Vol. I. I dare fay, if you fhould ask any one Communicant of our Church, whether they did intend any fuch thing? They would easily tell you, that it is the fartheft thing in the World from their thoughts. And to be fhort, I do not queftion but that if this were all that kept Men from our Communion, the Moderation and Goodness of our Church would have found long ago an eafie Expedient to heal this Difference. The fum of all, is this: If Men may join with us in our Communion without being Guilty of any thing they fcruple in it, fo far I think every Man that Labours after Peace, is bound to joyn; for it cannot be otherwife conceived how fuch can be faid to do their utmost for the fake of Unity and Peace, fince they leave much undone, which they Lawfully may do. But you will fay, Would not our Communion in the Publick Congregation Countenance all thofe things we fcruple? I Answer, No: For no Man in any Communion is anfwerable for any thing more, or thought to approve any thing else than what that Church requires of him as the Condition of Communion. This is apparently the sense of our Church; for if they thought that the joyning in Publick Communion did neceffarily ceffarily imply an Approbation of every Serm. 1. particular in its Frame and Conftitution, I cannot fee any Neceffity of Obliging the Clergy to Subfcription or exprefs Declaration of Affent and Confent, &c. And accordingly, This has been the Practice of Chriftians in all Ages. Polycarp and Anicetus did joyn together in Communion, tho' they could not agree together in the Controverfie about Eafter. The Catholicks and Novatians did joyn together to Oppofe the Arrians, and yet they were not hereby fuppofed to agree together in the Doctrines of Novatus. And in a Synod at Sandomiria,feveral Proteftant Churches very much differing in their Forms, and Rites, and Ceremonies, did yet unanimously agree to joyn together in one Communion, as often as they should be Conven❜d together. The Refult of all this Argument is therefore plainly this: That whatever Errors of less moment may be in a Church, no Man becomes guilty of them by being of that Communion, unless they be fuch as he is bound to Profefs or Practice e're he can be admitted into, or continue in that Communion. The Confequence of which, is this, that our Brethren are bound to joyn with us in all thofe parts of Communion, where Vol. I. wherein there are none of those Ceremonies which they fcruple at: And if they would but thus go as far as they can, we fhould have good Reafon to hope that they might be by degrees won over to an entire Conformity, or that the Government would Naturally be kind and gentle to Men of fuch a Christian and Peaceable Behaviour: If we could but obtain from them that they would frequent that part of the Publick Service which begins when our Liturgy is ended; if they would but come to our Sermons without Prejudice, and with a fincere defire of knowing the Truth, we should have no Reason to defpair either of Peace or Uniformity. This I have faid upon a fuppofal that fome Men do really ftumble at fome things amongst us. But what fhall I fay to another fort of Men, who do, when Occafion requires, joyn with us in all parts of our Publick Communi on, What they think they Lawfully may do, is eafy to be gueffed by what they Actually do; when they fee it neceffary they can Lawfully join with us in all parts of our Communion, and I do not find that the best of their Clergy have condemn'd this Practice, and therefore I am am in Charity bound to think that, what Serm. 1. they do, they do with a good Confcience, If fo, it will puzzle any Man of an upright heart and moderate Capacity, to Comprehend how Communion with, and Separation from our Church (both Church and Perfons continuing ftill the fame) can confift with a good Confcience. I believe moft Divines abroad do think this very little fhort of a Contradiction: and when they hear that there are Men, who fometimes plead Confcience for Difobedience to that Law which at other times they can with a good Confcience Comply with, they will be apt to think that there is more of Humour and Design in this than Confcience. In this case I would ask, 1. What is it which makes our Communion in it felf and to them Lawful for this day, and if needs be this Year, become for ever after Unlawful? all that can be faid is, that there are some accidental alterations in this cafe, that there are fome Conveniences or Inconveniencies which renders our Communion to day Lawful, and this day Twelvemonth Unlawful: These must not be outward or temporal, for these cannot vary the Nature of Church Communion, unless a Man will vilely prostitute his Conscience; it Vol. I. it remains therefore, that there must be fome inward and Spiritual Inconveniency that makes conftant Communion Unlawful; what this can be befides that pretence of Better Edification, cannot I think, be as much as fanfied. And then Obferve, is 1. Into what a narrow point our Controverfy is Reduced, mark how all the pretences for feparation are vanished : Our Church Government, the Do&trine, the Liturgy, the Rites and Ceremonies are all acknowledged by them Lawful, for I defire to know, do they by this occafional Communion with us declare their Approbation of all these particulars in our Church? If they do not, then it apparent that they do not Judge themfelves involv'd in the guilt of any thing they diflike in our Church by communicating with us, and confequently they do publickly own that nothing they find fault with in it can be a juft ground for Separation; if they do, then it is apparent that all controverfies about any thing of this kind are at an end, and muft ever be fo. For all these which they approve in their Occafional Communion will be no other, if they hold conftant Communion with us. All therefore that is left for juftification of these dreadful Divifions |