Ceremonies are not made by our Church any parts of Worship and therefore there is no offence in them I answer The Ceremonies seem to be parts of Worship feveral ways They seem to be parts of Worship in themselves as being an honouring of God at least in some respect It 's true they are not parts of Worship ratione principii because they are not parts of Divine Institution But they seem to be parts of Worship ratione termini as being an honour done to God There may be a double honour done to God There is an honour done to him as the Supream Being by subjection and resignation And there is an honour done to him as the Fountain of Grace by dependance upon him for some Spiritual Gift Both these seem to be in the use of the Ceremonies In the use of the Cross the Infant is resigned to God dedicated to him that died on the Cross and this looks like Worship Again the Ceremonies are Mystical Teachers not Supream Teachers for that were to turn them into Idols but Vnder Teachers and therefore in the regular use of them we must depend upon the great Teacher for illumination and this also seems to be an act of Worship They seem to be parts of Worship relatively as they are in conjunction with the holy things of God The Cross is so interwoven with Baptism in the administration of it that it looks like a part of it Before Baptism the Minister prays for those that are dedicated to God and that dedication is as the Canon tells us by the Cross After Baptism thanks are given that the Child is received into the Congregation and this is done by the Cross also For upon making the Cross the Minister saith We receive this Child into the Congregation Parker Of the Cross fol. 115. Thus as Mr. Parker hath noted the Cross is incorporated into Baptism in the administration of it They are knit together à priori à posteriori by the precedent and subsequent Prayers Moreover they seem to be parts of Worship reputatively as they are highly valued Our Saviour charges the Pharisees that they preferred their Traditions above the Commands of God Matt. 15.3 6 9. Their Corban swallowed up their duty to Parents The Jews say that there is more in the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Law and that it were better to die than to violate a Tradition Our Divines charge the very same thing upon the Papists Whitaker tells Duraeus That it was a greater Offence Tom 1.206 Quadragesimam violare quam Dei verbum contemnere to break Lent than to despise the Word of God Gregorius Hemburgius Melch. Adam de vitis Jureconsultorum Doctor of Law was wont to say That for many years men might speak more freely de potestate Dei quà m Papae of the Power of God than of the Pope And what is the value that is now upon Ceremonies among our selves Hath there not been too high a rate set upon them May we not complain in the words of St. Cyprian Epist 75. ad Pomp. Divina praecepta solvit praeterit humana traditio Human Tradition dissolves and passes over Divine Precepts It is apparent that if Learning and Piety could have outweighed a Ceremony many Worthy and Excellent Persons had been now in the Church who are at this time out of it I may add it is also clear that if that Heat and Zeal which hath run out against Non-conformity could have been turned against Impiety and Profaneness we had now been a much more excellent People than at this time we are It was often the complaint of Erasmus Whit. Tom. 2. fol. 726. Divina contemni Humana urgeri That Divine things were contemned and Human urged If this should be our case it would be no wonder at all for men to say that the Ceremonies are made parts of Worship Thus much touching the Ceremonies And if what hath been alledged against them be true the Separation of the Nonconformists can hardly be imagined to be without cause But because not only the Ceremonies but some other terms lay as blocks in their way I shall add one short word more They were by an Act of Vniformity deprived of their People and their People of them They could not come up to the terms of a publick Ministry neither would their People come to the publick Ordinances in this which I take it was their case it is extream hard to charge criminous Schism upon them When the Emperor put Chrysostom out of his Church Socrat. l. 6. c. 16. the Joannites separated from the Publick and those not only People but Bishops and Presbyters yet I do not know that they were charged with the crime of Schism for it Theod. l 1. cap. 21. When Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was banished many people and Ministers left the Publick Assemblies Yet I find not that these Separations were charged with the crime of Schism The Nonconformists being in the same or a very like case Charity would make the same construction of them Thus much touching the sixth Character Now I proceed to the last 7thly Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church but from the Catholick one It is a memorable Passage of the Reverend Vsher whose words I shall transcribe Neither particular Persons In a Sermon before the King 1624. nor particular Churches are to work as several divided Bodies by themselves which is the ground of all Schism but are to teach and to be taught and to do all other Christian Duties as parts conjoined to the whole and Members of the same Commonwealth or Corporation The Excellent Davenant Boroughs in his Irenicum fol. 67. in his Rules for Peace saith Proscindi nec debent nec possunt à communione particularium Ecclesiarum quae manent conjunctae cum Ecclesiâ Catholicâ Those may not be cut off from communion with particular Churches who remain joined to the Catholick Church I may add Those may not be esteemed Schismaticks by any particular Church who are in conjunction with the Universal Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church but from the Universal And is it thus with the Nonconformists Do they separate from the Church-Catholick I take it they do not and for this I shall lay down two or three things A Particular Church may be considered two ways either in that which it hath in common with other particular Churches now or heretofore in being or in that which it hath particular to it self A particular Church in the first respect acts as a part of the Church-Catholick but in the second respect it acts by it self A Separation from a particular Church considered in the first respect is a separation from the Church Catholick but a separation from it considered in the second respect is not so The Nonconformists differ from our Church not in that which it hath in common with other Churches but in
to St. Peter St. James St. Mark are plainly spurious there are to be found the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were not extant in the first Centuries There mention is made of Temples Altars Monasteries such things as the Primitive Church knew not Apol. 2. prope finem Tert. Ap. cap. 30. In Justin Martyr's time the Minister prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his ability In Tertullian's he prayed Sine monitore quia de pectore without any Prompter but their own heart Epist 34. de Celer In St. Cyprian's time the Ecclesiastical Lector was to read praecepta Evangelium Domini not a Liturgy Euseb de Vit. Constant l. 4. c. 20. In Constantin's time had there been a Liturgy he had not needed to have composed a Prayer for his Army Soc. Eccles Hist l. 5. c. 21. In the time of Socrates among all Forms of Religion there were not two that consented together in precandi more Set-forms of Prayer were not introduced into the Church till the Arian and Pelagian Heresies invaded it and then to prevent the diffusion of Heretical Poyson Set-forms came in In the Council of Laodicea holden about the Year 368. Can. 18. it was ordained that there should be caedem preces But this was a Form of the Minister's own composing as appears by the 23d Canon of the Third Council of Carthage holden about the Year 399. which appointed that none should use a Form unless he did first conferre cum fratribus instructioribus After which in the Milevitan Concil holden about the Year 416. Can. 12. it was ordained that the Form used should be approved of in a Synod Still this was a Form of the Minister's own making It was many years after this before a Liturgy was absolutely imposed on Ministers that they might not pray by their own Gifts only but by the prescribed Forms of others About the Year 800. Charles the Great being Emperor Pope Adrian moved him to establish a Liturgy by a Civil Edict and obtained it And this is said to be Gregory's Liturgy Thus the Church was much longer without a Liturgy than it can be imagined to have been without Unity Therefore Unity doth not consist in it 3dly It doth not stand as I take it in a Diocesan Episcopacy There are Bishops in Scripture but no Diocesan ones There are Presbyters ordained in every City but no Bishops ordained to be over them In Thessalonica there were not one but many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thess 5.12 The Presidency there was in many not in one The Bishops at Philippi Phil. 1.1 being more than one in one city were no other than Presbyters The Presbyters at Ephesus are in express terms called Bishops Acts 20.17 28. St. Peter exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acting as Bishops among them 1 Pet. 5.2 St. Paul would have Titus ordain Presbyters in every City for a Bishop must be so and so Tit. 1.5 7. If the Bishop and Presbyter were not here the same the reason which must not be imagined would be inconsequential There are the qualifying Characters of a Bishop set down in 1 Tim. 3. and in Titus 1.7 but there is not one of them but is requisite in a Presbyter not one of them peculiar to a Diocesan Bishop The Scripture Evidence is very clear that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one When Aerius brought some of these Scriptures to prove it Epiphanius who calls him Heretick gives only this poor Answer That in many Churches there were no Presbyters but who can believe that at that time there were more Bishops than Presbyters that when there were more Bishops in one City there should be no Presbyters at all there It is a thing altogether incredible Clemens Salm. in App. ad Primat fol. 50 54. in his Epistle to the Corinthians makes Bishops and Presbyters all one Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians mentions only Presbyters and Deacons In the Epistle ascribed to Ignatius ad Magnesios a Bishop above a Presbyter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Salm. in App. fol. 57. Com. in 1 Tim. 3. a novel Institution St. Ambrose saith Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter St. Jerome saith Epist ad Ocean ad Evagr. Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt Anciently Bishops and Presbyters were the same Again Com. in Epist Tit. That the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter consuetudine magis quam Dominicae dispositionis veritate rather by custom than by any true dispensation from the Lord And again that before Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur The Churches were ruled by the Common Council of Presbyters St. Austin saith that Episcopacy is greater than Presbytery Secundum honorum vocabula Epist 19. quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit according to the Titles of Honour which are now used in the Church Thus it appears that a Diocesan Episcopacy is but Humane and by consequence Church-unity doth not stand in it The Reformed Churches which are without Episcopacy are not without Unity I conclude this with the Judgment of the Learned Dr. Ward Determ 109. who speaking of the difference in Ecclesiastical Government which is between our Church and those beyond Sea saith that it may and ought to be tolerated absque fraternae unitatis laesione without any breach of Brotherly unity 4thly It doth not stand in the Civil Laws of Princes When Magistrates were Pagans there was yet a Church and an Unity in it When they became Christians the Unity was the same the Joints and the Bands were as before sacred not civil from Christ the Head not from the Magistrate It 's true the Church hath an external help and guard from good Laws but its Unity doth not consist in them Neque quia regna dividuntur De Unitate Eccles c. 12. ideo Christiana unitas dividitur cum in utraque parte inveniatur Catholica Ecclesia saith St. Austin Kingdoms may be divided but Christian Vnity is not in both parts the Catholick Church is found Should the Unity of the Church consist in the Laws of Magistrates then the Laws being dissolved there would be no Unity the Laws being altered the Unity must vary and turn about to every point as the Laws do That which now is Unity under a contrary Law must be Schism that which now is a Schism under a contrary Law may be Unity Under the Emperor Valentinian the Orthodox may be the Church under Valens the Arrians may be it Nay as the Magistrate may be you shall not know by him where the Church or the Truth is In that great Schism when the Bishops of the East and West fell out about the Council of Chalcedon some would not part with a syllable of it some utterly rejected it The Emperor Anastasius
Magd. Cent. 6. cap. 8. Evagr. l. 3. c. 30. Aulicâ Sapientiâ usus banished some of both Parties aequale praemium veritas mendacium tulêre Truth and Falsehood were alike rewarded Hence it appears that the Unity of the Church doth not stand in Humane Laws the true Unity is founded only in Scripture These things being so I come to lay down the true Unity The Church may be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its internal Essence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its external Communion In the first consideration it hath invisible Bands to make it one in the second it hath visible ones The soul of the Church is as St. Austin speaks internal Grace the Body of it is external Profession and Communion Take the Church in its internal Essence so its Unity stands in the Holy Spirit and the Graces of it There is one body and one spirit Eph. 4.4 There are many Members in the Mystical Body of Christ but they are all but one Body and why so They are distant in place and time yet they are but one Body distinct Bodies have distinct Spirits but they have but one Holy Spirit which unites them not only to Christ the Head but one to another so they must be but one Body because they have but one Spirit to actuate them Hence St. Austin saith Non potest vivere Corpus Christi nisi de Spiritu Christi In Joh. Tract 26. The Body of Christ cannot live but by the Spirit of Christ It is the Holy Spirit that makes them one living Body Under the Spirit there are three Uniting Graces which make the Mystical Church but one they are Faith Hope Enarr in Psal 37. and Charity Hence that of St. Austin Si Fides nostra sincera sit Spes certa Charitas accensa sumus in Corpore Christi If our Faith be sincere our Hope certain our Charity kindled then are we in the Body of Christ Hence St. Bernard observes a triple Vertue in the Primitive Church De ascensi Domini Serm. 5. Magnanimity Longanimity and Vnanimity the first was from Faith the second from Hope the third from Charity Faith unites all the Members in the Mystical Body to Christ the Head and so they are one in Capite Love unites them not only to the Head but one to another and so they are one in Corpore Hope unites them to one center in Heaven and so they are one in Termino In these things stands the Unity of the Church in its internal Essence Take the Church in its External Communion so its Unity stands in the Holy Ordinances They continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers Acts 2.42 These are the golden Bands that tie the Church together As the Church mystical is made one by Graces so the Church visible is made one by Ordinances As the same Graces are all over the one so the same Ordinances are all over the other The same pure word is preached Com. in Psal 133. The Church saith St. Jerome Non in parietibus sed in dogmatum veritate consistit It doth not stand in Walls but in True Doctrines The Hereticks as the same Father goes on may have the Walls but the Church is where the Truth is The Arians boasted of their Unity Contra Auxent but as St. Hilary tells them it was but Vnit as Impiet at is an Vnity of Impiety The Unity of Truth is in the Church only there all have one Law one Charter all are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concorporated and copartners of the promise Eph. 3.6 No body of men hath such a Law or Charter as the Church hath The same Sacraments are administred These are Seals of the Churches Charter and Symbols of that Communion which we have with Christ as Head and one with another as Fellow-members In Baptism we enter into the Holy Society in the Lord's Supper we are Fellow-commoners and eat together as Members of the same Family Contra Faust Manich l. 19. cap. 11. St. Austin saith That in every Religion men are joined together aliquo signaculorum consortio by a fellowship in some Seals No Society of men hath such Seals as the Church hath The same Prayers in substance are made tho in the Primitive times there was no Common Prayer or Liturgy in the Church Ignatius Epist ad Magn. yet there was ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common that is a Publick Prayer which in the mouth of the Minister is as it were breathed out by all the people that the Divine Blessing may come down upon the Word and Sacraments I shall here add nothing touching Ecclesiastical Discipline because the particular mode of it is not so essential to a Church as the other are To conclude Where there are lawful Pastors dispensing Holy Ordinances and a People meeting and unanimously joining in the use of them there is a True Church Hic est fons Veritatis hoc Templum Dei hoc domicilium Fidei as Lactantius speaks There is the Fountain of Truth the Temple of God the Dwelling-place of Faith These things being premised touching the Church and its Unity I come now to enquire into the Nature of Schism CHAP. II. Schism defined Seminal or Actual In the Church or from it There may be a Schism without Separation and a Separation without Schism The Characters of Schismatical Separation Voluntariness want of Charity Pride Error breach of Sacred Vnity for little or no Cause from the Catholick Church SChism is the Scissure of the Church visible a breach of the sacred Vnity of it without cause 'T is a Scissure of the Church De Unitat. Eccles a renting vestem Christi inconsutilem the seamless Coat of Christ as St. Cyprian speaks It was as St. Austin speaks signified by the breaking of the net Luke 5.6 The net at Sea brake Ibi Ecclesia in hocseculo hic in fine seculi figurata est Austin in Joh. Tract 122. propter significanda Schismata to note out the Schisms of the Church on Earth but the Net drawn to the Shore brake not John 21.11 to note out that the Saints in Heaven are in summâ pace in the highest unity No Schisms are in that blessed Region 'T is a Scissure of the Church Visible In the Church Mystical there are no Schisms It 's true the Flesh which in the Saints warreth against the Spirit is a Schismatick and makes such rents in their Souls that they are in a sort divided from themselves It is not I but sin that dwelleth in me saith Saint Paul Rom. 7.20 He distinguisheth his corrupt Self from his renewed Self But yet that Flesh cannot shall not totally finally rent them off from the Mystical Body They may fall into sins yet those Principles which tie them to the Mystical Body are not extinct the Spirit of Grace will not leave them but raise them up out of their Falls Hence St.
14. yet there was no Schism Ambo in unitate Catholica constituti saith St. Austin both remained in Catholick unity There were differences between Chrysostom and Epiphanius between Jerom and Austin yet it would be hard to charge them with Schism The Lutherans differ from the other Reformed Churches in some lesser Truths but because they agree in fundamental Articles there is not properly a Schism the difference non impedit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hinders not the unity of the Faith saith Dr. Ward But then Differences amount to Schism when they break the unity of Faith Determ fol. 3. or the unanimous Communion in Ordinances Such were the Differences above-mentioned in Corinth there was no separation from the Church there yet because those Differences broke the unity of Ordinances they are called Schism A Schism from the Church stands in a criminous separation from it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it relates to the Church doth as I take it only denote in Scripture Divisions in a Church But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth seem to denote division from a Church Such a kind of dissention in which men separate one from another in body and place as well as mind Yet in that 1 Cor. 3.3 it seemeth to be no more than division in a Church However this be the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jud. 19. doth properly signify to separate or put ones self extra terminos Ecclesiae out of the bounds of the Church Now this Schism from a Church is either negative or positive Negative Schism is when men separate from a Church and go no further no new Church or Assembly is set up Positive Schism is when there is not only a simple Separation but a new Church or Assembly is instituted in which the Word and Sacraments are administred This is called struere Altare contra Altare A negative Secession may in some case be lawful as when one is unjustly ejected out of a Church he may recede from it Yet saith the Learned Camero a positive Secession in that case is not lawful De Eccles 325. he may not immediately set up a new Church at least not without some other Reasons or Circumstances Touching this Separating Schism it is first to be noted that there may be a Schism without a Separation and there may be a Separation without a Schism There may be a Schism without a Separation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Schism in the body 1 Cor. 12.25 when there is no schism from it There was not for ought I can see any Separation in the Church of Corinth Yet the Dissentions there making a breach upon the Communion in Ordinances did amount to Schism St. Cyprian saith De Unit. Eccl. That all believers are in one House The Church saith he is unanimit at is hospitium an House of amity and unanimity where they sweetly dwell together in the unanimous Worship and Service of God If a man do not go out of this House and leave the Unity of it yet if he make Dissentions there and disturb that Unity he is guilty of Schism Again There may be a Separation without a Schism In many Cases one part of a Congregation may depart from the other and become a Church of it self and yet there may be no Schism at all What if it be done in a Congregation too great to meet together for convenience and by common consent This will be no Schism at all 'T is but as when Abraham and Lot parted asunder because the Land was not able to bear them Or as when the Hive being too little for the Bees one part goes away and dwells by it self in a new Family What if there be a Law or Canon made to allow such a Separation It will hardly be called Schism and yet Church-unity doth not vary as Human Laws and Canons do for then it might be something or nothing as men please If in a Church the foundations of the holy Faith be destroyed what can the Righteous do Join they cannot separate they must When Eunomius the Arian was made a Bishop Theod. l. 4. c. 14. not one of his Flock rich or poor young or old man or woman would communicate with him in the Service of God but left him to officiate alone When Nestorius did first publish his Heresy in the Church the people made a noise Evagr. l. 3. cap. 5. and ran out of the Assembly When under the Emperor Basiliscus five hundred Bishops condemned the Council of Chalcedon it was hard for Christians to join with them The Church is where the Truth is and no where else What if the terms of Communion be sinful we are rather to break with all Churches than to commit one sin against God The breaking off from him is more than breaking off from all men Thus in some cases there may be a Separation without Schism Indeed Schism is not a mere local defection but a moral one Non â—liscessies corporalibus motibus De Bap. cont Don. l. 1. c. 1. sed spirit alibus est metiendus saith St. Austin The departure is not to be measured by corporal motions but by spiritual but enough of this In the next place I shall endeavour to lay down some Characters whereby it may be known when Separation is Schismatical 1st Schismatical Separation is intentional and perfectly voluntary Thus the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that separate themselves Jud. 19. do by their own voluntary act put themselves out of the bounds of the Church Thus they that went out of the Apostolical Church 1 Joh. 2.19 did it intentionally and freely It is the observation of Aquinas That as in natural things 2 2ae quaest 39. Art 1. c. that which is by accident doth not constitute the Species So in moral not that which is besides the intention for that is accidental hence he infers Peccatum Schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare quam charit as facit Proprie Schismatici dicuntur qui propria sponte intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant The sin of Schism is a special sin in that it intends to separate from that unity which charity makes Schismaticks are properly those who of their own accord and intention do separate themselves from the unity of the Church It 's true every Schismatick doth not say as Marcion did Ego sindam Ecclesiam I will cleave the Church in two yet this is that which he means in his Separation As in our Common-Law when we would know whether an entry amount to a disseisin we enquire Cro. lib. 3. Blunden quo animo fecerit with what mind it was done So in Theology if we would know whether a Separation amount unto Schism we must enquire with what mind it was done Schism saith Dr. Hammond is a voluntary dividing The Schismatick is he that divides himself from the Church not he that is cut
una Religio eadem Sacramenta nihil in Christianâ observatione diversum Contra Cresc l. 2. cap. 3. That on both sides there was the same Religion the same Sacraments nothing in Christian observation diverse Which Plea by the way had it been true would have been good there being no Schism where there is no breach of Unity St. Austin utterly denies it and asks them Quare rebaptizatis Why do you rebaptize those that were baptized in the Catholick Church Indeed they thought themselves the only Church and so broke themselves off from the Church Catholick Thus the Schismatick is partly in conjunction with the Church and partly in separation from it he adheres in one thing and breaks off in another But is it thus with the Nonconformists Are not they joined to the Church in all that which is truly Vnity Have not they in their Meetings the unity of Ordinances the same pure Word preached the same holy Sacraments administred and this by true Ministers of Christ And what other Unity is there in Visible Churches Or what of true Unity is there between two Pararochial Churches which is not between their Meetings and Parochial Churches Abate but Humane things in which Church unity stands not and they are not partially but totally in conjunction with the Church of England and if so there is no breach of Unity and by consequence no Schism in them De Bapt. cont Don. l. 1. c. 1. St. Austin lays down a notable Rule That he that acts Sicut in unitate agitur as it is done in the unity in eo manet atque conjungitur in that he abides and is joined in all those things wherein Vnity stands The Nonconformists act as the Church doth therefore they are in conjunction with it St. Austin tells us Contra Cresc l. 2. c. 10. That the Church doth in the Donatists acknowledge Omnia quae sua sunt all things that are its own Let the Conforming Ministers acknowledge all that of true Unity which is in the Dissenters Meetings and they may perceive that their Brethren are in conjunction with them Where there is a total conjunction there is no breach of true Unity and where there is no such breach there is no Schism But you will say their departure from the Congregations in publick is a Schism I answer Every local Separation is not a Schism there is more in Schism than so Every departure is not Schism It is hardly to be called such when those that depart do yet remain in conjunction with them from whom they depart And this I think is the Case of those that are Nonconformists 6thly Schismatical Separation is a breach of sacred Unity for little or no cause at all Hence Irenaeus saith o◠the Schismaticks That propter modicas quaslibet causas magnum gloriosum Corpus Christi conscindunt for little and inconsiderable Causes they cu◠in pieces the great and glorious Body of Christ The Professors of Leyden say Synops pur Theol. Disp 40. That a Schismatical Church is that quae propter externos aliquos ritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communionem Christianam abrumpit which for some external indifferent Rites breaks Christian Communion This Character seems prima facie to press upon the Separation of the Nonconformists They separate for Rites and Ceremonies which seem to be but minute and inconsiderable things this therefore must be duly considered The Ceremonies of our Church may be considered under a double notion either as they are in themselves or else as they are terms of Communion The Ceremonies as considered in themselves however innocent they seem to be to the Conformists they are not so to the Nonconformists To instance but in one of them The Cross in Baptism is lookt upon as a thing unlawful or at least as a thing very ill-coloured and suspected to be unlawful To explain this I shall lay down some few things 1st The Sign of the Cross was indeed used among the Ancient Fathers but not without a mixture of Superstition De Cor. Mil. Tertullian will have Signaculum Crucis to be necessary in every part of our life Lib. 2. adv Judaeos St. Cyprian saith That in hoc Signo Crucis salus sit omnibus qui in frontibus notentur in this Sign of the Cross there is Salvation to all who have this mark in their Foreheads Origen saith In Exod. cap. 15. That fear and trembling falls upon the Devils cum Signum Crucis in nobis viderint when they see the Sign of the Cross in us St. Ambrose saith Ser. 43. That all prosperity is in uno Signo Christi in that one sign of Christ he that sows in it shall have a Crop of Eternal Life he that jour mes in it shall arrive at Heaven it self St. Athanasius saith That Signo◠racis omnia magica compescuntur De Incar verbi all Conjurations are repressed by the Sign of the Cross In Matt. Homil. 55. St. Chrysostom saith That all Sacraments are perfected Signo Crucis with the Sign of the Cross St. Austin saith In Joh. Tract 118. That unless the Sign of the Cross be applied to the Forehead of the Believers or to the Water of Regeneration or to the Oyl with which they are anointed or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished nihil eorum rite perficitur none of these things are rightly performed Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. c. 29. Such a use of the Cross as this is Protestants cannot allow of Only the Papists who would have Humane Inventions do great things make use of such Sayings in the Fathers 2dly The Sign of the Cross is an abominable Idol in the Popish Church Bellarmine who doth distinguish the Cross into three parts the True Cross the Image of the Cross and the Sign of the Cross lays down this general Doctrine Omnes Cruces adoramus Bell. l. 2. c. 30. de Imag. We worship all Crosses And particularly of the Sign of the Cross he saith That it is Signum sacrum venerabile a sacred and venerable Sign Aquinas saith Pars 3. Q. 25. Art 4. That the Image of Christ is to be adored cultu latriae the Sign is to have the same adoration as the thing it self And how which way is it that such an horrible Idol should be retained in a Church Protestant and pure from Idolatry The Brazen Serpent was ordained by God himself and yet when it was abused to Idolatry Hezekiah broke it to pieces and called it Nehushtan a piece of brass 2 Kings 18.4 It was a singular Figure of Christ The lifting of it up upon a pole for corporal Cures did by Divine Ordination type out the lifting up of him upon the Cross for spiritual yet becoming an Idol it was no more to be endured And why should the Cross a mere Human Invention being once so abused ever be tolerated The Children of Israel Hos 2.16 17. were not to mention the