which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
lawful and since Conformity is injoin'd and since nothing is more plain from Scripture than that we must obey our Superiours in all lawful things therefore 't is evident that we must not omit the duty of Conforming for fear of giving Offence But 't is Objected that those Precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which concern the welfare of their Souls so that when both together cannot be observ'd we must break the former to observe the latter God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now if sacrifices prescrib'd by God himself must give place to Acts of Mercy much more must Human Inventions yeild to them To this I answer that the commands of our Superiours do not bind us either in a case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder any moral duty to God or our Neighbour but this is only when the necessity is urgent and extreme and the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time We may be absent from Church to save the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his house but 't wou'd be a pitiful pretence for the constant neglect of our public Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours house may be fired or his life invaded and so he may stand in need of our help Tho' this argument may serve to excuse the omission of something commanded by lawful Authority in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen yet to be sure it will not help those who live in open disobedience to the Laws only because they are loth to offend those who are not satisfy'd with what is appointed But say they Scandal is Spiritual Murther and if we must obey Authority tho' Scandal follow then when Authority commands we may murther the Soul of our Brother and destroy him by our meats for whom Christ dy'd But I answer that wearing a Surplice Kneeling at the Sacrament c. will not make Men forsake Christianity which I have prov'd is the only proper Scandalizing our Brother which St. Paul charges with the guilt of Soul-murther Nay this argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other command of God if a Brother be offended at it as it do's against submission to Superiours in things lawful For 't is not only the Law of Man but the Law of God also that is broken by disobedience to Superiours We cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God for fear of some evil that may chance to happen to some others thro' their own fault because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than of others Salvation and consequently to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren Nay as Bishop Sanderson saies To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the Sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Men or other either did or might take offence thereat If it be here asked whether any Human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such command had been Scandalous I answer that no Authority can secure that others shall not be offended by what I do out of obedience to it but then it frees me from blame by making that my duty which if I had otherwise done might have been uncharitable If it be said that avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity and that if Superiours may appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brother's Soul then an earthly Court may cross the determinations of the Court of heaven I answer that here is no crossing the Determinations of God since it is his express Will that in all lawful things we shou'd obey our Governours and he who has made this our Duty will not lay to our charge the Mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault thro' the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it And certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours shou'd appoint how far we shall exercise our Charity towards our Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians shou'd set Bounds to their Power and Authority or that every ignorant and froward Brother shou'd determine how far we shall be obedient to those whom God has set over us But farther duties of justice are of stricter obligation than duties of Charity Now obedience to Superiours is a debt and we injure them if we do not pay it but avoiding Scandal is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged to as far as we can but not till we have given to every one his due It is therefore saies Bishop Sanderson no more lawful for me to disobey the lawful command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the Offence of one or a few Brethren than it is lawful for me to do one Man wrong to do another Man a courtesy withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to Relieve an Hospital If it be reply'd that tho' the care of not giving Offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of Charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and do's require it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him I grant indeed that we are requir'd both to be obedient to Superiours and to be Charitable to our Brother but then I say this is not the Charity which God requires when I give what is none of my own A servant must be Charitable to the Poor according to his ability but he must not rob his Master to Relieve them Our Superiours only must consider the danger of Scandal but we must consider the duty we owe them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours Thus then it is plain that they are things merely indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the Weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho' Scandal follow it but in matters wherein our practice is not determin'd by any command we ought so to exercise our Liberty as to avoid if possible giving any Offence 'T is an undoubted part of Christian Charity to endeavour by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things lawful at which we foresee our Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandaliz'd to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to gain Dissenters to the Church but
circumstances and may be different according to those circumstances That thing may tend to Order Decency and Edification in one Country or Age which in another may tend to the contrary Thus being cover'd in the Church and the Custom of Love-Feasts c. were once thought decent but afterwards the opinions of Men alter'd So that Order Decency and Edification being changeable things as circumstances vary only general rules can be prescrib'd but the particulars must be left to Authority to determine 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did use indifferent things which were not prescrib'd in Divine Worship Thus he join'd in the Synagogal Worship John 18.20 c. tho' if the place it self were at all prescrib'd the manner of that Service was not so much as hinted at Thus he us'd the Cup of Charity in the Passover tho' it was not instituted Luke 22.16 The Feast of Dedication was an human institution yet he vouchsaf'd to be present at it Nay he comply'd with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover which they chang'd to Sitting tho' God had prescrib'd Standing The Apostles also observ'd the hours of Prayer which were of human institution Acts 3.1 Now if Christ and his Apostles did thus under the Jewish Law which was so exact in prescribing outward Ceremonies certainly we may do the same under the Gospel I may add that the Primitive Christians not only comply'd with the Jews in such Rites as were not forbidden but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves Thus they (a) 1 Tim. 5.10 Ambros De Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1. wash'd the Disciples feet in imitation of Christ and (b) Tertull De Orat. cap. 14. us'd Love-Feasts till they thought it convenient to lay them aside From whence it appears that prescription is not necessary to make a Rite lawful 't is enough if it be not forbidden If it be said that these usages of the Christian Church were civil observances and us'd as well out of God's worship as in it and therefore what there needed no institution for might be lawfully us'd without it I answer 1. That this justifies most of our usages for a white Garment was us'd in civil cases as a sign of Royalty and Dignity c. 2. A civil observance when us'd in Religious worship either remains civil when so apply'd or is religious when so apply'd If it be civil then kneeling in God's worship is not religious because 't is a posture us'd in civil matters If it be religious then a rite that is not prescrib'd may be us'd in worship to a religious end 3. 'T is evident that (c) Buxtorf Exere Hist Sâ—c Caen. neither the washing of feet nor the holy Kiss were us'd as civil rites and that the latter is call'd by the Fathers the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation 4. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in Divine worship then any civil rite may be us'd in worship and consequently all the ridiculous practices of the Church of Rome wou'd be warrantable 5. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in worship then how can our Adversaries say that nothing is to be us'd in worship but what is prescrib'd by GOD except the Natural circumstances of action For there are many civil Rites which are not natural circumstances of action Feasting and Salutation are civil usages but Divine worship can be perform'd without them And if these and the like were antiently us'd in worship then we have the same liberty to introduce such customs 3. If things indifferent tho' not prescrib'd may not be lawfully us'd in God's worship then we cannot lawfully join with any Church in the World For all Churches do in some instances or other take the liberty of using what the Scripture has no where requir'd Thus the (d) Vid. August Epist 118 119. Basil De Sp. S. cap. 27. Ambros De Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 3. cap. 1. antients observ'd the Feasts of the Passion Resurrection c. Stood in their devotions on the Lord's Day c. These things they all agree'd in and thought it unlawful to act against an universal practice Besides some Churches had peculiar customs within the bounds of their own Communion The Church of Rome fasted on Saturdays others indifferently on any Day That of Milan wash'd the feet of persons to be Baptiz'd but that of Rome did not Thus in our daies some receive the Lord's Supper kneeling others standing c. So that if we must have an Institution for every thing done in the worship of God and if we must join in nothing which has it not then we cannot be members of any Church in the World Nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good conscience perform any part of God's worship if this principle be admitted for true For habits and gestures are not determin'd in Scripture and God's worship cannot be perform'd without them and if they are unlawful for not being commanded then a man must sin every time he Praies or receives the Sacrament Nay those that condemn the use of such things as are not commanded do in their practice confute their opinion For where I pray are they commanded to sprinkle the Children that are Baptiz'd or to receive the Lord's Supper sitting or to use conceiv'd Prayers or to touch and kiss the Book in Swearing Or to enter into a particular Church-covenant Nay where do they find that the Scripture saith that there is nothing lawful in divine worship but what is prescrib'd or that what is not commanded is forbidden Where are we told that God will be angry with us for doing that which he has not forbidden Our brethren themselves will allow that the time and place of God's worship may be prescrib'd by Authority and why then may not necessary circumstances such as gestures and habits be thus determin'd tho' they be not commanded Certainly the command of a lawful power does not make that unlawful which was not forbidden and by consequence was lawful before They say indeed that Nadab and Abihu sinn'd because they offer'd strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not c. Lev. 10.1 c. and therefore there must be a command to make any thing lawful in divine worship But to this I answer that the phrase not commanded is constantly apply'd to such things as are absolutely forbidden The fire also is call'd strange which phrase when apply'd to matters of worship signifies as much as forbidden Thus strange incense Exod. 30.9 24. is such as was forbidden because it was not rightly made strange vanities is but another word for strange Gods Jer. 8.19 and thus the fire of these Men was strange that is forbidden fire For there was scarce any thing belonging to the Altar of which more is said than of the fire burning upon it Lev. 9.24 6.12 16.12 'T was lighted from Heaven and was to be always burning When atonement was to be
of Grace and receive a right to eternal Life I cannot deny but they may be sav'd without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed Means to which they are annex'd Nay Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly to the promises of the Spirit 's assistance which they shall certainly receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes Now since these are the benefits of Baptism and since Infants are capable of them let any impartial Man judge whether it is more for their benefit that they shou'd receive them by being Baptiz'd in their infancy or stay for them till they come to years of discretion Is it better for a Child that has the Evil to be touch'd for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit Or is it best for a Traytor 's Child to be presently restor'd to his Blood and Estate and his Prince's Favour or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restor'd till he is a man I must add that Baptism laies such an early pre-engagement upon Children as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract For there is no person of common Ingenuity Honour or Conscience but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges before he cou'd understand his own good or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood wou'd be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses and make them regret to be Baptiz'd 2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient because it conduces much to the Well-being and Edification of the Church in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons wou'd be apt to make in these as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church but most Expedient in it self and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and to the Will of Christ it must needs be concluded that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children as there do's upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion laies at least an implicit obligation upon Parents to see that it be perform'd For if in the time of a general contagion the Supreme Power shou'd Command that all Men Women and Children shou'd every Morning take such an Antidote that Command wou'd oblige Parents to give it to their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it What I have here said about the obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism concerns all Guardians c. to whose care Children are committed And if any ask at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism I answer at any time for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude but forbids the wilful neglect and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof V. As to Communion with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy 't is certainly Lawful and has ever been thought so nay 't is an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them because that wou'd be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such Nothing now remains but that I take off two objections First 'T is said that Infant-Communion may be practis'd as well as Infant-Baptism But I answer 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Cyril of Jerusalem mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and St. Austin in the Fifth whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers over which he Presided of Origen Tertullian Irenaeus St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of it as a thing generally practis'd and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practis'd in the Church I may add that none of the Four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen do's of Infant-Baptism 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for Infant-Communion it being grounded only upon John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Now 't is doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no because it was not as yet instituted but if it be so to be understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution Do this in remembrance of me Nay the Western Church discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded have long since laid it aside tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism But in truth the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or cou'd be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly Baptiz'd And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves that all the Churches wherein it ever was or still (e) As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies is practis'd were of opinion that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful as that of grown Persons Secondly 't is objected that Children who have not the use of Reason cannot know what a Covenant means and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate tho' St. Peter says the Baptism which saveth us must have the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God To this I Answer 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as against Infant-Baptism 2. That God was pleas'd to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcis'd Infants upon an implicite and imputative
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