The Harmony Between the Old and Present Non-Conformists, Treatise
An Account of the Non-Conformiſts Principles, concerning the Terms both of the Clergy, and Lay-Conformity.
SINCE the 24th of Auguſt 1662, there have been many a Non-Conformiſt, even among the Miniſters, and People of England, who, though they have different apprehenſions concerning the Terms of Conformity, do yet all agree in their not ſubmitting unto all that is required by the Act of Ʋniformity. There are ſome among the Miniſters, who can Conſcientiouſly comply withall that is enjoyn'd the people, and there are others, that cannot.
That the Reader may with the greater clearneſs underſtand, wherein the principal grounds of Non-Conformity conſiſt, I will with the greateſt impartiality attempt the giving a particular account of the Principles of thoſe, who are now moſt commonly known by the name of Diſſenters. Not that I deſign to inſiſt on all thoſe principles, they profeſs to embrace, as they are ſound Chriſtians, and good Proteſtants, but only to ſhew, what their Judgment is, as they are Diſſenters from the Church of England.
1. There being a great difference between the Terms of Conformity impoſed on the Miniſters, and thoſe enjoyn'd the People, there are ſome among the Non-Conforming Miniſtry, who can ſubmit unto the impoſitions laid on the people, but not unto what is exacted from the Miniſters. They can hear, yea read the ordinary Lord's days Service, and joyn in the Communion of the Church, but yet cannot Aſſent, and Conſent to every thing contained in the 39 Articles, Book of Common Prayer, and Homilies already extant, and ſuch as ſhall hereafter be ſet forth, becauſe they are fully convinc'd, that there are ſeveral things contain'd in thoſe Books, which are not agreable unto the Word of God, and becauſe, they cannot divine what may be inſerted in the Book of Homilies, hereafter to be publiſhed, and are loath to ſubſcribe to they know not what. Theſe have ſo great an advantage againſt the Conformiſts, that Dr. Stilling fleet, when he firſt entred on the controverſies about the Terms of the peoples Communion with the Church, wav'd that of the Miniſters Conformity. As theſe are Non-conformiſts, ſo in their writings they triumph over the Conformiſts; But then as they do ordinarily ſeparate from the Communion of the Church, and erect orderly Congregations for the Adminiſtrations of all Ordinances, they have not that advantage which other Nonconformiſts have; For ſay the Conformiſts unto 'em, ſeeing you look on the terms of Lay-Communion to be lawfull, and to ſhew ſo much, you do occaſionally hold Communion with us, your Communion ought to be fixed and ordinary, and that becauſe the conſideration of the Curches peace, and the authority of our Governours in the enjoyning what is confeſſedly lawfull, ſhould oblige your Conſciences.
There are ſeveral things replyed. Firſt, The Miniſters, being conſecrated unto God in that Holy Function of the Miniſtry, dare not look back, they commit Sacriledge ſhould they withdraw themſelves from the Miniſtry, for wo unto them if they preach not. Secondly, The great neceſſity there is of their preaching, in order to the reforming the people; Moreover, they add, that they do not ſeparate from the Church, they do but preach as Lecturers, or Curates unto the Pariſh Miniſters.
In this controverſie, I'll not engage my ſelf, for my buſineſs is principally deſign'd to give a right ſtate of the controverſie, and, ſo far as I can, to offer ſomewhat in the Non-conformiſts defence, which as to this particular, ſhall be only to clear them from that reproach which is caſt on them, about their going to Church, to Divine Service, and the Communion, and yet do not conform as Miniſters. The anſwer is eaſie, viz. There is much more than theſe things required of them; Viz. Subſcriptions as enjoyn'd by the Act of Uniformity, beſides the abjuring the Covenant, to the which ſeveral, who have nothing to offer againſt the ordinary Lord's days Service, and the other Terms of Lay-Communion, cannot yield their Conſciences.
2. There are other Non-conforming Miniſters, who cannot conſcientiouſly conform either unto the Terms impoſ'd on the Miniſter or People. Of theſe there are two ſorts.
(1.) Some, who look on the particular forms of Prayer, impoſed on all to be Lawfull, but not Expedient.
(2.) Others who conſider this particular form of Prayer to be Ʋnlawfull.
1. Of the firſt opinion are ſeveral Preſbyterians, if not ſome Congregational Divines. For the clearer underſtanding their Sentiments, we muſt conſider.
1. That there is a difference between the lawfulneſs of ſet forms of Prayer in Theſi, and in Hypotheſi; A form of Prayer in general may be lawfull, but this, or the other ſet form in particular, ſinfull. In the Popiſh Maſs Book there are ſeveral forms of Prayer, which are by ſound Proteſtants eſteemed ſinfull, not becauſe they are forms, ſo much as becauſe they are ſuch forms. There are very few, beſides ſome Independents and Anabaptiſts, who judge all forms of Prayer, becauſe they are forms, to be Unlawfull.
2. There is alſo a difference between the lawfulneſs of a form, and its expediency. A Stinted Liturgy may in ſome caſes be both lawfull and expedient, and in other, though in it felf lawfull, yet highly inexpedient. For ought I can ſay to the contrary, a ſet form of preaching is as lawfull as a ſet form of Prayer; and 'tis manifeſt, that there was a time in the beginning of Edward the 6ths. Reign, that the making Sermons for the Miniſters, was as convenient as the making Prayers for them, ſuch was the ignorance, peeviſhneſs and contentiouſneſs of thoſe in Holy Orders; That a ſtinted form was as neeeſſary to be uſ'd in preaching as 'twas in praying, for which reaſon as an Engliſh Liturgy was drawn up for the Miniſters help in prayer, a Book of Homilies was prepar'd to be read inſtead of preaching, unto both which, at firſt, all ſuch as had not a Licenſe were equally oblig'd. But though a ſtinted form of preaching be in it ſelf lawfull, doth it therefore follow that 'tis always expedient? The like may be ſaid of a form of prayer.
3. That about things lawfull, that is, about ſuch things as are in their own nature indifferent, enquiry muſt be made after their expediency or inexpediency pro hic, & nunc. For many things which are in Theſi lawfull, are yet in Hypotheſi, becauſe of their inexpediency ſinfull. To eat fleſh is in it ſelf lawfull, but to eat fleſh offer'd unto Idols when another acquaints thee with it, is inexpedient, and therefore ſinfull. There are many things that are lawfull, which becauſe they edifie not, but offend, and grieve ſuch for whom Chriſt dyed are inexpedient, yea as ſo circumſtantiated, are unlawfull, and cannot without ſins be complyed with.
The Apoſtle Paul in his Epiſtles to the Romans and Corinthians doth ſomewhat amply treat of this point, where he ſayes, that though all things are lawfull, yet all things are not expedient, that is, as the Apoſtle himſelf explains it, all things edifie not; All things, (i. e.) all indifferent things are lawfull, but not at all times, in every circumſtance for God's glory, and therefore not expedient. In the exerciſe of our liberty about things indifferent, if we will follow the Apoſtle Paul, we muſt take heed that we do nothing that affords grief, or proves a ſtumbling block to thoſe for whom Chriſt dyed, but muſt endeavour that all things be to the Glory of God, and the edification of Souls. This is evident from Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 10.
If then the Ordinary Lord's dayes Service be in it ſelf lawfull and indifferent, yet if it's uſe be a grief and a ſtumbling block to thoſe for whom Chriſt dyed, no way conducive to God's glory, nor the peoples edification, its uſe is ſo very inexpedient as to become unlawfull, yea ſinfull, unto ſuch as know ſo much, the which inexpediency remains, notwithſtanding any Humane Law to the contrary. For when the caſe is as here ſtated, the word of God ſhews it to be inexpedient, and therefore cannot be altered by any law of man.
That the Lord's dayes Service, though in it ſelf lawfull, is in its uſe inexpedient. Some may argue thus, namely, It becomes all good Chriſtians to mind the Peace and Edification of thoſe Churches, where they live, and unto this we ought to have a ſpecial regard in the exerciſe of our liberty about things indifferent. There is a manifeſt diviſion among Proteſtants in this Kingdom, the which hath prov'd very pernicious unto the Proteſtant Religion, and if encreaſed, cannot but be much more miſchievous, and therefore all men muſt take heed, that in the uſe of their liberty they do not what neceſſarily tends to the multiplying diviſions. If we cannot Unite the Conformiſt and Non-conformiſt, we muſt do all, that lawfully we can, to fix an Union between Conformiſt and Conformiſt, yea, and between Non-conformiſt and Non-conformiſt; This every judicious and ſober Chriſtian will I preſume grant, from which conceſſion, 'tis thus argued, even from the ſuppoſition of the lawfulneſs of the Lord's day, Service againſt the expediency of its uſe pro hic, & nunc.
If a Non conformiſt's uſing this ſervice dothnot contribute any thing towards an Ʋnion with the Conformiſt, but tends to the dividing the Non-conformiſt, though the ſervice be in it ſelf lawfull, yet its uſe is not expedient.
But a Non-conformiſts uſing this Service doth not contribute any thing towards an Union with the Conformiſt, [As Mr. Read's experience does evince, for ſayes he in his caſe, Though we yield as far as we can in things lawfull, there is no Ʋnion, no Peace nor Agreement to be had with ſuch men,] but tends to the dividing of the Non-conformiſts, as is moſt manifeſt to any that will but deliberately conſider the general practice of the Diſſenting Brethren. Therefore the uſe of the Lord's dayes Service pro hic & nunc highly inexpedient, and not to be done.
The multiplying diviſions among good Proteſtants cannot be for God's glory, nor for the edification of the people, but has been, and ſtill is a ſtumbling block unto ſome, and great grief unto others for whom Chriſt dyed, and therefore a man ſhould rather ſuffer, than uſe it. 'Tis quaeryed by ſome, whether or no the generality of Non-conformiſts do eſteem the uſe of the ordinary Lord's dayes Service expedient? In anſwer unto which, I may ſafely aſſert, that the generality of the Non-Conformiſts do at leaſt conſider the Conforming unto the Lord's dayes Service ſo very inexpedient, that they cannot Conſcientiouſly comply with it; This is manifeſt from their avowed Principles and Practiſes.
1. Their Principle is, that in matters of Religion, whatever is in it ſelf lawfull and pro hic, & nunc expedient, is their Duty; The expediency of a lawfull thing makes it Duty. It has therefore been the Conſcientious endeavour of Non-conformiſts to find out the expediency of thoſe things which are lawfull, (i. e.) whether the uſe thereof is for God's glory, and the edification of the people, and they judge themſelves bound in Conſcience to do whatever lawfully they may, to the end God may be glorified, and the edification of immortal ſouls advanced.
2. The Practice of the Non-conformiſts hath been by this Rule, as they dare not do what is to God's diſhonour, ſo they are afraid to omit what will be for God's glory, and for edification. Their being turn'd out of their places to the impoveriſhing the families of ſome, the great prejudice of all, does evince they cannot venture on the doing what is to God's diſhonour. Their greivous ſufferings on the account of their publique meetings do as manifeſtly demonſtrate, that they are afraid to omit what is for God's glory, and the edification of the people.
To thefe conſiderations add, that if theſe Conſcientious Non-conformiſts had been convinced, that the uſe of the ordinary Lord's dayes Service had been both lawfull and expedient, that is, had been for Gods glory, and the people's good, would they have lived ſo many a year in the neglect and omiſſion of ſo excellent a duty? What, do they make conſcience of one duty, but no conſcience of another? Surely, I cannot believe it.
For this reaſon I think my ſelf oblig'd to conclude, that the true reaſon why the generality of the Non-conforming Miniſters, who do not uſe this Service, is becauſe they think it inexpedient, they believe it is not for Gods glory, nor for edification, they fear that ſhould they uſe it, they ſhould diſhonour God, and be a ſcandal and grief to many for whom Chriſt dyed. But,
II. There are others, who conſider the particular forms of worſhip, appointed in the Liturgy for the ordinary Lords dayes ſervice, to be unlawfull, of this opinion are ſome Preſbyterians, the Congregational generally, and the Anabaptiſt. Here I'll give the ſenſe of the moderater ſort of thoſe, who look on the preſent Liturgy, as what cannot by them be uſed without ſin; The which I'll do without an engaging my ſelf ſo far in their defence, as to eſpouſe their quarrel.
As for my part, I think moderation becomes all Chriſtians, eſpecially Engliſh Proteſtants, in a day wherein they are in danger of being deſtroyed by the common enemy, the Papiſt. This is not a time to fall out with one another, and quarrel about leſſer things, for now the great and weighty matters of our Religion are in hazard, there muſt be an exerciſe of Chriſtian charity towards each other. Let every man give that liberty to the conſcience of another, which he expects ſhould be given his own, for while the World endures, there will be as different apprehenſions about leſſer matters, as there are different complections among men, and therefore there muſt be mutual forbearance, or there will be no peace among us.
Methinks it lookes ill, when men aſſume to themſelves an unaccountable infallibility, the which is attended with a proportionable ſeverity, in impoſing their own ſentiments on others. This is not only common among the Papiſts, but alſo to be obſerved too much among all ſorts of Proteſtants, whether Epiſcopal, Presbyterian, Independent or Anabaptiſt, and is, I verily believe, one great reaſon of thoſe violent Diſſentions that are among us, every one thinks, that ſuch as diſſent from them, do ſo without any ſolid reaſons, and therefore not to be tolerated. Thus ſome of the Conforming Clergy eſteem the Non-conformiſts diſſent from them, to be both unreaſonable and intolerable, and ſome Diſſenters, it may be, are even with the Epiſcopal in thoſe cenſures they paſs on them, and among the Non-conformiſts, ſome, who only deſire that the ſubſcriptions and abjurings of Covenants be remov'd, are willing enough that the Liturgy be eſtabliſhed with but a few amendments, the which may be done by a Comprehenſive Bill, that hath nothing of Indulgence in it.
But really how weak ſoever the greateſt part of the Non-conformiſts are, 'tis too manifeſt, that they think that there are other Blocks which lye in their way to Conformity, than ſubſcriptions and abjurings, whoſe Conſciences ſhould be regarded, and who ſtand as much in need of an Indulgence, as others do of a Comprehenſion. If the Bill of comprehenſion ſhould be comprehenſive enough to take me in, I think my ſelf oblig'd to do my utmoſt that ſuch Conſcientious perſons, who through weakneſs cannot do as much as my ſelf, be at leaſt indulg'd.
Conſcience is a tender thing, and is really the immediate directer of our actions, againſt the plain convictions of which we muſt not go. No Authority is ſufficient to oblige any man to act againſt the plain convictions of conſcience; For which reaſon, ſeeing the Diſſenters are fully convinc'd in Conſcience, that they cannot lawfully conform to the preſent Terms of Lay-Communion, there muſt be either ſome alteration of the Termes, or ſome muſt ſuffer for Conſcience ſake, whence then to ſhew the neceſſity of altering ſome things, even for a comprehenſion, and the indulging in other things for the eaſe of tender Conſciences. I'll give the Reader an Hiſtorical Account of ſome of their reaſonings againſt the Termes of Lay-Communion, the which I will produce only to this end, namely to ſhew, that the reaſons are ſuch as may lay convictions on the Conſciences of good and honeſt; if not learned men. Though men of great learning may be able to anſwer them, yet if they be ſuch as are unanſwerable in the judgmenr of the Diſſenters, 'tis ſufficient for the purpoſe for which I produce them. Thoſe arguments may be ſtrong in the judgment of ſome, which are not ſo in the opinion of others. My province then is only to propoſe, not to defend the arguments that are cogent in moving ſome Diſſenters to conclude, that as Lay-men, they cannot conform unto the impoſed Termes of the Church of England.
For to the compleat Communion of Lay-men, there is required a conformity, not only to the ordinary Lord's dayes Service, but moreover unto their Modes of Adminiſtring the Sacraments. But that unto this they cannot conform, I will eſſay particularly to evince, by ſhewing more generally, why they can't conform to the Terms impos'd on the people, and then more particularly why they can't ſubmit unto the Rubrick about baptizing their children, nor Communicate with them in the Lord's Supper, and in fine give ſeveral reaſons, why others can't with a ſafe Conſcience attend on the Reading of the ordinary Lord's dayes Service.
1. Why ſome cannot Conſcientiouſly comply with the Termes of Communion, impoſed by the Church on the people.
1. More generally; Becauſe there are ſo many things which the Church of England acknowledges to be in their own nature indifferent, that are made ſo neceſſary apart of Religion, as to be Termes of Communion with them. They take the Word of God contained in the writings of the Old and New Teſtament to be the only Rule of the whole, and of every part of their Religion, whence what is enjoyned them, as ſo neceſſary a part of Religion, as to be made a Term of Communion, they cannot conform thereunto, unleſs it be agreeable to the Word of God. A Term of Chriſtian Communion is a very neceſſary part of Chriſt's Religion, the non-embracing which deprives a perſon of the benefit and advantage of the Sacraments, and therefore they muſt be no other, than what our Lord Chriſt has in his Word made ſo. If any man, or ſociety of men aſſume unto themſelves a power concerning matters of Religion, which Chriſt never gave them, they think they cannot be faithfull unto Chriſt, if they ſubject themſelves unto them in their exerciſe of ſuch an irregularly aſſumed power. Chriſt Jeſus is the Sole Lord of his Church, and Law-giver in it, and therefore the alone Author of the whole of Chriſtian Religion, for which reaſon, they cannot receive any ſuch additions as are made meerly by men, as parts, much leſs as neceſſary parts of Chriſtian Religion, they know that there are ſome who ſay, the Impoſition may be ſinfull, when a compliance therewith is a duty; But this in matters of Religion, eſpecially in the preſent caſe they do not underſtand, becauſe when lawfull Authority commands any thing ſinfully, the great reaſon why 'tis ſinfull is, becauſe 'tis in other manner than according to the Word of God, but if the command be not according to God's Word, how can their obedience be ſo? All obedience is to a command, and ſuch is the connexion between the command and the obedience, that we muſt conſider the obedience to be as is the command; If the command be out of the Lord, and ſinfull, the obedience thereunto cannot be in the Lord, and a duty. If the command be not for the Lord, but againſt him, the obedience cannot be for the Lord. But that our obedience muſt be in, and for the Lord, is acknowledged by the Church of England.
But there are many things in their own nature, according to the confeſſion of the Church oſ England indifferent, which yet are made ſo neceſſary a part of Chriſtian Religion as to be enjoyned as Termes of Chriſtian Communion. Whoever conſcientiouſly refuſes to be preſent at their publique Prayers, or to kneel at the Sacrament, is, by the 27th. Canon, deprived of the Sacrament, yea, and though the Miniſter, who ſhall wittingly adminiſter the ſame to notorious offenders, and perjur'd villains incurres not for ſuch a default, the pain of Suſpenſion; Yet no Miniſter when he celebrateth the Communion, ſhall wittingly Adminiſter the ſame to any but to ſuch as kneel, under pain of Suſpenſion, nor under the like pain to any that refuſe to be preſent at Publique Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church of England. Thus not only a form oſ Prayer, but this particular form of Prayer, in which form there are many things, with which theſe Diſſenters cannot comply, are made ſo neceſſary a part of Religion, that if they conform not unto them, they are denyed the Lord's Supper, and what Miniſter ſoever admits ſuch unto the communion is lyable unto a ſuſpenſion, a greater puniſhment than is threatned againſt thoſe Miniſters, who admit ſuch as commit the horrible ſin of perjury. Moreover though they are convinc'd in conſcience they ſin if they kneel, yet they cannot be admitted unto the Lord's Supper unleſs they kneel,
Let us put the beſt ſenſe on theſe things, and 'tis this; As the notorious offender and perjur'd villain cannot be admitted to the Sacrament, becauſe he complyes not with God's Terms, the Holyeſt man on earth cannot be admitted, unleſs he complies with Man's Termes. But what is this leſs than ſetting up mans poſts with Gods, or a ſetting as high (if not a higher) value on the precepts of men, as on the commands of God? But ſeeing our Lord Chriſt has purchaſed a liberty for them, whereby they may be admitted to the Sacrament on eaſier Termes than Man will permit, they muſt abide by this liberty in doing which they do, but diſcharge their duty in aſſerting the Lord Jeſus Chriſt to be the Sole Author of the whole of Chriſtian Religion, and of all the Termes of Chriſtian Communion. But,
2. To be more particular in ſhewing why they cannot joyn with the Church in the Sacraments; In doing which I'll contract my ſelf in giving you no other than what I find in the Altar of Damaſcus.
(1.) Of Baptiſm.
I'll only offer a very little that is inſiſted on in my Author, and therefore will paſs by that paſſage in the Second Prayer before Baptiſm, [where the Remiſſion of ſins is defired by Spiritual Regeneration; As if the pardon of ſin conſiſted rather in the Sanctification of the ſoul, than the diſſolving the obligation to puniſhment:] and conſider the Interrogatories which are theſe, Doſt thou forſake the Devil, and all his works. &c. Dost thou believe, &c. Wilt thou be Baptized in this Faith? The Child hath not Underſtanding, nor Faith, nor deſire of Baptiſm; And how be it the child had Faith, can the God-father tell abſolutely, and in particular, that this Child whom he preſenteth, doth Believe, deſire Baptiſm, or forſake the Devil? It is a fooliſh thing, and great mockery of God's ſervice, to demand that of Infants, which was at the firſt demanded of ſuch as were come to years of diſcretion, and were converted from Gentiliſm. The children of Faithfull Parents are within the Covenant of Grace, whereupon it is that they are made partakers of the Seal of the Covenant; The Covenant being made with the Parents in their Faith, and not the Faith of the child, the Parents ſhould give confeſſion of their own Faith, and not of the Faith of the child, which is not: becauſe their own Faith is the condition of the Covenant upon their part, whereupon God promiſeth to be their God, and the God of their Seed. Whereupon alſo it followeth, that the Father of the child ſhould preſent the child, and give confeſſion, and not another, becauſe the Covenant is made with him, and his Seed, and the child is his Seed, not the Seed of another, whom we call Godfather; The Natural Father is the proper God-father. Others may be Witneſſes of Baptiſm, but that the Father ſhould, or can reſign this duty to another, I deny.—After that the child is dipped, [or ſprinkled] and Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, the Priest maketh a Croſs upon the child's Forehead; Saying, We receive this child into the Congregation of Chriſt's Flock, and do ſign with the ſign of the Croſs, in token that hereafter he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſs the faith of Chriſt Crucified, and Manfully to fight under his Banner againſt Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Chriſt's Faithfull Souldier and Servant unto his Lifes end. He ſaith not we have received, but we do receive, as if the child were not received by Baptiſm, but by Groſſing, or as if the child were again received by Croſſing, which was before received by Baptiſm. This ſigning with the croſs is no decent geſture, it is rather like a jugglers geſture, than a geſture of decency and comelineſs; It muſt then be uſed as a Symbolical and Significant Rite. But we have no ſuch ſign ſet down in the Word of God, as to make two Croſs Lines in the Air with our fingers, to repreſent the croſs of a Tree, or to ſignifie unto us, that we ſhould not be aſhamed of the Croſs of Chriſt. &c. Thou ſhalt make unto thy ſelf no Image, that is any Repreſentation forged in thy own brain to be ſet up in the Worſhip of God. Admit once the Aerial Croſs in Baptiſm, ye cannot refuſe to ſet up the material Croſs, and the Rood in the Kirck, nor the Wooden or Stone Croſſes in the High-way; For all may ſignifie the ſame thing, that the Croſs on the forehead; And by this reaſon every one may wear a Silver Croſs upon his forehead alſo. Further, not only other ſignificant croſſes material may be brought in upon this ground, but alſo the reſt of the beggarly ceremonies of Baptiſm, to deface, and deform the purity, plainneſs and ſimplicity of Chriſt's inſtitution. As to put ſalt into the mouth of the child, to anoint with Oyl the breaſt and ſhoulders, and the top of the head with Holy Criſm, and to put a burning Taper into his hands, &c. for theſe Toyes had their own glorious ſignification, as well as the Croſs. Laſtly, What doth it ſignifie, but that which is already ſignified in baptiſm. The ſame valour and courage, and conſtant profeſſion, and fighting under Chriſt's banner, is a part of that Grace which is ſealed by baptiſm. But beſides that it is a ſignificant toy, it is alſo eſteemed effective, for they ſay, that the infant by it is dedicated to the ſervice of him that dyed on the croſs. Who did ſanctifie this ſign for ſuch an uſe? Are men able to do it? It was made alſo a conſecrator of Water, Bread and Wine, and all other Holy things in time of Popery, for the which corruption we ought to abhorr it. Again we Sign this child in token, that he ſhall continue Chriſt's faithfull Souldier to his Lives end; Theſe words [ſhall continue to his lives end,] compared with the like in the Epiſtle of the 22 Sunday after Trinity [God ſhall continue the work in you to the end] ſhew unto us, that we uſe the croſs for a pledge to give aſſurance to the child to continue in grace to the end, which if it be ſo, then it ſerveth to work faith, and is uſed effectually, ſaith Parker. Hooker ſaith, that there cannot be a more forceable means to avoid that which may deſervedly procure ſhame. If it be in ſome ſort a means to ſecure from confuſion Everlaſting, then it is in ſome ſort effective of Grace. In a word, ſuppoſe there were no ſinfull uſe of it for the preſent, the horrible abuſe of it in times by-paſt, and the danger and peril of theſe ſame abuſes are ſufficient to remove it out of this Holy Sacrament, where it is ſet up in ſuch honourable State, beſide the Lord's own Altar.
(2.) Of the Lord's Supper.
I'll not mention all is ſaid of this, I'll only apply my ſelf to what is ſaid of Kneeling, which geſture, though not according to Chriſts example, nor the nature of the Ordinance, is impoſed as a neceſſary condition of our Right in the Lord's Supper; whatever right Faith and Repentance may give unto this Ordinance, no jus in re, no right in it is acknowledged to any among us, but ſuch as Kneel, whereby Kneeling is made by the Church of England a neceſſary Term, and yet look'd on but as indifferent, as if a man had been inveſted with a power of making a thing in it ſelf indifferent, to become a neceſſary part of Chriſts Religion; But to give you what I find in the Altar of Damaſcus; Where 'tis ſaid. That without any farther, he and they [viz. Miniſter and People] Communicate Kneeling after the Popiſh manner, that is, with a geſture of Adoration, when they are beholding the ſigns, taking, eating, drinking, and inwardly in their minds ſhould be meditating on the ſignification, and the fruit, and benefit which they reap by Chriſt Crucified, and conſequently cannot without diſtraction of mind from this employment of the Soul, and Meditation, pray a ſet, and continued prayer to God, or cannot meditate and be employed in the preſent action without diſtraction of mind from the prayer, and therefore either they pray irreverently, which they will not grant, or do Communicate this Geſture of Adoration to the other imployments of the Soul, and of the outward ſenſes and members of the body, about the objects preſented, which they muſt grant, and ſo nill they, will they, they muſt be forced to confeſs, that they commit idolatry. Kneeling is no decent geſture for a Table, for commodity, they ſay, maketh decency, but this geſture is confeſſed not to be commodious, as ſitting is; It is then enjoyned for another reaſon. to wit for Reverence, but to kneel for Reverence and Religious reſpects is ever Adoration in the higheſt degree. To kneel for reverence, that is, to adore, is not enjoyned here for prayer, neither may prayer lawfully be enjoyned in time of another action, and part of God's worſhip to be performed by the ſame perſon. And ſuppoſe it were enjoyned for the ſhort prayer uttered by their prieſt, yet are not the outward ſenſes, and inward faculties employed principally on that prayer, but upon another action, principally and directly intended in the inſtitution, whereas the other is only ſuper-added by man. Let them frame their Canons and Acts as they pleaſe, and ſuppoſe, that they kneel for reverence of the Sacrament, common ſenſe may teach us, that it is done for that reſpect, either totally or principally; but let it be in the leaſt part, yet that leaſt part is idolatry. Beſide the idolatry of this geſture, it cannot ſtand with the right manner of celebration, and rites of the inſtitution. For when they kneel for adoration they cannot carry the cup from hand to hand, nor divide the elements among themſelves, as Chriſt hath commanded. In many places the people are raiſed from their kneeling to come about the Table there to receive kneeling, and then are directed to their places again, ſaith the Author of the Survey. The prieſt giveth the Bread and the Wine, to every one ſeverally, out of his own hands. When the cup is to be carryed from one to another, the communicant is too prophane (in their opinion) to reach it, the Prieſts Holy hand muſt take it from one, and give it to the other: but Chriſt willed his Diſciples to divide it among themſelves, and it was carryed from hand to hand indeed, after the manner of the laſt paſchal cup. When Chriſt therefore gave the Bread and the Wine, he ſaid in the plural number, take ye, eat ye, &c. The Engliſh prieſt ſpeaketh in the ſingular number, when he giveth the elements, he annexeth not Chriſts words containing a comfortable promiſe, and uttered in an Enunciative form, but other words invented by man, and in form of a prayer, converting one part of God's worſhip into another, or elſe confounding them.
By this 'tis manifeſt that many Miniſters may conſcientioufly refuſe to conform to the Termes impoſed on the people. They can no more ſatisfie their conſciences in complying with the Termes of Lay-Communion, than others can with thoſe of the Miniſters Conformity.
Moreover.
II. As they cannot hold Communion with the Church in the Holy Sacraments, and conſequently not comply with what is required of the people in order thereunto, ſo neither can they with a ſafe Conſcience joyn in the ordinary Lord's dayes Service. They cannot conſcientiouſly approve of many things in that ſervice, unto which they muſt give their approbation if they conform thereunto.
Whoever conforms doth thereby ſhew his approbation of what he conforms unto. To what a man conforms, to that he manifeſts his good liking, why is it that ſome cannot conform unto the By-Offices, but becauſe they do not approve of them, and why do any conform to the ordinary Lord's dayes Service, but becauſe they approve of it, which is as much as if it had been ſaid, Conformity is an Overt Act of Approbation, 'tis in practice an Approving the thing.
But ſome ſcrupulous Diſſenters cannot conform unto the ordinary Lord's dayes Service without conforming to ſeveral things to which they refuſe the giving their approbation. By the ordinary Lord's dayes Service they underſtand, all that Office that is according to the Liturgy, and Canon of the Church, appoynted to be read Ordinarily on the Lord's day, or to ſpeak in the Common Prayer Dialect, that Service that is appointed to be read ordinarily on Sundayes, againſt the uſe of which they do more generally argue thus.
I. If they muſt conform to the ordinary Lord's dayes Service, it muſt be to all according to the Rubrick and Canon, or only to ſome part. But,
If the latter it will not ſatisfie the Church, for by refuſing to be preſent at any part thereof, they are to be denyed the Lord's Supper, and if when call'd to ſhew their reaſon of ſuch their refuſal, they ſpeak any thing againſt either the Service it ſelf, or any Ceremonies, or Rites in uſe, they are by an Ipſo facto Excommunication Excommunicated according to the 4th. and 6th. Canons, whereby to ſome it ſeems apparent, that unleſs their Conformity be full and compleat they are as lyable to the diſpleaſure and cenſure of the Church, as if they had not at all conform'd. The Miniſter muſt read all required, and the people muſt joyn with him in it, or be expoſ'd to the ſevere laſh of Eccleſiaſtical Fulminations; but this many a Diſſenter cannot do, neither doth every Conformable Miniſter in this reſpect actually conform to the Canon.
'Tis true every Miniſter according to the import of the ſecond Article, unto which he that ſubſcribes is oblig'd to uſe the form in the ſaid book preſcribed in Prayer, and Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and no other; The which was expreſly enjoyn'd all Miniſters, primo Eliz. Where 'tis ſaid, That all and ſingular Miniſters—in any Pariſh Church, or other place within the Realm of England—ſhall be bounden to ſay and uſe—all their Common and Open Prayer in ſuch order and form as is mentioned in the ſaid Book, and none other, or otherwiſe, that is, ſayes Dr. Heylin, neither before nor after Sermon, no other prayer, unleſs the bidding of prayer with the alone uſe of the Lord's Prayer, is allowed by the Canon.
That this is the ſenſe of the Church of England, how contrary ſoever the practice of her Sons generally is, will appear with conviction to ſuch as ſoberly conſider, that the weightyeſt arguments which are produc'd to prove the uſefulneſs of a publique Liturgy, are fetch'd from ſuch Topicks, as neceſſarily inferr the unlawfulneſs of a publique praying ex tempore, or by a form of a private Miniſters Compoſing. One great Argument is given us by Mr. Hutton, in the words of the Counſell of Melevis, which is, that a publique Liturgy approv'd of either by a Council or Synod, muſt be uſed leaſt any thing peradventure be otherwiſe framed contrary unto Faith, either by ignorance, or for want of ſtudy, or due meditation, or as others add, leaſt thoſe Miniſters who pray ex tempore, or uſe a ſet form of their own compoſing, ſhould be Immethodical in their Prayers, uſing Tautologies, or having in 'em Nonſenſe, and ſeveral uncomely ſlips; beſide 'tis added, that we muſt uſe a publique Liturgy, that the prayers of the ſeveral Congregations within this Realm, may be ſent up unto God in the ſame words, &c. All which is againſt the uſe of all free Prayer, or Prayers Compos'd by the Miniſter himſelf, for which reaſon many are of an opinion, that the Liturgy was deſign'd to be inſtead of all other prayer, the which ſeems to be the meaning of the 14th. Canon, where 'tis expreſt, that there muſt be an uſing the Liturgy without either diminiſhing in regard of Preaching, or any other reſpect, or adding any thing either in the matter, or form thereof.
But that many among the Diſſenters cannot ſatisfie themſelves in abiding by a form of prayer, thus erected to the publique diſuſe of the gift of prayer is very certain, ſee Dr. Collins on this Subject. Though there are ſome circumſtances wherein a form of prayer is lawfull, namely, when the perſon whoſe duty 'tis to pray in publique has not a gift, in that caſe to uſe a form is much better than not to pray at all, which is enough to ſhew that the uſing a form of prayer is not in it ſelf unlawfull, ſeeing if it had been ſo, it could never be a duty; However to ſet up a form in oppoſition to the publique uſe, if ſpiritual or free prayer is in the opinion of ſome, not only a practice unknown to the Church for ſeveral hundred years, but moreover contrary to the preſent diſpenſation of the Spirit.
1. They aſſert that the impoſing a publique Liturgy thus, is a practice that was unknown to the Church for ſeveral hundred years. The Reverend and Judicious Mr. Baxter in his Search for the Engliſh Schiſmatick, aſſerts; That no One Liturgy was impoſed on any National Church, or any Patriarchal for many hundred years after the Apoſtles dayes (yea and after Conſtantine,) but every Biſhop or Paſtor was the chooſer of his words and practice, and as others, a publique Liturgy was not Univerſally impos'd untill Antichriſt did ariſe, by the power of whoſe might Gregories Liturgy in contempt of that of Ambroſe was impos'd on the Churches, which Liturgy was not received from the Apoſtles, nor in many years after, but ſome part had its riſe from Pope Sixtus the Firſt, another from Celeſtin, &c. as Platina in the lives of Sixtus, Celeſtin, and Gregory does aſſert. Furthermore Bellarmine himſelf does acknowledge, that the Biſhops of particular Churches ever had allowed 'em a power of making Offices for their own Churches, which point of Bellarmine is confirmed by uncontroulable evidences in this our own Country, where untill the time of the Reformation, there was great diverſity in ſaying and ſinging in Churches, ſome following Salisbury uſe, and ſome Hereford, ſome the uſe of Bangor, and ſome that of York, and others the uſe of Lincoln; All which were ſuppreſſed by Edward the 6th. in order to the carrying on a farther Reformation, in the Room of which Offices, one only was ſet up as what did moſt effectually anſwer the great deſign of our worthy Reformers, which was the promoting a thorough Reformation with as much ſpeed as the badneſs of thoſe times would bear it.
2. As 'tis thus evident that there was no publique form of prayer impos'd on any particular Church the firſt 300 years, nor Univerſally till Antichriſts appearing in the World, and that even then particular Churches enjoy'd the liberty of forming Offices for their own particular Churches, in like manner the erecting any one publique form, in oppoſition to the publique uſe of the Gift of Prayer is ſo contrary to the Goſpel diſpenſation, which is the diſpenſation of the Spirit, that the Divines of the Church of England cannot but by their practice diſcover their diſlike of ſuch impoſitions. They do not therefore adhere ſo firmly unto theſe forms, but that before Sermon, they uſe ſome of their own Compoſing, which is a ſufficient demonſtration, that praying extempore, or the publique uſe of a prayer Compos'd by a Miniſter in private, is neither unlawfull nor inexpedient, and that the Arguments produc'd from the abſurdities of ſuch a practice, to prove the uſefulneſs of a publique Liturgy are not cogent enough to command their aſſent, the which cannot but countenance and juſtifie the Diſſent of the Non-Conformiſts, as they refuſe to conform unto the Liturgy as 'tis enjoyn'd, as the only form of prayer to be us'd in publique.
II. But to be more particular, there are many among the Diſſenters who are furniſh'd with ſuch Arguments, as the Reader may find in the Abridgment of that book, which the Miniſters of Lincoln Dioceſs deliver'd to the King, Anno 1605. as alſo in a part of the Regiſter, and among the reaſons for Refuſal of Subſcription, exhibited to Cotton Biſhop of Exeter by the Devonſhire, and Corniſh Miniſtry, and in ſeveral other diſcourſes, as in Bayly's Parallel of the Liturgy, with the Maſs-book, Ames his freſh ſuit againſt Ceremonies, &c. The which have fix'd ſuch ſtrong convictions on the Conſciences of ſome Diſſenters concerning the unlawfulneſs of the preſent Liturgy, that they cannot ſafely joyn with any in the uſe of it. Though ſome, who have not receiv'd ſuch powerfull impreſſions from the weight of thoſe Arguments, can read the Common Prayer, and joyn with ſuch as do, to the end they may ſave themſelves from the ſeverity of Penal Lawes, yet other Diſſenters will rather ſubmit themſelves to the greateſt extremities, than venture to diſhonour God by doing what they are convinc'd is a ſin.
That the Reader may be mov'd to entertain ſome charitable thoughts concerning ſuch perſons, and that the common objection that is laid in againſt their Non-Conformity, which is Humour and Fancy, and a Peeviſh Obſtinacy, may be fully anſwered. I'll give an Hiſtorical Account of ſome of thoſe Arguments which do ſo fully convince ſome Diſſenters, that they cannot without laying an unnatural violence on their Families, conform.