſally in all Churches, but almoſt (ſaith he) in all the Churches of the Latines, and no Benedictine Monks did read it, &c. Thus Adrian the Pope, and Charles the Emperour were the firſt hot Zealots for Gregories Liturgy, who were much more fond of it, than Gregory himſel… was, for Gregory did as much deteſt the Ʋniverſal Impoſition, as he did zealouſly reject the Title of an Ʋniverſal Biſhop, whence he was not fond of impoſing it on us in England.
'Tis very certain that the Chriſtian Religion did many an hundred years flouriſh in this Kingdom before 'twas troubled with a Romiſh Liturgie, which came not hither till about the year 600, and then rejected by the Britiſh Chriſtians, who ſeverely ſuffer'd for their refuſing to comply with the prelatick Impoſitions of that proud Monk Auſtine, who, ſtirring up the King of Kent to fight againſt the Chriſtians, thereby to bring 'em, if poſſible, to a complyance with his Ceremonies, was the cauſe of the Deſtruction of above a Thouſand Godly Monks, beſides the many others who were cruelly ſlain at that time. The which Auſtin moſt wretchedly did, tho' he never receiv'd any ſuch advice from Gregory.
An account of Pope Gregories Moderation we have in Dr: Burnet, who gives us alſo a ſhort Hiſtory of the Riſe and Progreſs of Ceremonies thus. Gregory the Great was the firſt, that took much care to make the Church Muſick very regular, and he did alſo put the Liturgies in another Method, than had been formerly uſed. Yet he had no ſuch fondneſs of his own Compoſures. But left it to Auſtine the Monk, whom he ſent over into England, when he conſulted him in it, either to uſe the Roman, or the French Rituals, or any other, as he ſhould find they were moſt likely to edifie the people. [But] After this there were great variations; for as any Prelate came to be Canonized, or held in high eſteem by the people; ſome private Collects, or particular Forms, that he had uſed, were practiſed in his, or perhaps as his Fame, ſpread in the Neighbouring Dioceſs.
Thus the Liturgie as it's firſt riſe was in Auſtine's time, or thereabout, which was occaſioned by the Errors that then did infeſt the Churches, at which time the Miniſters would vent their Errors in their very Prayers, even ſo by degrees it received remarkable Additions, ſome part brought in at one time, and ſome at another. So ſays Dr. Burnet. In every Age there were notable Additions made, and all Writers allmoſt in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries employed their Fancies to find out Myſtical Significations, for every Rite, that was then uſed; and ſo as a new Rite was added, it was no hard matter to add ſome Myſtery to it. This had made the Office ſwell out of meaſure, and there was a great variety of them, Miſſals, Breviaries, Rituals, Pontificals, Portoiſes, Pies, Graduals, Antiphorals, Pſalteries, Hours, and a great many more.
Out of theſe was the Engliſh Service taken, which as it had no higher Riſe than that of Gregorie's or at moſt Ambroſe's Liturgy, in like manner it was a Compoſition of time, the Remaining parts having different Fathers, ſome hundred years younger than the Apoſtles.
This I'le evince particularly out of Bellarmine, who (as his Intereſt prompted him) made diligent ſearch after the Antiquity of the ſeveral parts of the Romiſh Service Book.
1. The Verſicle, Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghoſt was as Alcuinus thought Compoſed by St. Hierome at the requeſt of Pope Damaſus, But as Walfrid Strabo, 'twas compoſed by the Nycene Council ſometime before Hierome, it may be to ſhew their Deteſtation to the Arrian Hereſie, which was ſome hundred years after Chriſt.
2. The Kyrie Eleiſon (i. e.) Lord have mercy on us, is fooliſhly ſuppoſed to be us'd ever ſince the Apoſtles days, becauſe 'tis found in St. James's feigned Liturgy, but Bellarmine cannot ſay that 'twas us'd in the Roman Liturgy Two Hundred years before Gregory the Great who liv'd about the year 600.
3. Dominus Vobiſcum, or the Lord be with you, An ancient Salutation, us'd by Believers in the Old Teſtament times, about which Petrus Damianus wrote a Book with this Title, Dominus vobiſcum. Tho' this was an ancient Salutation in uſe among old Believers, when they met one another, yet we have no evidence, that 'twas brought into the Liturgie as a part of ſolemn and ſet Worſhip until the firſt Council at Bracca, Can. 21. enjoyn'd it the Biſhops and Prieſts.
4. The Collects, which were the ſhort Prayers of ſeveral Popes and others Cannoniz'd for Saints, were brought into the Liturgy by Pope Gregory almoſt 600 years after Chriſt.
5. The Te Deum Laudamus, or that Hymn which begins thus. We praiſe thee O God, tho' it be not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet 'twas (ſaith Bellarmine) given the Church by Inſpiration at the Baptiſm of St. Auſtine, at which time St. Ambroſe and St. Auſtine did extempore, and alternately to the Aſtoniſhment of the people ſing this Hymne, as Dacius Epiſcopus Mediolanenſis reports.
6. After the Leſſons, the Reſponſes, which are ſo call'd, ſaies Rabanus, becauſe one who begins is anſwer'd by the reſt, were firſt invented by the Italian Churches, was not within ſeveral hundred years after Chriſt.
By theſe Intimations concerning the Antiquity of ſome parts of the Engliſh Service 'tis evident, That as all ſtinted Liturgies compared with the moſt primitive practices are new, ſo our Liturgie, which was taken out of Gregories, A Liturgie not ſo ancient, as that of Ambroſe, and which in proceſs of time was ſtrangely alter'd is much more new, unto which the Diſſenters cannot firmly adhere, if they will as they think they ought, make the moſt Primitive Practice the pattern and Rule of theirs.
What need any other Impoſitions on the Miniſters of the Goſpel, or on the people now, than were on 'em the firſt 300 years? And why ſhall we be wiſer than our firſt Fore-Fathers? Is it not a duty to have a juſt reſpect to Antiquity? Why not then to that Antiquity that comes neareſt unto the Apoſtles days? Whatever ſome may think, there are many among the Diſſenters, who are fully perſwaded that untill all things in Religion be reduc'd to the ancient Conſtitution eſtabliſhed by the Lord Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, adher'd unto by thoſe who for ſome hundred years followed 'em, the Church of God will never flouriſh.
This is the Rule they muſt walk by, &c. or Sin againſt God, to avoid which Sin, they refuſe to joyn with the Church of England in her Liturgie, that is ſo beſide the practice of the Primitive Chriſtians.
Let theſe few of the many Arguments, which the Diſſenters have offered againſt the lawfulneſs of the Engliſh Liturgy ſatisfie the Reader, On this I have the more fully inſiſted to the end thoſe Sober Conformiſts, who it may be have not conſidered the Reaſons why the Diſſenters cannot conform to the Engliſh Liturgie may ſee thas 'tis not Honnour, nor Fancy, but Conſcience, that is the ground of their Non-Conformity.
I'm very Confident, that a great part of the Diſſenters (I ſpeak not of all becauſe I know 'em not) would with all their Hearts Conform to all is requir'd of 'em by the Church of England, could they do it with a ſafe Conſcience, and ſurely, ſuch among the Conformiſts, who will conſider theſe Reaſonings of the Diſſenters, and who do not meaſure the Conſciences of other Men by the Light and Latitude of their own, cannot but conclude, that there are ſome Nonconformiſts who cannot with a ſafe conſcience conform, but ſhould they do it, 'twould be againſt the plain convictions of conſciences.
As 'tis not humour nor fancy that occaſions their Diſſent from the Church, ſo 'tis more than meer ſcruple of conſcience. Theſe Diſſenters are under ſtrong convictions of Conſcience, that they ſin, if they conform; This is certainly the caſe of many, who are as fully perſwaded, that the Conformiſts do err, as the Conformiſt can be that they do ſo.
This being their caſe, the queſtion is, whether notwithſtanding theſe plain convictions of Conſcience, they muſt conform, and act contrary to their convictions? Whether they may ſafely ſin againſt God, to the end they may render the Obedience required by man? It hath been heretofore aſſerted by all ſorts of Chriſtians, whether Proteſtant or Papiſt. 1. That God muſt be obeyed rather than man; And, 2. That no authority is ſufficient to oblige any to act contrary to the plain convictions of Conſcience. Yea Medina himſelf doth aſſert, that a man muſt rather obey an erroneous Conſcience, than the command of any Prelate, that is contradictory thereunto.
Suppoſing theſe Diſſenters do err, yet they muſt not act contrary unto an erroneous Conſcience, the whole that can be juſtly deſir'd is, that they uſe all regular means to depoſe and ſhake off the error of Conſcience, which muſt be done by a ſincere ſeeking God for more light, that they may come to the knowledge of the truth, and by a diligent and impartial enquiry into the true State of the controverſie; Moreover, there muſt be if poſſible, a conſulting the writings of the Learned on both ſides, or a converſing with 'em, with a readyneſs to weigh all things with deliberation, and a reſolution to embrace the truth, where ever 'tis found; But if after all their old convictions are rather ſtrengthned than otherwiſe, they muſt beware they act not contrary to their Conſcience. They muſt not reſign up their reaſon, their Conſcience, nor their Religion unto the pleaſure of the greateſt Potentate on Earth. This I take to be the Doctrine of all ſound Proteſtants of the Church of England, yea I can, when there ſhall be an occaſion, prove it to be ſo by a Collection of the ſeveral Arguments of the Learned Drs. of the Church, which they have urg'd for the confirmation of this truth, in the oppoſition they make to the blind obedience of the Papiſt. Whence I inferr.
That theſe Diſſenters in refuſing to joyn with the Church of England in the Liturgy, do but diſcharge their duty unto God. Their not joyning with the Church is not the ſin of Schiſm; Schiſm is aſſerted by Proteſtants to be a cauſleſs ſeparation, whence if there be a good cauſe why they ſeparate, 'tis not cauſeleſs, and can there be a better cauſe than the avoiding ſin? They ſeparate, becauſe they ſhould ſin if they did not ſeparate.
But though this be enough to clear the Diſſenter, who is fully convinc'd of the unlawfulneſs of thoſe Termes of Communion that are impoſed on the people, yet 'tis not enough to juſtifie the ſeparation of thoſe, who do not only think it lawfull, but expedient to joyn with the Church of England in their Prayers and Ceremonies, &c. who if they will ſeparate from the Church of England, and juſtifie their ſeparation, they muſt argue from other Topicks, for certainly the peace of the Church, and the authority of the Magiſtrate, cannot but engage a people to do what is both lawfull and expedient.
Theſe therefore (I think) deny, that they ſeparate from the Communion of the Church. Although they worſhip God in Meetings, locally diſtant from the Pariſh Church, yet their Meetings are but as Chappels of Eaſe, and the Preachers but as Curates to the Pariſh Churches.
That the Epiſcopal Party may effectually demonſtrate a Religious Aſſembly locally diſtant from the Pariſh Church to be Schiſmatical, they muſt prove.
1. That the people of this Aſſembly were once actually Members of the Pariſh Churches.
2. That theſe people do ordinarily ſeparate themſelves from the external Communion of their Pariſh Churches.
3. That their ſeparation is cauſleſs.
Firſt, They muſt prove, that the people of this Aſſembly, that is locally diſtant from the Pariſh Church, were once Members of the Pariſh Church, that they were under an obligation of holding external Communion with their Pariſhes.
1. All External Communion muſt be in Pariſh Aſſemblys, or ſingle Congregational Churches; For a Dioceſan, Provincial or National Aſſembly of all the Members of thoſe Societies for External Communion, is, on the account of the multitude of the people, impoſſible, 'tis impoſſible they ſhould meet in one and the ſame Aſſembly, and hold Communion with each other in Prayers, in the Word, and in the Sacrament; Their External Communion in Prayers, &c. muſt be in leſſer Aſſemblies, or not at all.
2. Thoſe who are under any Obligations of holding external Communion with this, or the other Pariſh muſt be Members of this or the other Pariſh Church. Such as are not Members of this or the other Pariſh Church, cannot be ſaid to ſeparate from it, tho' they meet in places locally diſtant, becauſe they not being Members of the Pariſh Church, are not under any Obligation of holding external Communion with that Pariſh, A Man (ſaies Dr. Stilling fleet) is not ſaid to ſeparate from every Church, where he forbears or ceaſes to have Communion, but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion, and yet withdraws from it, This ſufficiently evinces, That unleſs the Conformiſts can prove that the Diſſenters were oblig'd to hold Communion, as Members of the Pariſh Churches, they cannot prove a Separation. To ſeparate from a Church doth ſuppoſe, that perſon to have been once of that Church.
But the Quaerie is, how the Conformiſts will prove all the Diſſenters to be Members of ſome particular Pariſh Church? Will they ſay that they were all made Members of ſome particular Pariſh Church by their Baptiſme? That cannot be, becauſe by Baptiſm we are only made Members of the Catholick Church. Doth our being born Engliſh Men, and our Inhabiting in ſuch a Pariſh make us Members of the Pariſh Church? No, for there are no Grounds in Scripture for this, Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles did not leave any Intimations concerning ſuch a Rule, neither can any precept, but what is fetch from God's word, faſten any ſuch Obligation on the Conſcience, that whoever lives within ſuch a precinct muſt be a Member of ſuch a Church, How then muſt it be? The Anſwer of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Primitive Chriſtians for the firſt 300 years, and of moſt Proteſtants, is full for this, which is, That it muſt be by the peoples conſent. For as the people are inveſted with a Right to choſe their own Paſtor and the Church with which they would hold Communion. Even ſo they cannot be Members nor under any Obligation of holding Ordinary Communion with this, or the other particular Church without their own conſent. Conſent is as abſolutely neceſſary to the conſtituting a particular Pariſh Church, as a National, which conſent may be diſcovered not only Expreſly, but alſo implicitly, which is when a people do ordinarily joyn with ſome particular Church in all Ordinances, as many Pariſhioners, who, by their Ordinary holding Communion with the Pariſh Church in all Ordinances, do practically, and interpretatively (though not expreſly) diſcover their conſent to be of that Church, whereby (I think) they are under an Obligation to conſtant Communion with that Pariſh Church ſo long as they find it lawful: Tho' theſe may Occaſionally hold Communion elſewhere, yet their ordinary, and conſtant Communion muſt be with their Pariſh Church. For which reaſon, if they do ordinarily forbear, or ceaſe to have Communion with their Pariſh-Church, it may be juſtly ſaid, that they do ſeparate from it.
But there are many an Inhabitant in moſt Pariſhes, who, as they were not made Members of the Pariſh Church by Baptiſm, nor can be by meer Cohabitation, even ſo they never were by their own Conſent, either expreſly, or interpretatively. They never held Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances, were never confirm'd by the Biſhops, nor ever did participate of the Lord's Supper, and therefore I think it cannot be truly ſaid, That they Separate. How can they ceaſe that Communion which they never had? For which reaſon to prove theſe Schiſmatical Separatiſts, who never ſeparated from the Church, ſeems an Impoſſibility. Surely their exerciſe of that Right, and Power, with which they are inveſted as Chriſtians in choſing their own Paſtor, cannot be an Act Schiſmatical.
By this 'tis manifeſt, That thoſe who never expreſly nor implicitly conſenting to hold communion with any Pariſh-Church in all Ordinances were never actually obliged to hold Communion with ſuch particular Pariſhes, and conſequently their forbearing ſuch Communion or their Aſſembling in places diſtant from the Pariſh Church cannot be a Separation, and if not a Separation, it cannot be a Schiſm.
Thus the Reader may eaſily perceive how neceſſary 'tis, that the Conformiſts prove, that thoſe Diſſenters, who now meet in Aſſemblies locally diſtant from the Pariſh Churches, were once Members and under an Obligation of holding external Communion with the Pariſh Churches, if they will prove 'em Separatiſts, Furthermore they muſt prove.
2. That this people do ordinarily Separate themſelves from the external Communion of their Pariſh Church. For ſeeing the Sin of Schiſm conſiſts in cauſeleſs Separation, there muſt be a Separation, or there can be no cauſeleſs Separation, (that is) there can be no Schiſm, but how the Conformiſt can prove a Separation any otherwiſe than by inſiſting on the people's, not holding Communion in the ſame manner, or ſame place with the Church, is difficult to ſuppoſe. And if they take either of their ways without the Addition of ſome other Conſideration, they muſt either make many of their own Meetings Separate, which are in places locally diſtant from the Pariſh Church, where their Modes of Adminiſtration are different, or clear many Diſſenters from the Reproach of Separation, what do they think of ſuch Meetings in which the Common Prayer is read, are they Separate and Schiſmatical? But after they have prov'd both theſe, they cannot prove all Diſſenters Schiſmatical, unleſs they can alſo evince.
3. That the Separation is Cauſeleſs and Sinful, But how they can prove that thoſe who, if they ſeparate, do ſo on no other Account, than that they may forſake Sin is a point worthy of Conſideration.
If there be any ſinful Impoſition made the term of Communion, 'tis ſufficient to juſtifie the Separation of thoſe, who withdraw themſelves from the external Communion of that Church. If a Church that is ſound in the Doctrine of Religion, though it deteſts an Idolatrous Worſhip, yet if it make the leaſt Sin the Term of Communion, whereby the people cannnot have Communion with that Church but by a deliberate committing that Sin, Separation from the Communion of this Church is juſtifiable. For whatever ſome may ſuggeſt, we muſt not commit the leaſt Sin that good may come thereof.
To inſiſt then ſo much on the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church, as if it were a Good for the Obtaining which we might venture on a little Sin, is a Notion of a very dangerous Tendency, giving too great Countenance to a Doctrine of the Papiſts, whereby they juſtifie all their Villanies. A Little evil (ſay they) may be done for the Obtaining a great Good, for inſtance. The Salvation of the many Souls in Three Kingdoms is a great, a very great Good, the Killing One, Two, or Three Hereticks in order thereunto, at moſt is but a little evil which may be done for ſo great a good. Moreover this juſtifies all their Officious Lying and Equivocating, they tell a Lye that ſome great good may come thereof. But this is ſo contrary to the pure Nature of a Holy God, and his Holy, Good, and Juſt Command, that whoever will indulge himſelf in a practical embraceing ſuch a Notion, doth but prepare the greater Damnation for his own Soul.
God is a great God, and the leaſt Sin being an Offence to his Dread Majeſty, cannot knowingly with deliberation and allowance be committed, but the perſon that does it, expoſeth himſelf to Divine Indignation; who ever breaketh the leaſt of theſe my Commands, ſays Chriſt. Matth. 5. 19. is in danger of looſing Heaven, for, though a man keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2. 10. We muſt not ſpeak nor act wickedly for God, he is not glorified by Mans lye, and therefore Wo unto them that will do evil that good may come thereof. Rom. 3. 8. If the leaſt ſin be made the Term of Communion, no Conſideration of Peace and Ʋnity, or of Obedience to the Magiſtrate can excuſe thoſe from guilt, that will venture on that ſin. Whence 'tis evident,
That all thoſe who by the Reaſons inſiſted on in this Treatiſe are fully convinc'd, That ſomewhat ſinful is impoſed as a Term of Communion with the Church of England, they do but diſcharge their Duty, and keep a good Conſcience in ſeparating, and yet by ſeparation do not accuſe the Church, as if ſhe had been no true Church, or as if Salvation could not by others be had in it. A Church that is ſound in the Faith, that 'tis a true Church in a Theological Senſe, being lyable to Error, may, even while Sound in the great things of Religion, impoſe ſome Error, as a Term of Communion, from which thoſe, who are convinc'd of the Sin, muſt ſeparate. A ſound Church in the great things, may err in leſſer matters, and may Impoſe Aſſent and Conſent unto that Error, as a Term of Communion, with the which theſe Diſſenters durſt not comply, but ſeeing they cannot have Communion on eaſier Terms, muſt ſeparate.
There is a great Difference between the Errors or Corruptions of a Church which are made Terms of Communion, and thoſe which are not. 'Tis not to be queſtion'd, but that a man may joyn with a Church that is leſs pure than another, even with a Church that hath ſeveral Spots in it (or he muſt joyn with none) and may be under an Obligation of continuing with that Church, although he may go elſewhere and be better edifyed, otherwiſe there being variety of Gifts, thoſe who are more eminent than the reſt among the Miniſtery, muſt have moſt of the people round, when other honeſt, though not ſo able; Preachers have few, or none. However if they make the leaſt Spot, or Impurity a Term of Communion, he dares not comply. As long as he may may continue Communion without being made a partaker of the impurities, (as in many inſtances he may) he muſt not ſeparate, but when they impoſe their corruptions as Termes of Communion, ſo that he cannot have Communion but by complying with the corruption, he muſt not ſin for the ſake of Communion, nor on any other conſideration whatſoever.
But ſeeing they cannot hold Communion with the Pariſh-Churches; The next great quaerie is, what they muſt do, whether live without ſome Ordinances all the dayes of their Life, or Aſſemble themſelves together for Communion in all Ordinances, in ſuch a way as they are fully convinc'd is agreable to the Sacred Scriptures.
That they muſt not conſtantly neglect any Ordinance of God, nor the publick attendance on his worſhip, ſomewhere is ſo clearly reveal'd in the word of God, that whoever is not ſo far in love with Quakeriſm, as to neglect the Teſtimony of God's written Word, cannot but acknowledge it; That the Lord Jeſus who has inſtituted a Miniſtry, and made it the peculiar work of ſome men in ſpecial to preach the Word, not only for converſion of ſinners, but for the ediſication of the converted, for the help and benefit of whom there is inſtituted not the Ordinance of Baptiſm alone, but that of the Lord's Supper, which is deſign'd for the ſtrength and encreaſe of Grace in Chriſtians, I ſay this Lord Jeſus, who hath ſo graciouſly inſtituted a Miniſtry and Ordinances, hath made it the duty of Chriſtians to aſſemble themſelves together, to the end they may be made partakers of the Bleſſings of his Inſtitutions and Ordinances; And ſuch is the Relation between Miniſter and People, that is, between a Goſpel Miniſter, and an orderly Chriſtian Aſſembly, that the one cannot be without the other, neither can the one ordinarily perform ſome Relational Duties, but in an Aſſembly with the other, and therefore muſt aſſemble themſelves together, 'tis their duty.
I cannot at preſent enlarge on this head, and therefore as to this I can only add, that the ſenſe of all Proteſtants generally is, that all Chriſtians ought to aſſemble themſelves together for publick worſhip; Viz. for Prayer, the Word and Sacraments, and that 'tis the duty of a Paſtor to take heed to himſelf, and the Flock over which he is made over-ſeer, and that 'tis the peoples duty to attend Ordinarily on the Miniſtry of their own Paſtor.
The great difference between the Church of England and Diſſenters, is not ſo much about the peoples duty of aſſembling themſelves together for publique worſhip, as about the place where, and the Miniſter with whom. The Church of England ſayes, it muſt be in the Pariſh Church with the Miniſter of the Pariſh, but the Diſſenter aſſerts, that every Chriſtian is inveſted with a right to chooſe his own Paſtor, and that therefore he muſt go where he finds the worſhip to be in a way moſt agreable to God's Holy word, but when he is once fix'd, he is under thoſe Obligations of Duty unto his Paſtor, that the Church of England do ſay, a Pariſhioner is unto the Miniſter of the Pariſh. But ſeeing on theſe things I cannot now enlarge, I will conclude with an humble and affectionate requeſt to all good Chriſtians, whether Epiſcopal or Diſſenter.
I beſeech you to conſider, that conſcience is a tender thing, its wounds unſupportable, frequently accompanied with ſuch horror as is very like unto the pains and torments of the damned; No man therefore muſt act contrary to the plain convictions thereof. What man ſoever does, what he is convinc'd in Conſcience is a ſin, does greatly diſhonour and provoke Almighty God. All care muſt be taken to obtain the knowledge of the truth, and gain a freedom from error, but there muſt not be an acting againſt the plain convictions of conſcience, though erroneous.
On this I inſiſt as a ſound part of the Proteſtant Doctrine, ſtrenuouſly defended againſt the many feeble aſſaults of the Papiſt, by ſeveral worthies of the Church of England; And really this is a Rule all good Chriſtians muſt walk by, in doing which, ſeeing there are almoſt as many different perſwaſions of conſcience about ſome leſſer things, as there are conſidering mindes, there will be as many different practices where there are different Sentiments about matters of practice, there the practice will be different, for which reaſon, the ſtrong muſt take heed that they deſpiſe not the weak, and the weak look to it that they judge not the ſtrong; For whether we conform, or conform not, if we do what we do conſcientiouſly to the Lord, we ſhall be accepted of him.
I verily believe that many do think themſelves bound in conſcience to conform, the which they would not do to gain a world, if they did think it a ſin, and 'tis as true, that many among the Diſſenters are as conſcientiouſly Non-conformiſts, and would really have conform'd, did they not think that ſo conforming they ſhould ſin againſt God. Both theſe muſt be tenderly regarded by ſuch as will walk by the Chriſtian Rule; A Non-conformiſts cenſuring a conformiſt as one that acts againſt his conſcience is unchriſtian, and a Conformiſt's cenſuring all Diſſenters as Hypocrites, looking on their conſcience to be but fancy, their Religion to be faction, is no leſs unchriſtian than the former. But to be more particular, my humble deſire is,
1. That thoſe who are of the Communion of the Church of England, would continue it ſo long as they can with a ſafe conſcience. Let not every little diſſatisfaction with ſome men drive you off from thoſe wayes you have nothing, beſide the miſcarriage of ſome men of that profeſſion, to object againſt, 'tis true, your duty is to mind the glory of God in the edification of your own Soul, and if your Pariſh Miniſter be one whoſe incapacity for the Miniſterial work is ſuch, as not to anſwer the end of the Miniſtry, you muſt look out for a better, and be where you may have more than the ſhadow of a Miniſter, even one who is competently qualified for the workes; But do this in a way as little offenſive to the Church of England, as your conſcience will permit. Why will you ſeparate from that Communion, where you may be without ſin, eſpecially ſeeing by doing ſo you do what you cannot juſtifie? But if you cannot continue your Communion without complying with ſin, you muſt rather withdraw than ſin.
2. That ſuch as are not actually of any Communion, (i. e.) neither joyn'd with the Church of England, nor with the Diſſenter, of which fort there are many, eſpecially among the younger people, would remember that they have, as Chriſtians, a right to chooſe their own Paſtor, in the exerciſe of which right, 'tis their duty to have a ſpecial regard to the Glory of God, the good of their own Soul, and the peace of the Church, and therefore if you may have all theſe ends anſwer'd by joyning your ſelves to the Church of England, and you can with a ſafe Conſcience do it, you do well in joyning with that Church, but if you can't with a ſafe Conſcience joyn with the Church of England, but can with the Non-conformiſts, you muſt apply your ſelves to thoſe of the Non-conformiſts who do in your judgments keep moſt exactly to the rule of the Goſpel. You muſt regard God's Glory as your ultimate end, the Salvation of your Soul as an end ſubordinate, and God's word as your Rule, by which in purſuance of theſe great ends, you muſt walk. Study therefore ſeriouſly the Rule, and be ſure you do not knowingly and with deliberation deviate there from.
3. My third requeſt is to ſuch as are joyn'd with the Non-Conformiſts, that you Cenſure not thoſe who continue their Communion with the Church of England, Are you Conſcientious in your way, So ought you to eſteem them to be in their way? Would not you have them conſider you as Hypocrites, or fanciful Humouriſts, neither do you judge them to be ſuch, what, though thoſe Reaſons I have Collected out of the Writings of the Old Nonconformiſts, may faſten powerful Convictions on your Conſcience, yet they may not be of any ſuch weight in the eſteem of others. Tho' I have produc'd them to the end the Conformiſt may be mov'd to look on you as conſcientious perſons, yet do you not abuſe it, as if all Conformiſts were as much Convinc'd by 'em as you your ſelves are, and therefore muſt be eſteem'd to act contrary to their Conſciences in conforming. Take heed of ſuch cenſuring.
Finally my humble deſire is, That ſuch as are of the conforming Clergie would conſider, that the above mention'd Arguments may be (as indeed with many they are) of great Force, and that although the Conformiſt may be able eaſily to anſwer 'em; Yet Thouſands among the Diſſenters can not ſhake off the Convictions they receive from ſuch Arguments. Oh then be not too ſevere in your cenſure! But conſider that theſe Diſſenters cannot conform but by wounding their Conſciences, be therefore very tender how you impoſe on 'em, but do your utmoſt both for a Comprehenſion, and Indulgence of thoſe ſound Proteſtants, who walk conſcientiouſly.
FINIS.