Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
of the same Church and tho' the Universal Church for Man's conveniency be divided into several parts or Congregations yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches So that two Churches which are not Members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the divider forfeits his interest in it A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation those who separate from the Corporation forfeit their interest in the Charter Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church into which we are admitted by Baptism and therefore if we separate from this one Church we forfeit our interest in it God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva France or England but with the one Catholic Church and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church we have no right to the blessings promis'd to it II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it And this is call'd Communion because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members 'T is true this word Communion is commonly us'd to signify Praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament together but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion but an exercise of Communion Church-Communion is Church-Union for as a member must be united to the Body before it can perform the natural action of a member so a man must be in Communion with the Church before he has a right to Pray c. And therefore tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church shou'd perform those Offices yet the performance of them do's not make him a Member of the Church but an Intruder Such Offices are acts of Communion if perform'd by Church-Members but not otherwise So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promis'd to it and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society viz. obedience to the Churches authority joining in Prayers c. and he that acts otherwise renounces his Communion with it From what has been said I observe 1. That Church-Communion principally respects not a particular but the Universal Church which is but one all the World over For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World if the body whereof we are Members reach so far and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church because it admits us into the Covenant which God made with the Universal Church 2. That every act of Christian Communion such as praying c. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church tho' it must be perform'd in a particular Congregation because all Christians cannot meet in one place Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians for the same Common blessings for our selves and all other Christians Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper but the Common Feast of Christians and an act of Catholic Communion 3. That the only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it So that I have nothing else to do but to consider whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it and if it be I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other are separate Churches because the Catholic Church being but one all particular Churches ought to be Members of it To make this plain I shall lay down some few Rules whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies is to renounce its Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical separation Every particular Church must have its limits as every Member in the Body has its proper place but when there is one Church within the bowels of another it is a notorious Schism This is the case of our Dissenters who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they wou'd naturally unite So that all separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism 'T is true a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches to which they originally belong and that without any danger of Schism For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches while they live in Communion with each other Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her jurisdiction For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules is not to allow separate Communions but to leave them to the Goverment of that Church to which they belong So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho' they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are 2. Those are separate Churches which divide from the Communion of any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Goverment or Worship For in this case they leave the Church because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it Two Churches may be in Communion with each other and yet not actually Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but it is impossible that two Churches which renounce each others Communion or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profess'd dislike shou'd still continue in Communion with each other Because they are opposite Societies sounded upon contrary Principles and acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the ruin and subversion of each other
Communion with the Church then Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say they according to his ability from whence they infer that in his daies the Ministers Pray'd by their own gifts and abilities To this I answer that the words do signify with all his might i. e. with his utmost fervency For the same words are spoken of the People in the same Book p. 60. who did not compose their own Prayer at the Eucharist and the same Phrase is us'd in the same sence by Nazianzen Orat. 3. 2 dly Because Tertullian in his Apology affirms that Christians did Pray without a Monitor or Prompter because they did Pray from their hearts they think he alludes to a custom of the Heathen who in their public worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words and to what God they were to Pray Now since the Christians Pray'd without a Monitor therefore say they they Pray'd without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in To which I answer 1. That without a Monitor cannot signify without any one to dictate a Form of words For in their public Prayers the Minister was the Mouth of the People and therefore whether he Pray'd by Form or extempore his words were a Form to the People Whatever therefore this obscure Phrase means 't is certain it cannot mean without a Form unless it means without a Minister too 2. It seems to me most probable that by without a Monitor is meant without any one to correct them when either the People repeated or the Minister recited the public Prayers falsly For (g) A. Gell. Noct. Att. l. 13. c. 21. Rosin Antiq. l. 3. c. 33. the Heathen Priests began their Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta and proceeded with the invocations of all the greater Deities by name Now that none of the greater God's might be pretermitted and (h) Plin. l. 28. c. 2. none of the Prayers falsly or disorderly recited or repeated (i) Liv l. 4. one Priest read out of a Ritual and another was appointed for a Public Monitor to oversee and correct such mistakes as might be made When therefore Tertullian saies We Pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we Pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether out of a Book or Extempore but that we Pray without one to oversee to admonish the Priests or People when they dictate or repeat falsly Because saies he we Pray from our hearts that is either by joining our affections and desires with the Priest without repeating the words or by saying our Prayers by heart so that we need none to correct us For Tertullian affects to express the Greek and therefore 't is probable his de pectore or from the heart may be a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart So that Tertullian's words do rather argue for the use of Forms than against them The Third and last testimony against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Socrates Scholasticus whose words Hist lib. 5. c. 22. they thus translate Every where and in all worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words And therefore say they 't is very unlikely they shou'd Pray by Forms But we must observe that he had been speaking of the different ceremonies and customs of the chief Churches and then concludes Every where and among all worships of Prayer there are not two to be sound not that speak the same words but that agree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same thing Where by worships of Prayer he means rites of Prayer which the Churches differ'd in And how do's it follow that because they did not use the same rites and ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer For even now we see there are different rites and ceremonies of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer 2. Therefore I am to prove that Forms were us'd in the Primitive times by a short Historical account of the matter of fact 'T is probable that in the first Age there was a gift of Praying Extempore by immediate inspiration and while this gift continu'd perhaps there might be no other Form in public Worship but only that of the Lord's Prayer But 't is probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it Forms were compos'd after the method of those inspir'd Prayers For 't is most likely that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the public Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of Praying by a Form For 't is strange that if Forms were an innovation such a remarkable and public innovation shou'd be introduc'd without the least contest or opposition For tho' some innovations did creep in yet every one of that public nature alwaies found powerful adversaries to withstand it But not to insist upon probabilities wee 'l enquire into matter of fact The Liturgies of Saint Peter St. Mark and St. James tho' corrupted by latter Ages yet are doubtless of great antiquity and probably even from the Apostles times For besides many things which have a strong relish of that Age that of St. James was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time who wrote a Comment upon it even in his younger years and 't is declar'd by (k) Allat de Lit. Sti. Jac. Proclus and the (l) Concil Trull c. 32. Sixth general Council to be of St. James's own Composure and 't was probably receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem within 170 years after the Apostolical Age. And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles seems highly probable For First all the Form Sursum corda is there and in St. Cyril's Comment and the same is in the Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and the Constitutions of Clemens which all agree are of great antiquity and St. Cyprian who was living within an 100 years after the Apostles (m) De Orat. Dom. mentions it as a Form then us'd and receiv'd and St. Austin tells us that Form is words deriv'd from the very age of the Apostles The same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular Hist lib. 18. c. 53. 'T is evident that from that Primitive Age there was a Form of questions and answers prescrib'd in Baptism from the questions and answers which Tertull. De Resur Carn St. Cypr. 76.80 Origen in Numer Hom. 5. speak of And if the Minister may be limited to a Form of question why not to a Form of Prayer there being as great a necessity to prescribe for the latter as for the former But that de facto there were Forms of Prayer as well as Questions and Answers us'd in Baptism Clemens's Constitutions affirm and some of the Prayers are there inserted l. 7.
nothing can be distinctly heard To this I answer that those who can read may bring Books and those that cannot may attend to those that are near Nay I have been credibly inform'd that some devout People that cou'd never read have attain'd to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited I shall add that for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presum'd that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted Now if the People may join in Vocal Praise why may they not also join in Vocal Prayer If it be said there is some example or warrant in Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of Scripture for the one is an imply'd warrant for the other I have already shewn Chap. 3. that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer was very anciently practis'd and if this was the Primitive way 't is probable that it was the way in the Apostles times I know 't is objected that the People's speaking to God in the Church is disorderly and a breaking in upon the Minister's office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrench'd upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and worshipped the Lord and prais'd him saying for he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7.3 Ecclesiastical Order is secur'd by the Minister's presiding in God's public Worship and guiding the performance of it but not to allow the People to make an Audible confession of sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and â—â—ted by him seems rather to favour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear of the Minister's office being invaded Some urge that Women are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 but this is strangely misapply'd to the Matter in hand For 't is plain that the speaking mention'd by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophesying Interpreting Preaching and Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching implies Authority whereas the Woman's part is obedience and subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the meaning of St. Paul 5. I proceed in the next place to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church Now if Sermons and Catechizing be allowable besides the Word of God why may not some Apocryphal Lessons be read which contain excellent Rules of life Especially since those Writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other human writings also were publicly read as well as the Scriptures and those Chapters of the Old Testament which are omitted do either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or matters of fact deliver'd in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood If it be said that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority 't is more profitable to read any part of that than any other good Lesson I answer that then no place will be left for Sermons which are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons There is no danger of any person 's mistaking the Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical Scripture because the Church speaks so plainly in her Sixth Article nor do we read them otherwise than the antient Church did I shall only add that no Apocryphal Lesson is read upon any Lord's Day in the Year and as for other exceptions I refer the Reader to Dr. Falkener's Libertas Eccles p. 164 c. 6. If any object against our Standing at the Creed Mr. Baxter saies his judgment is for it where it is required and where not doing it wou'd be aivisive and scandalous Nay elsewhere he saies that 't is a convenient praising gesture c. See his Christ Direct p. 858. I proceed now to the Vindication of the Litany against which 't is pleaded 1. That the People utter the Words of invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the matter of it to them But this Objection is of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted If it be said that the People bear too considerable a part to the disparagement of the Minister's office I answer that 't is a great mistake For 1. tho' the People say Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord yet the Minister saies the other and the far greater part of the Prayer 2. They are but these Two short and known Petitions which are excepted against and if the People may be allowed any part in Vocal Prayer I know of nothing more proper than these nor are they repeated but when they are apply'd to new and distinct matter Besides they relieve our attention and cherish our warm affections in Prayer and I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries whether if Good Lord deliver us were apply'd but once in gross to that part of the Litany we shou'd not be more apt to languish in the offering it up than as it is now ordered But 3. 'T is plain that in those Prayers the Minister has the principal and guiding part in that he utters all the distinct matter of the Prayer which the People do not whereas he utters words of invocation as well as they And consider I pray whether if the People were to utter that which is the Minister's part now and the Minister to say that only which is theirs we shou'd not have more grievous complaints that the Minister's authority was slighted in the whole design since he seem'd only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for 2. 'T is Objected that we pray to be deliver'd from all deadly sin which seems to imply that there are some sins which are not deadly Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said that these words do not necessarily imply a distinction between sins that are and sins that are not deadly But admitting that such a distinction were intended yet we must observe that tho' all sin be in its own nature deadly or damnable yet thro' the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ sins of mere infirmity are not imputed and therefore not deadly to us But there are some sins so heinous that he who commits them is thereby put into a damnable state and 't is of such sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication from Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as
those that consult the Ecclesiastical Histories of the best Authority cannot but be convinc'd and that those conceits of the Fathers concerning this sign which perhaps may be too fanciful do confirm the ancient reception of it into the Primitive Church If it be said that the antient Christians us'd this sign because they liv'd amongst Jews and Heathens to testify to both that they made the Cross the Badge of their profession and wou'd not be asham'd of it tho' 't was a stumbling-block to the one and foolishness to the other whereas we have no such occasion for it who do universally profess Christianity I Answer 1. That this Objection supposes the sign to be lawful and that it may be us'd upon weighty Reasons and surely then the command of Authority may justify the practice of it 2. That we have as just reason to use it as the Primitive Christians because of the blasphemous Contempt that is generally cast upon the whole Scheme of Christianity particularly the Merits of our Saviour's Cross and Passion by the pretended Wits of our Age. So that St. Cyprian's (e) Epist 56. ad Thiber words are now pertinent Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept safe as if he shou'd have said Remember the Badge you took upon you in Baptism and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads never be asham'd or laugh'd out of countenance as to the Memory of our Saviour's love and the foundation of your hopes laid in his Death and Passion I grant indeed that the use of the Cross is an indifferent Ceremony and that Baptism is as our Church declares compleat without it but what I contend for is fully prov'd viz. that the Cross was us'd in the first Ages of Christianity from whence it follows that tho' 't is not necessary yet 't is warrantable 2. Our use of this sign is not in the least like the Popish use of it For 1. we admit of no visible Crucifixes nor has any of our Writers ventur'd to say (f) Christian Direct Eccles Cas p. 113. p. 875 876. with Mr. Baxter that a Crucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a Believer and that it is not unlawful to make an image of a Crucifix to be an Obiect or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to worship God The sence of our Church is truly exprest by Mr. Hooker who (g) Eccles Pol. l. 5. p. 348. says That between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of remembrance there is as plain and great a difference as between those Brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore Ours is a mere transient sign which abides not so long as to be capable of becoming an Object or Medium of worship any more than any words we use in worship may do 2. Our use even of this transient sign is nothing like the Popish use of it For the Papists use it upon all occasions and at Baptism they use it much oftner and so differently from our way that 't is not us'd at the same time and with the same words that we use it with This is evident from the Roman Ritual 3. Tho' the Church of Rome has notoriously abus'd this sign yet 't is not unlawful for us to continue the use of it as I shall fully prove in the Eighth Chapter As to the Second pretence that the sign of the Cross is a new Sacrament I answer that we all agree that a Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us Ordain'd by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a Pledge to assure us thereof And therefore since we never suppos'd that the use of the Cross in Baptism cou'd confer Grace nor have ever made the least pretence to any Divine appointment for it we ought not to be charg'd as introducing a New Sacrament If it be said that we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith and Christian Courage because we apply it in token that hereafter he shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith oâ— Christ Crucify'd c. and that therefore we make it an outward sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace I answer that we own it to be a significant Ceremony as all other Ceremonies are for we do not account a Ceremony innocent because 't is insignificant and impertinent but yet we deny it to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace For our Ceremonies are not seals and assurances from God of his Grace to us but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to him and this kind of significant Usages has ever been taken up without any imputation of introducing a New Sacrament For 1. the Jewish Church chang'd the posture of eating the Passover from Standing to Sitting in token of their Rest and Securiâ—y in the Land of Canaan There was also an Altar of witness rear'd on the other side of Jordan and the Synagogue-Worship Rites of Marriage Form of taking Oaths c. were significant and yet they were all receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church and comply'd with by our Saviour himself 2. The Christian Church of the first Ages us'd the same liberty as appears by the customs of the Holy Kiss and the Feasts of Charity Tertullian de Orat. speaks as if the public Service were imperfect if it concluded not with the Holy Kiss which was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another The Feasts of Charity also signify'd the mutual Love and Communion of Christians and the equal regard that God and our Saviour had towards all sorts and conditions of Men when they were all to eat freely together at one Common meal I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation which was us'd as a sign of Breathing into them the good Spirit and the Baptiz'd Person 's stripping off his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man and the trine immersion at the Mention of each Person of the Trinity to signify the Belief of that great Article Now all these things were anciently practis'd without any jealousy of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting New Sacraments 3. All the Reformed Churches nay the very Dissenters themselves do use some Symbolical actions in their most Religious Solemnities For 1. Their giving to the Baptiz'd Infant a New Name seems to betoken its being made a New Creature Nay the Dissenters generally give it some Scripture-name or one that betokens a particular grace and this is an outward and visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward and spiritual grace and yet they do not think it a New Sacrament 2. The Dissenters plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper because 't is a
descended to be Lookers on I suppose he means of their Courage and Behaviour at the Table of the Lord and by giving their attendance to grace that Solemnity With the Testimony of these Ancient Writers Theodoret agrees who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic brings in Orthodoxus thus Discoursing of the Supper of the Lord. The mysterious Symbols or Signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper Nature for they continue in their former Essence and keep their former Shape and Form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be as they were before (q) Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris Edit but they are consider'd for such as they are made that is in respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believ'd and ador'd aâ— those very things which they are believ'd to be Which words plainly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were receiv'd with a Gesture of Adoration and at the same time assure us that such a Behaviour at the Lords supper was not founded upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a more manifest instance in all the Ancients against that absurd Doctrine which the Roman Church so obstinately believes at this very day than what Theodoret gives us in the words abovemention'd Lastly to alledge no more out of the Greek Fathers that Story which Gregory Nazianzen (r) Oâ—at in laud. Gorgon p. 187. Paris Edit relates concerning Gorgonia will much confirm what has been said viz. That being sick and having used several Medicins in vain at last she resolv'd upon this course She went in the stilness of the Night to the public Church and having with her some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserv'd at home she fell down on her knees before the Altar and with a loud voice pray'd to him whom she Ador'd and in conclusion was healed I am not much concern'd whether the Reader will believe or censure this Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Father has Recorded it and commends his Sister for the way she took for her Recovery This is home to my purpose and clearly discovers that Gorgonia did Kneel or at least us'd a Posture of Adoration when she ate the Sacramental Bread And without doubt in Communicating she observ'd the same Posture that others generally did in public She did that in her sickness which all others us'd to do in their health when they came to the Sacrament that is She Kneeled down For it can't be suppos'd that at this time when she came to beg so great a Blessing of Almighty God in the public Church and at the Altar call'd by the Ancients The Place of Prayer she wou'd be guilty of any misbehaviour and make use of a singular Posture different from what was generally us'd by Christians when they came to the same place to communicate and pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they lookt upon as the most prevailing and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God favourable to them and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offer'd at any other time or in any other place So much for the Authorities of the Greek Fathers who were Men eminent for Learning and Piety in their Daies and great Lights and Ornaments in the Primitive Church With these the Latin Fathers fully agree in their Judgments concerning our present Case And of these I will only mention two tho' more might be produc'd and those very eminent and illustrious Persons had in great veneration by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by succeeding Generations The first is (Å¿) Ambros de Sp. Sanct. l. 3. c. 12. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan in a Book he wrote concerning the Holy Ghost where enquiring after the meaning of the Pslamist when he exhorts Men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Footstool he gives us the sense in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation and then goes on to shew for what Reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery and at last concludes thus By the Footstool therefore is the Earth to be understood and by the Earth the body of Christ which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament and which the Apostles worshipp'd in the Lord Jesus c. St. Austin Bishop of Hippo Comments on the very same words and to the same purpose For thus he resolves that Question How or in what sense the Earth his Footstool may be worshipp'd without impiety Because he took earth of the earth for flesh is of the earth and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary and because he convers'd here in the flesh and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation Now there is none who eateth that flesh but first worshippeth We have found then how this Footstool may be ador'd so that we are so far from sinning by adoring that we really sin if we do not adore In the Judgment therefore of these Primitive Bishops we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries tho' not the Mysteries themselves at the Sacraments tho' not the Sacraments themselves the Creator in the Creature which is sanctify'd not the Creature it self as a late (t) Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa l. 4. c. 7. p. 732. Protestant Writer of great Learning and Quality among the French distinguishes upon the forecited words of Saint Ambrose I think it appears evident from these few Instances that the Primitive Christians us'd a posture of adoration at the Communion in the act of receiving It were easy to bring a cloud of other Witnesses if it were necessary so to do either to prove or clear the Cause in hand but since there is no need to clog the Discourse with numerous References and Appeals to Antiquity it wou'd but obscure the Argument and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and distaste than convince and gratify the Reader By what has been already alledg'd the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justify'd as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure and Primitive Christianity For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a Posture of Worship and Adoration which is very plain they did then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages no tho' we shou'd suppose that Kneeling was never practis'd among them which will be plain if we cast our Eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have exhibited against it They object against Kneeling as being an adoring Gesture for they affirm (u) Gillesp p. 166 172. Altar Damas p. 801. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1.3 That to kneel in the act of Receiving before the consecrated Bread and Wine is formal Idolatry So
the act of receiving as was before noted and that for the same Reason saies a (b) Alex. Hales de Missâ— p. 2. quest 10. p. 4. Popish Author which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution of the Sacrament And every Priest by the order of the Mass-Book is to partake standing at the Altar and not Kneeling there Nay if Kneeling be unlawful because it has been abus'd to Idolatry then we must never receive the Holy Sacrament For we must receive in some convenient posture such as Kneeling Sitting Discumbing Standing and yet every one of these either has been or is notoriously abus'd by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I hope I need not add that it wou'd be very unjust to say that our Kneeling is an act of Worship to the outward Elements when the Church has declar'd this to be Idolatry to be Abhorr'd of all Faithful Christians I shall conclude this Chapter with the opinions of the Dissenting Writers Mr. Tombes has undertaken to shew that whatever the Gesture of our Saviour was yet we are not obliged to it Theod. p. 168. 'T is granted by Mr. Bains Christian Lett. 24. and Mr. Bayly Disswas c. 2 6. that the nature of the Ordinance do's not make Sitting necessary or forbid Kneeling and Mr. Bains ibid. grants that Kneeling is not Idolatrous and Mr. Cartwright who thought it inconvenient yet did not think it unlawful Harmon on Luke 22.14 Lastly Mr. Baxter Christian Dir. part 2. p. 111. quest 3. sect 40. saies For Kneeling I never heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful If there be any thing it must be either some Word of God or the nature of the Ordinance which is suppos'd to be contradicted But 1. there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ 's Example can never be prov'd to oblige us more in this than in many circumstances that are confess'd not obligatory as that he deliver'd but to Ministers and but to a Family to Twelve and after Supper and on a Thursday night and in an upper-room c. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours And 2. for the nature of the Ordinance it is mixt and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Seal'd Pardon from Christ by his Embassador upon our Knees CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd BUT say the Dissenters there is so great an agreement between your Church and the Church of Rome that we cannot think communion with your Church to be Lawful They tell us that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the times they liv'd in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which wou'd not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or enstrange them from it but we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect amendment is now necessary Now I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment as well as love the Temper of our first Reformers who in their first Separations from Rome were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things Doubtless they were in earnest enough as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church when they Seal'd the well-grounded offence they took at them with their warmest Blood and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that the Primitive Christians signaliz'd their Profession with rather than they wou'd intermix with Rome in any usage of Worship or Article of Faith that had the least favour of Idolatry Superstition or false Religion at all in it And yet these Holy and Wise Men when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming wholly in their hands being equally jealous of Enthusiasm as they were of Superstition wou'd not give themselves up to those fantastic Antipathies as to abolish this or that Ceremony merely because it had been in use among the Papists if some other very substantial Reason did not plead against it And verily had they not alwaies us'd these temperate and unbyass'd methods of Reformation they wou'd not so easily have justify'd themselves to their Adversaries or the World or have made it so evident as by their Wise management they did that what was done by them was from the mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation So that where any mean honestly as I doubt not but many of those do that Dissent from us they ought to have their Reason very well awake that the mere charge of Popery upon any disputed point may not so prejudice them in their enquiries into things as to leave no room for mature Consideration However that I may fully answer this objection drawn from our agreement with the Church of Rome I shall endeavour to shew 1. That there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome 2. That a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing 3. That the agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful I. Then I shall shew that there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome as appears by our Church's having renounced all Communion with Rome and utterly cast off the Pope's Power But I shall descend to particulars and shew the vast distance between them First In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby the Church of Rome deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably enslaves them For 1. She denies them all judgment of discretion in matters of Religion and binds them all under pain of damnation to Believe her infallible but our Church permits us to prove all things that we may hold fast that which is good she disclaims all pretence to infallibility and owns her self to be obnoxious to error in matters of Faith 2. The Church of Rome imposes a most slavish drudgery in the vast multitudes of vain and childish odd and uncouth Rites and Ceremonies which a Man wou'd wonder how they cou'd invent The like may be said of their cruel Penances in imposing of which the Priests are arbitrary But our Rites are exceeding few plain easy grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appear'd in the World Our Sacraments are but two and consequently we are not burden'd with the superstitious Fopperies of the other five Popish ones In short our Rites are agreeable to the Rules of doing things decently and in order and doing all things to
best Policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be establish'd will have some flaws and defects which must be born and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never cou'd be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Goverment Discipline Public Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but Men. We must not expect in this World a Church without spot or wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lie at the catch and wait for an advantage against it Men must be willing if ever they wou'd promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and Favourable Interpretations upon Things and not strain them on purpose that they may raise more considerable Objections against them 6. If these and the like Considerations will not conquer a Man's Scruples then let him lay them aside and act against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you persuade us to Conform to the Orders of the Church tho' we are not satisfy'd in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this is the best Advice that can be given to such Scrupulous Persons It wou'd be an endless thing and Communion with any Church wou'd be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joining himself to it till he was perfectly satisfy'd about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was requir'd or was in use in that Church For indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Goverment Discipline or public Worship any more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Things of a Public Nature belong to Superiours and if they Appoint what is Indecent or Inconvenient they only are Accountable for it but 't is not the Fault of Inferiours who join with such Worship or yeild to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easy consequence contrary to the reveal'd Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with it's Orders we ought to be fully satisfy'd and persuaded that what is requir'd is forbidden by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon it and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful Causes But there is not the same necessity that we shou'd be thus fully satisfy'd about our Conformity to all things prescrib'd by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise If any one think that this Principle will introduce Popery and make People without any examination submit to every Thing which their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only Consider that there are many things in Popery which God has manifestly forbidden which render our Separation from it necessary whereas ours are at the worst only doubtful or rather not so Good as might be Devis'd and this surely makes a wide Difference in the Case But do's not St. Paul say Rom. 14.14 I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing Vnclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing Vnclean it is unclean Do's he not say He that doubteth is damn'd if he eat v. 23. and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin I answer Yes But then when I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well persuaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he has some little Exceptions against it he do's not think it best and fittest all things consider'd This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes join in our Worship which they cou'd not do did they judge it absolutely sinful So that tho' it shou'd be granted that a Man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be Lawful or no which case I have discours'd of in the foregoing Chapter yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not Unlawful tho' upon some other accounts he Scruples the doing of it Now if we have no very Weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things as we scruple at Of such Cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was requir'd by Law Eating was no Instance of Duty nor was it any waies forbid Christians Where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that which he has some suspicion of tho' he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a Man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any detriment to our selves or others tho' we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfy himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interpos'd their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischieâ— 1. All Fears and Scruples only about the Conveniency and Expediency of Things ought to be despis'd when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Wou'd Men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and Respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children shou'd to themselves they wou'd soon see the reasonableness of such Submissions For all Goverment and Subjection wou'd be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfy'd about the reasonableness of it was thereby excepted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according
we must not omit our duty for it I shall only add that this very Rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent ought to have some restrictions but I think there are no unalterable Rules to be laid down in this affair For it being an exercise of Charity must be determin'd by the measure of Prudence according to Circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain Rules for Men's Charity in other Cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his Estate towards the Relief of the Poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own Liberty for the sake of his Brother This whole matter saies Dr. Hammond disc of Scand is to be referr'd to the Christian's Pious Discretion or Prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that Piety and that Prudence shall represent it to be most Charitable and Beneficial to other Mens Souls Secondly To avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of Persons And if this matter were rightly consider'd we shou'd soon fâ—â—d our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal to join with our Church than to sâ—parate from it For 1. Our separation hardens other Dissenters in their persuasion of the unlawfulness of Conformity For they will think we separate upon the same reason with themselves and this is true Scandalizing them or Confirming them in an evil cause 2. Whatever Sect we join with we Offend all the other Parties who sometimes speak as hardly of one another as of the Conformists 3. Hereby great Offence is given to the Conformists For this separation is a public condemning of the Church and is apt to breed Scruples distast and prejudices in the well-meaning but least-knowing Members of it 4. Scandal is thereby given to Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt And if it be so sinful to Offend a little one what shall we think of Offending a Prince a Parliament c No Scandal taken at an indifferent thing can be so great as both the sin and Scandal of confusion and contempt of Authority 5. Hereby Scandal is given to the Papists who are harden'd in their own way because they only have Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists The Papists alwaies hit us in the Teeth with our Divisions whereas by our hearty Uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest this Weapon out of their hands 6. Separation is a Scandal to Religion in general It prejudices Men against it as an uncertain thing and matter of endless dispute when they see what dangerous Quarrels commence from our Religious differences and all the disorders they have caus'd shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless separations open a wide door to Atheism and all kind of Profaness and Irreligion The CONCLUSION Containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England AND now having shewn the Necessity of Maintaining constant Communion with the Church of England and answer'd those pleas by which the Dissenters endeavour to excuse their Separation from her nothing remains but that I add an earnest Persuasive to the practice of that which I have prov'd to be a Christian Duty I beseech you therefore with all the Earnestness that becomes a Matter of so great Importance and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian to suffer the Word of Exhortation duly consider what I offer to you I have shewn you in the first Chap. of this Discourse that Nothing but sinful Terms of Communion can justify a Separation and therefore you must charge our Church with sinful terms of Communion or else you cannot possibly defend your practice Suppose that there were some things in our Constitution that might be contriv'd better yet every defect or suppos'd Corruption in a Church is not warrant enough to tear the Church in pieces The question is not Whether there be any thing in our Constitution which a Man cou'd wish to be alter'd but whether any thing unlawful be appointed which will make an alteration not only desirable but necessary Whether you are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made We separate from the Church of Rome because She has corrupted the Main Principles of Religion and requires her Members to join in these Corruptions but this Charge cannot be fasten'd upon the Church of England and therefore Separation from her must be unlawful Mr. Caâ—â—â—â— (a) Institut lib. 4. sect 10 11 12. saies that Wherever the Word of God is duly preach'd and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject it's Admonitions or resist it's Counsels or set at nought it's Discipline much less separate from it and violate it's Vnity For that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a separation is a denyal of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true Vse of the Word and Sacraments This is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly design'd it against your own practice Nay the Ministers of New-England tell you that To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceiv'd or indeed in the Church which might and shou'd be tolerated and heal'd with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced tho' perhaps your self be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from public Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful If you say that the Governours may as well come down to you by forbearing what you dislike as you come up to the law by doing what it requires I beseech you to consider Whether our Case will bear this Wantonness and Whether such Expressions be consistent with your Duty I do not think it hard I confess to make out the prudence of their Determinations but I think it hard that a Public Rule shou'd not be thought Reason enough to justify things of this sort and to oblige the People to Complyance without more ado Certainly there is no prospect of Union till Men learn Humility and Modesty and are contented to be Govern'd What is the Duty of Superiours in our Case I cannot determine but sure I am that a Change tho' in
things perfectly indifferent is no indifferent thing and 't is infinite odds but if once they begin to change without necessity there will never be an end of changing But farther I desire you to consider that the most eminent even of your own Writers do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England For they acknowledge her to be a true Church and (b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gov. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-Câ—m Newcomen 's Iren. Epist to the Read â—all's Tryal c. 7. Jeâ—uâ—baâ—l p. 28.30 Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful of Hear p. ult hold that You are not to separate farther from a true Church than the things you separate for are unlawful or conceiv'd so to be that is they hold that you ought to go as far as you can and do what you lawfully may towards Communion with it They (c) See Tombes 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas p. 78. Owen 's Evangel Love p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist of John p. 156. Baxter's Cure dir 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaâ—l p. 12. hold also that You are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church or are not impos'd as necessary Terms of Communion Nay they (d) See Brownists Confess art 36. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen's Life p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer Serm. 4 14 16. Ball 's Tryal p. 74 c. 132 c. 159 c. 308. Platform of Discipl c. 14. sect 8. Hildersham on John Lect. 35 82. Brian 's Dwell with God p. 293 294. Bradshaw's Unreason of Sep. p. 103 104. Non-Conf no schismat p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep a great schism p. 192 195. Owen 's Evang. Love c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100. Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas p. 78 89. Davenport's Reply p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist of John p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark Epist Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion p. 122 127. Bâ—ins on Ephes 2.15 Contin Morn Exer. serm 16. Baxter's Cure dir 35. Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 47. part 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton 's Memorial p. 78 c. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes's Theodul answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy p. 12 13. Calamy's Door of Truth open'd p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful of Hear p. 19 23. Nye's Case of great pres Use p. 10 16 18. produce several arguments to prove that Defects in Worship if not essential are no just reason for withdrawing from it 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects wou'd be to look after a greater Perfection than this present state will admit of 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches and so ought we 4. To separate from such defective Churches wou'd destroy all Communion Nor 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture Nor 6. is it necessary because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions Nay 7. they urge that 't is a duty to join with a defective Worship where we can have no better And as for our Injunctions in particular they (e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwell with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68. Owen's Peace-Off p. 17. Misch of Impos Epist Ded. own them to be tolerable and what no Church is without more or less that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion and that they are but few Nay farther several of the old Non-Conformists zealously oppos'd Separation from the Church of England and join'd with it to their dying Day tho' they cou'd not conform as Ministers and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it and have in print (f) See Baxter's Sacril Desert p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life p. 111. Collins's Doctr. of Schism p. 64. Lye's Reas Account c. Hickman's Bonas Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. declar'd it to be their Duty and Practice But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers there is greater Authority to be urged against you For in those things wherein you differ from us you are condemn'd by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse but I shall only hint at a few Particulars 1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any setled Church that was without Episcopacy till Calvin's time The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant that it obtain'd in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age and we are sure we can carry it higher even to the Apostles themselves There are but two Passages and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority That of (g) In Epist ad Tit. cap. 1. St. Jerom when improv'd to the utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings that he often wrote in hast and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and overtop the Presbyters which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood For at other times when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ'd nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error merely thro' Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aim'd at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius who was his Cotemporary represents him as very little better than a Mad-man 2. We desire you to name any Church that did not constantly use Forms of
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament