The unreasonableness of separation, or, An impartial account of the history, nature, and pleas of the present separation from the communion of the Church of England to which, several late letters are annexed, of eminent Protestant divines abroad, concerning the nature of our differences, and the way to compose them / by Edward Stillingfleet ...

AN Historical Account OF THE RISE and PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Separation.

PART. I.

Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controver∣sie, it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things.

1. That although the pre∣sent Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation, yet, no such thing was then practised, or allowed, by those who were then most zealous for Reformation.

2. That when Separation began, it was most vehe∣mently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked ma∣ny things in our Church, and wished for a farther Refor∣mation. And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then, it will appear, that the Principles owned by them, do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us.

In the making out of these, I shall give a full ac∣count of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie a∣bout Separation from the Communion of our Church.

I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation, yet no such thing was then practised, or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation. By Se∣paration we mean nothing else, but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church, and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Wor∣ship, and better means of Edification. By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on, by those who pretend to justifie these Practises; and those are such, as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful. And not one of all those, which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by, but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation. For our Church stands on the same Grounds; useth the same Ceremonies (only fewer;) prescribes the same Liturgy (only more cor∣rected;) hath the same constitution and frame of Go∣vernment; the same defect of Discipline; the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers; and at least as effectual means of Edification, as there were when the Reformation was first established. And what advantage there is, in our present circumstan∣ces,

as to the Number, Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers; as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies, and the Explication of the mean∣ing of others; as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation, do all make it much more unreasonable now, than it had been then.

Sect. II. It cannot be denied, that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Re∣formation; but they were such things, as are the least scrupled now.* 1.1 Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap, and Tippet, &c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours. Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits, but he submitted afterwards to the use of them. Bucer, and some o∣thers, disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth, which were Corrected in the Second: So that upon the Review of the Litur∣gy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church; at least, as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separati∣on. For we read of none, who refused the constant use of the Liturgy, or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained, as the Cross in Bap∣tism, and Kneeling at the Communion, which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion, and make them cry out in such a dread∣ful manner of the Mischief of Impositions; as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insup∣portable Ceremonies.* 1.2 Now we are told, That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separa∣tion, and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion. By

Whom? At what Time? In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created? Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion, or alter'd the Old Ones? No: the same Author saith, It is perpe∣tuating the old Conditions, and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom, wherein it must certainly misc••rry.

Not to insist on his way of Expression, in calling the Reformation, An Old Worm-eaten Bottom; which ill be••omes them, that would now be held the most Zealous Protestants. I would only know, if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Mar∣tyrs, and other Reformers, and which are only con∣tinued by us, do, as this Author saith, Create a Ne∣cessity of Separation; how then it came to pass, that in all King Edward's dayes, there was no such thing as Division in our Church about them?

And even Dr. Ames, who searched as carefully as any into this matter,* 1.3 can bring no other Instances of any differences then, but those of Rogers and Hooper: he adds indeed, That Ridley and others agreed with Hooper. Wherein? What, in opposing our Ceremo∣nies, when Hooper himself yielded in that which he at first scrupled? No, but there was a perfect reconci∣liation between them, before they suffered. And what then? Is there any the least colour of Evidence, that before that Reconciliation, either Hooper or Rogers held Separate Assemblies from the Conformists, or that Ridley ever receded from his stedfast adhering to the Orders of this Church? This is then a very mean Artifice, and disingenuous Insinuation. For although Ridley, in his Letter to Hooper, out of his great Modesty and Humility, seems to take the blame upon himself, by attributing the greater Wis∣dom

to Hooper in that difference; yet he doth not Re∣tract his Opinion, but only declares the hearty love that he bore to him for his constancy in the Truth. Neither do we find that ever Hooper repented of his Subm••ssion, to which he was so earnestly perswad∣ed, both by Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer; and Peter Martyr in his Letter to Bucer condemns his frowardness,* 1.4 and saith, That his cause was by no means approved by the Wiser and Better sort of Men. But Ames saith, Mr. Bradford might have been added, who calleth Forked Caps and Tippets, Antichristian Pelf and Baggage. Suppose this were true, it proves no more than that a good man had an unreasonable Scruple, and such as is thought so by our Bre∣thren themselves at this day. But did he ever divide the Church on such an account as this? Did he set up separate Congregations, because a square Cap and a Tippet would not go down with him? No, he was a far better man than to do so. But if the whole words had been set down, the seeming force of these words had been taken away, for they are these; The cogniza••ce of the Lord standeth not in forked Caps,* 1.5 Tippets, shaven Crowns, or such other Baggage and Artichristian pelf, but in suffering for the Lords sake; i.e. it is more a Mark of Gods Service to suffer Mar∣tyrdom as a Protestant, than to be at ease as a Romish Priest, for he puts them altogether, Caps, Tippets, and shaven Crowns. And what is this to the Impositi∣ons of our Church, or Separation on the account of them? Dr. Ames knew too much, to pretend to any thing like that in those times; For there was no such thing as Separation from our Church then heard of, on the account of these dividing Impositions. Some furious Anabaptists it may be, or Secret Papists then

had separate Meetings,* 1.6 of which Ridley bids Enqui∣ry to be made, in his Articles of Visitation; but no Protestants, none that joyned in the Articles of our Fait••, and Substantials of Religion with our Church, as Dr. O. speaks,* 1.7 did then ap••••ehend any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Separation from it; not for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the A•••••• Sign of the Cross; nor Kneeling at the Communion; nor the Religious Observation of Holy-days; nor the constant use of the Liturgy; nor any one of all the particulars mentioned by Dr. O. which he saith,* 1.8 makes our Com∣munion unlawful and separation from it to be necessary. How come these Terms of Communion to be so un∣lawful now; which were then approved by such ho∣ly, learned, and excellent men as our first Reformers? Were they not arrived to that measure of attainments, or comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel, that men in our Age are come to? Is it credible, that men of so great integrity, such indefatigable industry, such profound judgment, as Cranmer and Ridley, who were the Heads of the Reformation, should discern no such sinfulness in these things, which now every dissenting Artificer can cry out upon, as unlawful? Is it possible, that men that sifted every thing with so much care themselves, and made use of the best help from others, and begg••d the Divine Assistance, should so fatally miscarry in a matter of such might importance to the Souls of Men? Could not Latimer, or Bradford, or such holy and mortified men as they, discern so much as a Mote of unlawfulness in those times, which others espy such Beams in now? What makes this wonderful difference of eye-sight? Were they under a cloudy, and dark, and Iewish Dispensation; and all the clear Gospel Light of Division and Sepa∣ration reserved for our times? Did they want warmth

and zeal for Religion, who burnt at the Stake for it? Doth God reveal his Will to the meek, the humble, the inquisitive, the resolute Minds? And would he conceal such weighty things from those who were so desirous to find the Truth, and so resolved to ad∣here to it? If Diocesan Episcopacy, and the Consti∣tution of our Church were such an unlawful thing, as some now make it, it is strange such men should have no suspition of it, no not when they went to suffer? For as H. Iacob,* 1.9 the old Nonconformist, saith, in an∣swer to Iohnson the Separatist, Did not M. Cranmer hold himself for Arch-Bishop still, and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed, and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it? Did he ever repent of holding that Office to his death? Also did not Ridley stand upon his Right to the Bishoprick of Lon∣don though ready to die? Latimer, though he renounced his Bishoprick, yet he kept his Ministery, and never re∣pented him of it. Philpo•• never disliked his Arch∣deaconry: yea, when he refused bloody Bonner, yet he appealed to his Ordinary the Bishop of Winchester. The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar. And generally, whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelats Ordina∣tion, they never renounced it, though they died Mar∣tyrs.* 1.10 Johnson indeed quotes some passages of Brad∣ford, Hooper, and Bale against the Hierarchy; But he notoriously misapplies the words of Bradford, which are, The time was when the Pope was out of England, but not all Popery; which he would have understood of the times of Reformation, under Edward VI. whereas he speaks them expresly of King Henry's days. And it is not credible, Hooper should think the Hierarchy unlawful, who (as it is generally be∣lieved) had the Administration of two Bishopricks

at once.* 1.11 Bale's words were spoken in Henry VIII. his time; and could not be meant of a Protestant Hierarchy, for he was after a Bishop himself. But H. Iacob answers to them all, That supposing these men disliked the Hierarchy, it made the stronger against the Principles of Separation:* 1.12 Seeing for all that, they did not refuse to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians. And that not only occasionally and at certain seasons, but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it.

Sect. 3. Thus matters stood as to Communion with our Church in the days of Edward VI. but as soon as the Persecution began in Queen Mary's time, great numbers were forced to betake themselves to foreign parts,* 1.13 whereof some went to Zurick, others to Basil, others to Strasburg, and others to Frankford. Grin∣dal in a Letter to B. Ridley, saith they were nigh 100 Students and Ministers then in Exile: These, with the people in all other places, Geneva excepted, kept to the Orders established in our Church; but at Frank∣ford some began to be very busie in Reforming our Liturgy, leaving out many things, and adding others; which occasioned the following Troubles of Frank∣ford. The true ground whereof is commonly much mis-represented.* 1.14 Mr. Baxter saith, The difference was between those which strove for the English Liturgy, and others that were for a free-way of praying, i.e. as he explains it, from the present sense and habit of the Speaker: but that this is a great mistake, will appear from the account published of them, A. D. 1575. by one that was a Friend to the Dissenting Party. From which it appears, That no sooner were the English ar∣riv'd at Frankford, but the Minister of the French

Congregation there, came to them and told them, he had obtained from the Magistrates the freedom of a Church for those who came out of England, but espe∣cially for the French; they thanked him and the Ma∣gistrates for so much kindness, but withal let them understand this would be little benefit to the English, unless they might have the liberty of performing all the Offices of Religion in their own Tongue Up∣on an Address made to the Senate, this request was granted them; and they were to make use of the French Church at different times, as the French and they could agree, but with this express Proviso, that they should not dissent from the French in Doctrine, or Ceremonies, lest they should thereby Minister occasion of offence. But afterwards, it seems, the Magistrates did not require them to be strictly tied up to the French Ceremonies, so they did mutually agree. Upon this, they perused the English Order, and endeavour'd to bring it as near as they could to the French Model, by leaving out the Responses, the Letany, Surplice, and many other things; and adding a larger Confession, more suitable to the State and Time; after which a Psalm was Sung; then the Minister, after a short Prayer for Divine Assistance (according to Calvins Custom) was to proceed to the Sermon; which be∣ing ended, then followed a General Prayer for all E∣states, particularly for England, ending with the Lords Prayer; and so repeating the Articles of the Creed, and another Psalm Sung, the People were dis∣missed with the Blessing. By which we see, here was not the least controversie, whether a Liturgy or not; but whether the Order of Service was not to be accommodated, as much as might be, to the French Model. However, when they sent to the English in

other places to resort thither, by reason of the great Conveniencies they enjoy'd, and acquainted them with what they had done; it gave great offence to them, which they expressed in their Letters. Those of Zurick sent them word, They determined to use no other Order, than that which was last established in Eng∣land; and in another Letter, They desire to be assured from them, that if they removed thither, they should all joyn in the same Order of Service concerning Religion, which was in England last set forth by King Edward. To this the Congregation of Frankford returned Answer, That they could not, in all points, warrant the Full Vse of the Book of Service, which they impute to their pre∣sent Circumstances, in which they suppose such Altera∣tions would be allowed; but they intended not hereby to deface the worthy Lawes and Ordinances of King Ed∣ward. These Learned Men of Strasburg, understand∣ing their resolutions, send Grindall to them with a Letter subscribed by 16; wherein they intreat them, To reduce the English Church there, as much as possible, to the Order lately set forth in England, lest, say they, by much altering of the same, they should seem to con∣demn the chief Authors thereof, who, as they now suffer, so are they most ready to confirm that fact with the price of their Bloods; and should also both give occasion to our Adversaries to accuse our Doctrine of Imperfection, and us of Mutability; and the Godly to Doubt of that Truth wherein before they were perswaded, and to hinder their coming thither, which before they had purposed. And to obtain their desire, they tell them, They had sent Persons for that end to Negotiate this Affair with the Magistrates, and, in case they obtained their Re∣quest, they promised to come and joyn with them; and they did not question the English in other places would

do the same. Notwithstanding the weight of these Reasons, and the desireableness of their Brethrens com∣pany in that time of Exile, they persist in their for∣mer resolutions, not to have the Entire English Litur∣gy; for by this time Knox was come from Geneva, being chosen Minister of the Congregation: However, they returned this Answer to Strasburg, That they made as little Alteration as was possible;* 1.15 for, certain Ce∣remonies the Country would not bear; and they did not dissent from those which lie at the Ransom of their Bloods for the Doctrine, whereof they have made a most worthy Confession.* 1.16 About this time, some suggested, that they should take the Order of Geneva, as far∣thest from Superstition; but Knox declined this, till they had advised with the Learned Men at Stras∣burg, Zurick, Emden, &c. knowing, that the Odi∣um of it would be thrown upon him. But finding their Zeal and Concernment for the English Liturgy, he, with Whittingham, and some others, drew up an Abstract of it,* 1.17 and sent it to Calvin, desiring his Judg∣ment of it. Who, upon perusal of it, being through∣ly heated in a Cause, that so nearly concerned him, writes a very sharp Letter, directed to the Brethren at Frankford; gently Rebuking them for their un∣seasonable Contentions about these matters, but severely Reproving the English Divines who stood up for the English Liturgy, when the Model of Geneva stood in Competition with it. And yet after all his Cen∣sures of it, he Confesses. The things he thought most unfit, were Tolerable; but he blames them, if they did not choose a better, when they might choose; but he gives not the least incouragement to Separati∣on if it were continued; and he declares for his own part, how easie he was to yield, in all indifferent things,

such as External Rites are. And he was so far, in his Judgment, from being for Free Prayer, or making the constant use of a Liturgy a Ground of Separation, as Dr. O. doth, that when he delivered his Opinion, with the greatest Freedom, to the then Protector, a∣bout the best method of Reformation, he declares, That he did mightily approve a Certain Form, from which Men ought not to vary,* 1.18 both to prevent the inconveni∣encies which some Mens folly would betray them to, in the free way of Praying; and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers; and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be shewing some new things. Let Mr. Br. now Judge, Whether it were likely that the Controversie then at Frankford, was, as he saith, between them that were for the English Liturgy, and others that were for a free way of Pray∣ing; when Calvin, to whom the Dissenters appealed, was so much, in his Judgment, against the latter. And it appears,* 1.19 by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren, that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him; which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done; and he expresses his satisfaction, that the matter was so composed among them, when by Dr. Cox his means, the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford. And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before, he mentions Lights, as re∣quired by the Book, which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth. So that either they deceived him, who sent him the Abstract; or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself; the mat∣ter being ended contrary to his expectation. For, although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter, the Or∣der of Geneva had like to have been presently voted

in,* 1.20 yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service, they were fain to compromise the matter, and to make use of a Mixt Form for the present. But, Dr. Cox, and others, coming thither from Eng∣land, and misliking these Alterations, declared. That they were for having the Face of an English Church there;* 1.21 and so they began the Letany next Sunday; which put Knox into so great a Rage, that in stead of pursuing his Text (which was directly contrary) he made it his business, to lay open the nakedness of our Church, as far as his Wit and Ill Will would car∣ry him. He charged the Service-Book with Supersti∣tion, Impurity, and Imperfection; and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation, want of Discipline, with the business of Hooper, allowing Pluralities; all the ill things he could think on. When Cox and his Party (with whom, at this time, was our excellent Iewel) were admitted among them, they presently forbad Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation; who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor, in a Book by him Published, he was forced to leave the City, and to retire to Geneva; whither most of his Par∣ty followed him. And thus saith Grindal, in his Let∣ter to Bishop Ridley, The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox, and others, which met there for that purpose.

Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel (before his Works) that this Contro∣versie was not carried with them out of England,* 1.22 but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went. For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time (as particularly Hooper, who lived

many years in Switzerland) brought home with them a great liking of the Churches Model, where they had lived (which being such as their Country would bear, they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplici∣ty, being far enough from any thing of Pomp, or Cere∣mony) which created in them an aversion to the Or∣naments and Vestments here used: So now, upon this new Persecution, those who had Friendship at Geneva, as Knox, and Whittingham, or were other∣wise much obliged by those of that way, as the other English were, who came first to Frankford, were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Di∣vine Service, than of our own. And when Men are once engaged in Parties, and several Interests, it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in, especially when they have great Abettors, and such, whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them. This is the True Founda∣tion of those Unhappy Differences, which have so long continued among us, about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church. For when Calvin and some others found, that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation, our Bishops pro∣ceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, than meer opposition to Popery (which some other Reformers made their Rules) they did not cease by Letters, and other wayes, to insinuate, that our Reformation was imperfect, as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained. So they called the Vse of those Ceremonies, which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church. Calvin, in his Letter to the Protector, Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation, To go as far from Popery as they could; and therefore what

Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Po∣pery were to be removed, lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby: but at last he yields to this mo∣deration in the case; That such Ceremonies might be re∣teined as were easie, and fitted to the Capacities of the People; provided they were not such, as had their begin∣ning from the Devil, or Antichrist, i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery. Now, by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed; for it took a∣way all those Ceremonies which were of late inventi∣on. As in Baptism, of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church, it reserved, in the Second Liturgy, only the Cross after Baptism; which was not so used in the Roman Church; for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism; and the A∣nointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it; in stead of these, our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, being of Uncontroulable Antiqui∣ty, and not used till the Child is Baptized. In the Eucharist, in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome, our Church hath only appoint∣ed Kneeling.* 1.23 I say appointed, for although Kneel∣ing at the Elevation of the Host, be strictly required by the Roman Church, yet in the Act of Receiving it is not;* 1.24 (as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving, which is not Kneeling, but either Sit∣ting, as it was in Bonaventures time; or after the fa∣shion of Sitting, or a little Leaning upon his Throne, as he doth at this day) therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation, lest it should seem to recede from the Practise of Antiquity, which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used, hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants. In stead of the great number

of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church, it on∣ly retained a plain Linnen Garment, which was un∣questionably used in the times of St. Hierome, and St. Augustin. And lastly, As to the Episcopal Habits, they are retained only as a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men; the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black. These are now the Ceremonies, about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church; and any sober, considering Man, free from Passion, and Pre∣judice, would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church, and is at this day, about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions.

Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask, is, Why were these few retained by our Refor∣mers, which were then distastful to some Protestants, and were like to prove the occasion of future Contenti∣ons?

I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Re∣tain, or to Apoint these Ceremonies, and then pro∣ceed.

1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity. They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Super∣stitions of Popery, and the Innocent Rites and Pra∣ctises which were observed in the Church before. And What could more harden the Papists, then to see Men put no difference betwen these? It is an un∣speakable Advantage which those do give to the

Papists, who are for Reforming 1600 years back∣ward, and when they are pinch'd with a Testimony of Antiquity, presently cry out of the Mystery of Ini∣quity working in the Apostles times: as though every thing which they disliked, were a part of it. Next to the taking up Arms for Religion, which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design, there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France, especially among Learned and Moderate Men, as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery, and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church. For the time was when many Great Men there, were very inclinable to a Refor∣mation; but when they saw the Reformers op∣pose the undoubted Practises of Antiquity, equally with the Modern Corruptions, they cast them off, as Men guilty of an unreasonable humor of Innovation; as may be seen in Thuanus, and Fran. Baldwins Ec∣clesiastical Commentaries, and his Answers to Calvin and Beza. But our Reformers, although they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith, and rejected all things repugnant thereto; yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church, but a Reformati∣on of it; by reducing it as near as they could, to that state it was in, under the first Christian Emperors, that were sound in Religion; and therefore they retain∣ed these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church.

II. To manifest the Iustice and Equity of the Refor∣mation; by letting their Enemies see, they did not Break Communion with them for meer indifferent things. For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were sub∣tle and learned Men, as Gardiner, Heath, Tonstall, &c. and nothing would have re∣joyced them more, than to have seen our Reformers

boggle at such Ceremonies as these; and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the Peo∣ple. Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers scrupling the Episcopal Vestments. Peter Martyr tells him plainly, That such needless scru∣pulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation. For, saith he, since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary, if we once declare things in∣different to be unlawful, they will have no patience to hear us any longer. And, withall, hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches, and those Ancient Churches, which have hitherto to been in great esteem.

III. To shew their Consent with other Protestant Churches,* 1.25 which did allow and practice the same, or more Ceremonies, as the Lutheran Churches generally did. And even Calvin himself, in his Epistle to Sa∣dolet, declared, That he was for restoring the Face of the Antient Church; and in his Book of the true way of Reformation, he saith, He would not contend about Ceremonies, not only those which are for Decency, but those that are Symbolical.* 1.26 Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament, as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Since therefore, so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies; and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful, our first Reformers for this, and the foregoing Reasons, thought it fit to retain them, as long as they were so few, so easie both to be practised and understood.

Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad, did not wear off, at their Return home, in the beginning of Queen Eli∣zabeths Reign. For they reteined a secret dislike of

many things in our Church; but the Act of Vnifor∣mity being passed, and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoyned; I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it; no, not by the Dissenting Bre∣thren, that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva; Knox was forbidden to Preach here, because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen; but Whit∣tingham, Sampson, Gilby, and others, accepted of Pre∣ferment and Imployment in the Church. The Bi∣shops, at first, shewed kindness to them, on the ac∣count of their forward and zealous Preaching, which at that time was very needful; and therefore many of them were placed in London. Where, having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching,* 1.27 they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies, and a desire of farther Re∣formation of our Liturgy; but finding that they had gained ground, they never ceased, till by inveigh∣ing against the Livery of Antichrist, as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies, they had inflamed the People to that degree, that Gilby himself insinuates, That if they had been let alone a little longer, they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church. This was the first occasion of pressing Vniformity with any ri∣gor; and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others. But as kind∣ness made them presumptuous, so this severity made them clamorous; and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva. Beza, after much importunity, undertook to give an Answer to them; which being of great con∣sequence to our present business, I shall here give a fuller account of it. We are then to understand, that about this time, the Dissenting Party being Ex∣asperated, by the Silencing some of their most busie

Preachers,* 1.28 began to have Separate Meetings; This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London; and it appears, by an Examination taken before him, 20th of Iune 1567. of certain persons, who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches;* 1.29 but for gathering together and making Assemblies, using Prayers and Preachings, and Ministring Sacraments among themselves; and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding, for that Purpose.

The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences, and then told them, That in this Severing themselves from the Society of other Christians, they not only Condemned them, but also the whole State of the Church Reformed in King Edward's dayes, which was well Reformed according to the word of God; yea, and many Good Men have shed their. Blood for the same, which your doings Condemn. Have ye not, saith he, the Gospel truly Preached, and the Sacraments Mi∣nistred accordingly, and good order kept, although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies, and in indif∣ferent things, which lie in the Princes Power to Com∣mand, for Order sake? To which one of them An∣swered, That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached, and the Sacraments Administred, without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it, they never assembled together in Houses: but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Non-conformity, they be thought themselves what was best for them to do; and calling to mind, that there was a Congregation there in the dayes of Queen Mary, which followed the Order of Geneva, they took up that, and this Book and Order, saith he, we hold. Another Answered, That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word,

but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it; and set them up before it, so that no Man may Preach, or Minister the Sacraments without them. Things being come to this height, and Separation be∣ginn••ng to break out, the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther, till they had Consult∣ed their Oracle at Geneva. Beza being often solicited by them, with doleful Complaints of their hard usage, and the different Opinions among themselves, what they were to do, at last resolves to Answer; but first he de∣clares, How unwilling he was to interpose in the Diffe∣rences of another Church, especially when but one Party was heard; and he was afraid, this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more, rather than Cure this evil, which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured, but Precibus & Patientiâ, by Prayers and Patience. After this General Advice, Beza freely declares his own judgment, as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church; but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers, and the Peoples Sepa∣ration, he expresses his Mind in that manner, that the Dissenters at this day, would have published their Invectives against him, one upon the back of ano∣ther. For (1.) As to the Silenced Ministers, he saith, That if the Pressing Subscription continued, he perswades them rather to live privately than to yield to it. For, they must either act against their Consciences, or they must quit their Imployments; for, saith he, the Third thing that may be supposed, viz. That they should exer∣cise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops, we Tremble at the Thoughts of it, for such rea∣sons, as may be easily understood, though we say never a word of them. What! Is Beza for Silencing, and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful

and able Ministers; and at such a time, when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching, and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it? when St. Antholins, St. Peters, St. Bartholomews, at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was, were like to be left destitute of such Men? Would Beza, even Beza, at such a time, as that, be for Si∣lencing so many Preachers, i. e. for their sitting quiet, when the Law had done it; And would not he suf∣fer them to Preach, when they ought to have done it, though against the Will of the Queen and the Bi∣shops? It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries, but that he was of the contrary, it appears plainly by this, That before he Perswades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe; and that he expresses no such terrible ap∣prehensions at their quitting their Places, as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws. (2) As to the case of the People, his Advice was, As long as the Doctrine was sound, that they should diligently at∣tend upon it, and receive the Sacraments devoutly, and to joyn Amendment of Life with their Prayers, that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation. So that nothing can be more express against S••parati∣on, than what is here said by Beza: for, even as to the Ministers, he saith, Though he did not approve the Ceremonies, yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves, he doth not think them of that mo∣ment, that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them; or that the People should forsake the Ordinan∣ces, rather than hear those who did Conform. Than which words, nothing can be plainer against Sepa∣ration.* 1.30 And it further appears, by Beza's Resoluti∣on of a case concerning a Schism in the French

Church then in London; That he looked on it as a Sin, for any one to Separate from a Church, wherein Sound Doctrine, and a Holy Life, and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up. And, by Separation, he saith, he means, Not meerly going from one Church to another, but the Discontinuing Communion with the Publick Assemblies, as though one were no Member of them.

Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissen∣ting Brethren at that time, seems to have put an ef∣fectual Stop to the Course of Separation, which they were many of them, then inclined to. But, he was not alone among the Foreign Divines, who, about that time, expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church, notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used.* 1.31 For Gualter, a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches, takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talke of the Difference then about these things; and he extremely blames the Morose humor of those, who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things, and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations. And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely, 1572. he tells him, How much they had disswaded them from making such a stir in the Church, about Matters of no moment: and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church, which they had sent Men on purpose to pos∣sess them with, both at Geneva and other places.

Zanchy,* 1.32 upon great Sollicitation, wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies; but withal he sent another to Bishop Iewel, to perswade the Non-conformists, if the Queen could not be moved, not to leave their Churches on such accounts, which, for

his part, he did not understand how any could law∣fully do; as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel, and Administer the Sacraments, although they were forced to do something therein, which did not please them; as long as the things were of that kind, which in themselves were neither good nor evil. And the same Reason will much more hold against the Peoples S••paration.

Sect. 7. But about this time, the dissenting party much increasing, and most of the old and peacea∣ble Non-conformists being dead, or unfit for business; the management of their affairs fell into the hands of younger and fiercer Men. Who thought their Predecessors too cold in these matters; insomuch, that honest Iohn Fox complained of the Factious and Turbulent Spirit which had then possessed that Party, although himself a Moderate Non-conformist; and he saith,* 1.33 They despised him, because he could not Rail against Bishops, and Archbishops as they did; but if he could be as mad as they, they would be kinder to him. And therefore he soberly adviseth the Governors of the Church to look well after this sort of Men; for, saith he, if they prevail, it is not to be imagin'd, what Mischief and Disturbance they will bring; whose Hypocrisie is more subtle and pernicious then that of the old Monks; for, under a Pretence of Greater Purity, they will ne∣ver give over, till they have brought Men under a Iewish Slavery. These New Men, full of bitter zeal, despised the old trifling Controversie about Garments and Ceremonies, they complained, That all was out of order in the Church, and nothing but a New and Thorough Reformation would please them. For, in the Admonition presented to the Parliament, 14 Eliz.

they complain for want of a Right Ministry, a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures, without which (they say) there could be no right Re∣ligion. The Liturgy they deride, as c••lled and picked out of the Popish Dunghill, the Portuise and Mass-Book; the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops and Bishops they call Devillish and Antichristian; and Condemn the Vocation of the Clergy, as Popish and Vn∣lawful; and add, That the Sacraments are mangled, and profaned, that Baptism is full of Childish and Su∣perstitious Toys. All which, and many more expressi∣ons of a like Nature, are extant in the First and Second Admonitions. Which Bold and Groundless Assertions, being so Openly Avowed to the World, by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party, gave the true Occasion to the following practise of Separation. For when these things were not only published in the name of the Party, being the Pleas for Peace at that time, but stifly maintained with greater Heat, than Learning, It is easie to imagine, what Im∣pressions such things would make on the common sort of People; who have still a good Inclination to find fault with their Governors, especially in the Church, and to Admire those that Oppose them. And these they Courted most, having their Opinions so suited to Vulgar capacities, that they apprehended their Interest carried on together with that of Puri∣ty of Reformation. Hence they pleaded then, as o∣thers do at this day, for the Peoples right to choose their Bishops and Pastors against the Vsurpations, as they accounted them, of Princes and Patrons; hence they railed against the Pomp and Greatness of the Cler∣gy, which is always a Popular Theme; and so would the exposing the inequality of Mens Estates be, if

Men durst undertake it, with as great hopes of im∣punity. Besides, it was not a Little Pleasant to the People, to think, what a share they should come to in the New Seigniory, as they called it, or Pres∣bytery, to be erected in every Parish; and what Au∣thority they should Exercise over their Neighbours, and over their Minister too by their double Votes. By such Arts as these, they complied with the Natu∣ral Humors of the People, and so gained a mighty Interest amongst them; as the Anabaptists in Germa∣ny and Switzerland at first did, upon the like Grounds. Which made Bullinger,* 1.34 in an Epistle to Robert Bishop of Winchester, parallel the Proceedings of this Party here, with that of the Anabaptists with them in those Countries; For, saith he, we had a sort of People here, to whom nothing seemed pure enough in our Re∣formation, from whence they brake out into Separation, and had their Conventicles among us, upon which fol∣lowed Sects and Schisms, which made great enter∣tainment to our Common Enemies, the Papists. Just thus it happened here, these hot Reformers design∣ed no Separation at present; which they knew would unavoidably bring confusion along with it; for, that was laying the Reins on the Peoples ne••ks, and they would run whither they pleased, without any possibility of being well managed by them; but since these Men would Refine upon the present Con∣stitution of our Church, there soon arose another sort of Men, who thought it as fit to Refine upon them. They acknowledged they had good Principles among them, but they did not practise according to them: If our Church were so bad as they said, that there was neither right Ministery, nor right Government, nor right Sacraments, nor right Discipline; What fol∣lows,

say they, from hence, but that we ought to sepa∣rate from the Communion of so corrupt a Church, and joyn together to make up new Churches for the pure ad∣ministration of all Gospel Ordinances? The Leaders of the Non-conformists finding this Party growing up under them, were quickly apprehensive of the danger of them; because the Consequence seemed so Natural from their own Principles; and the People were so ready to believe, that nothing but World∣ly considerations of Interest and Safety kept them from practising according to them. Which was a mighty prejudice against them in the Minds of the Separatists, as appears by Robinsons Preface to his Book of Communion.

Sect. 8. II. The Separation being now begun, the Non-conformists set themselves against it, with the Greatest Vehemency. Which is the second thing I am to make out.* 1.35 As for those of the Separation, saith Parker a Noted Non-conformist, Who have Confuted them more than we? or, Who have Written more against them? And in a Letter of his, he expresseth the greatest Detestation of them. Now it grieved me not a little, at this time, saith he, that Satan should be so impudent, as to fling the dung of that Sect into my Face, which, with all my Power, I had so vehemently resisted, during the whole course of my Ministery in England:* 1.36 I think no other, but that many of them love the Lord, and fear his Name; howbeit their Er∣ror being Enemy to that Breast of Charity, wherewith Cyprian covered his, Qui ab Ecclesiâ nunquam recessit, as Augustin speaketh; they cannot stand be∣fore his Tribunal, but by the Intercession of our blessed Saviour. Father forgive them for they know not what

they do. Think not these words are applyed to their Sect amiss; for, in effect, What doth it less than even persecute the Lord Jesus in his Host, which it revileth; in his Ordinances, which it dishonoreth; and in his Ser∣vants last of all, whose Graces it blasphemeth, whose footsteps it slandereth, and whose Persons it despiseth. And Two Characters he gives of the Men of that way, viz. That their Spirits were bitter above mea∣sure, and their hearts puffed up with the Leaven of Pride. How far these Characters still agree to the Defenders of the present Separation, I leave others to Judge. When Brown and Harrison openly decla∣red for Separation, T. C. himself undertook to An∣swer them, in a Letter to Harrison. His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren, who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown, and the Defence of that Admonition. When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation, Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament, viz. Vnlawful Ministry, Antichristian Government, and False Worship; Gifford, a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex, undertook to Answer them in several Treatises. And it is obser∣vable, that these Non-conformists Charge the Brow∣nists with making a Vile, Notorious, and Damnable Schism, because they withdrew from the Communi∣on of our Churches, and set up New Ones of their own. Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks,* 1.37 but saith, They make a Vile Schism, Rending themselves from the Church of England; and condemning by their Asserti∣ons, the Whole Visible Church in the World, even as the Donatists did of old time: and he adds, That the end of Brownism, as it was then called, is Infinite Schismes, Heresies, Atheism and Barbarism. And the

same Author,* 1.38 in his Second Book, reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People, hath these remarkable words. Now look also on the Peo∣ple, where we may see very many, who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues, and Godly Duties, as namely, to be Meek, to be Patient, to be Lowlie, to be full of Love and Mercy, to deal Vprightly and Iustly, to Guide their Families in the Fear of God, with Whol∣some Instructions, and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them, give themselves wholly to this, even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion, name∣ly, to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church, against Bishops and Ministers, and one against another on both sides. Some are proceeded to this, that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher, but not to the Prayers of the Book, which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose. But yet this is not the worst, for sundry are gone further, and fallen into a Damna∣ble Schism; and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous, in that many do not see the foulness of it, but rather hold them as Godly Christians, and but a little over-shot in these matters. But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists, ap∣pears, by his Stating the Question, in the same Pre∣face. For, I shewed, saith he, in express words, that I do not meddle at all in these Questions, whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church, condemn∣ed by Gods Word; whether they be many or few; whe∣ther they be small or great; but only thus far, whether they be such, or so great, as make our Churches Anti∣christian.* 1.39 Barrow saith, That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petiti∣on to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy:

and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist; and he is joyned with Cartwright, Hildersham, Brightman, and other Non-conformists, by the Prefacer to the Desence of Brad∣shaw against Iohnson:* 1.40 and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time. The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating,* 1.41 who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison, Browns Colleague against Separation, proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty ne∣cessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence, through his being and placing in a particular Church, and just∣ly required of him by the Church, or Spiritual Body, through that same inforcing Law of the coherence, and being together of the parts and members, which is the express Ordinance of God. So that, saith he, unless I hold the Congregation, whereof I am now, disanulled, and become no Church of Christ, for the not separating an unworthy Member, I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises, or yet depart away being come together, without Breach of the Bond of Peace, Sundring the Cement of Love, empair∣ing the growth of the Body of Christ, and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division.* 1.42 To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere.* 1.43 Richard Bernard calls it, An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of. But I need not mention more particular A••∣thors, since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists,* 1.44 in the Name of the Non-conformists, it is said, That because we have a True Church, con••••t∣ing of a Lawful Ministery, and a Faithful People, therefore they cannot separate themselves from us, but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Re∣proach of Manifest Schism.* 1.45 And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation, they

say, We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate, (we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate) as long as they continue in this Schism.

Sect. 9. But, for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie, we must consider, What things were agreed on both sides, and where the Main Points of Difference lay.

1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine, or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound, and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it. In their Apology presented to King Iames,* 1.46 thus they speak; We testifie by these presents unto all Men, and desire them to take knowledge hereof, that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land; but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still.* 1.47 And the Publisher of the Dispute about Sepa∣ration, between Iohnson and Iacob, saith, That the first Separatists never denied, that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England, was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them, to be true Christians, and in the state of Salvation, but always held, professed, and acknowledged the contrary.* 1.48 Barrow saith, That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs, and deemed them saved, notwithstanding the false Offices, and great corruptions in the Worship ex∣ercised:* 1.49 And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death, he saith, He had Reverend estimation of sundry, and good hope of many hundred thousands in England; though he utterly disliked the present Con∣stitution of this Church, in the present Communion, Mi∣nistry, Worship, Government, and Ordinances Ec∣clesiastical

of these Cathedral and Parishional Assem∣blies.

2. The Separatists granted,* 1.50 That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church, for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it. Thus they express themselves in their Apology, Neither count we it lawful for any Mem∣ber to forsake the Fellowship of the Church, for ble∣mishes and imperfections, which every one, according to his Calling, should studiously seek to cure, and to expect and further it, until either there follow redress, or the Disease be grown incurable. And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith, written by Iohnson and Ainsworth, they have these words. None is to sepa∣rate from a Church rightly gathered and established, for faults and Corruptions, which may, and so long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men, will fall out and arise among them, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the redress thereof. But in the case of our Church they pleaded, that the Cor∣ruptions were so many and great, as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church.* 1.51 So Barrow saith, They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election, or from Christ, but from being Members of a True Constituted Church.

On the other side, the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church, but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it, or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary, or lawful. So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions.

• 1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrew the being, or constitution of it.
• 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such, as did overthrow the Constitution of it.

The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Contro∣versie.

1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it.* 1.52 Barrow and his Brethren, did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separa∣tion, unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches. For, here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be; Want of a right gathering our Churches at first; False Worship; Antichristian Ministery and Government: These Reasons, say they, all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ, to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate; especially, when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied, but resisted, blasphemed, persecuted. These are the words of the First, and Chiefest Separatists, who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles. We condemn not, say they, their Assemblies, barely for a mixture of good and bad, which will alwayes be, but for want of an orderly gathering, or constitution at first: we con∣demn

them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry, but for having and reteining a false Antichri∣stian Ministry imposed upon them: we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government, or Dis∣cipline, but for standing subject to a Popish and Anti∣christian Government. Neither refrain we their Wor∣ship for some light imperfections, but because their Wor∣ship is Superstitious, devised by Men Idolatrous, ac∣cording to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book; according unto which their Sacraments, and whole Administration is performed, and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament. So that these poor de∣luded Creatures saw very well, that nothing but such a Charge, which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches (the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound) could justifie their Separation: not meer promiscuous Congregations, nor mixt Communions; not defect in the Exercise of Dis∣cipline; not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Wor∣ship; but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church; as they supposed Idola∣trous Worship, and an Antichristian Ministry to do. If Mr. Giffard,* 1.53 saith Barrow, can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches, then we would shew him how free we are from Schism. The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames,* 1.54 by Ainsworth, Iohnson, and the rest of them. Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus. That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God,* 1.55 ought not, by any true Christian, to be conti∣nued, or Communicated with; but must be forsaken, and separated from; and a true Church sought, and ioyned unto, &c. But the Church of England is be∣fore

proved, not to be the true Church of Christ, and of God, therefore it ought to be separated from, &c. By which we see, the Greatest Separatists that were then, never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches, if they were true. On the other side, those who opposed the Separation, with greatest zeal, thought nothing more was necessary for them, to disprove the Sepa∣ration, then to prove our Churches to be true Churches. R. Brown (from whom the Party received their de∣nomination) thought he had a great advantage a∣gainst Cartwright (the Ringleader of the Non-confor∣mists) to prove the Necessity of Separation, because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church; and therefore since he complained of the want of Dis∣cipline here, he made our Church not to be a true Church, and consequently that Separation was neces∣sary. T. C. Answers,* 1.56 That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation, the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remaining of that which is for∣bidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing, as giveth an utter over∣throw, and turning upside down of the truth. His mean∣ing is, wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed, there no defects or corruptions can over∣throw the being of a True Church, or Iustifie Separati∣on from it. For, he addeth, although besides Faith in the Son of God, there be many things necessary for every Assembly; yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being, and not simply to the being of the Church. And in this respect, saith he, the Lutheran Churches,* 1.57 (which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies) which beside the maym of Discipline, which is common to our

Churches, are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper, are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God.* 1.58 Was not Jerusalem, saith he, after the Return from Babylon, the City of the Great King, until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City? To say therefore it is none of the Church, because it hath not received this Discipline, methinks is all one with this, as if a Man would say, It is no City, because it hath no Wall: or that it is no Vineyard, because it hath neither Hedge, nor Ditch. It is not, I grant, so sightly a City, or Vineyard, nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them; but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards. And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church, his Defender saith, He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church, with respect to Cen∣sures,* 1.59 but as comprehending all the Behaviour concern∣ing a Church in outward Duties, i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People.

Afterwards, as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation, their main Bu∣siness was, To Prove our Churches to be True Churches. As in a Book, Entituled, Certain Positions h••ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of the Gospel, against those of the Separation; which was part of that Book, afterwards Published by W. R. and called, A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists. The Ground-work whereof, as Mr. Ainsworth calls it, is thus laid.

That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ,* 1.60 and such a one, as from which who∣soever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself, Cutteth himself off from Christ.

If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days; those who live in ours, ought well to consider it, if they regard their Salvation.

And, for this Assertion of theirs, they bring Three Reasons.

1. For that they Enjoy, and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means, which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church; i. e. Preaching of the Gospel, and Administration of the Sacraments.

2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith: and Hold and Teach, &c. all Truths Fundamental. So we put their Two Reasons into One, because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith; which, say they, is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church: and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visi∣ble Church, and admitted to the Priviledges thereof, even by the Apostles themselves. So the Church of Per∣gamus, though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it: yet because it kept the Faith of Christ, was still called the Church of God.

3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister, and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship.

When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation, the Position he laid down was this,

That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God. Which he proved by this Argu∣ment.

Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; that is suffi∣cient to make a Company of Men, so gathered together, to be a True Church.

But the whole Doctrine, as it is Publickly Professed, and Practised, by Law in England, is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; and our Publick Assemblies are therein ga∣thered together.

Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assem∣blies True Churches.

And in the Defence of this Argument, against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson, that whole Dis∣putation is spent. And, in latter times, the Dispute between Ball and Can, about the necessity of Separati∣on, runs into this, Whether our Church be a True Church or not; concerning which, Ball thus delivers his Judgment.* 1.61 True Doctrine, in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith, though mix't with Defects and Er∣rors in other matters, not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion, and the Right Administration of Sacra∣ments for Substance, though in the manner of Dispensa∣tion, some things be not so well ordered, as they might and ought, are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church, though somewhat crased in health and soundness, by Errors in Doctrine, Corruptions in the Worship of God, and Evils in Life and Manners.

The Second Supposition which the Non-confor∣mists proceeded on, was,

Sect. 11. (2.) That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and consti∣tution of it.

This will best appear, by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation.

I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery. To which Giffard thus Answers, The Church of England in the time of Popery, was a Member of the Vniversal Church,* 1.62 and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome, nor took not her beginning of being a Church, by Separating her self from that Romish Syna∣gogue; but having her Spirits revived, and her Eyes opened, by the Light of the Heavenly Word, did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist, with his Abomina∣ble Idolatry, Heresies, and False Worship; and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith,* 1.63 and True Service of God; and so is a purer, and more faithful Church than before. Others add, That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church, and so to make a visible Church: Neither were sufficient means want∣ing, in our Case, for the due Conviction of Mens Minds; but then they add, That the Question must not be, Whether the Means used were the Right Means, for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith; but, Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for re∣calling, and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true

Professors, whose Fellowship they had forsaken; which they Iustifie, by the Examples of Jehoshaphat, and Josiah, Asa, and Hezekiah.

II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God, which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers, using Popish Ceremonies, &c.

To this they Answer;

1. That it is evident by the Word, That the Church hath used,* 1.64 and might lawfully use, in God's Worship, and Prayer, a stinted Form of Words: and that not only upon Ordinary, but Extraordinary Occasi∣ons, which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit. Nay, they say, They are so far from thinking them unlawful, that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church, they are many times more fit, than those which are called Conceived Pray∣ers.

2. If Formes,* 1.65 thus devised by Men, be Lawful and Profitable, What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church, to Command, that such Fo••ms be used; or, for us, that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them, to use them? unless they will say, That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word, Receive the Sa∣craments, Believe the Trinity, and all other Articles of Faith, because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do: Whereas indeed, we ought the rather to do good things, that are agreeable unto the Word, when we know them also to be commanded by the Magi∣strate▪

3. It is true,* 1.66 the Non-conformists say, The Li∣turgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship; for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy. A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil; we cannot more credit the Man of Sin, than to say, That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichri∣stian, for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ, to read the Scri∣ptures, to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation. Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all shew and apperance of Evil; though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations—But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book, how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass, that both cannot possibly stand together? Yea, so many points, saith B••ll, are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery, that it is not possible Popery should stand, if they take place. And, saith he, it is more proper to say, the Mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book: for most things in our Common Prayer, were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church, long before the Mass was heard of in the World.

4. As to the Fasts, and Feasts, and Ceremonies re∣tained, they Answer, That what was Antichristian in them, was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome, which being taken away by the Reformation, the things themselves are not Anti∣christian.

As namely,* 1.67 saith Giffard, the Remission of Sins, and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting▪ which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church; the Worship and In∣vocation of Saints and Angels;* 1.68 the Power of expel∣ling Devils by the Sign of the Cross, and such like things, which the Papacy is full of, but rejected by us.

III. That our Ministery was Antichristian. To this they Answer.

1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture,* 1.69 not by his unlawful outward Calling, or Office, that he should exercise in the Church; but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach; and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp, to give Laws to Mens Consciences, and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God. Which two Marks of Antichrist, as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy, so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised, were faulty, and unwarrantable by the Word, yet you in your own Con∣science know, that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers. For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine; and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience; neither is any thing among us urged to be done, upon pain of Damnation, but only the Word and Law of God.

2. That the Office,* 1.70 which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood, is the very same in substance with the Pa∣stors Office described in the Word;* 1.71 and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office, which the Law al∣loweth, is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord. Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to

Teach diligently? so, by our Laws, he is expresly charg∣ed at his Ordination to do, and forbidden to Teach any thing, as required of necessity to Salvation, but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and pro∣ved by the Scripture: yea, it Commandeth him, with all faithful diligence, to banish, and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines, that are contrary to Gods VVord. Doth the VVord Authorise him, to Ad∣minister the Sacraments? So doth our Law. Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only pub∣lickly Teach, but also oversee, and look to the Peoples Con∣versation, Exhorting, Admonishing, Reproving, Comfor∣ting them as well privately as publickly? So doth our Law. Lastly, Doth the VVord Authorise the Mi∣nister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ? our Law doth also command the same. So that, although many, to whom the execution of these things appertain, do grievously fail in the practice there∣of, yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister, is the same in substance, with that which the VVord layeth upon him. Tell us not then, That the same Name is given to our Office, as to the Popish Sacri∣ficers. Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists? And, Shall the Holy Office and Calling, which is so agreeable to the VVord, be misliked, because it is called a Priesthood? considering, that though it agree in Name, yet it differeth in Nature and Su••stance as much from the Romish Priesthood, as Light doth from Darkness.

IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church. To which they Answer.

1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordi∣nances of Christ,* 1.72 which concern the Discipline of his Church, and the outward calling of his Ministers, is no such sin, as can make either the Ministers, or Gover∣nors of our Church Antichrist, or our Church an Anti∣christian and False Church. And Mr. H. adds, That no one place of Scripture can be found, wherein he is called an Antichrist, or Antichristian, who holding the Truth of Doctrine, and professing those Articles of Re∣ligion that are Fundamental, as we do, doth swerve, either in Iudgment, or Practice, from that Rule, which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church. Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scri∣pture, whose Doctrine is sound. If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound, VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists? If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation, through no other door than Christ, How dare you, that say you are Christ's, refuse to be guid∣ed by them? If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock, How can you deny them to be True Churches?

2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us;* 1.73 in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord, and Administration of Sacraments, as well as the Censures of Admonition, Suspension, Excommunication, and Pro∣vision for the Necessity of the Poor; which, say they, by Law, ought to be in all our Assemblies; and there∣fore we cannot justly be said to be without the Disci∣pline of Christ; but rather that we having the Disci∣pline of Christ; which is most substantial, do want the other, and so exercise it not rightly, that is to say, not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed. And far∣ther they add, That the Laws of our Land do Autho∣rize

the Minister to stay from the Lords Table, all such as are Vncat••chised,* 1.74 and out of Charity, or any otherwise publick offenders; as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion, and in that which is after Confirma∣tion.

3. That although it were granted,* 1.75 That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures, and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by, yet might we be a True Church notwithstand∣ing: as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat, yet was not the Discipline Re∣formed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign. The Church of Corinth was a True Church, even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline. The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church,* 1.76 before the Discipline was established there. And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline (for want whereof they Condemn us) were established there; yea, it is evi∣dent, that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time, before the Dis∣cipline was setled, or exercised: by all which it is mani∣fest, that how necessary soever those parts of the Disci∣pline (which we want) be, to the Beauty and Well-be∣ing, or preservation of the Church; yet are they not necessary to the being thereof; but a True Church may be without them.

4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Con∣sent of the Christian Magistrate,* 1.77 and Governors of the Church:* 1.78 Nay, they declare, that in so doing, they should highly offend God. Giffard saith, That the Fetters and

Chains, can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brow∣nists, then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience, and the Fear of God, from presu∣ming to take upon them Publick Authority. And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together, and choose a Minister and Ordain him, it would make him no more a Minister before God, then if all the Appren∣tices in London, taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor, and Minister an Oath unto him, should make him a Lord Mayor. But of this more afterwards.

V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under (as they speak) an Antichristian Hierarchy. To which they Answer,

First,* 1.79 They deny that our Bishops can be called An∣tichristian, since they do, and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Funda∣mental; yea, some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks, that have gain∣say'd it; some have not only by their Doctrine and Mi∣nistry Converted many to the Truth, but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel.

Secondly, Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke, which they deny; yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church, or Mi••istry under it. Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches, have frequently born such a Yoke, and yet have been the True Churches of God still.

Thirdly. That there is nothing unlawful, or Anti∣christian in the Office of Bishops, if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners, to see that the

Pastors do their Duties. And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church, to cast many particular Churches,* 1.80 under one Provincial, or Diocesan Govern∣ment. Yea, Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this, not only lawful, but expedient, to that degree, that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty, as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches with∣in his Dominions, without it: as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it.* 1.81 But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them, this, saith he, doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations, so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors; which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do, and by the Laws cought to do.

These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness, from the Authors of best reputation on both sides, that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation, between the Old Non-conformists, and the Separatists of that time.

Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times, we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie, by those who were called Independents, and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism, or rigid Separa∣tion.

And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation, or the Steps by which it was carried on; and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way; and what the True State of the Difference was, between the Assembly of Di∣vines,

and the Dissenting Brethren; and how far the Reasons, then used, will hold against the present Separation.

When those who were called Brownists,* 1.82 for the f••eer Exercise of their new Church way, withdrew in∣to the Low-Countreys, they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves. A. D. 1582. Robert Brown, accompanied with Har∣rison a School-Master, and about 50 or 60 Persons, went over to Middleburgh, and there they chose Har∣rison Pastor▪ and Brown Teacher. They had not been there Three Months, but upon the falling out between Brown and Harri••on, Brown forsakes them, and returns for England, and Subscribes, promising to the Arch∣bishop, To live Obediently to his Commands. Concern∣ing whom, Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words: Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins, which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause. Mr. Brown hath cast us off, and that with open, manifest, and notable Trea∣cheries, and if I should declare them, you could not be∣lieve me. Only this I testifie unto you, that I am well able to prove, That Cain dealt not so ill with his Bro∣ther Abel, as he hath dealt with me. Some of the words of Browns Subscription,* 1.83 were these, I do hum∣bly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment, whose Authority, under Her Majesty, I w••ll never resist, or deprave, by the Grace of God, &c. But, being a Man of a Restless, and Facti∣ous Temper, no Promises, or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds; as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered. For, although he promised to frequent our Churches,* 1.84 and to come to

Prayers and Sacraments, yet, living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years, in all that time he never did it; and when he was like to have been question'd for it, he withdrew into another Parish. Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons,* 1.85 but that he accounted no act of Communion; and declared to his Friends,* 1.86 That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons; and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do.* 1.87 Notwithstanding this, he Preach∣ed in Private Meetings, and that in the time of Pub∣lick Assemblies, when he thought fit; Which this Author, though a Non-conformist, and Friend of T. Cs, calls a Cursed Conventicle: who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings, and Iesuitical Aequivocati∣ons in his Subscription.* 1.88 By the Bishops Authority, he said he meant only his Civil Authority; by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God, he un∣derstood the Church of his own setting up;* 1.89 by frequent∣ing our Assemblies according to Law, he meant, the Law of God, and not of the Land: he declared, his Child was Baptized according to Law,* 1.90 but then told his Followers, it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton, of New England, hath this passage concern¦ing Brown. The first Inventor of that way, which is called Brownism, from whom the Sect took its Name, fell back from his own way, to take a Parsonage called I••ourc••; God so, in a strange (yet wise) Provi∣dence, ordering it, that he, who had utterly renoun∣ced all the Churches in England, as no Church; should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them, and it called, A Church. But upon the Dissention at Middleborough, between Brown and Harrison, that Congregation soon broke to pieces. Ainsworth can∣not deny the early Dissentions between Brown and

Harrison, Brown and Barrow, Barrow and Fr. Iohn∣son; but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs; not∣withstanding,* 1.91 as Dr. O. well observes, We are to distinguish between what falls out through the passions of Men, and what follows from the nature of the thing. But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes no∣tice of a Third Cause of these Dissentions, viz. The Iudgment of God upon them. I do see, saith he, the hand of God is heavy upon them, blinding their Minds, and hardening their Hearts, that they do not see his Truth, so that they are at Wars among themselves, and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness.

There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them.

First, Their Invincible Obstinacy.

Secondly, The Scandalous Breaches which follow∣ed still one upon the other, as long as the course of Separation continued; and were only sometimes hin∣dred from shewing themselves, by their not being let loose upon each other; For then the Firebrands soon appear, which at other times they endeavour to cover.

Their great Obstinacy appears, by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood, who being Condemned for Seditious Books, could no ways be reclaimed; rather choosing to Dye, than to Renounce the Prin∣ciples of Separation. But Penry, who suffered on the same account about that time, had more Relent∣ing

in him, as to the business of Separation. For Mr. I. Cotton,* 1.92 of New-England, relates this Story of him, from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham, an eminent Non-conformist; That he confessed, He deserved Death at the Queens hand, for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation, from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches, Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of, yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Sub∣jects whom he had Seduced; and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands. These are Mr. Cotton's own words.* 1.93 Concerning Barrow, he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth, that when he stood under the Gibbet, he lift up his eyes, and said, Lord, if I be deceived, thou hast deceived me. And so being stopt by the hand of God, he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more, either to the Glory of God, or Edification of the People. These Execu∣tions extremely startled the Party, and away goes Francis Iohnson with his Company to Amsterdam; Iohnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Ana∣baptism,* 1.94 and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government. In short, they fell to pieces, separa∣ting from each others Communion:* 1.95 some say, They formally Excommunicated each other; but Mr. Cotton will not allow that, but, he saith, They only withdrew: yet those who were Members of the Church do say, That Mr. Johnson and his Company, were Accur∣sed, and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company: and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoid∣ed by Mr. Johnson and his.* 1.96 And one Church receiv∣ed the Persons Excommunicated by the other, and so became ridiculous to Spectators, as some of them∣selves confessed. Iohnson and his Party charged the

other with Schism in Separating from them:* 1.97 But, as others said, who returned to our Church; Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson, than for him to refuse and avoid the Commu∣nion of all True Churches beside? But the Difference went so high, that Iohnson would admit none of Ains∣worth's Company without Re-baptizing them;* 1.98 Ains∣worth, on the other side, charged them with woful Apostasy:* 1.99 And one of his own Company said, That he lived and died in Contentions. When Robinson went from Leyden, on purpose to end these Differen∣ces, he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People; Which, with Mr. Ainsworths Maintenance, was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-Governm••nt.* 1.100 Smith, who set up another Separate congregation, was Iohnson's Pupil, and went over, In hopes, saith Mr. Cotton,* 1.101 to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation; but he was so far from that, that he soon outwent him: and he charges the other Sepa∣rate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England, viz. (1.) Idolatrous Worship; for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry,* 1.102 in Reading of Prayers; he thought them equ••lly guilty in looking on their Bibles, in Preaching and Singing. (2.) An∣tichristian Government, in adding the Human Inven∣tions of Doctors, and Ruling Elders: which was pul∣ling down one Antichrist, to set up another; and if one was the Beast, the other was the Image of the Beast. Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches, he be∣gan one wholly new, and therefore Baptized himself. For,* 1.103 he declared, There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists. But this New Church was

of short continuance, for, upon his Death, it dwind∣led away, or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism. And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation; and so in all probability there had; had not Mr. Robinson of Ley∣den abated much of the Rigor of it; for he asserted, The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer,* 1.104 but not in Sacra∣ments and Discipline. The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him. So that the present Separatists, who deny that, are gone beyond him, and are fallen back to the Principles of the Ri∣gid Separation. Robinson succeeded (though not im∣mediately) Iacob, in his Congregation at Leyden, whom some make the Father of Independency.* 1.105 But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church, it spread into New England; for Mr. Cotton saith, They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth; and that Model was followed by other Churches there; at Salem, Bo∣ston,* 1.106 Watertown, &c. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth, That Robinson's Denyal of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches (either by reason of their mixt corrupt matter, or for defect in their Cove∣nant, or for excess in their Episcopal Government) was never received into any heart, from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State.* 1.107 And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams, he hath these words, That upon due consideration he cannot find, That the Principles and Grounds of Reform••tion do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches, as false Churches; from their Ministery as a false Ministry; from their Worship as a false Worship; from all their Professors as no visible Saints: Nor can I find, that they do either necessarily, or probably conclude a Separation from

Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England.* 1.108 Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice; for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches, yet by his Actual Separation from them, he shewed, that really he did not; and he adds, that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puri∣tan Principles; saying, That Mr. Can hath unanswer∣ably proved,* 1.109 That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies, and profane∣ness of People professing Christ, and the necessity of Christ's Flock and Disciples, must necessarily, if truly followed, lead on to, and inforce a Separation. Notwith∣standing all this, Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawful∣ness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches; but then, he saith, There is no Church Communion in Hearing,* 1.110 but only in giving the Seals. Mr. Williams urgeth, That there is Communion in Doctrine, and Fel∣lowship of the Gospel.* 1.111 Upon which, Mr. Cotton grants, That though a Man may joyn in Hearing, and Prayer, before and after Sermon; yet not as in a Church-state. Yet, after all, he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches. But, if they remain true Churches, it appears from the former Discourse, they can never justifie Separation from them; upon the Principles of either Party. So that though those of the Congre∣gational Way seem to be more moderate, as to some of their Principles, then the old rigid Separatists; yet they do not consider, that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable. The Dis∣senting Brethren, in their Apologetical Narration, to avoid the imputation of Brownism, deliver this as their Judgment, concerning our Parochial Churches.

And for our own Congregations,* 1.112 viz. of England, we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World, that all that Conscience of the Defilements, we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them, or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors ex∣ercised therein, did never work in us any other thought, much less opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assem∣blies, and Parochial Congregations thereof, were the True Churches and Body of Christ, and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery: much less did it ever enter in∣to our hearts, to Iudge them Antichristian; we saw, and cannot but see, that by the same reason, the Churches abroad in Scotland, Holland, &c.(though more Re∣formed) yet for their Mixture, must be in like man∣ner Iudged no Churches also; which, to imagine, or con∣ceive, is, and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts. Yea, we have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with Defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof; and when our selves had least, yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons, that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren; but then the difficulty returns with greater force; How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful? If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles, all the Dispute had been a∣bout the truth or falshood of them; but their truth being supposed, the necessity of Separation followed; whereas now, upon altering the State of the Contro∣versie by the Independents, though their Principles seem more Moderate, yet their Practice is more Un∣reasonable. It is therefore a vain pretence used at

this day, to justifie the Separation, That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches, and that therein they differ from the old Separatists; It is true▪ in that Opinion they do; but in Separation they agree, which is the more unjustifiable in them, since they yield so much to our Churches. And yet herein, whatever they pre••end, they do not exceed their Independent Brethren, whose Separation themselves Condemned. But the Presbyterians were then unsa∣tisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Bre∣thren, and thought, it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism;* 1.113 because (1.) They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government, Which, they say, is inconsistent with the Civil Peace; as may be seen, say they, in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam, and Rotterdam; and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there. (2.) They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches, as the Separatists did, and think such a Confinement Unlawful. (3.) They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members, as the Separatists did: Whereby, say they, they confound the Visible, and Invisible Church, and make the same essential form of both. (4.) They renounce the Ordination received in our Church, but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry, is, by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call, grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant, with such a Man as their Pastor. For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church, after the New Model, at Rotterdam, Ward was chosen Pastor, and Bridges Teacher, but they both Renounced their Ordination in England; and some say, They

ordained one another; others, That they had no other Ordination, than what the Congregation gave them.

Sect. 13. And now, new Congregations began to be set up in Holland, upon these Principles; but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former. Simp∣son renouncing his Ordination, was admitted a pri∣vate member of the Church at Rotterdam; but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church, and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members, as to the exercise of Prophe∣cying; and so he, and those who joyned with him, complaining of the Mischief of Impositions, were ready for a Separation, if that restraint were not speedily removed. Mr. Bridge yields to the thing, but not as to the time, viz. On the Lords Day af∣ter Sermon; this gives no satisfaction, for they must have their will in every thing, or else they will ne∣ver cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions. And so Mr. Simpson,* 1.114 and his Party, set up a New Church of their own: Which I. Goodwin doth not deny; for Mr. Simpson, saith he, upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church, whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor, might seek and make a departure from it. But were these Churches quiet, after this Separation made?* 1.115 So far from it, that the contentions and slan∣ders were no less grievous, saith Baylie, than those of Amsterdam, betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons follow∣ers▪ But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness? No, but in stead of that, they were so full of Bitterness,* 1.116 Reproaches, and hard Censures, that Mr. Br••dge often declared, If he had known at first, what he met with afterwards, he would never have come amongst them, nor being amongst them, have given them such scope

and liberty, as he had. It seems at last, he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions, and the mis∣chief of a Separating dividing humor. But the Peo∣ple having the Power in their hands, were resolved to shew, that they held it not in vain; for Mr. Ward, had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregati∣on, by Preaching the same Sermons there, which he had Preached before at Norwich; this, and some other frivolous things, were thought Intolerable Impositi∣ons; and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge, they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery. This be∣ing a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government, gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren: which occasion'd a Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches (as they called them) for closing up of this wound; but they durst not search deep into it, but only skinn'd it over, to pre∣vent the great reproach and scandal of it. From these things, the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing;* 1.117 and of not leaving all to Conscience. For, say they, Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism, where divers Members left the one Church, and joyned to the other, so disorder∣ly, wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge; yet as that could not then be prevented, so there had been many Meetings, Sermons, and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off, by a Re-union of the Churches, and yet the way to do it could never be found, till the Magistrates Authority and Com∣mand found it. These things I have more fully de∣duced; Not, as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it; but, to shew (1.) That Popular Church Government naturally

leads to Divisions, and leaves them without Re∣medy; and (2.) That humerous and factious Peo∣ple will always complain of the Mischief of Impositi∣ons, though the things be never so just and reaso∣nable; and (1.) That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience, will unavoidably lead Men into Confu∣sion: For when Men once break the Rules of Or∣der and Government in a Church, they run down the Hill, and tumble down all before them. If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions, the Mem∣bers of their own Churches, may on the same grounds, complain of theirs; and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents, as to the Pretence of Con∣science; so it is impossible for either, or both of them, to Answer the Anabaptists, who have as just a Plea for Separation from them, as they can have from the Church of England.

Sect. 14. From hence we find, that, although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest, as to themselves; yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience, the Pres∣byterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms, which immediately overspread this City and Nation: which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most ••••inent Presbyterians of that time. Thence 〈…〉〈…〉,* 1.118 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian, said, That he verily believed, Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies: Yea, I add, saith he, That by consequence, it is much worse than Pop••ry.

Then••e the Scotch Commissioners,* 1.119 in the first place, pres••ed Vniformity in Religion, as the only means to

preserve Peace, and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles; a thing very becoming the King to promote, according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah; and a thing which, they say, all sound Divines and Politicians are for.

Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons,* 1.120 That our Church was laid waste, and exposed to confu∣sion, under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences: and that, to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity, in God's way, is not to force the Conscience; but to set up God in his due place, and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life.

The Errors and Innovations,* 1.121 under which we groaned so much of later years, saith Mr. Case, were but Tole∣rabiles Ineptiae, Tolerable Trifles, Childrens Play, com∣pared with these Damnable Doctrines, Doctrines of Devils, as the Apostle calls them: Polygamy, Arbi∣trary Divorce, Mortality of the Soul; No Ministry, no Churches, no Ordinances, no Scripture, &c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience, and such Lawless Separation of Churches, &c.

The Famous City of London is become an Amster∣dam,* 1.122 saith Mr. Calamy, Separation from our Churches is Countenanced, Toleration is Cried Vp, Authority asleep. It would seem a wonder, if I should reckon how many separate Congregations, or rather Segrega∣tions there are in the City; What Churches against Churches, &c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted, many are hindred from Conversi∣on,

and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives. The Lord keep us, saith he, from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration. A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government, bringeth in Con∣fusion, and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism.

Diversity of Religion,* 1.123 saith Mr. Matthew Newco∣men, disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men, and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds, Iealousies, Sedi∣tions, Wars, if any thing in the World be; and in a little time, either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church, or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State: i. e. either Religion in the Church is pre∣judiced by Civil Contentions, or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars. Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens; and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments.

These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time, concerning the dangerous effects of that To∣leration which their Independent Brethren desi∣red.

The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches, and particular∣ly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms, published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves, wherein (as is said be∣fore) they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism; declaring, That they look∣ed

on some of our Churches as True Churches, and our Mini∣stery, as a true Ministery; but yet they earnestly desire liberty, as to the Peaceable practice of their own way.

To this the Presbyterians Answered,

First,* 1.124 That they did not understand by them, in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches.

Secondly, If they did, what Necessity there was for any Separation, or what need of Toleration.

As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches; either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity, as many of our Divines, say they, grant it to the Romish Church; That she is a True Church, as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Wo∣man; and then they thank them for their Favour, that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome: or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches, and then, say they, Why do ye not joyn with us, and Communicate as Brethren? Why de∣sire ye a Toleration? Yes, say the Dissenting Brethren, we own you to be True Churches, and Communicate with you in Doctrine. To which the others reply'd, If you own it by External Act of Communion, ye must Com∣municate with us in Sacraments: but this ye refuse; therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Se∣paration. For where there was such a refusal of Communion, as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own,* 1.125 there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brow∣nists. And, as Mr. Newcomen urged them, their agree∣ing

with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental, their holding one Head, and one Faith, doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity, and downright Schism, as long as they hold not one Body, one Bap∣tism. For when Men make different Assemblies, and Congregations, and draw Men into Parties, it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism, as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza. Of which afterwards.

But still they denied themselves to be Brownists, or Rigid Separatists, because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches, and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian, and from our People as no Visible Christians.

To which the other Replyed, That there was al∣ways a Difference among the Separatists themselves, some being more rigid than others; and as to the last Clause, none since Barrow had owned it. But, for the rest,* 1.126 only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian; and by Ordinances, understanding Church-Ordinances, they own the very same Principles as the others did. And although in words they seem to own our Paro∣chial Congregations to be true Churches; yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists, touching Church-Constitution, Matter, Form, Power, Government, Communion, Corruptions, &c. The conse∣quence must be, say they, that we have no true Churches, and that our Ordinances are all unlawful. And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation,* 1.127 by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches, their Separation is so much the more culpable, and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism. For, it is a greater

sin, saith Bayly, to depart from a Church, which I profess to be True, and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be sa∣ving, than from a Church which I conceive to be False, and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God; nor any Blessing from his hand.

So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things.

First, For refusing Communion with those Churches, which they confessed to be true Churches. For, say the Members of the Assembly,* 1.128 Thus to depart from True Churches, is not to hold Communion with them as such, but rather by departing, to declare them not to be such.

Secondly, For setting up different Congregations, where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine.

Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie a∣bout Separation, between the Divines of the Assembly, and the Independents, I shall here give a fuller ac∣count of it from the Debates between them.

The desire of the Independents, as it was propo∣sed by themselves at the Committee for Accommoda∣tion, Dec. 4. 1645. was this,

That they may not be forced to Communicate as Mem∣bers in those Parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness, and yet out of ten∣derness

of Conscience, cannot Communicate in their Pa∣rishes, but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations.

To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered, Decemb. 15.

This Desire is not to be granted them, for these Reasons.

1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule; as if in nothing it were to be com∣plied with; nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing, which should argue Church-Com∣munion. More could not be said, or done, against False Churches.

2. It plainly holds out, The lawfulness of gather∣ing Churches out of true Churches, yea out of such True Churches, which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God; whereof we are as∣sured, there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God.

3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church, still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule, which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going a∣way, and those whom they leave; and again, be∣tween the Church that should be forsaken, and that to which they should go.

Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons.

To the First Reason, they say, (1.) That ga∣thering into other Congregations such, who cannot, out of tenderness of Conscience, partake as Members in their Churches, for the purer enjoyment (as to their Conscien∣ces) of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches, is far from Separation, much less a plain and total Separation. And this is not set∣ting up Churches against Churches, but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment. For, say they, if the purest Churches in the World (unto our Iudgment, in all other respects) should Impose as a Condition of re∣ceiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, any one thing; that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in (as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving, which was the case of Scotland and England) if they remove from these Churches, and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches, to enjoy this and other Or∣dinances, this is no Separation.

(2.) That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule, unless they Wholly in all things differ, by set∣ting up altogether different Rules of Constitution, Wor∣ship and Government; but they shall practice the most of the same things; and these the most substantial, which are found in the Rule it self.

(3.) That they would maintain Occasional Commu∣nion with their Churches, not only in Hearing and Preaching, but Occasionally, in Baptising their Children in their Churches, and receiving the Lords Supper there, &c.

And, Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism? Not agreeing in the main

things? Not owning their Churches to be true? Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them? Let us hear, what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this.

Thus they Answer,

First, That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear, or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular, wherein Men conceive they can∣not hold Communion without sin, yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript, as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God, of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Sepa∣rate Churches out of True Churches, to be one.

Secondly, It is one thing to remove to a Congrega∣tion which is under the same Rule, another to a Con∣gregation of a different Constitution from the Rule; in the former case a Man retains his Membership; in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon dif∣ference of Judgment, touching the very Constitu∣tion of the Churches, from and unto which he re∣moves.

Thirdly, If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member, he must forbear to do it, yet without Separation. They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion, to be unlawful, either in England, or Scotland, did not Separate, or Renounce Membership, but did, some of them, with Zeal and Learning, de∣fend our Church against those of the Separation.

Fourthly, The Notion of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State, but by the Word of God.

Fifthly, To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike, when Opposition or Offence offers it self, is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense.

Sixthly, A total difference from Churches is not ne∣cessary to make a total Separation; for the most ri∣gid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship, and Government with our Brethren; and under this pre∣tence, Novatians, Donatists, all that ever were thought to Separate, might shelter themselves.

Seventhly, If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once, a second, or third time, without sin, we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin; and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless. To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin, seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation.

To the Second Reason, The Dissenting Bre∣thren gave these Answers.

1. That it was founded upon this supposition, That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate: Which the Divines of the Assembly denied; and said, It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness, to tolerate

gathering of Churches out of true Churches: which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful.

2. That if after all endeavors, Mens Consciences are unsatisfied, as to Communion with a Church, they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion; or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches; or if there be none such to gather into Churches.

To which the Divines of the Assembly Re∣plied.

I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due.

II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England; and they have as just ground to de∣ny it as they.

To the third Reason they Answered.

First, That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches; that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State, nor debated by the Assembly.

To which the others Reply;

That if the word Schism had been left out, the Reason would have remained strong, viz. That this would, give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church, still drawing away Churches from under the Rule. And to give countenance to an unjust, and

causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion, is not far from giving countenance to a Schism; especially when the grounds, upon which this Separation is de∣sired, are such, upon which all other possible scru∣ples, which erring Consciences may, in any other case, be subject unto, may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence, and so this Toleration being the first, shall indeed but lay the foundation, and open the Gap, whereat as many Divisions in the Church, as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men, shall, upon the self-same Equity be let in.

Secondly, This will give Countenance only to God∣ly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification, who cannot otherwise, without sin, enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ; yet so, as not con∣demning those Churches, they joyn not with, as false; but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints, as Members of the Body of Christ, of the Church Catholick; and joyn also with them in all du∣ties of Worship, which belong to particular Churches, so far as they are able; and if this be called Schism, or Countenance of Schism, it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures, or any approved Authors.

To this, the Divines of the Assembly reply∣ed.

1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Divisi∣on in the Church, and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule. For, upon the same pretence, those who scruple Infant-Baptism, may withdraw from their Churches, and so Separate into another Congregation; and so in that some practice

may be scrupled, and they Separate again: Are these Divisions, and Sub-Divisions, say they, as law∣ful as they may be infinite? or, Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences, as to sa∣tisfie their Scruples, by allowance of this liberty to them? And, Doth it not plainly signifie, that Er∣rors of Conscience is a protection against Schism?

2. The not condemning of our Churches as false, doth little extenuate the Separation: for, divers of the Brownists, who have totally separated in former times, have not condemned these Churches as false; though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judg∣ment against us, yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches, if not as false, yet as impure, eous{que} as that in such Admini∣strations, they cannot be by them, as Members, Com∣municated with, without sin. And when they speak of Communion with us, as Members of the Church Catholick, it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches, as if we were false Churches.

3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this, or that Point, to be Schism, or that every incon∣formity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism, so that Communion be preserved; or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion, or Worship, ex se unlaw∣ful, is Schism: but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion, which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others, and is therefore a Schism in the Body: and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church, wherein Christians did not Separate into divers form∣ed Congregations, of several Communion in the Sacra∣ment

of the Lords Supper Schismes, much more may such Separation as this desired, be so called.

4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating, nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism, which may arise from Errors of Conscience, as well as carnal and corrupt reasons; therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei, will bear it out; and there∣fore we say, that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism.

5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evi∣dence of Reason, and Experience of all Ages, that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Con∣tentions, Strifes, Envyings, Confusions, and so draw with it that breach of Love, which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism, even in the sence of our Brethen.

6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism, but the breaking off Members from their Churches, which are lawfully constituted Churches, and from Communion in Ordinances, &c. without just and suffi∣cient cause, ex natura rei, to justifie such secession, and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Com∣munion, either because of personal failings in the Officers, or Members of the Congregation from which they separate, or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience, which hath been called setting up altare contra altare: from which they quote St. Augustin, and Camenon.

Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation, as it hath been mana∣ged in former times among us. From whence there are these things to be considered by us, which may be of some use in our following Discourse.

(1.) That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England, and did look upon Se∣paration from it to be Sin, notwithstanding the Cor∣ruptions they supposed to be in it. This I have pro∣ved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse; that those who deny it, may, with the help of the same Metaphysicks, deny, That the Sun shines.

(2.) That all Men were bound in Conscience to∣wards preserving the Vnion of the Church, to go as far as they were able. This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists, but by the most rigid Separa∣tists of former times, and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves. So that the lawfulness of Separation, where Communion is lawful, and thought so to be by the persons who Separate, is one of the Newest In∣ventions of this Age; but what new Reasons they have for it, besides Noise and Clamour, I am yet to seek.

(3.) That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not ju∣stifie Separation, although it may excuse Non-commu∣nion in the particulars which are scrupled; provi∣ded that they have used the best means for a right information.

(4.) That where occasional Communion is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Com∣munion with our Churches, and yet forbearing ordi∣nary Communion with them. For, say they, to sepa∣rate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may joyn, seemeth to be a most un∣just Separation.

(5.) That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church, and setting up Congregations for purer Worship, or under another Rule, is plain and down∣right Separation; as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Bre∣thren.

Sect. 16. From all this it appears, that the pre∣sent practice of Separation can never be justified, by the old Non-conformists Principles; nor by the Do∣ctrine of the Assembly of Divines. The former is clear from undeniable Evidence, and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries.* 1.129 For, although they endeavour all they can, to blind the Readers Judg∣ment, with finding out the disparity of some circum∣stances, which was never denied; yet not one of them can deny, that it was their Judgment, That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship, where there was an agreement in Doctrine, and the substantials of Religion, was Vnlawful, and Schismati∣cal. And this was the point, for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon: and it still stands good against them. For their resolution of the case,

doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time, but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches; which must have equal force at all times, although there happen a great variety, as to some circumstan∣ces. For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded, as to one circumstance, or another, the ge∣neral case, as to Separation, is the same: whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required, or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline; if they be such as they pretend to, a necessity of Separation on their Account; it comes at last to the same point. Was it unlawful to desire a Li∣berty of Separate Congregations, as the Dissenting Brethren did, because of some Scruples of Conscience in them? and is it not equally unlawful in others, who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead, although they relate to different things? I will put this case as plain as possible, to prevent all subter∣fuges and slight evasions. Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now, should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations, on the account of very diffe∣rent Scruples of Conscience; one of them pleads, that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy: another saith, His People do not scruple that, but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross, or Kneel∣ing at the Communion; a third saith, If all these were away, yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted, as to matter and form, they must have a Congregation of their own; a fourth goes yet far∣ther, and saith, Let their Congregation be constituted how it will, if they allow Infant-Baptism, they can never joyn with them; nor, saith a fifth, can we, as long as you allow Preaching by set forms, and your

Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses, and such like Human Inventions: Here are now very diffe∣rent scruples of Conscience; but, Doth the nature of the case vary, according to the bare difference of the Scruples? One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit, is Separation on that account lawful? No, say all other Parties against the Quakers; because their scruples are unreasonable. But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism? No, say the Presbyterians and Independents, that is an unreasonable Scruple. Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches, although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship? No, saith the Presby∣terians, this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions, if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation: and if they can joyn occasio∣nally with us, they are bound to do it constantly; or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little: No Man's Erroneous Consci∣ence can excuse him from Schism. If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves, they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei, and not from the meer er∣ror or mistake of Conscience. But, at last, the Pres∣byterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England, and if they do not, either they must de∣sire a separate Congregation, on the account of their Scruples, as to the Ceremonies, and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them. (For the Church of England hath as much occasion to ac∣count those Scruples Vnreasonable, as they do those of the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers,) Or

else they declare, They can joyn occasionally in Com∣munion with our Church, but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Wor∣ship; and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them, with respect to our Church, as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren, with respect to themselves. For no disparity, as to other Circumstances, can alter the nature of this Case; viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull, it becomes a Duty, and Se∣paration a Sin; under what denomination soever the persons pass. For the fault doth not lie in the Cir∣cumstances, but in the nature of the Act; because then Separation appears most unreasonable, when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful. As will fully appear by the following Discourse. Those Men therefore speak most agreeably to their present practice, although least for the honor of the Assembly, who confess,* 1.130 That they were transported with undue heats, and animosities against their Brethren; which deserve to be lamented, and not to be imitated; that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said, nor to be concluded by their Determinations:* 1.131 that it is to be ho∣ped, the Party is become wiser since. This is plain dealing, and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren; and that in a matter wherein they happen∣ed to have the strongest reason of their side. But hereby we see, that those who justifie the present Se∣paration have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists; as to this point of Separa∣tion.

Sect. 17. It remains now, that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles

of their Predecessors, as to private persons underta∣king to reform the Discipline of the Church, and set∣ting up new Churches, against the consent of the Magi∣strate, in a Reformed Church: and particularly, as to the Preaching of their Ministers, when Silenced by our Law's This I am the more obliged to do, because when I said, That I was certain, that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws, is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times, Mr. B. is pleased to say,* 1.132 That my Assertion is so rash and false, in matters of notorious Fact, that it weakeneth his Re∣verence of my Iudgment, in matters of right. I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie, than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact; and if what I said be true, and notoriously true, I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies.

Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism,* 1.133 That Churches are to be set up, and Discipline reform∣ed, without the consent of the Christian Magistrate: Brown maketh many Arguments, saith he, to prove, that Princes are not to be stayed for, nor yet to have to do, by Publick Power, to establish Religion. Which Opinion of his, is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes, and such horrib•• Injury to the Church, con∣trary to the manifest Word of God, that if there were nothing else, it is enough to make him an odious and de∣testable Heretick, untill he shew Repentance. But to clear this matter, he distinguishes, (1.) of Princes that are enemies to Christianity; as they were in the time of the Apostles; to what end, saith he, should they, ha∣ving Authority from Christ, to establish Discipline, sue

unto the Courts of such Princes, or attend their plea∣sure. (2.) Of such who profess Christianity, but are Idolaters. In this case, he saith, they are neither ••ound to forbear Preaching, nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it. (3.) Of such Princes, who own the true Doctrine of Christianity, but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline. In this case he determines, That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience, yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful, or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform: which he there proves, and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary.

In Answer to this,* 1.134 Barrow saith, That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Com∣mandments of God, upon any restraint, or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever; and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles, who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion, if Princes had been to be stayed for, or their restraint been a suffi∣cient let: and adds, That they only, according to Gods Commandment, refrained from their Idolatry, and other Publick Evils, and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner, to Worship the Lord our God, and to joyn our selves together in the Faith, unto mu∣tual Duties, and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church, and for the Church to erect the same.

To the Instance of the Apostles, Giffard had Answer∣ed, That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ, to set up his King∣dom:

but ye have no Commission from God, it is the Devil that hath set you forward; And will ye, in such vile and wretched manner, pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches? Barrow replies, If the Command∣ment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work, though all the Princes of the World resist∣ed; then must the Commandment of the same God, be of the same effect to all other Instruments, whom it plea∣seth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also, though all the Princes in the World should withstand, and forbid the same. By this we see, this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists. Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob. For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with,* 1.135 whom they called the for∣ward Preachers; these are two.

1. That the planting, or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate, and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants, except they have Authority from Earthly Princes; which Doctrine, saith he, is against the Kingly Power of Christ, and three whole Lines of Scripture, which he there puts to∣gether.

2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching, and to forsake his Flock, at the command∣ment of a Lord Bishop: Which Doctrine, he saith, is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more, with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse. But, lest it should be supposed, that these two were among those which Iacob saith, he falsly laid to their charge; we find

both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-con∣formists,* 1.136 who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists. For, say they, As to the Peoples power of Reforming,

First, We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scrip∣ture, for them that are private Members of any Church, to erect the Discipline, no not though the Magistrate and Ministers, who should deal in this work, were altoge∣ther profane and ungodly.

Secondly, We esteem our Prince to be a most Law∣ful and Christian Magistrate, and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ, and therefore we are justly a∣fraid, that by enterprising a publick Reformation, not on∣ly without, but contrary to the direction and liking of them, who by God's word ought to have, if not the one∣ly, yet the principal hand in that work, we should high∣ly offend God.

Thirdly, That for the want of Publick Reformation, the Magistrate is every where blamed, and no where the Church, for ought we can find: Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry,* 1.137 but never for that they plucked it not down, when their Princes had set it up; neither can we find, whether ever the Church, under a Christian Magistrate, was by any Prophet, either commanded to deal (otherwise than by perswasion) in publick Reformation, when the Ma∣gistrate neglected it; or reproved for the contrary.

Fourthly, To the Instance of the Apostles they An∣swer Two things.

I. That though they set up Church-Government with∣out the Magistrates leave; yet not contrary to his li∣king; or when he opposed his Authority directly, and in∣hibited it; they never erected the Discipline, when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates.

II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then, yet would it not follow, that we may do so now; for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church, as the Christian Ma∣gistrate is; neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power, to pull down, and set up Orders in the Church, as the Apostles (those wise Ma∣ster-builders) had.

Fifthly, As to their Ministers Preaching being Si∣lenced, they declare,

1. So long as the Bishops Suspend,* 1.138 and Deprive, ac∣cording to the Law of the Land, we account of the Action herein, as of the Act of the Church, which we may and ought to reverence, and yield unto; if they do other∣wise, we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them. If it be said, the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us, for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insuffici∣ent. We Answer, That it lieth on them to Depose, who may Ordain; and they may shut that may open. And as he may, with a good Conscience execute a Ministery, by the Ordination and Calling of the Church, who is privy to himself of some unfitness (if the Church will press him to it) so may he who is privy to himself, of no fault

that deserveth Deprivation, cease from the execution of his Ministery, when he is pressed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltless person, put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority, may yet continue in it, What proceedings can there be against guilty persons, who, in their own conceit, are alwayes guilt∣less, or will at least pretend so to be; seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudg∣ment, That they are called of God, and may not there∣fore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops?* 1.139

2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects.

First. They that Inhibited the Apostles, were known and professed enemies to the Gospel.

Secondly. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Gospel, which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto, than this of our Bishops, who, though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government, and Re∣formation of the Church, yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached, but are also Preach∣ers of it themselves.

Thirdly. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men, nor by the hands of Men, but im∣mediately from God himself, and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men; whereas we, though we exercise a Function, whereof God is the Author, and we are also called of God to it, yet are we called and

ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men, and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed, and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery.

To this,* 1.140 which I had referred Mr. B. to, he gives this Answer, If Mr. Rathband hath denied this, it had been no proof. Did I ever mention Mr. Rath∣band's Testimony as a sufficient proof? My words are, That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists, as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband. Can any thing be plainer, than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists, and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it? This way of Answering is just, as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament, and another should reply, If Curcellaeus said so, it had been no proof. Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers?

When Fr. Iohnson said,* 1.141 That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery, no not by Lawful Magistrates. Mr. Bradshaw Answered, This Assertion is false and seditious. And when Iohnson saith, That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal; but this, that they ought to obey God rather than Man; which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians. Bradshaw (a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter, and high∣ly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson) gives this Answer.

1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immedi∣ate Calling from God, as the Ground of their refusal, in so many Letters and Syllables, yet that which they do assign, is by Implication, and in effect the same with it. For it is as much as if they had said, God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us, and not Man; and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God, we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us. For, opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man, they therein plead a Calling from God, and not from Man; otherwise, if they had received a Calling from Man, there had been incongruity in the Answer; considering, that in common sense and reason, they ought so far forth to obey Men, forbidding them to ex∣ercise a Calling, as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling. Else, by this reason, a Minister should not cease to Preach, upon the Commandment of the Church, that hath chosen him; but should be bound, to give them also the same Answer, which the Apostles gave, which were absurd. So that by this gross conceit of Mr. John∣son, there should be no Power in any sort of Men who∣soever, to depose a Minister from his Ministery; but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State, the Minister is to continue in his Mini∣stery.

2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit, plainly tending to Sedition, we are to know, that though the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, Preached Pub∣lickly, where they were not hindred by open violence; and did not, nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority, or Commandment whatsoever, be∣cause they did not enter into, or exercise the same upon

the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever; yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Mini∣steries in the Face of the Magistrate, whether they would or no; or in despite of them; but such, in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate, were as private and invisible as might be.

3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden, so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gos∣pel in their places; but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly intended in Silencing of them. But our Churches whereof we are Ministers, are no pri∣vate and secret Assemblies, such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State; but are publick, professing their Worship, and doing their Religi∣on in the face of the Magistrate and State; yea, and by his Countenance, Authority and Protection; and we are set over those Churches, not only by a Calling of our Peo∣ple, but also by the Authority of the Magistrate, who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action; who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Mini∣sters of the Gospel, in those places where he forbiddeth some. If therefore after our publick calling, to Minister to such a known and Publick Church, not by the Church only, but by the Magistrate also, the Magistrate shall have matter against us (whether just or unjust it skil∣leth not) and shall in that regard forbid us to Mini∣ster to our Church; I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word, we should think our selves bound notwithstand∣ing to exercise our Ministery still; except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us, that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate, or to oppose Sword to Sword. And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly, and

against the will of the Church, and should therein sin; yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh, nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate; neither doth she stand bound, in regard of her affection to her Minister (how great and deserving soever) to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate, by leaving her publick standing, to follow his Ministery in private, and in the dark; refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery, which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy.

4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath, by Gods Word, in such a case, so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery, that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live; when in some competent measure they may publickly, with the grace and favor of the Magistrate, enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another: and (except he have a cal∣ling to Minister in some Church) he is to be content to live as a private member, till it shall please God to re∣concile the Magistrate to him, and to call him again to his own Church; labouring mean while privately, upon particular occasions offered, to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God, those People that are deprived of his publick Labour. And I take it to be the duty of the People, in such a Case, if they will approve themselves faithful Christians, and good Subjects, so to submit to the Ministery of another, as that by Prayer, and all o∣ther good, dutiful, and loyal means, they may do their best endeavor to obtain him, of whom, against their will, they have been deprived, and still to affect and love him as their Pastor: now, if the People do thus, then is

that Minister called to be Silent, not only by the Magi∣strate, but by them also, though with much grief.

To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw,* 1.142 all that Mr. B. saith, is, That Bradshaw thought, we should submit to a Silencing Law, where our Ministery was unnecessa∣ry, and so doth he. If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes, he would never have given such an Answer as this. For, Mr. Brad∣shaw never puts the case upon the necessity, or no ne∣cessity of their Preaching, but upon the allowance, or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate. And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity, Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time, than there is now, when him∣self confesseth, several years since, That Thirty years ago,* 1.143 there were many bare Reading, not Preaching Mi∣nisters, for one that there is now? And what was there, which the old Non-conformists more complained of, than the want of a more Preaching Ministery? This then, could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason; and Mr. Baxter, upon second thoughts, cannot be of that opinion.

I have yet one Argument more, to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-confor∣mists; which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformi∣ty in case of Deprivation;* 1.144 Which is, that where two Duties do meet, a greater, and a less, whereof both cannot be done at the same time, the lesser duty must yield unto the greater; but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming, teacheth, and the practice thereof causeth, to neglect a greater

duty for performing of a less; therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine, and a Sin in Practice. The force of which Argument doth necessarily sup∣pose, That Ministers, deprived by Law, are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law's. And to confirm this, several Non-con∣formists undertook to Answer this Argument, and to give an account of the disparity of the case, as to the Apostles times, and ours. For Mr. Sprint had ur∣ged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose, since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery, they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground; to which they Answer; That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do;* 1.145 because their Ministery was of far greater excellency, and usefulness, and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles, than it could be with them. For, say they, What one Mini∣ster of the Gospel is there, that dare be so presumptuous, as to say, That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity, and use for the Glory of God, and good of his Church; as was the Ministery of his Apostles? The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apo∣stles (viz. the planting of the Church, and the Preach∣ing the Gospel to all Nations) was such, as could not have been performed by any other, but the Apostles a∣lone; but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity, there is no such danger, and of their Preach∣ing there can be no such necessity imagined; though they Preach not, the Gospel is Preached still, and that soundly, and fruitfully. Did these Men think, the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel, did reach to their case? Can Mr. B. imagine, that such

Men thought themselves still bound to Preach, al∣though they were silenced by our Laws?

And now, I hope, I have proved that to be evi∣dently True, which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false. But if after all this, Mr. B. will persist, in saying, That he knew those who did otherwise; all that I have to say to it, is, That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance, both of the one, and the other Party (if they were such, as he represents) are not to be the Standard for all the rest; for, it seems, he was not very hap∣py in either.

PART II.

Of the Nature of the Present Se∣paration.

Sect. 1. HAving made it my busi∣ness, in the foregoing Discourse, to shew, How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists; I come to consider, What those Principles are, which they now proceed upon;

And those are of Two sorts.

First, Of such as hold partial, and occasional Com∣munion with our Churches to be lawful; but not total and constant, i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship, and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Com∣munion with us; but yet, they apprehend greater pu∣rity and edification in separate Congregations, and when they are to choose, they think themselves bound to choose these, although at certain seasons they may think it

lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church, as it is now established.

Secondly, Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful, because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful; for which they instance, in the constant use of the Liturgy; the Aereal sign of the Cross; kneeling at the Communion; the observation of Holy-dayes; renouncing other Assemblies; want of Dis∣cipline in our Churches; and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors.

To proceed with all possible clearness in this mat∣ter, we must consider these Three things, 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several par∣ties, with respect to our Church. 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and de∣grees of Separation from it. 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation, is.

I. In General, they cannot deny these three things.

• 1. That there is no reason of Separation, be∣cause of the Doctrine of our Church.
• 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communi∣on, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation.
• 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad.

1. That there is no Reason of Separation, because of the Doctrine of our Church. This was confessed by the Brownists, and most rigid Separatists; as is proved already; and our present Adversaries agree herein.* 1.146 Dr. Owen saith, We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel; and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation, in Confession of the same Faith: And again, The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Reli∣gion,* 1.147 and in a Common Interest, as unto the preservati∣on and defence of the Protestant Religion. Mr. Baxter saith, That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles,* 1.148 as distinct from the form of Government, and imposed abuses. And more fully elsewhere, Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England, when they subscribe to it, and offer so to do?* 1.149 The Independents as well as Presbyte∣rians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Arti∣cles, as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony. We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith,* 1.150 and the Substance of God's Worship, saith the Author of the last Answer. And again, We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith,* 1.151 and Christian Practice, We are one with the Church of England as to the Sub∣stance, and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils, acknowledges, That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles,* 1.152 which was compiled above a Hundred years ago; and this Book some Men call the Church of England. I know not who those Men are, nor by what Figure they speak, who call a Book a Church; but this we all say, That the Do∣ctrine of the Church of England is contained therein;

and whatever the opinions of private persons may be, this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken: And that no objection ought to be made, against Communion with our Church, upon ac∣count of the Doctrine of it; but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church.

2. That there are in effect no new termes of Com∣munion with this Church, but the same, which our first Reformers owned, and suffered Marty••dom for, in Q. Maries days. Not, but that some alterations have been made since, but not such as do, in the Judg∣ment of our Brethren, make the terms of Communi∣on harder than before. Mr. Baxter grants, that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations, even since the additional Conformity, with respect to the late Troubles. The same Rea∣sons then, which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful, must have held against Cranmer, Ridley,* 1.153 &c. who laid down their Lives for the Re∣formation of this Church. And this the old Non-con∣formists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church; because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs; who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church;* 1.154 and in the practice of those things, which some are now most offended at; but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Commu∣nion.

3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad. Which they have not only manifested, by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into

the Harmony of Confessions; but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it, by the most Esteemed, and Learned Writers of those Churches, and by the discountenance which they have still gi∣ven to Separation from the Communion of it. This Argument was often objected against the Separatists, by the Non-conformists; and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book; but the best Answer he gives,* 1.155 is, That if it prove any thing, it proves more than they would have For, saith he, the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church; they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England, as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers; and rejoyce as well for their Sees, as for your Parishes, having joyned these all alike in the••r Harmony. As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church, and Prote∣stant Divines abroad, concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church, so much hath been proved al∣ready by Dr. Durel, and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence, that this ought to be taken as a thing granted; but, if occasion be given, both he and o••hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines, in Ju∣stification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it.

Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation, which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church.

Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations on∣ly in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants. For this I find insisted on, by

almost all my Answerers;* 1.156 Some Parishes, saith one, cannot receive a tenth part, some not half the People, belonging to them, few can receive all. The Parochial Teacher, saith another, is overlaid with a numerous throng of People.* 1.157 The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City, saith a third. And yet not one of these, but assignes such reasons, for the necessity of Separate Congregations, as would equal∣ly hold, if there were never a Church in London, but what would hold all the Inhabitants together. This is therefore but a color, and pretence, and no real Cause. Any one would think, by Mr. Baxter's in∣sisting so very much, on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes, as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations, this were his opinion, that such Con∣gregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes, where they are helps to the Parochial Churches: And no Man denies, that more places for Worship are desireable, and would be very useful, where they may be had, and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them, as in our Parochial Churches; where they may be under the same Inspection, and Ecclesiastical Government; where, upon pretence of greater Puri∣ty of Worship, and better means of Edification, the People are not drawn into Separation. But, is it pos∣sible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike, where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected, the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemn∣ed; and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them, and the Laws? Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster, because it is a very large Parish? Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at

Boston, because there were but three Churches there, to receive all the numerous Inhabitants? If such a number of Churches could be built, as were suitable to the greatness, and extent of Parishes, we should be so far from opposing it, that we should be very thank∣ful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work: but, in the mean time, Is this just and reaso∣nable, to draw away the People, who come to our Churches, under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come? For, upon consideration, we shall find,

(1.) That this is Mr. Baxter's own case. For, if we observe him,* 1.158 although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands, that cannot come into the Temples, many of which never heard a Sermon of many years; and to this purpose he put so many Quaere's to me, concerning the largeness of Pa∣rishes, and the necessity of more Assistants, thereby to insinuate, That what he did, was only to Preach to such, as could not come to our Churches; yet, when he is pinch'd with the point of Separation, then he de∣clares, That his hearers are the same with ours; at least 10 or 20 for one;* 1.159 and that he knows not many (if any) who use to hear him, that Separate from us. If this be true, as no doubt Mr. B. believes it, then what such mighty help, or assistance is this to our great Parishes? What color, or pretence is there from the largeness of them, that he should Preach to the very same persons, who come to our Churches? And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Pa∣rishes, where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches, Then how come they to be lawful, where few or none of those many

thousands ever come at all, but they are fil∣led with the very same Persons, who come to our Parish Churches? These two pretences then are in∣consistent with each other; and one of them cannot hold. For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches, and scarce to any else (i•• any, as Mr. B. sup∣poses) then all the pretence from the large••ess of our Parishes, and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches, is vain and impertinent; and, to Speak Softly, not becoming Mr. Baxter's since∣rity.

(2.) That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case, viz. That he Preached only to such, as could not come to our Churches, it would be no defence of the general pra∣ctice of Dissenters, who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes. As, if it were necessary, might be proved, by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City; and in the adjacent Parishes. Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not; if not, Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them? if they be, Why doth he p••etend the greatness of Parishes to justifie Separate M••etings; when, if they were never so small, they would be lawful however? This therefore must be set aside, as a mee•• color and pretence, which he thought plausible for himself, and invidious to us, though the bounds of our Parishes were ne••ther of our own making, nor is it in our power to alter them. And we shall find, that Mr. B. doth justifie them upon other grounds, which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes, or capacity of Churches. I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon.

Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Pa∣rochial Churches, in some duties, at some Seasons; but not with all Churches, in all Duties, or at all times. These things must be more particulary explained, for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Se∣paration. Which proceeds not so openly and plain∣ly, as the old Separation did; but hath such artifici∣al windings and turnings in it, that a Man thinks they are very near our Church, when they are at a great distance from it. If we charge them with fol∣lowing the steps of the old Separatists, we utterly deny it, for, say they; For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches; they disowned your Mini∣stery and Hierarchy as Antichristian, and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous; but we do none of these things; and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation. To which I Answer,

(1.) There are many still, especially of the Peo∣ple, who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists; of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions, and the Defence of it; and elsewhere. Where he complains,* 1.160 of their Violence, and Censoriousness: their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors; and forcing others to forsake their own judgments to comply with their humors. And, he saith, A sinful humoring of rash Professors, is as great a Temptation to them, as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World. In another place he saith,* 1.161 The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them, but they declare they would be gone from them, if they do use them. And he doth not dissemble, that they do comply with them, in these remarkable words, Should the Mini∣sters in London, that have suffer'd so long, but use any

part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms, though without any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good, What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them? And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distem∣pers. One would think, that their warning had been fair; but, Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam; The Lord have Mercy upon us.

(2.) When the matter is throughly examined, the difference between the Teachers, and the old Separatists, will be found not near so great as is pre∣tended. For what matter is it, as to the nature of Separation, whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous, or Vnlawful; whether the Mini∣stery of our Church be called a False Ministery, or In∣sufficient, Scandalous, Vsurpers, and Persecutors; whe∣ther our Hierarchy be called Antichristian, or Repug∣nant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments, which the old Separatists used, only they are disguised under another appearance, and put into a more fashionable dress. As will be manifest by Particulars.

• (1.) As to the People.
• (2.) As to the Ministry of our Church.

Sect. 4. (I.) Our present Dissenters who dis∣own the old Separation, yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons, as Members of our Church, to be unlawful. For,* 1.162 Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace, hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church. And in the same Book he

saith, It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism, without the Transient Sign of the Cross, or for want of Godfathers, &c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling.* 1.163 Now, if the Church be Schismatical, then those who Separate in these things are not. For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross;* 1.164 and such use of Entitling and Co∣venanting Godfathers, which they take to be no small sin; Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them? We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things, and Mr. B. thinks the Peo∣ple bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them; And what is this but formal Separation? But for all this, Mr. B. may hold, that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical; for, he saith,* 1.165 it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles, Practises, and Persons, if those be not such, and so great, as to necessi∣tate our departure from them. But here Mr. B. saith, There is a necessity of departure, and to joyn with other Pastors; and therefore he must hold a formal Separa∣tion: And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church, that was never done by the greatest Se∣paratists. For they all held Communion in Faith with it: And even Brown, the Head of the old Separatists, thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship; and others thought, they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion, but not in Acts of Church Communion; others thought it law∣ful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers, though not in others; and yet were charged with Se∣paration by the old Non-conformists. And if our pre∣sent Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with

our Church to be unlawful; they must hold a neces∣sity of Separation, or that persons may be good Chri∣stians, and yet be no Members of any Church. For, if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church, they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church, or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours. If they declare them∣selves Members of another Church, they own as plain a Separation, as the old Separatists ever did: if they do not, and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members, then they are Members of no Church at all. So that, if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful; they must either be Sepa∣ratists, or no good Christians upon their own Princi∣ples.* 1.166 For, saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country; this were to exchange visible Christianity, for visible (at least Negative) Paganism. Now, that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Commu∣nion unlawful, they are more forward to declare, than I could have imagined. In my Sermon I mentioned some passages, wherein it seemed clear to me, that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful: But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me; some declaring in express terms, That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful, and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches, and of joyning to other Congregations. And others saying,* 1.167 That such a Concession, viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful, taken in their own sense, will neither do them any harm, nor us any service. For, as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men.* 1.168 1. Many of them declare so, and many declare otherwise—And it's as good

an Argument to prove Communion unlawful, because ma∣ny declare against it, as 'tis to prove it lawful, be∣cause many declare for it. 2. They d••clare Communion lawful, but. D•• they declare Total Communion law∣ful? The same Persons will tell us, that both these Pro∣positions are ••••ue Communion is lawful▪ and Communi∣on is unlawful; Communion in some parts of Worship is so, in others not. And, 3. Th••y will further tell us, That Communion with some Parish chu••ches is lawful, with others unlawful; that there are not the same Do∣ctrines Preached, the same Ceremonies urged, the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted. And lastly, that occasional Communion is, or may be lawful, where a stated and fixed Communion is not so; and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice, because to hold Communion with one Church, or sort of Christians, exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches; and that there are some things tolerable, which are not eligible, wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake, but chuse rather to sit down or∣dinarily with Purer Administrations. Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid toge∣ther.

1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful; and that must be understood of any kind of Communion; for the Second sort, from whom they are distinguish••d, hold total Communion un∣lawful; and therefore this first sort must hold Com∣munion in any parts of Worship unlawful. And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's,

and the New-England way; and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists.

2. Those that do hold Communion lawful, do it with so many restrictions and limitations, that in pra∣ctice it amounts to little more than the other. For First, It is only with some Churches; and those it seems must be such, as do not hold to our Constitu∣tion; for he saith, The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches, nor the same rigid terms of Communi∣on exacted, i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them, they can Communicate with them, i. e. if they break their own Rules, they can joyn with them. Is not this an admirable way of Communica∣ting with our Churches? But, if our Churches hold to their Rule, and observe the Orders prescribed, then it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful. And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England? For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Commu∣nion required by it, they will have no Communion with them.

And Mr. A. delivers this, not only as his own Opinion▪* 1.169 but as the Sense of the Party, That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their Iudgments, about the Lawfulness of Ioyning with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship, or in any exclusive to their joyning with other Assemblies, where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed, they would flatly deny it. And he goes yet further, when he saith, That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Mem∣bers, and from those Pastors, under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them, to

joyn ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches. This is owning a plain and downright Separation, in as clear and distinct words as ever Iohn∣son or Ainsworth did. For, 1. He makes it to be their general sense, That it is unlawful to communi∣cate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly, or to be Members of our Churches: Which is the same thing which they said. 2. He ownes the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours. For he owns other Pastors, other People, and a new Relation between these, by the choice of the one, and the con∣duct of the other. This is no mincing the matter, as Mr. B. often doth; but he speaks it boldly, and with great assurance; and ushers it in with, I have confi∣dence contrary to his. I think no Man doubts of his Confidence, that ever looked into his Book; but in this matter he is so brisk, that he saith, He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall: as though all who gave their Votes there, had owned these Principles of Separation, for which, many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks, and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers.

(II.) All the difference then that seems to be left, is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion. As to which, these things are to be observed. (1.) That it is practised by very few; especially if Mr. A's. Poll be allowed. (2.) That it signifies little, as to this matter, if Men be fixed Members of other Churches. For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence, and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence. For Communion with a Church, is joyning with a Church as

a Member of that Church: And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship, which makes a Man a Member of a Church. I suppose there are many oc∣casionally present at Mr. A's, or Mr. B's Meetings, who renounce all Communion with them. A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church, and that frequently too, to hear Sermons, &c. but, Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome? Most of our Gentlemen who have Travelled abroad, have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship, at Rome and Paris; but they would think themselves hardly dealt with, to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome. And if they be urged with it, they will plead still, They were of the Protestant Communion; and the Reason they will give, is, because they did not joyn with them in all parts of their Worship; not in adoration of the Host, or Worship of Images; and therefore they re∣mained still of the Protestant Communion, although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Po∣pish Service. And Is it not the same case here, If Men only afford an occasional Presence, at some parts of our Worship? How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church, than the like pre∣sence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church? In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign, most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches, in some parts of our Worship; and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church, because they kept their Priests, and had Mass in private, and declared, That though they looked on our Service as tolerable, yet they thought the Roman more eligible; and so having Full Communion with

that, and being only occasionally present at our Ser∣vice, they thought themselves good Catholicks. So, if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eli∣gible, and a better way of Worship; with which they constantly joyn, and alwayes choose to do it, their occa∣sional Presence at our Assemblies, doth not make them Members of our Churches, but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations, if they main∣tain full and constant Communion with them. And none of the formed Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them, for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship; for they say, That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them; but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches, a Submission to all the Rules and Or∣ders among them. The New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Commu∣nion, that scruples Infant Baptism, or refuses to be pre∣sent at the Administration of it; although he be ne∣ver so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them. For not only openly con∣demning and opposing Infant-Baptism, but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use there∣of, or purposely departing the Congregation at the Admi∣nistration of that Ordinance, is liable, by their Laws, to the Sentence of Banishment. And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical In∣terests together, that as none but Church-Members are Free-men among them; so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership. From all this, it ap∣pears, that this new Notion of Occasional Communion, in some parts of Worship. exclusively to others, is dis∣owned by all sorts of Churches; and is a late fancy

taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Sepa∣ration.

Sect. 5. But we here meet with an excellent Rea∣son for the lawfulness of this Occasional Communion with our Churches; viz. because to hold Communion with one Church exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches. Or as Mr. B. expresses it,* 1.170 The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best, for certain seasons, to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship, as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time: though the least defective must be chosen, when no such accidental Rea∣sons sway the other way. From whence we may take notice, (1.) That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church, as they are Members of it, doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it, but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity; by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church, than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches. Only it happens, that our Church is so much nearer to them, than the others are, and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion. But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ie∣rusalem, where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches; and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him, What Church he is Member of? If he should Answer, He could have occasional Communion with all tolera∣ble Churches, but was a fixed Member of none: Would they take such a Man for a Christian? What, a Christian, and a Member of no Church! That, they

would all agree, was no part of Catholick Christia∣nity. And I much doubt, whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion, that could not tell what Church he was Member of. For, as to the Church of England, he declares, That he holds only occasional Communion with that, as he would do with any other tolerable Churches. But, Were they not Baptized in this Church, and received into Com∣munion with it as Members of it? if so, then if they Communicate no otherwise with it, than as a tolera∣ble defective Church, they must renounce their former Membership; for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it. And if they do re∣nounce their Membership in this Church, their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation. We thank them, that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable, but we cannot see, how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church; so that this great favor of occasional Communion, which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons, and some very good occasions, is not worth the speaking of among Friends; and so far from looking like Communion, that it hath hardly the face of a Civi∣lity.

(2.) That, if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen, as they say, then this occasional Communi∣on cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life: For that is sufficient to shew their true Catho∣lick Principles; and Mr. B. faith, When no such acciden∣tal Reasons do sway, they are to choose the least de∣fective way of Worship; or as Mr. A. speaks, To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations. If then

a Man be bound, out of love to his Soul, to prefer the best way of Worship, and he judges the way of the Se∣parate Congregations to be such, there will arise a dif∣ficult case of Conscience, concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion. For the same Reasons, which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other, will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one, and to for∣sake the other. And why should a Man, that is ac∣quainted with purer Administrations, give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship, and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disor∣derly, and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel; and not reprove her rather, by a total forbearance of her Communion? And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent, and holding fast that which is good, and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together, perswade such a Man, that it is not lawful to leave the best Commu∣nion, meerly to shew, what defective, and tolerable Church he can communicate with? Which is, as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons, to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow; or to leave whol∣som Diet to feed on Mushroms, and Trash.

(3.) That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations, and less defective wayes of Worship. So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way. Suppose some think our Churches tolerable, and Mr. B's. or Mr. A's. Meetings were eligible; but after a while, when the first rellish 〈◊〉〈◊〉. they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Quakers, and then think their way more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable; Are not these

Men bound to forsake them, for the same Reasons, by which they were first moved to leave our Commu∣nion, and joyn with them, unless they be secure, that the absolute perfection of their way of Wor∣ship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind, that it is impossible for them, either to find or fancy any defect in it?* 1.171 Mr. Baxter once very well said, Separa∣tion will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last; it will admit of no consistency. Parties will arise in the Separated Churches, and Separate again from them, till they are dissolved. Why might not R. Wil∣liams of New-England (mention'd by Mr. B.) pro∣ceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem,* 1.172 because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs; as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence? Why might he not go on still re∣fining of Churches, till at last he dissolved his So∣ciety, and declared, That every one should have li∣berty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience? By which remarkable Instance we see, that this Principle, when pursued, will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches.

Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Let∣ter, that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow, and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists, and from them to the Quakers.* 1.173 To which Mr. B. Answers; What harm will it do me or them, if any hearers go from me, as you say, to Dr. O. None, that I know. For, as Dr. O. saith,* 1.174 Since your Practice is one and the same, your Principles must be so also, although you choose se∣veral wayes of expressing them. But, Did the whole

force of my Argument lie there? Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers, upon the very same ground? And, Is this a good way of Answering, to dissemble the main force of an Argument, that something may seem to be said to it? I suppose Mr. B's. great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him. But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better; whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose, that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a thing of such great importance,* 1.175 and Separation so mischievous (as he hath represented it) that the Peoples appre∣hension of a less defective way of Worship, shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces, and to run into wayes of Separation? Hath not Mr. Baxter represented (and no Man better) the Ignorance,* 1.176 Injudiciousness, Pride, Conceited∣ness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion? And after all this, must they, upon a conceit of Purer Administrations, and Less Defective Wayes of Worship, be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces; and run from one Sepa∣rate Congregation to another, till they have run themselves out of breath, and left the best parts of their Religion behind them? How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People,* 1.177 and the Pernicious consequen∣ces of complying with them? and, Must the Reins be laid in their Necks, that they may run whither they please? Because, forsooth, they know better, what is good for their Souls, than the King doth; and they love their Souls better than the King doth,* 1.178 and the King cannot bind them to hurt, or Famish, or en∣danger their Souls. But, Why must the King bear

all the blame, if Mens Souls be not provided for ac∣cording to their own wishes? Doth the King pre∣tend to do any thing in this matter, but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church? Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament? And why did he not put it as it ought to have been, that they know what makes better for their own Edification, than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament, and the Governors of this Church do: and let them make what Law's and Orders they will, if the People, even the rash and injudicious Pro∣fessors, as Mr. B. calls them, do think other means of Edification better, and other wayes of Worship less defective, they are bound to break through all Laws, and to run into Separation. And, How is it possible, upon these terms, to have any Peace, or Order, or any establish'd Church? I do not remember, that any of the old Separatists, no not Barrow, or Iohnson, did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation, as these are. The Brownists declare, in their Apology, That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions,* 1.179 which may, and will fall out among Men, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the re∣dress thereof. Where a Church is rightly constituted, here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men, although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers, than either Iohnson, or Ainsworth. The ground of Sepa∣ration with them, was the want of a right constituted Church; if that were once supposed, other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation.* 1.180 In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England, it is said, That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please, nor without

just and weighty cause: Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body.

Those just Reasons are,

• 1. If a Man cannot continue without sin.
• 2. In case of Persecution.

Not one word of better means of Edification. For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations, and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences; lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion. So in their Declaration at the Savoy, they say,* 1.181 That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship, ought not lightly, or without just cause, to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church, whereunto they are joyned.

And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes.

1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin: and that in Three cases.

First, Want of Ordinances.

Secondly, Being deprived of due priviledges.

Thirdly, Being compelled to any thing in practice, not warranted by the Word.

2. In case of Persecution.

3. Vpon the account of conveniency of Habitation.

And in these Cases, the Church or Officers are to be consulted, and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church. No allowance here made of forsaking a Church, meerly for greater means of E∣dification. And how just soever the reason were, they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Of∣ficers,* 1.182 and to tell them why they depart. And Mr. Burroughs condemns it, as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church. Yet this is now the main support of the present Separati∣on; and meer necessity hath driven them to it; for either they must own the Principles of the old Sepa∣ratists, which they are unwilling to do, or find out others to serve their turn; but they are such, as no Man, who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church, can ever think fit to maintain, since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and con∣fusion, as Mr. Burroughs truly observed. But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations? since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches;* 1.183 That for his part, he hath sel∣dom heard any, but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London, where he hath been; but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Schol••rs, or judicious Hearers, than to such as need more Practi∣call Subjects, and a more plain, familiar, easie method. Is this the truth of the case indeed? Then, for all that I can see, the King is excused from all blame in this matter; unless it be a fault to provide too well for them. And, Is this a good ground for Separation, that the Preaching is too good for the People? Some Men may want Cau∣ses to defend, but at this rate they can never

want Arguments. Yet, methinks, the same Men should not complain of starving, and famishing Souls, when the only fault is, that the Meat is too good, and too well dressed for them. And on the other side, hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preach∣ers?* 1.184 and that he really fears, lest meer Non-Confor∣mists have brought some into reputation as conscientious, who, by weak Preaching, will lose the reputation of be∣ing Iudicious, more than their silence lost it. And a∣gain, But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation. To which he adds, But the Grand Calamity is, that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited, and none so com∣monly give way to their Ignorant Zeal, to Censure, Backbite, and Reproach others, as those that know not what they talk of. Let now any Reader judge, whe∣ther upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself, their having better means of Edification, can be the ground of leaving our Churches, to go to Separate Congregations, unless injudiciousness, and self-con∣ceited confidence and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities, and to some pur∣poses, than judicious and well studied Sermons.

This Argument must therefore be quitted; and they who will defend the present Separation, must return to the old Principles of the Separatists, if they will justifie their own practices. And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do; for discerning▪ that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self, he adds more weight to it, and that comes home to the business;* 1.185 viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for

Separation, and the very same, which Barrow, and Greenwood, and Iohnson, and Smith, and Can used. Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry; but we are mistaken, if we think they now manage it after the same man∣ner. We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry; but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation, but less fit to justifie it, the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage.

Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Prin∣ciples of our new Separatists, as to the Ministry of our Church; and to discover, how little they differ from the old Separatists, when this matter is throughly enquired into, as to the Argument for Separa∣tion.

I. In General, they declare, That they only look on those as true Churches, which have such Pastors whom they approve. How oft have I told you, saith Mr. B. that I distinguish,* 1.186 and take those for true Churches, that have true Pastors. But I take those for no true Churches, that have,

• 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office.
• 2. Or not truly called to it.
• 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor.

And one or other of these he thinks most, if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under.

You will say then, Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist; and thinks it not lawful to joyn with any of our Paro∣chial Congregations: but this is contradicted by his own Practice.

There lies therefore a farther subtilty in this mat∣ter; for he declares in the same place, he can joyn with them notwithstanding. But how? as true Churches, though he saith they are not? No; but as Chappels and Oratories, although they be not Churches, as wanting an essential part. This will bring the matter to a very good pass, the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chappels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists. This I confess is a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists, and Non-conformists, for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation, if our Churches were not true Churches, and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry. Now, saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches, be∣cause they want an essential part, viz. a true Ministry, yet he can joyn with them occasionally, as Chappels or Oratories. From whence it appears, that he ac∣counts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches, nor doth communicate with them as such; but only looks on them as Publick places of Prayer, to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister, or looking on the Congrega∣tion as a Church. For, where he speaks more fully, he declares, That he looks on none as true Churches, but such as have the Power of the Keys within them∣selves,* 1.187 and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power;* 1.188 and any Parochial Church that hath such a one, and ownes it self to be independent, he al∣lows

to be a true Church, and none else. So that un∣less our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power, in opposition to the pre∣sent Constitution of our Church, as he apprehends, he at once discards them all from being true Churches: but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches; that which I only insist on now is, That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches, or as he calls it, of the Po∣litical Organized Form, as wanting an essential part, viz. a true Pastor. From hence it necessarily follows, either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all; or it must be a Separate Church; or, if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church, he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did, by setting up new Churches in op∣position to ours. It is no sufficient Answer in this case, to say, That Mr. B. doth it not; for we are on∣ly to shew, what he is obliged to do by vertue of his own Principles: which tend to as much Separation, as was practised in former times, and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B.

Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Pa∣rochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches; yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many, that they scarce allow any, from whom they may not lawfully Separate.

1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy, or incompetent, they allow them liberty to withdraw, and to Separate from them. This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others.

First, They 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it in the Peoples Power, notwith∣standing all Lega•• ••stablishments, to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and ••etronage,* 1.189 and the Power of Magistrates in these cases, and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People; as the old Sepa∣ratists did.* 1.190 God, saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scri∣pture, hath given the People that consenting Power, an∣tecedent to the Princes determination, which none can take from them.* 1.191 Mr. A. saith, Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors. Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation.* 1.192 So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places, yet if the People have not owned them,* 1.193 they are at liberty to choose whom they please. How many hundred Congre∣gations,* 1.194 saith Mr. B. have Incumbents, whom the Peo∣ple never consented to; but take them for their hinder∣ers and burden! So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation.

Secondly, The People are made Iudges of the wor∣thiness and competency of their Ministers. This fol∣lows from the former.* 1.195 In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People, saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom, or only the tenth part, it is no Schism, saith he, but a Duty, for those that are desti∣tute, to get the best supply they can, i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent; and it is no Schism but a Duty, for faithful Ministers, though forbidden by Superiors, to perform their Office to such people that de∣sire it. This is plain dealing. But suppose the Ma∣gistrate should cast out some, and put in others; In

that case he saith, If they be Men of uniried and sus∣pected parts of fidelity (of which the People are to be Judges) the Princes imposition doth not make such true Pastors of the Church before, or without the People con∣sent; nor doth it always bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schisma∣ticks, because they do it not.

Thirdly, They give particular directions to the Peo∣ple, what sort of Ministers they should own, and what not. Mr. B. bids the People not think that he is perswading them to make no difference:* 1.196 but after he hath set aside the utterly insufficient, and the heretical (of which the People are admirable Judges) he lays down this general Rule, Any one whose Ministry is such, as tendeth to destruction more than to edification, and to do more harm than good is not to be owned. And if not to be owned so, then he is to be separated from: and although he adviseth the People to lay aside partia∣lity and passion; yet whether they will or not, they are left sole Iudges in this matter. And that we may not think all this to be only a Romantick Scheme, or Fiction,* 1.197 he tells us elsewhere, That they are not able to confute the People in too many places, who tell them that their publick Priests are so defective in their neces∣sary qualifications for their Office, as that they hold it unlawful to own such for true Ministers, and to encou∣rage them by their presence, or commit the care of their Souls to such, i.e. in plain terms, they are encouraged to Separation on this account, which is directly con∣trary to the Principles of the old Non-conformists, as appears at large by Mr. Ball.* 1.198 if, saith he, Can's meaning be, that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worship of God with Ministers not fitly qualified, dis∣orderly

called, or carelesly executing their Office and Function, then it is directly contrary to the word of Truth, sound Reason, and consent of all the Learn∣ed. With much more to that purpose.* 1.199 and even Mr. B. himself, when he takes upon him as a Ca∣suist to determine these things,* 1.200 doth then declare his Mind.

• 1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow People to Separate from the Worship of God.* 1.201
• 2. Nor all Ministerial faults, but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intole∣rable.

But now,* 1.202 if Mr. B. may be believed, the People need not be told, how great a number of Cases there are among us, where the Ministers are uncapable of the Ministerial Office, and therefore it is no sin in them to judge him no Minister, and consequently to Sepa∣rate from him. Hath not Mr. B. fully set forth the Pride, Ignorance, Censoriousness, Headiness, Rashness of raw and injudicious Zealots? and after all this. Is it fit or reasonable, that the opinion of such persons be taken, concerning the qualifications of their Mi∣nisters? Hath not Mr. B. complained with more than ordinary resentment,* 1.203 that they are ready to scorn, and vilifie the gravest wisest Pastors? And, Must such Mens Judgments be taken, concerning the Abilities and Competency of their Ministers? Either Mr. B. hath extremely wronged them in the Characters he hath given of such People; or he hath taken away all the reputation of their Judgment in such cases:

When they scorn and contemn the greavest wisest Pa∣stors, are they fit to Judge of Ministerial A••ilities? But there are graver and wiser among the People. Sup∣pose that; But doth not Mr. B. say, That the rawest and rashest Professors are commonly the most violent and censorious? these are the bold and forward men, that will Judge in spite of the rest; these are the men that need not be told, what numbers of uncapable Ministers there are among us And it doth not become Mr. B's Gra∣vity or Wisdom to hearken to all the censures and malicious reports of such ignorant and heady zealots (as he calls them) about the unworthiness or incapacity of their Ministers. Are they only the grave and wise Pastors among themselves, which are scorned by such men? It is possible, that those may be grave and wise among us too, whom they censure for incompe∣tent men; Or must the same People which are raw and injudicious, ignorant and censorious, proud and self-conceited, when they make their Judgment of them, be of a sudden turned into grave and wise men, when they pass their Judgment upon the Abi∣lities and Fitness of our Preachers? This doth not look like fair and equal dealing. I pray let our Mi∣nisters have a fair hearing, and let the matter be well examined, before the People be thus encoura∣ged to Separate from their Ministers for their disabi∣lities, or unworthiness. But suppose there be too great a number of young, raw, injudicious Preachers, as Mr. B. saith,* 1.204 no Man can deny that knoweth Eng∣land, and hath any modesty. Is there no way, but to your Tents O Israel? Will nothing but Separation serve your Turn? Is this the way to mend the matter, and to make them grave and wise? Doth not Mr. B. confess, That they have too many such among them∣selves?

Must they Separate from them too? What endless confusions do such Principles tend to? But the bottom of all is, this Separation must be justified, one way or other; and such Principles found out, which may seem to do it. Yet after all, What is this to the present case of Separation in this City? for here the Charge was laid, and to this the Answer must be given, or it is to no purpose. Is it any rea∣son, that near half of some Parishes in London, should Separate from their grave and wise Pastors, such as I know some to be, where this case is; be∣cause in Cornwall, or Yorkshire, or Northumberland, there are many raw and injudicious, besides scandalous Priests, as Mr. B. speaks? We urge you particular∣ly with the London Separation, you tell us what the People say of the Insufficiency and Vnworthiness of the Clergy in other parts of England; suppose it true, What is all this to the business? If you persist in this way, we can name the Parishes to you in London, where the Ministers are Men of unexceptio∣nable Learning and Piety; where the Churches are large enough to receive the People that Separate; as well as those that come; and yet they forsake the Churches Communion, and adhere to the Separate Con∣gregations: Tell us plainly in this case, Is this Se∣paration lawful or not? If it be lawful, to what pur∣pose do you make use of so many shifts and evasi∣ons, as to great Prishes, and insufficient and scanda∣lous Priests, in other parts of the Nation? Answer to the case proposed, and to the place where the Charge was laid; and think not to escape by such apparent evasions, and impertinencies as these. If you think such a Separation unlawful, then Why do you pre∣tend

to confute my Sermon, which was designed pur∣posely against it?

Sect. 9. But while you plead for this liberty of the Peoples Separating upon their Iudgment of their Ministers Abilities and Fitness, you can never secure them from Separation from any Church or Ministers whatsoever. And no setled Church in the World could ever subsist long, without infinite disorder and confusion, if this were allow'd. For Mr. B. thinks them uncapable of the Ministerial Office in the Peo∣ples Judgment.

1. Who have not tolerable Ministerial Knowledge,* 1.205 or utterance.

2. Who are Heretical.

3. Who malignantly oppose serious Religion as Hy∣pocrisie, or a needless thing.

4. Who by their wicked lives do more hurt than they do good. From such, saith he, St. Paul bids turn away.

And of all these things the People are to be Iudges; and so may Separate, (1.) When they are unsatisfi∣ed about the Ministerial Knowledge or utterance of their Ministers. As for their Vtterance; we may al∣low them to be Judges of that; but I never heard before, that St. Paul did bid People turn away from their Ministers, if their Vtterance were not thought to be tolerable. For he intimates, that some com∣plained of his utterance and had him in contempt for

it. But as to Abilities and Knowledge fit for Mini∣sters, Are not the People admirable Judges? How few, how very few, even of those of the people who pretend most to Knowledge in Religion, have any tolerable understanding of the true principles, and right notion of it? I do not speak only of Artificers and Tradesmen; but of those of better education, who either by prejudices, or want of due applicati∣on of their minds to such things, are subject to great mistakes about Religion, and yet may be very good men: If such as these, are so unfit to Judge of Mi∣nisterial Knowledge, and the Doctrines of Religion, What shall we say to the common sort of raw, and injudicious Professors of Religion? Mr. B's. experience in the World is not so little, as not to know and be sensible of the truth of this, among the People most apt to divide and Separate. Is it not then a strange thing he should thus subject the Judgment of Mini∣sterial Knowledge to such a Company of Triers as these? But suppose they do allow their Ministers to pass for men of tolerable abilities, and reasonable good utterance, there is a harder task yet behind, and that is, to approve themselves to the People to be Sound and Orthodox; For, saith Mr. B. (2) If they be Heretical, they may without sin separate from them. But how shall a Man escape being thought Heretical by the People, if they have a mind to make him so; i.e. if he crosseth their humor, and delivers such Doctrine as doth not please them; for that is generally their Standard for Heresie? And they can∣not well have any other; unless you will suppose all the People to be learned Divines, and every Man obliged to read and understand Epiphanius and Bini∣us: and then perhaps they may be competent Iudges

of Heresie, and come at last to be even with the Divines for having been their Judges so long in that matter. Let us now suppose a Person of great value and esteem among them for his other Ministe∣rial Abilities, should happen to be thought unsound in the Point of Iustification, and to draw too near to the Papists in it; and this not only be said by the common People, but they are abetted and encou∣raged in it, by the greatest part of their Teachers, who tell them, this is a Fundamental point, Articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae; that they had as good give up the Cause of Reformation, as yield in that matter, as some have said; I would fain know in this Case, whether upon Mr. B's. Principles, the People are not bound to Separate from such a Man, notwithstand∣ing his other Abilities?

The like may happen as to many other Doctrines, which the People are as incompetent Iudges of, as they are in this matter. Let us yet suppose that such a Man may pass for sound in the main among the Peo∣ple; what shall we say to him, if under pretence of Curing Divisions he exposes good People, and lays open with great freedom and plainness their Factious, Turbulent, Censorious, Vngovernable humor; not o∣mitting their Injudiciousness, but forgetting all the while that these same injudicious People (with all their other faults) were once his Electors, and are still his Iudges; suppose, that he tells the World, That for their Ignorance, Injudiciousness, Pride and Self-con∣ceitedness, they are their grief and their shame; that they are endanger'd by Divisions, principally because the selfconceited part of the Religious People will not be ruled by their Pastors; that it is they that tempt the Papists to use Fire and Faggot that will not be ruled,

nor kept in Concord by the wisest, and holiest, and most self-denying Ministers upon earth. Notwithstanding all these very kind words of themselves, Do not we think such People would call all this Reviling, and Reproaching the People of God, and say, That such men do malignantly oppose serious godliness as Hypocri∣sie; and let their lives be what they will, they do more hurt than good; and therefore by Mr. B's own Rules, they are bound to Seprate from the Wisest, the Holiest, the most Self-denying Ministers upon earth. Which I think is sufficient for the present to shew the mischievous consequence of putting so great a power of Judgment, and Separation upon it into the hands of the People.

Sect. 10. But this is not all the encouragement to Separation, which is given to the People, by their power of Iudging, and Withdrawing from their Mi∣nisters; For,

2. They insinuate, That the whole Body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such Faults, as the People may lawfully Separate from them; as will ap∣pear by these Particulars.

First, They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing; and then tell the People over and over, It is no sin to separate from Scandalous Priests; especially when the Scandal is notorious, as it is in this case.* 1.206 Mr. B. goes about to prove This, by ma∣ny Arguments, when he Writes in the name of the Party; now let us see what Judgment they pass up∣on Conformity. In one place he saith, That the Love of Peace,* 1.207 and the fear of frightning any farther from Parish Communion than I desire (as though such sug∣gestions

did not do it enough) do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformi∣ty; and that sin which Non-conformists fear, and fly from, which maketh it harder to us that desire it to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists than it was of old. No doubt of it, if you give such broad intimations as these are, what a horrible scan∣dalous sin Conformity is. Nay, he maketh it an in∣excusable sin, when he saith, in the Preface to his Plea, That more like Truth hath been said for the lawfulness of Anabaptistry, Poligamy, Drunkenness, Stealing, and Lying, in case of necessity, than any thing he ever yet read of all that he hath there described, i.e. full Con∣formity.* 1.208 He chargeth us downright with Lying, and by consequence with Perjury,* 1.209 and tells me of 30 tre∣mendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; among which are Lying and Perjury, and not only that, but drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries (by declaring, That the Covenant doth not oblige.) But I do not question, if Mr. B. plea∣sed, he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggra∣vations of the Sin of Separation. For never did any Man lay more load than he, upon whatever he op∣poses, without considering how it may fall upon himself at last; and How easie it is to return such heaps of Aggravations. And it was well said by one of Mr. B's. Adversaries concerning him,* 1.210 That be the Controversie what it will, he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ, a Heaven and Hell. Which I have found too true, by my experience in this case, for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of, but only by declaring against Separation, he tells me, That he is so far past doubt, on the other side, as that he thinks

I overthrow all Religion,* 1.211 and set up Man in Rebellion against God. But the worst is that he would make me say, which I never said or thought, That all Publick Worship is sinful, when forbidden: and then on he runs with a mighty torrent, Daniel may go to the Li∣ons; the Martyrs, Fathers, Counsels, the Vniversal Church are all foolisher, than the meanest of his Audi∣tors. I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism. For he doth in effect charge me with them; For it follows, It's strange that he can be sure, God's Word is true, and yet be so sure, that Mens Laws are above it, and may suspend it. Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way? I abhor and detest such Principles, as set Mans Laws above Gods. And when I gave him the State of the Controversie about Separation, I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religi∣on, between the dissenting Parties and our Church. How then could he possibly infer from hence, that I set Man's Laws above Gods? The Question is not, Whe∣ther all Publick Worship be sinful, when forbidden? but whether in a Nation professing true Religion, some publick Worship may not be forbidden? If not, then an universal, unlimited toleration of Turks, Iews, Papists, Socinians, Ranters, &c. must follow. If some may be forbidden, then another Question fol∣lows, viz. Whether such Publick Worship, as may have an evil in it, antecedent to that Prohibition, may not be forbidden? viz. such as tends to Idolatry, Sedition, Schism, &c. and if this be allowed, then it comes to this at last, Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults; and if they be, Whe∣ther the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them? And this is the utmost that matter can be

driven to; which I here mention, to let the Reader understand, what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me; for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more. But the sting of these aggra∣vations follows. If the People think, (though they should mistake) that all the Conformists are guilty of the like,* 1.212 Can you wonder, if they prefer less Guilty Pa∣stors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with? Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last. Our Conformity is a horrible, scandalous sin with them, and therefore they must choose better Pastors. Is not this just the old Brownists Argument? The Mi∣nistry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministery, and therefore we must not communicate with them, but choose more honest and faithful Guides: But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true, Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not? If it be not lawful, then he condemns his own practice, and takes away occasional communion; if it be lawful, How comes Separation to be lawful, since, that is ne∣ver lawful, but when it is necessary? as it will be proved afterwards.

Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Mi∣nisters of the Church of England to be Vsurpers; and from such they say, they may lawfully separate. Is it Separation,* 1.213 saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are V∣surpers, and have no true Power over them? But Who are these Vsurpers among us, since we have a legal establishment, and we thought Law and Vsurpa∣tion contrary to each other? But notwithstanding Law, it is determin'd,

First, All that come into the places of ejected Mi∣nisters are Vsurpers, at least to as many of the People, as do not consent to their coming in:* 1.214 How prove you, saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected Lon∣don-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved, and that the succeeders, were true Pastors to the Non-consent∣ing Flocks? When faithful Pastors, saith he in his Plea (written in the name of the Party,* 1.215 and by consent, as he saith, of many of his Acquaintance) are in pos∣session,* 1.216 if a lawful Magistrate cast them out; and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fide∣lity.

• I. The Princes Imposition maketh not such true Pa∣stors of that Church, before, or without the Peoples consent.
• II. Nor will it alwayes bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schismaticks, because they do it not.

The bottom of all this, is, they are Vsurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish; although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors, and putting in of others. And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Prin∣ciples as these, I leave others to Judge. For upon these grounds, when Salomon deprived Abiathar, and put Zadok in his room;* 1.217 any part of the People might have pleaded, They never consented to Zadok's com∣ing in, and therefore he was their High-••riest still; let Salomon do what he would; he could not dissolve the

relation between them, without their own consent. For the Question is not, Whether Abiathar did not de∣serve to be put out, but to whom it belonged to do it, whether to the King, or the People? And whe∣ther any part of the People might still own that rela∣tion which he had before to them, without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority? Especially if the People had given their own consent, and the thing had been done not only by Salomon, but by the States of Israel; as it was in our case. They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government, have very little insight into Affairs. For it follows, that a small part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament, and choose other Go∣vernors, to themselves in opposition to those establish∣ed by Law: and why they should not do it, upon an equal pretence in other cases, I do not understand. For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right, especially a small part against the whole, in one case then in the other. Which makes me won∣der at those who da••e call them Vsurpers, who enjoy their places by the same Laws, that any Men do enjoy their Estates. And they who assert, that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to ad∣here to their former Pastors, as Mr. A. doth, who saith,* 1.218 They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors, do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws, passed by general consent in Par∣liament; but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation. For, the Papists then had the very same Plea, that these Men have now, v••z. That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation be∣tween their former Church Guides and them: and there∣for••

notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, they were still hound to adhere to them. For the Magistrate had no power in such matters, and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides; just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers. So much do these Men, in pursuing the interests of their Par∣ties, overthrow the principles of the Reformation. For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers, and to put others in their places, or he hath none: if he hath none, then, What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation, when the Popish Bi∣shops and Priests were ejected, and others put into their places? If they say, He hath a just power in some cases, but not in theirs. Is not this a Plea com∣mon to all? For whoever thought themselves justly ejected? Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment? What then is to be done in this case, if Men think themselves unjustly cast out? The old Non-conformists said, They ought to sit down quietly; with this satisfaction, that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly, although they did not. They might by joyning in their pri∣vate capacities in Communion with our Churches, and drawing the People to it by their example and en∣couragement, have done more good both to the People and to this Church, than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either▪ But if they go upon such principles ••s these, That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them, That others are Vsurpers who come in their places, That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws, And that 'tis Schism to separate from them, notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our pub∣lick

Assemblies, I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government, or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians. This I the rather insist upon, because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it, but that it is made the standing Plea for the ne∣cessity of the present Separation, among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful. So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question, Whe∣ther they can be said to erect new Churches,* 1.219 or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations, who were true Ministers, and had their Congregations before others came into their places? If they had done nothing wor∣thy of ejection, or exclusion from their Ministry, whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function. And consequently, whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them, as they are charged with the same practice? There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation. For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned, if Ministers be eject∣ed without or against Law, they who come into their places are no Usurpers; and if they are cast out by Law, they that succeed them are Usurpers; so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration.

Secondly, All those who come into any Pastoral charge, whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings No∣mination, or others by the Presentation of Patrons, are Vsurpers, unless the People be pleased to give their free consent; and if they do it not, they may lawfully withdraw from them. For, saith Mr. B. the

People have an antecedent Right to consent,* 1.220 which none can take from them.* 1.221 And he saith, he hath proved it by many Canons, that he was no Bishop, that was not cho∣sen by the Clergy and the People; or came in without the Peoples consent. Nay, if they have the consent of some, and not of the greater part, those who did not consent, may proceed to choose another Bishop, if Mr. B. say true. For these are his words. If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600, or 300 Parish Pastors,* 1.222 and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People (or 50000 or 20000, as ye will suppose) and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters, and a Thousand People (or none) chuse the Bishop, this is not the Election or Con∣sent of the Diocesan Church; nor is it Schism for twen∣ty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand. Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling, as Mr. A. suggests, there is nothing hinders them, but that in spite of Laws, they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops, and new Pastors of Churches, wherever they think they can make the Majority. For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People, say they, to choose their own Pa∣stors. Again, saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea,* 1.223 If Bishops that have no better a Foundati∣on, i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination, and not by the Majority of the People, shall impose infe∣rior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches, and command the Peoples acceptance and obe••••••nce, i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presenta∣tion, the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such; nor is it Schism to disobey it, no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom. It is plain then, all Bishops of the Kings Nomination, all Ministers

presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers: the People may give them a good Title if they please; but they are not to blame if they do it not. For in them, Mr. B. saith,* 1.224 the chief Power is, and sometimes he tells them, they are bound to Separate; however, while they do not consent, they are no Churches, which they are set over;* 1.225 and it is no Schism so to pronounce them; nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church. Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace; and the true and only way of Concord, which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions, only that they might have some pretence for their pre∣sent Separation?

Sect. 12. 3. Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent (implicit at least) of the People, and so are no Vsurpers, yet if they be Perse∣cutors, or Ithacian Prelatists, i.e. if they either act towards, or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists, the People may Separate from them. When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book, called, The Cure of Divisions, to satisfie the People who were much dis∣pleased with him for it; one of the material Questi∣ons,* 1.226 he Asks about his Book, is, Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors? As though that had been an unpardonable Crime. In the Plea he saith, If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin,* 1.227 i.e. Conformity, but also prosecute them with Mulcts, Imprisonments, Ba∣nishments, or other Prosecution, to force them to trans∣gress, this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism: and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such. And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this

persecution, appears by the example he makes of me, for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers, and declared, I intended only to speak of Lay-commu∣nion;* 1.228 yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design. And by such consequences, all that speak against Separation may be Separated from, as Persecuters, and Ithacian Prelatists.

Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful, they say, the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate,* 1.229 but on those that do impose such terms; and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers. This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them. But in this case, we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice, or wilful Ignorance, or error of Conscience. That there is a real distincti∣on between these two, is evident; and that it ought to be considered in this case, appears from hence, that else there can be no sinful separation under an er∣roneous Conscience. As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass, and much more Praying by one, was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time, as Praying by a Form was in point of words; and all Men should be required to begin the publick Wor∣ship at such an Hour, and so end at such an Hour; time being a necessary circumstance, our Brethren grant, that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it. Here is then a lawful imposition; and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful; and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed; For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to

any certain time; On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case? Not on the Imposers, because they grant such an imposition lawful; therefore it must lie on those that Separate, although they judge such terms of Com∣munion sinful. If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power, as the necessary cir∣cumstances of time and place, &c. then mens appre∣hending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side, and not on the imposers. Because it is to be suppo∣sed. that where there is no plain prohibition, men may with ordinary care and judgment, satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required. As for instance, when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images, we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful con∣dition of Communion; but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy, and Ceremonies, which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion, Where is the prohibition? In the same Second Com∣mandment say some. I desire them to read it over to me. They do so. Where, say I, are the words that forbid a Liturgy, or Ceremonies? I am mistaken, they tell me, it is not in the words, but in the sense. I Ask, How we should come by the sense, but from the words? Yes, they say, there are certain Rules for in∣terpreting the Commandments. Are they Divine or Human? Where are they to be found? What are those Rules? One, they say, is, that where any thing is forbidden, something is commanded. So say I, there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image. What is there more? Yes, say they, (1.) That

we must not Worship God with our own Inventions; now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions▪ But, I say, no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God, but such as God himself hath somewhere for∣bidden; but he hath no where forbidden these. And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God; but then (1) They are such inventions which go about to represent God, and so to disparage him; and no other inventions are to be understood, than the Reason of the Law doth ex∣tend to, i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God. (2.) They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship, supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. For otherwise all use of mens inventions, as to Preaching, or Reading, or Interpreting Scripture, would be for∣bidden. And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful, because it is a meer Invention of Men; as much as Liturgies, or Ceremo∣nies.

By this we see, what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be, to make Liturgies or Ceremo∣nies unlawful terms of Communion; And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain pre∣judices of Education, or Reading only one sort of Books, and taking some things for granted which they ought not, before they can esteem the terms of Com∣munion required by our Church to be sinful: and there∣fore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side, but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily

Deluded, and then Separate from our Church upon it. But there is another plain instance in this case, wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side; and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism. Ma∣ny of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality, as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies: if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful, On whose side doth the Schism lie, on theirs that require the allowance of it, as a condition of Communion, or not? If on the Imposers side, they must condemn themselves, who blame the Anabap∣tists for their Separation. And so did Fr. Iohnson, and so did the New-England Churches. From whence it appears, that they do all agree, that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not, the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side, but on those that sepa∣rate. Therefore, this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditi∣ons to be sinful, but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so; but till these are brought forth, which never yet were, or ever will be, they must bear the blame of the Schism, if they Separate on these accounts.

Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches, rather than Communion with them; which I have discover'd to be of that Nature, as leads Men to the greatest Separation.

Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously, and so need the less pains to dis∣cover their minds, and those are,

II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Com∣munion with our Churches to be unlawful. But there is a difference among these; For,

First, Some allow hearing Sermons in our Pub∣lick Assemblies, and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers; but not in the Liturgy, or any proper Act of Church-Com∣munion. This I have shewed, was the Opinion of Robinson, and the New-England Churches; and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye, who Wrote a Discourse about it, and answered all Objections. Yea, he goes so far, as to own the publick preaching, as a great bles∣sing to the Nation; and he thinks, the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent, (as they have li∣berty and opportunity) the more publick and National Ministry. But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People, to be of another opinion; which he imputes to the activity of the Iesu∣its among them; and he was a very sagacious Man.

Secondly, Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship. And some are arrived to that height,* 1.230 that one of my An∣swerers confesseth, That they refuse to hear him, be∣cause he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches. It seems then, they not only think it unlawful to hear us, but to hear those who think it lawful; and the next step will be to Separate from

those who do not Separate from them, that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches.

Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach: and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Sepa∣ratists; as may be seen at large in a Book called Ie∣rubbaal: whose Author goes about to prove our Wor∣ship Idolatry, and our Ministers Antichristian; which Mr. Nye was so far from owning, that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful, and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian; because the Articles of our Religi∣on, to which our Ministers are to conform their In∣structions, are Orthodox, and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery.

Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down, the State of the present Contro∣versie, as to Separation from our Communion, will soon appear. And any one may now discern,

1. That I do not mean bare local Separation. For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's;* 1.231 Do you think, that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you? No; I do assure him, provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them; and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings, as having a purer way of worship, and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations.* 1.232 And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too, who, after his trifling manner, talks of a bellum Parochiale, as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation be∣cause they meet in different Parishes; but as to the

Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale, I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it.

2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine, not determin'd by our Church, upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Com∣munion of it: And I wonder, who ever did. But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it. To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words: While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestinati∣on,* 1.233 went no farther th••n the Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatcht; but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster, and by a pretty art made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separa∣ting party there to meet, that which was before a Con∣troversie became a formal Schism.

3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live. This is to Answer Mr. B's. Quae∣re concerning the difference between Cathedral and Pa∣rochial Churches; and publick and private administrati∣ons of Sacraments. But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner, that they may go off the better with the common people. And a ve∣ry pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes.* 1.234 But what is all this to the pur∣pose? If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at Lon∣don, than he wears in the Countrey, Is he not the same Man for all that? Are not David's Psalms the

same, whether they be Sung, or Said? Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune, or as set by a Parish Clerk? That which only looks like Argument (and my business is to mind nothing else; possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing) That I say which looks like Argument is, That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches,* 1.235 as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre; and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Sepa∣ration. This proceeds upon a mistake, for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reforma∣tion under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms, as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy; and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised. But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules; suppose there are some different Customs among us; What is this, to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches? To the choosing of new Pastors? and sitting down, as he speaks, with purer Administra∣tions? All which this Man owns in his Book, as their avowed Principles and Practices; and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church, with the different Modes of Worship among our selves. He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings, that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner.

4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship, which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to en∣joy. For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches; but have certain priviledges allow∣ed

them, as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came. But what have we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches? Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church, and living under the Rules and Government of it; either renounce the Membership they once had in it, or avoid Communion with it as Members, and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion.* 1.236 Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again; as though their case could be thought alike, who ne∣ver departed from ours, but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches.

5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion, Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation. For although a Man may be guilty of culpable dis∣obedience in breaking the Commands of Authority,* 1.237 and the Orders of the Church he lives in; yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church, and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edifi∣cation, I do not charge such a one with Schism.

6. I do not charge those with Separation, who under Idolatrous, or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate. But what is this to our case, where the true Religion is acknowledged, and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters them∣selves, who break off Communion with our Churches. Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres,* 1.238 about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecu∣tors? or the Arian Emperors, or Idolatorous Princes? I hope, he did not mean to Parallel their own Case

with theirs; for, What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government, and the Protestant Re∣ligion established among us? To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preach∣ers Tongues,* 1.239 and several other unbecoming Insinuati∣ons? when God be thanked, we live under a most merciful Prince, and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us, and may have it still continued, if Mens great Ingratitude, as well as other crying Sins, do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it. What need was there, of letting fall any passages tending this way? when I told him in the very State of the Question, that all our Dispute was, Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship, where the Doctrine established, and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God, be a Sinful Separation or not? Why is this Dissembled and passed over? And the worst cases imaginable supposed, in stead of that which is really theirs? If I could defend a Cause by no other means, I think Common Ingenuity, the Honor of our Prince and Nation, and of the Protestant Reli∣gion Professed among us, would make me give it over.

Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons, in the ma∣nagement of this debate, I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question, as it is laid down; and to make good the charge of Separation,

• I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship; but deny constant Communion to be a Duty.
• ...

• II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful; although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion.

1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship, but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty.

To overthrow this Principle, I shall prove these two things,

• 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not ex∣cuse from the guilt of Separation.
• 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful, constant Communion is a Duty.

1. That bare occasional Communion doth not ex∣cuse from the guilt of Separation. Which will ap∣pear by these things,

First. Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church. This term of occasional Com∣munion, as far as I can find, was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Pres∣byterians, who charged them with Brownism: to a∣void this charge, they declared, That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlaw∣ful, which they did not; for, said they, we can occasi∣onally Communicate with you; but this gave no man∣ner of satisfaction to the other Pary, as long as they upheld Separate Congregations, with whom they would

constantly Communicate; and accounted those their Churches, with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body. But if notwithstanding this lawful∣ness of occasional Communion with our Churches, they joyned with other societies in strict and constant com∣munion; it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches, that they could not joyn as Members with them; and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members, they pleaded for separate Congregations. And so, must all those do, who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all; and not follow Grotius his Example, in suspen∣ding Communion from all Churches. Which is a prin∣ciple I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren wil∣ling to own.* 1.240 Although Mr. B. declares,* 1.241 That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches;* 1.242 That he never gather'd a Church;* 1.243 that he Baptized none in 20 years; and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years. I desire to know, what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time. For as to our Churches, he declares, That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally; but not as Churches (for he thinks we want an essential part, viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power, as appears before) but as Ora∣tories; and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches; and for other Churches, he saith he hath gathered none, he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years; and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church, he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all. It is true, he hath Pray'd occasionally, and Re∣ceiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories, but

not as a Member of our Churches; he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations, but he hath ga∣ther••d no Church, he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together. So that he hath Prayed occasio∣nally in one place, and Preached occasionally in ano∣ther, but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where. But I wonder, how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach, that Woe was unto him if he did not; and yet appre∣hend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together; none, to joyn himself as a Member to any Church. Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach; and to think it no fault, not to give the Sacraments to others, nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church? Was there not the same devotedness, in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments, as to Preach∣ing the Gospel? Was not the same Authority, the same charge as to both of them? Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments? Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your du∣ty, and none at all to the other? Is this possible, to perswade impartial Men, that for 18 years toge∣ther you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws; and yet never thought your self bound to do that, which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other? Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History, that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach, and not without leave from the Bishop, and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too; viz. the African; but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments; so that, if one obligation were stricter than the other, that was so which Mr. B. dispensed

with himself in, for 18 years together; and why he might not as well in the other, is not easie to under∣stand. However, Why all this while, no Constant Communicant with any Church? What, no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of? No Obliga∣tion upon a Christian to that, equal to the necessity of Preaching?

These things must seem very strange, to those who judge of Christian Obligations, by the Scripture, and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages. To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Institu∣ted Church for personal presential Communion; if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church? What was this Communion intended for? The antient Churches at this rate, might easily be capacious enough for their Members, if some never joyned with them in so long a time. But he hath communicated occasionally with us: Yes, to shew, what defective and tolera∣ble Churches he can communicate with, but not as a Member, as himself declares; and this occasional Com∣munion makes him none.* 1.244 For Mr. A. saith, Their occasional Communion with us, is but like any of our occasional Communion with them: or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher; or occasional going to a Popish Chappel; which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations. If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice, or ten or twenty times, as long as they de∣clare it is only occasional communion, it makes them no Members of our Churches; for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion.

Secondly, They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another, are in a State of Se∣paration from the Church out of which it is gathered, although they may be occasionally present in it. Now, if Men who think our constant communion unlawful, Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations, as Mr. A. speaks, and to choose new Pastors; this is gathering new Churches; and consequently is a plain Separati∣on from those Churches out of which they are ga∣ther'd. The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter. Such, saith he, of the dissenting Ministers,* 1.245 as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Paro∣chial Churches; have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing, and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also. If this be true, as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles, then we see plain∣ly a Separation owned, notwithstanding the occasio∣nal communion with our Churches. For, here is not only a lawfulness, but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations, for Preaching, Hearing, and other Religious Duties. And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches, Pastors, People, and joyning together for Religious Worship, in a way separate from our Assemblies. For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them; yet they are so far from allow∣ing constant communion, that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship; And what was there more then this which the old Separatists

held? For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation, which Giffard Answered, they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies; from whence they inferred the neces∣sity of Separation; and then declare, that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants; and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to pro∣ceed to a choice of new Pastors; with whom they might joyn, in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different, from what must follow from the Principles of those, who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties? And if there be a necessity of Separation, as this Gen∣tleman tells us they generally hold, that seem most moderate, the holding the lawfulness of occasional Com∣munion, will not excuse them from the guilt of the other. For, as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained, the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute, and some held one way and some another. And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us, that he looks upon it, but as drinking a single glass of Wine,* 1.246 or of Water, against his own inclination, to a person out of Civility; when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else. It seems then, this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches, wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own in∣clinations; but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls, as the other is de∣structive to their health. So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation.

Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful,* 1.247 constant Communion is a Duty. This the for∣mer Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good conse∣quence.* 1.248 Mr. A. brings several instances to prove, that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful, where con∣stant is no duty; as with other Parish Churches, upon a Iourney, at a Lecture, &c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution; or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church, where he goes to hear a Lecture, &c. but the question is, about the lawfulness of Separation, where occasional Commu∣on is allowed to be lawful. For a man is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion; but only from that Church, with which he is obliged to hold Commu∣nion, and yet withdraws from it. And it is a won∣der to me, none of my Friends (my Adversaries I am loth to call them) could discern this. It is law∣ful, saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French, Dutch,* 1.249 or Greek Church, Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty? Yes, if he were obli∣ged to be a Member of those Churches, and thought it lawful to communicate some times, constant com∣munion would be a Duty. But because this seems so hard to be understood, I will therefore under∣take to prove it, by these Two Arguments.

First, From the general Obligation upon Christi∣ans, to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church.

Secondly, From the particular force of that Text, Philipp. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule, &c.

First, From the general Obligation upon Christi∣ans to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church.* 1.250 If it be possible, saith St. Paul, as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask, If there be not as great an ob∣ligation at least, upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church, as with all Men? and they are bound to that, as far as possible, and as much as lies in them. And is not that possible and lies in them to do, which they acknowledge lawful to be done, and can do at some times? What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians? What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consci∣ences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his A∣postles? And cannot these prevail with Men to do that, which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do, towards joyning in Communion with us? This I am perswaded, is one of the pro∣voking Sins of the Non-conformists, that they have been so backward in doing, what they were con∣vinced they might have done, with a good Consci∣ence. When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority, they refused it; and they have been more and more backward ever since, till now

they seem generally resolved, either to break all in pieces, or to persist in Separation. Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful, or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments; and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful; and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent: but observe the An∣swer Mr. A. makes to this;* 1.251 i. e. saith he, They did not enter their several Protestations, nor formally de∣clare against the Reasons of their Brother; like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them. And so they have been advising and considering ever since, till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it; and the meer necessity of defending their own practices, makes them espouse these Principles. Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith, they had after the Plague and Fire, at which they agreed, That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good. Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy,* 1.252 and wronging the Relator, by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence, viz. When it would not do more harm than good. And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good; Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place, he will find, I did consider the force of those words;* 1.253 when I put it, that they resolved it to be lawful in it self; although some circumstan∣ces might hinder their present doing it. For they declared, That it was in it self lawful and meet; but the circumstances of that time, did make them think it might do more harm than good; and therefore it is said, They delaid for a fitter opportunity, which makes it clear, they were then resolved upon the lawful∣ness

of the thing. But that opportunity hath never hapned since; and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it; as Mr. A. plainly doth; by such reasons as these. Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good,

1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches, that their frame is eligible and not only tole∣rable.* 1.254 As though Separation were more eligible, than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable; and Schism were not more intolerable, than Communion with a tolerable Church. What will not Men say in de∣fence of their own practice? Was ever Schism made so light a matter of, And the Peace and V∣nity of Christians valued at so low a rate; that for the prevention of the one, and the preservation of the other, a thing that is lawful may not be done, if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible? As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church, were not fit to be put in the ballance, against such a hor∣rible and monstrous inconvenience. Methinks, it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate, than always thus subtil and witty against the com∣mon sence, and reason of Mankind.

2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to se∣parate from purer Churches, i. e. be drawn off from their Separation.

3. When it will harden the Papists. As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more.

4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Re∣ligion in general. Yes, no doubt the Cure of Divisi∣ons would do so.

By these particulars, it appears, that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do. Yet at last, he saith, he tells us, as much is done, as their Consciences will permit them. Say you so? Is it indeed come to this? Will none of your Conscien∣ces now permit you either to come to the Liturgy, or to make use of any parts of it, in your own Meet∣ings? How often hath Mr. B. told the World, That you stuck not at Set-Forms, nor at the Vse of the Liturgy, provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it? Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting, publickly, in a Writing on purpose, That they did not meet under any colour, or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner, than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England, and were he able he would accordingly Read himself? Is this observed in any one Meeting in London, or through England? Then certainly, there are some who do not, what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us. And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea, That they never made one Motion for Presbytery, or against Liturgies; and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians. And since that, Mr. B. saith, They did come to an Agreement, wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy,* 1.255 with some Alterations, was required. And are we now told, That all that can lawfully be done is done? Mr. B. indeed acts agree∣ably

to his Principles, in coming to our Liturgy; but Where are all the rest? And, Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies? Do they not hereby discover, that they are more afraid of losing their People, who force them to comply with their humors, than careful to do, what they judge lawful, towards Communion with our Church?

Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass, that any who think occasional Communion with us to be lawful, should not think themselves obliged to constant Com∣munion? From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion? Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord, as Mr. B. saith? That is a good ground so far, as it goes, But will it not carry a Man far∣ther, if he pursue it, as he ought to do? What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches, and at the same time to declare, That there is greater purity of Worship, and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations? The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord, as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation. But, if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in, notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it, that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasio∣nal Presence at some times, and in some Acts of Wor∣ship;* 1.256 for, saith Mr. Ball, To use one Ordinance, and not another, is to make a Schism in the Church.

The only Example produced to justify such occa∣sional Communion with defective Churches, is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in

the Iewish Synagogues and Temple. But this is so far from being true, that the old Separatists granted, That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances,* 1.257 living and dying a Member thereof; and from thence they prove, That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time.

And did not he declare,* 1.258 That he came not to dis∣solve the Law, but to fulfill it? And that he comply∣ed with Iohn's Baptism, because he was to fulfill all righteousness? Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ie∣rusalem, as a Member of the Iewish Church, and fre∣quent the Synagogues? Even at the Feast of Dedi∣cation, though not instituted by the Law, he was present,* 1.259 as other Iews were. Yea, Did he not ex∣press more than ordinary zeal, for purifying the out∣ward parts of the Temple, because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations? Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there, as well, as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use? And, Doth not the Apostle expresly say, That he was made under the Law? Where is there the least ground in Scripture, to intimate, that Christ only kept occasional, and not constant communion with the Iewish Church? What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from? Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sate in Moses Chair?* 1.260 Where did he ever bid them go thither, when they could have no better; but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Wor∣ship, and better Means of Edification? Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs? Is there any pretence for greater Edification now, to be men∣tion'd

with what the Disciples had, to forsake the Iewish Assemblies, for the love of Christ's own Teach∣ing? Yet he would not have them to do that, out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teach∣ing. Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disci∣ples Occasionally, and at certain Seasons; but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies. And so it was after his Passion,* 1.261 till the Holy Ghost fe••l upon them, and they were then imploy'd to ga∣ther and form a new Church; which was not done before; and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes; That we never read of Christ's Praying to∣gether, with his Disciples (unless perhaps at his Trans∣figuration with three of his Disciples) although we often read of his Praying alone. So that no exam∣ple can be mention'd, which is more directly contra∣ry to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds, than that of our Blessed Saviour's; which ought to be in stead of all others to us.

Sect. 19. 2. I argue, from the particular force of that Text, Phil. 3. 16. As far, as we have already attain∣ed, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. From whence it appears evident, that Men ought to go as far as they can, towards Vniformi∣ty; and not to forbear doing any thing, which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity.

To take off the force of the Argument from this place, several Answers have been given, which I shall now remove; so that the strength of it may appear to remain, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it.

Some say, That the Apostles words are to be under∣stood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge, and the different conceptions and opini∣ons which they had concerning the Truths of the Gos∣pel.* 1.262 Thus Dr. O. understands the Text; whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expres∣sed; but as far as I can apprehend his meaning, he makes this to be the Apostles; viz.

I. That although the best Christians in this life can∣not attain to a full measure and perfection in the com∣prehension of the Truths of the Gospel, or the enjoyment of the things contained in them; yet they ought to be pressing continually after it.

II. That in the common pursuit of this design, it is not to be supposed, but the Men will come to different attainments, have different measures of light and know∣ledge, yea and different conceptions, or opinions about these things.

III. That in this difference of opinions, those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God, in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd.

IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other, as far as they had attained, they should walk by the same Rule, namely, which he had now laid down, and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them.

From whence he infers, That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with

Schism, who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel, do yet dissent from others, in some things; that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded. And again, he saith, The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties, is, that whereun∣to they have attained, wherein they do agree, which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God, they should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, that is, forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ; which, saith he, is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists.

For the clearing of this matter, there are Three things to be debated,

• 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opini∣ons, or different practises?
• 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual for∣bearance?
• 3. How far the Apostles Rule, hath an influence on our present case?

First, Whether the Apostle speaks of different opi∣nions, or of different practises? For the right un∣derstanding of this, we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design. It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution against the Teachers of the Circumcision, Vers 2. Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. But speak∣ing so reproachfully of them, he shews in the next words, that every thing that was excellent in the de∣sign

of the Law, was accomplished in the Gospel; and so he proceeds to declare, how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest priviledges of the Law, in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel, which shews, that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers, who were very busie in disturbing the Peace of the Churches, and draw∣ing Disciples after them, pleading the necessity of observing the Law; and dividing the Christians in∣to different Communions on that account, as appears by their proceedings at Antioch, where they did se∣parate themselves from the Gentile Christians, and St. Peter for a time complyed with them.* 1.263 If such as these had not been busie at Philippi (where it appears that Iews inhabited) What need St. Paul give so much caution against them? What need all this dispute concerning the Priviledges of the Law? If it be allowed, that they were there carrying on the same designs, which they did in other Churches, then it follows, he had great reason to perswade them to Vnity so earnestly, as he doth, Philip. 2. 1, 2. and to give so much caution against them; and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law; which being done, the Apostle after his usual method, makes a digression, concerning him∣self, viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at, and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward, toward Christian perfection; making no longer any account of legal priviledges. Which I take to be his meaning, when he saith, Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward, &c. So St. Hierome understands it, Legis obliviscens ad per∣fecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo. Forgetting the

Law, I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel. This be∣ing understood, the Apostles sence naturally follows, according to his former design; Let us therefore, as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity (so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14.) agree in pursuing our main end. But then comes the case of those, who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law; there being many and plausible Arguments on their side; well, saith the Apostle, if they are doubtful, I advise them however, not to hearken to these false Teachers, for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you, wait patiently up∣on God, which is the best means, for your satis∣faction. If any be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you, i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase, If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law, let them make no disturbance in the Church about it. And so Erasmus saith, It ought to be understood of the Iu∣daizing Christians, who did not yet discern, that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished, however, saith he, they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it. But, What sence can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded: Otherwise than what? As many as be perfect be thus minded, to pursue your main end; but, if any be otherwise minded; Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end? that is incredible; Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat, about which there were then very different apprehensions; and that it is cer∣tain there were about the Law among the Christians then. The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into; but of such as were at that time among

them; and so one Copy reads it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded; they had no difference concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the things before them; viz. the happiness of the Gospel, but they had concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the things behind, viz. the force and obligation of the Law. And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion, but was carried on so far, as to break the Peace of the Church about it; it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions, but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians.

Secondly, Whether the Rule which the Apostle layes down, be only a Rule of mutual forbearance? Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. The sence according to Dr. O. is this, That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion, should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences. Which is a sence very uncertain, and doth not reach to the differences then among them▪ It is very un∣certain, because it sets no bounds to differences; and supposes the continuance of such differences among them, which he designed to prevent, by perswad∣ing them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind,* 1.264 of one soul; as well as to mind the same things. Besides, the difference then on foot, was none of the smaller differences of opinions, but that about which they differ'd was urged on one side, as necessary to Salva∣tion,* 1.265 by the false Apostles; and opposed on the other, as pernicious and destructive to it. One of my Answerers saith,* 1.266 That the Iudaizing Christians were leaven'd with such a corrupt Opinion, as was by

no means to be born with; which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain. And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main, shewing the dreadful consequences of it. And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbear∣ance,* 1.267 in such a case as this? especially, when in the same Chapter, he gives so great a caution against them, with so much unusual sharpness of expression; Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance, as to the differences then among them? these we know there were, let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion, which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mu∣tual forbearance. But now, if we suppose the Apo∣stle to speak to the difference about the Law, about which the Churches were then divided, the sence is plain, easie, and pertinent. For so, either (1.) It takes in those who hitherto differ'd about the Law; and then the sence is, although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have, yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians, you live with; keep within one Rule; break not the bounds of Peace and Vnity which Christ hath set you; run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing cour∣ses. (2.) It is directed to those who have got the start of others, and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them, especially so have a mighty re∣gard to the Peac•• and Vnity of Christians; not to break the Common••ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments, nor to Separate from others, as meaner and lower Christians, because they are not come up to that perfection, which you have at∣tained

to. And so either way, it contains an excel∣lent Rule, and of admirable use to the Christian Church, not only at that time, but in all Ages of the World, viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things, should go as far as they can to∣wards preserving Peace and Communion among Chri∣stians; and not peevishly separate and divide the Church, because they cannot in all things think as others do; nor others on the account of greater san∣ctity and perfection, despise the inferior sort of Chri∣stians, and forsake their Communion, but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace, and the Vnity of the Church.

Thirdly, How far this Rule hath an influence on our case? (1.) It follows from hence, that as far as Communion is lawful, it is a duty, since, as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule. And so much Dr. O. doth not deny; when he saith, Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion, or in the Principles of Faith and Obe∣dience, should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ. Then as far, as they agree, they are bound to joyn together, whether it be as to Opini∣on, or Communion. Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion, as far as that is judged to be lawful. (2.) That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others, though of lower attainments, and to keep within the same Rule; which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race, and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judg∣ed necessary to hold the Members of a Christian

Society together.* 1.268 But, saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his, and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it. This is the Apostles Rule, to go as far as they can; and if they can go no farther, to sit down qui∣etly, and wait for farther instruction, and not to break the Peace of the Church, upon present dissatisfaction, nor to gather new Churches out of others upon sup∣position of higher attainments.

If the Rule reach our Case,* 1.269 saith he again, it must be such as requires things to be observed, as were never divinely appointed, as National Churches, Ceremonies and Modes of Worship. And so this Rule doth in order to Peace, require the observation of such things, which although they be not particularly appointed by God, yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority, provided, they be not unlawful in them∣selves, nor repugnant to the World of God.

But the Apostles never gave any such Rules them∣selves,* 1.270 about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremo∣nies, Feasts, Fasts, Liturgies, &c. What then? It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule, That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace: And without this no Vnity, or Order can be preserved in Churches. The Apostles, saith he, gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule,* 1.271 viz. of mutual forbearance, Rome. 14. And herein the A∣postle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence, but as a Teacher divinely inspired. That he was Divinely in∣spired, I do not question, but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances, which resolution may not always bind, when the circum∣stances are changed. For then, the meaning of the

Apostle must be, that whatever differences happen a∣mong Christians, there must be no determination either way. But the direct contrary to this, we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem, up∣on the difference that happened in the Christian Churches.* 1.272 And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way; yet the Apostles made a determination in the case, contrary to their Judgment. Which shews, that the Rule of Forbearance, where Conscience is al∣ledged both wayes, is no standing Rule to the Christian Church; but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Wel∣fare of that Church, which they are bound to pre∣serve. And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation, as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers: whereas, it is most evident, that the true Apostles made this perempto∣ry Decree, in a matter of great consequence, and a∣gainst the pretence of Conscience on the other side.

But saith Dr. O. further,* 1.273 The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty, provided they did not impose on others; and the Dissenters at this day, desire no more, than the Gentile Churches did, viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied, it is the mind of Christ should be imposed up∣on them. I Answer, 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church, that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty, out of respect to the Law of Moses; and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church, which might have

been extremely hazarded, if the Apostles had present∣ly set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves. 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it, which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters. For, (1.) They were none of their lawful Governors, but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them. (2.) They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation, and not as meerly indifferent things. And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians, as to the Impositions of the false Apostles. Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text.

The Author of the Letter saith, (1.) That I ought to have proved,* 1.274 that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures; and, (2.) That other Church-Guides had the same Power, as the Apostles had. But what need all this? If it appear (1.) That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches, which are not extant in Scriptures, as ap∣pears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule, for omitting some Divine Rules; or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government, (2.) That it is a standing Rule of Scripture, that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church. And this I have shewed, was the Apostles design in the words of this Text.

Sect. 20. Others pretend, that the Apostle means no more by these words, but that Christians must live up to their knowledge, and mind that one thing. This is a very new Exposition; and the Author of it in∣tends to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it. It is pitty therefore it should pass, without some consideration.* 1.275 But, I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Canon, viz. that is not taken in a Mili∣tary notion, because great Guns were not then invented; that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a plat∣form of Moderation; which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools; unless, perhaps, they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text; but however, methinks they come not in very suta∣bly in a weighty and serious debate.

I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he ob∣serves from Grotius, is left out in one MS (it may be the Alexandrian) but, What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies? not only the Mo∣dern, but those which St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pho∣tius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact had, who all keep it in. But suppose it be left out, the sence is the very same to my purpose. No, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To walk by the same must be referred to the an∣tecedent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And what then? Then, saith he, the sense is, What we have attained let us walk up to the same; Which comes to no more than this, unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached, let us walk sutably to it.

But the Apostle doth not here speak of the im∣provement of knowledge; but of the union and con∣juction of Christians, as appears by the next words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to mind the same thing. No such mat∣ter, saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing; or that very thing, viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark. But if he had pleased to have read on, but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie Vnanimity. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12▪ 25▪ opposes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That there be no Schism in the Body, but that all the Members should take care of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one for another: and therefore the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, minding the same things, is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisi∣ons. I should think St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase, as well as our Author, and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians. Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek, yet he knew the ge∣neral sense of the Christian Church about this place; and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church,* 1.276 in St. Cyprians case. By this tast, let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning, or rather the height of his Confidence, who dares to tell the World, That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current, besides Grotius, who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine, viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremo∣nies, should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine; he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy, and then cries, In a word, they all conspire

against my Interpretation. If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors, he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers. Had it not been fairer dealing, in one word, to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis? For, if he had looked in∣to Zanchy himself, he would have found, how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church. Mr. B. saith,* 1.277 That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question; and that to all Christians, though of different attainments; and therefore requi∣reth all to live in Concord that are Christians, notwith∣standing other differences. And if he will but allow, that by vertue of this Rule, Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church, we have no farther difference about this matter: For then, I am sure, it will follow, that if occasional Communion be lawful, constant Communion will be a Duty.

And so much for the first sort of Dissenters, who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful.

Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism, or Sinful Separation, against Those, who, though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religi∣on, yet deny any Communion with our Church to be law∣ful. I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉〈…〉 Commu∣nion,* 1.278 which Dr. O. calls Comm•••••••• Faith and Love, this they do allow to the Church of England, but no otherwise, than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians; yet he seems to go farther, as to some at least of our Parochial Churches, that they are

true Churches: But in what sense? Are they Churches rightly constituted, with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members? No; that he doth not say. But his meaning is, that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practice in Worship, as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches. And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches? I had thought, every Parochial Church was true, or false, according to its frame and con∣stitution; which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England, as it is established by Law; and if no such Errors in Doctrine, nor Idolatrous Pra∣ces be allowed by the Church of England, then every Parochial Church which is constituted accor∣ding to it, is a true Church. But all this amounts to no more, than what they call a Metaphysical Truth; for he doth not mean, that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion. And he pleads, for the necessity of having Separate Congregations, from the necessity of Separating from our Communion: (although the time was, when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches, was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches, or for withdrawing from the Commu∣nion of a Parochial Church; and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now.) But however, I shall take things as I find them; and he insists on, as the grounds of this necessity of Separation, the things enjoyned by the Law's of the Land, or by the Canons and Orders of the Church; as Signing Chil∣dren Baptized with the Sign of the Cross; Kneel∣ing

at the Communion; Observation of Holy-dayes▪ Constant Vse of the Liturgy; Renouncing other As∣semblies, and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors; Neglect of the Duties of Church-mem∣bers; submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Disci∣pline, which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it, of the Authority of Christ, or Rule of the Gospel. This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion.

That which I am now to inquire into, is, Whe∣ther such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for Separation from a Church, wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practice in Worship; for if they be not, such Sepa∣ration must be a formal Schism; because such per∣sons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church, but set up other Churches of their own.

Now the way I shall take to shew the insuffici∣ency of these Causes of Separation, shall be, by shew∣ing the great Absurdities, that follow upon the allowance of them.

These Five especially, I shall insist upon.

• (1.) That it weakens the Cause of the Refor∣mation.
• (2.) That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches.
• ...

• (3.) That it justifies the antient Schism's, which have been always condemned by the Christian Church.
• (4.) That it makes Separation endless.
• (5.) That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians, to pre∣serve the Peace and Vnity of the Church.

Sect. 22. (1.) The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation. Which I shall make ap∣pear, not from the Testimonies of our own Writers, who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church; but, from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France, who can be the least suspected of par∣tiality to our Church.* 1.279 I begin with Calvin; against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken.

(1.) In the General, He assigns two marks of the Visible Church, the Word of God truly Preached, and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institu∣tion.

(2.) He saith, Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies, those are true Churches, howsoever they are distributed according to humane con∣veniencies.

(3) That although those stand as Members of particular Churches, (who may not be thought wor∣thy of that Society) till they are duly cast out; yet the Churches themselves having these Marks, do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches, and ought to be so esteemed.

(4.) Men ought not to Separate from,* 1.280 or break the Vnity of such Churches. And he hath this no∣table saying upon it: God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church, that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion, who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society, which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments. And a little after, he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ, a destruction of his Truth, a mighty provocation of his Anger, a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse, it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People.* 1.281 In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks.

(5.) That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church, yet as long as it re∣tains those Marks, Separation from it, is not ju∣stifiable: nay, although some of those faults be a∣bout Preaching the Word, and Administration of Sa∣craments: for, saith he, all truths are not of equal moment: but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness, and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept

up, Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences; but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss, continuing in the Communion of the Church; and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it. And he at large proves,* 1.282 what great allowance is to be made, as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches: and he saith, Mens Moroseness in this Matter, although it seems to flow from zeal, yet it much rather comes from Spi∣ritual Pride, and a false opinion of their own holi∣ness above others. Although, saith he, there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church,* 1.283 that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah; yet they never set up new Churches, nor erected other Altars, whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices: but whatever the People were, as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them, they lifted up pure hands to God, although in such an impure Socie∣ty. The same he proves, as to Christ and his A∣postles. From whence he concludes, That Sepa∣ration from such Churches,* 1.284 where the true Word of God and Sacraments are, is an inexcusable fault. But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome?* 1.285 Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed, and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it; and the Worship of God so corrupted, that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness. And the truth of the Gospel, being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity, it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communi∣on of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions: especially, when they

Anathematize those who will not comply with them? But doth he mean any indifferent Rites,* 1.286 or Cere∣monies, where the Doctrine is sound? No; but False Doctrine, and Idolatrous Worship; as he fre∣quently declares. And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church, on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed, and some Corruptions remaining in it, must over∣throw the fundamental grounds of the Reforma∣tion, as they are explained by Calvin himself.

Sect. 23. Among their later Writers, no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology. And the Grounds he goes upon are these.

(1.) That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those,* 1.287 who go about to destroy and ruin Christia∣nity.

(2.) If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith, offends our Consciences, and overthrows the service which we believe due to God; if the differences have been small, and such as we might safely have yielded unto;* 1.288 then he will grant, that their Separation was rash and un∣just, and they guilty of the Schism.

(3.) He proves, that they had weighty reasons for their Separation;* 1.289 which are these, (1.) Impo∣sing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith: and yet, not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation;* 1.290 but such as are pernicious

and destructive to Salvation: for which he instan∣ceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Pre∣sence in the Sacrament, which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments, nor requires the adoring it, it neither divides nor mutilates it, nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin; all which follows from the Popish Doctrine. From whence he concludes, That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors, is an unjust Separation.* 1.291 (2.) Requiring such Worship, as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity; which, saith he, proves the necessity of our Separation; and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host; which the Church of Rome strictly requiring, and the Prote∣stants believing it to be a meer Creature, they cannot give it without Idolatry: from whence he concludes our Separation to be ••ust, because it was necessary. Besides this he gives instances in the Worship of Images,* 1.292 Invocation of Saints, &c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not de∣pend on any such Ceremonies, as ours are, nor on the want of Discipline, nor on the bare Dissatis∣faction of Conscience, but on such great and impor∣tant Reasons, as obtruding new Articles of Faith, and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Com∣munion of the Roman Church.

Amyraldus goes so far,* 1.293 as to say, That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism, and other things, beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion, they had still continued in its communion; For, saith he, a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions, if he be otherwise faithful and skilful. But if he mixes

Poison with his Medicines, and besides adds abun∣dance of Prescriptions, both needless and chargeable, then the Patient hath great reason to look out for bet∣ter help, and to take care of his own safety and free∣dom. By which he plainly declares, that bare Ceremonies, although many more than ours, are no sufficient Ground for Separation.

Of late years, a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation, charging it with Schism,* 1.294 because of the Separation from the Roman Church; which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines, M. Claude, M. Pajon, and M. Turretin. But, Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Do∣ctrine is sound, the constant use of Liturgy, bare neglect of Discipline, &c. No, they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these, which they knew, could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church; and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men, if they could have alledged no more Sub∣stantial Reasons than these.

But they all agree in such common reasons,* 1.295 which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justi∣fiable, viz. Great corruption in Doctrine, Idola∣trous Worship, and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith, No slight errors, no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience (as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine)

not any corruption of Manners, nor defect in Go∣vernment, or Discipline, are sufficient grounds for Separation. In one word, saith he, the Patient is not to be forsaken, unless his Disease be deadly and infectious, nor then neither but with great diffi∣culty.

Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists,* 1.296 goes upon these 3 grounds.

1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and without Anathematizing all those who have op∣posed them. For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less, than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith.

2. That the Publick Worship practised, and allow∣ed in that Church is Idolatrous, he instanceth in A∣doration of the Host, the Worship of Saints and Images.

3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpa∣tions of the Pope.

Let our Brethren now consider, what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us, if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them, but only that we could not have our Children Bap∣tized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross, nor receive the Communion without kneeling; that we must ob∣serve Holy-days, and use a Liturgy; and that Men are not so good as they should be, nor Discipline so

exact as were to be wished; How should we be his∣sed and laughed at all over the Christian World; if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church, but such things as these? And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allega∣tions, they are harden'd in their own ways; and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these, by which, unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation.

Sect. 24. (2.) This Pretence of Separation would make Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible, supposing them to remain as they are. For the Lu∣theran Churches have the same, and more Ceremo∣nies, and Vnscriptural Impositions (as they are called) than our Church hath. They use the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Communion; and the observation of Holy-days and times of Fasting, and Set-Forms of Prayer, &c. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most refor∣med Churches, by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad, and at home. I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love, as Dr. O. speaks, but to joyn together so, as to make the same Bodies of Churches. A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France, at Charenton, A. D. 1631. decla∣red, that there was no Idolatry, or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches, and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them, without renouncing their own opinions or Practices, Which shews, that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation; for

then they would not have admitted them as Mem∣bers of the Lutheran Churches, but have told them, they ought to forsake their Communion, and em∣brace that of the Reformed Churches. Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines, who have projected or perswaded an Vnion with the Luthe∣ran Churches and others; and see, if any of them make the particulars mention'd any cause of Sepa∣ration from them.* 1.297 The Helvetian Churches declare, That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies, where there is an Agreement in Doctrine: and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments deliver∣ed by him. And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger, Myconius and Grynaeus, and subscri∣bed afterwards by all their Ministers; and by those of Geneva and other places. And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things, yet, say they, because of our consent in Doctrine, these things cause no Breach in our Churches. And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremo∣nies used in the Lutheran Churches, except those of the Mass and Images in Churches.* 1.298 At Sendomir in Poland, A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian, Auspurg, Bohemian Confessions, came to a full agreement, so as to make up one Body, not∣withstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them; which, they say, ought not to break the Communion of Churches, as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine, and the same foundati∣on of Faith and Salvation;* 1.299 and for this they ap∣peal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions. The

Auspurg Confession declares, That agreement in Do∣ctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Churches Vnity; then Separation cannot be lawful meerly on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditi∣ons.* 1.300 And the Confession of Strasburg saith, That they look on no Human Traditions as condemned in Scripture, but such as are repugnant to the Law of God; and bind the Consciences of Men; otherwise if they agree with Scripture, and be appointed for good ends, although they be not expresly mention'd in Scripture, they are rather to be looked on as Di∣vine than Human: and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself: nay, they say, though the Laws seem very hard and unjust, a true Christian will not stick at obeying them, if they command no∣thing that is wicked.

Ioh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremo∣nies.* 1.301

• The First Commanded,
• The Second Forbidden,
• The Third neither Commanded, nor For∣bidden.

The Vnity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First, and yet for every omission the Com∣munion of the Church is not to be broken. The Se∣cond breaks the Churches Vnity; yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these, if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men: but for the Third, Men ought not to break the Vnity of

the Church. And in another place he gives par∣ticular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches,* 1.302 the Exorcism in Baptism, the Linnen Garments and Wax Candles, the Holy-days and Confession, &c. and declares, That we ought not to break off communion with Churches, or make a Schism for these things.* 1.303 Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of in∣different ceremonies; and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches.* 1.304 A∣myraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Luthe∣ran Churches, saith, That those which came in use af∣ter the Apostolick times, have no other obligation on us, than that for the sake of indifferent things, though at first appointed out of no necessity, nay though there be inconveniency in them, yet the Churches Peace ought not to be disturbed.

And he very well observes, That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them; if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so, or at least, are tolerable: if it be false, then they are troublesome, and not to be born; if it be impure, and lead to Idolatry, then the ceremonies are tainted with the Poyson of it.* 1.305 But, saith he, the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites; and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches, as their occasions serve: and so do others. And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine, not only con∣gratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland, but Pray'd for the same in Germany too,* 1.306 as Bishop Davenant tells us; who proves at large, that there is no sufficient Reason

to hinder it; which he makes to lie only in three things.

• I. Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscien∣ces.
• II. The Practise of Idolatry.
• III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith.

And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches, the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear.

And now I desire our Brethren, who justifie their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful, to reflect upon these things. Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad, which have harder Terms of communion than we? What would they think of the Exor∣cism of Infants, of Auricular Confession, of Images in Churches, and some other things, besides what are observed among us? Do we want Discipline? Do they not in other Churches abroad?

The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Vnion of Protestant Churches,* 1.307 declared, That little or none was observed among them. Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches? Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings? Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Vnion with them? For, What Vnion can be justifiable

with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful? They may pity them, and pray for them, and wish for their Reformation, but an Vnion doth suppose such a Communion of Churches, that the Members of one may communicate in another. Do they al∣low this to the Lutheran Churches? If not, then they render Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible, because unlawful. If they do, will they be so unjust, as not to allow the same favor and kindness to our own Church? Can they think Se∣paration necessary from our Church on those grounds, which are common to us with other Protestant Churches; and yet think Vnion desira∣ble and possible with them notwithstanding? Do they think that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Luthe∣ran Churches, although they have the Cross in Bap∣tism, K••e••••g at the Communion, the Surpless, and other Ceremonies which we have not? and yet, Is it necessary to S••parate from our Churches Commu∣nion on the account of such things as these; where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion? Either therefore they must differ from the judgment of the Reformed Churches, and the most emine••••▪ Protestant Di∣vines abroad, or they must renounce this Principle of Separation.

Sect. 25. (3.) This will justifie the ancient Schisms which have been always condemn'd in the Christian Church. For setting aside the Ceremonies (of which already) and the use of the Liturgy and Holy-days (which is common to our Church with

all other Christian Churches, for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church; and are continued by an Vniversal consent in all parts of the Christian World) the other Rea∣sons for Separation are such, which will justifie the greatest Schismaticks that ever were in the Christi∣an Church,* 1.308 viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Disci∣pline, and due means of Edification, and depriv∣ing the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors, whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel, in providing for their own Edification. For, What gave occa∣sion to the Novatian Schism, which began so soon, and spread so far, and continued so long, but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Disci∣pline, and better means of Edification, and humor∣ing the People in the choice of their own Pa∣stors?

There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on, as to Evangelical Discipline.

• 1. The Power of the Keys.
• 2. The Purity of the Church.

1. As to the Power of the Keys, they said, That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church, but under certain restrictions, which if Men exceed∣ed, the Church had no Power to release them: and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men, when Men fell in time of Persecution.

2. The Churches Purity ought to be preserved, by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being re∣ceiv'd into communion again.* 1.309 They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance, but they said, the Church could not. And this they pleaded, would tend very much to the Edificati∣on of Christians, and would make them more watch∣ful over themselves, when they saw no hopes of recovering the Churches Communion, if they once fell from it. Add to this, that Novatus, or No∣vatianus (for the Greeks confounded their Names) in his Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria,* 1.310 saith, That he was forced to do what he did, by the importunity of the Brethren, who out of their zeal for the Purity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline, would not comply with the looser part which joyned with Cornelius,* 1.311 and therefore chose him to be their Bishop. And so much appears by Pacianus, that Novatus com∣ing from Carthage to Rome▪ makes a party there for Novatia••us in opposition to Cornelius, which consisted chiefly of those who had stood firmest in the Persecution; in their Name he Writes to Nova∣tianus, declaring, That he was chosen by the zea∣lous Party at Rome, whereas Cornelius had admitted the lapsed to Communion, and consequently corrupt∣ed the Discipline of the Christian Church.

Here we have a concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas, Zeal for Reformation of Discipline, the greater Edi∣fication of the People, and the asserting their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was not likely to promote their Edification. But notwithstanding these fair

pretences,* 1.312 the making a Separation in the Church, was every where condemned as a great Sin; as ap∣pears by St. Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Theo∣doret, Epiphanius, and others. Dionysius tells the Author of the Schism,* 1.313 that he had better have suf∣fer'd any thing, than thus to have made a Rent in the Church: and it was as glorious a Martyrdom to die to prevent a Schism, as to avoid Idolatry, and he thinks it a much greater thing; the one being a Martyrdom for the Church, the other only for ones own Soul. St. Cyprian charges those who were guilty of this Schism with Pride and Arrogance, and doing unspeakable mischief to the Church, by breaking the Peace of it: and will hardly allow those to be Christians who lived in such a Schism: when as Epiphanius observes,* 1.314 they still pleaded they had the same Faith with the Catholick Church; and yet St. Cyprian will not allow that to be true Faith which hath not charity; and saith, That there can be no true charity, where Men do thus break in pieces the Vnity of the Church.

The Meletians in Aegypt agreed with the Catho∣lick Christians in the Substantials of Religion,* 1.315 hold∣ing the same Faith with them, as Epiphanius relates the Story; and their Schism began too about pre∣serving the Discipline of the Church, and the best means for the Edification of the People. They al∣lowed a Restitution for the lapsed to the Communion of the Church, but after a very severe Discipline, and an utter incapacity of those in Orders as to any parts of their Functions. But Peter Bishop of Alexandria thought the milder way the better;

whereupon a Separation followed: and the Mele∣tians had distinct Churches; which they called, The Churches of the Martyrs. This Schism grew to that height, that they would not pray together in Prison, nor in the Quarries whither they were sent. Meletius being a Bishop was deposed by Peter of A∣lexandria,* 1.316 but he went on still to promote the course of Separation in Thebais, and other parts of Egypt, upon which the Council of Nice, in their Synodical Epistle, deprived him of all Episcopal Power, and the People that adhered to him, of the Power of choosing their own Pastors (or rather of proposing the names of those who were to be ordained.) And so, according to Dr. O. they had just cause to continue their Separation still, although it were condemned by the Council of Nice.

Audaeus began his Schism out of a mighty zeal for the Discipline of the Church,* 1.317 and a great free∣dom which he used in reproving the faults of the Bishops and Clergy; but meeting with ill usage, he withdrew from the Churches communion, with his Disciples, although he still retained the same Faith, and agreed in the Substantials of Religion with the best Christians;* 1.318 but forbore all communion with them; which Epiphanius accounts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most dreadful thing in the World: and yet upon Dr. O's Principles of Separation, they did a very commendable thing as long as their design was to restore the Churches Discipline, and to con∣sult their own greater Edification.

The followers of Eustathius Sebastenus are on this account likewise excused, who withdrew from

the publick Congregations on a pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia, and stand con∣demned in several Canons of the Council at Gan∣grae; so are those mention'd and condemn'd in the Councils of Constantinople and Carthage; and the Separation of Felicissimus and his Brethren from St. Cyprian; all which are set down together in my Sermon, but are gently passed over by Dr. O. and Mr. B. and the rest of their Adversaries.

Only one saith,* 1.319 That the Errors of the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus, both in Opinion and Practise, were very gross, which the Council takes notice of and condemns. Yet, as gross as they were, there was a pretence of greater Sanctity and Purity in them. For their abstaining from Marriage, and pe∣culiarity of Habits, and Separate Meetings, were all carried on with the same Pretence.

To proceed then. On the same accounts the Donatists will be vindicated in the main grounds of their Schism, although they were mistaken in the matter of fact concerning Coecilian; for their great pretence was to preserve the purity of the Churches Discipline, as may at large be seen in Opta∣tus, and St. Augustin; and yet they frequently, and deliberately call it, a most Damnable and Sacri∣legious Schism.

The Luciferians pretended such a zeal for the true Faith, and the Discipline of the Church, that the only pretence for their Schism was, that they could not communicate with those who had sub∣scribed to Arianism, or received Ordination from

Ari••n Bishops; as may be seen at large in the Book of Marcellinus and Faustinus. And they joyned with the party of Vrsinus at Rome against that of Damasus, and complained, they were deprived of the liberty of choosing their own Pastors.

So that upon these grounds, there hath scarce been any considerable Schism in the Christian Church, but may be justified upon Dr. Owens Rea∣sons for Separation from our Church.

Sect. 26. (4.) Another Argument against this course of Separation, is, That these grounds will make Separation endless. Which is, to suppose all the Exhortations of Scripture to Peace and Vnity among Christians, to signifie nothing. For nothing being more contrary to Vnity than Di∣vision and Separation; if there be no bounds set, but what the fancies of Men dictate to them, be sufficient Grounds to justifie Division and Separa∣tion; any People may break Communion with a Church, and set up a new one, when they think fit; which will leave the Christian Church in a re∣mediless condition against those who break its Peace and Communion.* 1.320 It being a true saying of Mr. Cottons of New-England, That they that separate from their Brethren farther than they have just Cause, shall at length find cause (or at lest think they have found cause) just enough to separate one from ano∣ther. I never heard, saith he, of any instance to the contrary, either in England, or Holland. The sub∣stance of this I had objected before in the Preface to my Sermon;* 1.321 To which Mr. A. Replies after this manner; That though some petty and inconsi∣derable inconveniencies, some little trouble may

arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds; yet this is no Reason why they should enslave their Iudgments or Consciences to others. And Is this all the Antidote against the Mischief of Sepa∣ration? Is it a Sin, to break the Churches Commu∣nion, or, Is it not? If it be a Sin in some cases, but not in others; Why do you not shew us what those cases are; and that it is a sinful Separa∣tion in other cases, but not in them? But to talk of small inconveniencies by the levity of Peoples minds, is Childish trifling, and not Answering. Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty in∣convenience? Is this an Answer becoming a Chri∣stian, To swell every small imposition into a huge insupportable Mountain, and to make themselves lie groaning under the weight of a Ceremony or two, as though their very heart-strings were cracking, and as if Nero had begun a fresh Persecution; and at the same time to lessen the guilt of Division and Separation, as though it were nothing but a little wantonness in the Lambs of their Flocks, frisking up and down from one Pasture to another; some small and inconsiderable inconveniencies may happen by it, but not worth speaking of; and it is pity they should be deprived of their pleasure for it? What a rare Advocate had this Man been for the Novatians, Donati••ts, Luciferians, or what Schisma∣ticks soever rent the Church in pieces in former times? And supposing St. Cyprian, and St. Augu∣stine, and other great opposers of the antient Schisms, to be met together, we may gather from these words, and the Principles of Separa∣tion, which he lays down, after what manner he would accost them.

Alass (saith he) What do you

mean, Cyprian, and Austin, and other Reverend Fa∣thers, to talk with so much severity and sharpness against separation from the communion of the Church, as though it were such a damnable sin, such a sacri∣legious impiety, such a horrid wickedness? Will you make no allowance to the levity and volubility of Mens Minds? What! you would have Men en∣slave their Iudgments and consciences to others, would you? you would have us be meer Brutes to be managed by your Bit and Bridle? If the No∣vatians do think your Discipline too loose, Why should not they joyn together for stricter? If Fe∣licissimus and his Brethren dislike some things in the Church of Carthage, Why may not they go to the Mountains for separate Meetings? If the good People were imposed upon against their Wills in the choice of Cornelius, Why may not they choose Novatian for their Pastor? What a stir do you Cyprian make in your Epistles about keep∣ing the Peace of the Church, and submitting to your Rules of Discipline? As though there were not more mischief in your imposing, than in the Peoples separating. And as for you, Augustin, Who can with patience read your long and fierce De∣clamations, against the sober Donatists? For, there were mad hare-brained Fanaticks, called Circumcellians, who were troubled with more than ordinary levity and volubility, running from place to place, and taking away other Mens lives, and their own too, out of pure zeal; These I grant have an extraordinary Worm, which ought to be picked out in time; but for the rest of the Brethren that only separate on the account of impurity which they apprehend in your Church,

Why should you be so severe against them? Why do you so often cry out of the sacrilegiousness of this Schism? we know no other sacriledge, but the sacrilegious desertion of our Ministery, in obedi∣ence to the Laws; this is a Sacriledge we often talk of, and tell the People, it is far worse than robbing Church-Plate, considering what precious Gifts we have.* 1.322 But for the Sacriledge of Schism, that we can never understand; although I per∣ceive you have it over and over; besides many other hard words,* 1.323 wherein you would seem to make it the greatest of all Wickedness; and you say, That God punished it more severely than Idolatry; since those who were guilty of the latter, were to be destroyed by the Sword, but Schismaticks were swallowed up of the Earth;* 1.324 as Corah, and his Company. Whereas we that have greater light, look upon Separation but as an effect of the levity and volubility of Mens Minds, and though some little trouble may come to the Church by it, yet it is far better than submission to others impositions. And is not this an intolerable imposition, for you to force these honest Donatists to Commu∣nicate in a corrupt and impure Church, as they do believe yours to be? When the Cause was strictly examined at Carthage,* 1.325 What was it their Party pleaded for, but Purity of Discipline, and that the Church was defiled for want of it? and therefore they were forced to Separate, for greater Purity of Ordinances. And, Is this the Damna∣ble, Devillish, Sacrilegious Schism you talk of? Methinks you should consider better the Mis∣chief of your Impositions, when you require Com∣munion so strictly with you, or else they must

presently be Separatists and Schismaticks. I pray Sirs have a little patience with me; if I do not fetch off my good friends the Donatists in this matter, we will all be content to be called Schis∣maticks,* 1.326 as well as they. For if our Principles do clear our selves, I am sure they will do as good a turn for them. Now, the main Prin∣ciples of our present Separation are these.

(1▪) That every particular Church, upon a due bal∣lance of all circumstances, has an inherent right to choose its own Pastor, and every particular Christi∣an the same Power to choose his own Church. I say not to mischoose, do you mark me, but, a power to choose; not to choose any, but one that may best advance their own Edification; at lest that no Pa∣stor be forced upon a Church, no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent. Now I pray consider, Why might not Lucilla, and Do∣natus, and Botrus, and Celeustus, with their Party among the People at Carthage, choose Majorinus for their Pastor; although the rest had chosen Cae∣cilian? For they were not well satisfied with Mensurius his Predecessor, whom they suspected for a Traditor; but when they had their liberty to choose, Why should they be debarred of their inherent right of choosing their own Pastor? Why should Caecilian be obtruded upon them? Why should not they choose one, who would best ad∣vance their Edification? For Caecilian was at lest under suspicion of compliance in time of Perse∣cution; and therefore for my part, upon our Prin∣ciples, I think the Donatists very free from the charge of Schism.

(2.) That it is the duty of every Christian to Wor∣ship

God, not only in purity of heart, but according to the purity of Gospel-Administrations. Now ob∣serve, that there was nothing the Donatists plead∣ed so much, and so vehemently for, as the purity of Gospel-Administrations. This was that which Parmenian, Petilian, and the rest still contended for, as appears by the Plea they put in for them∣selves in the last Conference at Carthage. We are they (say they) that have suffer'd persecution for maintaining the Purity of the Church,* 1.327 this hundred years, because we would not comply with their cor∣ruptions, we have been turned out of our Churches, and been sent to Prison, and had our Goods taken from us, and some of our Brethren have been killed, and others hardly used for so good a Cause; And, Can such Men as you condemn them for a hor∣rible Schism? I tell you, they are as Innocent as our selves, for they went upon the same grounds.

(3.) That every Christian is obliged to live in the use of all God's Ordinances and Commandments. Now, Is not Discipline one of God's Ordinances? And, Do we not make want of Discipline, one of the Reasons of our Separation? And there∣fore the Donatists were very honest Men, for they were just of our mind. And these being the chief grounds we go upon, we cannot but in Brotherly kindness speak this in vindication of them, against your unreasonable severity. I know you tell them often, There will be no end of Separation upon these terms; for why might not Maximia••••us do the same by Primianus, that Majorinus did by Caecilian? and so make frustum de frusto, by which they did minuta••im concidere,* 1.328 cut the

Church into so many little pieces,* 1.329 that could never be joyned together again: But, let me tell you, that the force of your Argument comes to this, That Men may choose one Pastor to day, and another to morrow, and a third the next; and so turn round till they are giddy, and run ••hemselves out of breath in a wild Goose chase, till they sit down and rest in Irreligion and Atheism. And is this all? (these are his own words.) The Apostle commands us to prove all things (What! By running from one Com∣munion to another?) M••••t we needs therefore ne∣ver hold fast that which is good? unsetled heads, and unsetled hearts will be ••••ndring; let them go, 'tis a good riddance of them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they be obstinate; but where this humor has destroyed one Church, this rigo∣rous forcing of Pastors on the People (as Caecilian on the People of Carthage) has divided and destroy∣ed hundreds.

Thus far the Advocate-General for Schisma∣ticks.

Judge now, Reader, whether the Causes of the present Separation, as they are laid down by my Adversary, do not equally defend the Donatists in their Schism; and his making so light a matter of Schisms doth not give encouragement to Men to make more.

Sect. 27. But I shall not send him so far back as St. Cyprian, and St. Augustin, for better instruction in this matter; but I shall refer him to one whose Writings I perceive he is better acquainted with,

even Mr. Baxter. Who hath very well, in several Books, set forth the great Mischief of Divisions, and Separations. He doth not look upon them as pet∣ty and inconsiderable inconveniencies, little troubles to the Church,* 1.330 the effects of levity, and volubility of Mens Minds; but he quotes above Forty places of Scri∣pture against them, and saith, That the World, the Flesh, and the Devil are the causes from whence they come; that they are as much the Works of the Flesh, as Adulteries, Fornications, &c. that contentious divi∣ders are carnal Men, and have not the Spirit; that Divisions are the Wounding,* 1.331 nay the Killing of the Church, as much as lieth in the Dividers; and that to Reform the Church, by dividing it, is no wiser, than to cut out the Liver, or Spleen, or Gall to cleanse them from the filth that both obstruct them, and hinder them in their Office: that Divisions are the deformi∣ties of the Church, the lamentation of Friends, and the scorn of Enemies: the dishonor of Christ and the Gos∣pel: the great hindrance of the Conversion and Salva∣tion of the World, and of the Edification of the Mem∣bers of the Church: That they fill the Church with sins of a most odious nature; they cherish Pride, and Ma∣lice, and Belying others (the three great Sins of the Devil) as naturally as dead flesh breedeth Worms. In a word, the Scripture telleth us, that where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. (And, is not this a lamentable way of Reformation of some imaginary, or lesser evils) Yet farther, he saith, They are uneasie to the persons themselves, and rob them of the sweetest part of Religion; they lead directly to Apostacy from the Faith, and shake States and King∣doms, having a lamentable influence on the Civil Peace.

Is all this nothing but the natural effect of the levi∣ty or volubility of Peoples Minds?* 1.332 This learned Au∣thor begins his Book with a very starched relation of his admirable Reading, That in his time he hath read an Elegant Oration in praise of a Quartan Ague; another upon the Gout, a third upon Folly; but there wants one yet in the praise of Schism; and I never met with one that doth offer fairer toward it, than he doth. For he not only excuses it, from the natural cause of it, and the small trouble that attends it; but he implies it to be the consequence of Mens using their Reason, and not being made Bruits to be managed with a strong bit and bridle. But Mr. Bax∣ter will teach him another Lesson; for, he saith, that Schism is a sin against so many,* 1.333 and clear, and vehe∣ment words of the Holy Ghost, that it is utterly with∣out excuse; Whoredoms, and Treason, and Perjury are not oftner forbidden in the Gospel, than this: that it is contrary to the very design of Christ in our Redem∣ption, which was, to reconcile us all to God, and to unite and centre us all in him: that, it is contrary to the design of the Spirit of Grace, and to the very nature of Chri∣stianity it self: that it is a sin against the nearest bonds of our highest Relations to each other; that it is either a dividing Christ, or robbing him of a great part of his inheritance: and neither of these is a little sin: that it is accompanied with Self-ignorance, and Pride, and great unthankfulness to God: that Church-divi∣ders are the most successful servants of the Devil, be∣ing enemies to Christ in his Family and Livery: and that they serve the Devil more effectually than open enemies: that Schism is a sin which contradicteth all

Gods Ordinances and Means of Grace, which are purposely to procure and maintain the Vnity of his Church. That it is a sin against as great and lamen∣table experiences, as almost any sin can be: and this is a heinous aggravation of it, that it is commonly justified, and n••t repented of by those that commit it; and it is yet the more heinous, `that it is commonly fa∣ther'd upon God: Lastly, that it is most unlike the Heavenly State, and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil, for he would not destroy it by dividing it against it self. Remember now, saith he, that Schism, and making Parties and Divisions in the Church, is not so small a Sin, as many take it for. I conclude this, with his Admonition to Bag shaw, up∣on his lessening the Sin of Separation. Alass, dear Brother, that after so many years Silencing and Af∣fliction,* 1.334 after Flames and Plagues, and Dreadful Iudg∣ments, after Twenty years Practice of the Sin it self, and when we are buried in the Ruines which it caused, we should not yet know, that our own Vncharitable Divisions, Alienations, and Separations are a Crying Sin! Yea, the Crying Sin; as well as the Vncharita∣bleness and Hurtfulness of others. Alass! Will God leave us also, even us, to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh? Doth not Iudgment begin with us? Is there not Cry∣ing Sin with us? What have we done to Christ's Kingdom, to this Kingdom, to our Friends (dead and alive) to our selves, and (alass) to our Ene∣mies, by our Divisions. And, Do we not feel it? Do we not know it? Is it to us, even to us, a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance? Woe to us! In∣to what Hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves? Yea, that we should continue, and Passionately defend

it! When will God give us Repentance unto Life?

Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously, and then consider, Whether he can go on to Ex∣cuse, and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM.

But it may be said, That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively, with enslaving our Iudgments and Consciences to others, which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle; and he saith, This is a Me∣dicine worse than the Poyson, even as 'tis much better to have a Rational Soul, though subject to Mistakes, than the Soul of a Brute, which may be managed as you will, with a strong bit and bridle. To make it plain, that he makes little, or nothing of the Sin of Separation, we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer; which was, That if it be law∣ful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity, where there is an Agreement in Doctrine, and the substan∣tial parts of Worship, as is agreed in our Case, then a bare difference of Opinion, as to some circum∣stances of Worship, and the best Constitution of Churches, will be sufficient Ground to break Com∣munion, and to set up new Churches; which consider∣ing the great variety of Mens fancies about these matters, is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches, without any possible stop to farther Separati∣on. Where we see plainly the inconvenience ur∣ged is endless Separation: Doth he set any kind of bounds to it? No; but only talkes of inconside∣rable

and petty inconveniencies, and some little trou∣ble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds, i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will▪ ••his is the worst of it; and he must grant, that though Separation be endless, there is no harm in it. But he that could find out a me∣dium between Circumstances of Worship, and Substan∣tials; can find out none between endless Separati∣on, and the enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consci∣ences: for he supposes, one of the two must of neces∣sity be: Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists. For this is their Argument, Either we must give up our Iudgments and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides, or there will be endless Sepa∣ration. He grants the consequence, and cries, What then? It is nothing but the levity and volubility of Mens Minds, and this is much rather to be chosen, than the other. But any sound Protestant that un∣derstands the State of the Controversie between us and them (as this Author apparently doth not) will presently deny the Consequence: because a pru∣dent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences, and endless Separati∣on. But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together, and leaping over Hedge and Ditch, being kept within no bounds. And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose, that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Princi∣ple, of enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences, forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure? and if he doth not suppose it, his Discourse is frivolous and imperti••••••t. For, a due submission to the Rules of our established Church,

without any force on the Consciences of Men, as to the Infallibility of Guides, or necessity of the things themselves; will put a sufficient stop to Sepa∣ration; which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions.

Sect. 28. (5.) Lastly, I Argue against this Se∣paration, from the Obligation which lies upon all Chri∣stians, to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church. And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men, who it may be will little regard other inconveniences, if the pra∣ctice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God. Which I now undertake to prove, upon these Suppositions.

(1.) That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church. For it is not possible to suppose, that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men, with plainer Precepts, and stronger Argu∣ments than this is. The places are so many, that it were endless to repeat them; and therefore needless, because this is agreed on all hands. So that violation of the Vnity of the Church, where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it, is a Sin, as much as Murder is, and as plainly forbidden. But it happens here, as it doth in the other case, that as Murder is always a sin; but there may be some circumstances, which may make the taking away a Mans life, not to be Murder; so it may happen, that though Schism be always a sin, yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation

not to be a Schism; but then they must be such Reasons, as are not fetched from our Fancies, no more than in the case of Murder; but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law. For, he only that made the Law can except from it.

(2.) The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love, but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church. For although the for∣mer be a duty, yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian, which is to joyn together, as Members of the same Body. And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together; and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church, it is said, The Dis∣ciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellow∣ship,* 1.335 and in breaking of Bread,* 1.336 and in Prayers. And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body, by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ.* 1.337 We being many are one Bread, and one Body; for we are all partakers of that one Bread.* 1.338 And by one Spirit, we are all Baptized into one Body; whether we be Iews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The Vnity of the Christi∣an Church,* 1.339 St. Paul saith, is to be preserved by the bond of Peace; and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit; and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head, whom he calls One Lord, so they are joyned together by One Faith, and One Baptism. Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds, as well as Internal, that is, One Faith, and One Bap∣tism, as well as One Lord, and One Spirit; so the

manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by Exter∣nal Acts; for, How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual; as in∣ward love to the Members of the Body, being present in Spirit, &c? Therefore, the Obligati∣on to preserve the Vnity of the Church, doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church, in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion.

(3.) Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members, but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles, as a sufficient Reason for it. Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution; and the obliga∣tion to Communion being so strictly enjoyned, we are to suppose it still to hold, where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not ap∣pear. Although God hath, with great severity, for∣bidden Killing: yet when himself appointed par∣ticularly cases, wherein Mens Lives were to be ta∣ken away; we are thereby assur'd, that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden; so in the present case, if it appear that although Separa∣tion from the C••mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned; yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions, we are certain in those ca∣ses such Separation is no sin. But then, as in the former case, no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood, who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice; so here, no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end, will justifie his Separation; for the guilt of the sin

remains as great in it self. And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testa∣ment than this; it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church, which our Saviour pray∣ed for,* 1.340 and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians; and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere. From hence Irenaeus saith, That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church,* 1.341 and rather regard their own advantage, than the Churches Vni∣ty; who, for slight causes, or for any, make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ, and do what in them lies to destroy it. They speak for Peace, saith he, but they mean War: they strain at a Gnat, and swallow Camels. The benefit they hope to bring to the Church, cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism.* 1.342 Nothing provokes God more, saith St. Chrysostom, than to divide his Church: Nay, saith he, the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it. The Mischief the Church receives by it, is greater than it receives from open Enemies: for the one makes it more glorious, the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies, when it is set upon by its own Children. This, saith he, I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism; and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church. If their doctrine be contrary to ours, for that reason they ought to abstain; if not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they ought to do it so much the rather. Do no you know, what Corah, Dathan, and Abiram suffer'd? and not they only, but those that were with them. But you say, they have the same Faith, and they are very Orthodox; Why then, saith he, do they Sepa∣rate?

One Lo••d, one Faith, one Baptism. If they do well, we do ill; if we do well, they do ill. If they have the same Doctrines, the same Sacraments, For what cause do they set up another Church in oppo∣sition to ours? It is nothing but vain glory, ambiti∣on and deceit. Take away the People from them, and you cut off the disease. And after much more to that purpose; I speak these things, saith he, that no Man might say, he did not know it to be such a sin: I tell you, and testifie this to you, that Separa∣tion from the Church, or dividing of it, is no less a sin, than falling into Heresy. If the sin then be so great and dangerous, Men ought to examin with great care, what cases those are wherein Separati∣on may be made without Sin.

And I do earnestly desire our Brethren, as they love their own Souls, and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin, Impartially and without Preju∣dice to consider this passage of Irenaeus, and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us, and set up other Churches in opposition to ours, which yet they acknowledge to be very Or∣thodox, and to agree with them in the same Do∣ctrine, and the same Sacraments.

4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation.

First, In the case of Idolatrous Worship. For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should ab∣stain from Idolatry, as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church. Neither be ye Idolaters.

Flee from Idolatry.* 1.343 Keep your selves from Idols. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.* 1.344 And to the case of Idolaters, St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babyloni∣ans,* 1.345 Come out from among them,* 1.346 and be separate; and touch not the unclean thing. Now in this case, where there is so plain a Command, there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation; if Men can∣not joyn with a Church in their Religious Wor∣ship, without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden.

Secondly, In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true.* 1.347 For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Go∣vernors of the Church;* 1.348 yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel, or to corrupt the true one; St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them:* 1.349 and that implies, that they should have no Communion with them, but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body (like putrid Members) lest they should corrupt the rest. St. Paul commands Ti∣tus,* 1.350 when there is no hopes of reclaiming such, to exclude them from the Society of Christians. St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such. The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans;* 1.351 and the Church of Pergamus re∣proved for tolerating their Doctrine.* 1.352

Thirdly. In case Men make things indifferent ne∣cessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account. And this was the case of the false Apostles,* 1.353 who urged the Ceremonies of the Law, as

necessary to Salvation; and to propagate this Opi∣nion of theirs, they went up and down, and en∣deavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples, and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians; and to allow none to partake with them, that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremo∣monies to Salvation. Now although St. Paul him∣self complyed sometimes with the practice of them; and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea, generally observed them; yet when these false A∣postles came to enforce the observation of them, as necessary to Salvation, then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them,* 1.354 i. e. to fly their Com∣munion, and have nothing to do with them. These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament, wherein Separation from Publick Communion is al∣lowed; but there are two others, wherein S. Paul gives particular directions, but such as do not amount to Separation.

1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks;* 1.355 some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence, from all Flesh; some for a Iewish Abstinence, from some certain sorts; others for a full Christian Liber∣ty. Now this being a matter of Diet, and relating to their own Families, the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another; but not∣withstanding this difference, to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all. For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks;* 1.356 i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit; but that requires innocency, and a care not to

give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters; which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost; which is provoked and grieved by the dis∣sentions of Christians. And he, saith he, that in these things serveth Christ,* 1.357 is acceptable to God, and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace,* 1.358 and things wherewith we may edifie one another. In such Cases then, the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Com∣munion of Christians. It was the same case as to the observation of Days then; for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues; others did not; but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship. And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual for∣bearance as to different Communions; but to shew, that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians, and so the Apostles discourse, Rom. 14. holds strongly a∣gainst Separation, on these and the like Ac∣counts.

2. The corrupt lives of many who were not un∣der Churches Censure. When St. Paul taxes so ma∣ny Corruptions in the Church of Corinth, no wonder if some of them, put the case to them, what they should do, in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives; although the of∣fences were not scandalous, by being publickly known; Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these?* 1.359 To this St. Paul Answers,

That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such; If any one that is a Brother, be a fornicator, &c. with such a one, no not to eat. Which is all the Apostle requires of pri∣vate Christians; but if the Scandal be publick, as that of the Incestuous persou, the Church had power to vindicate its own honor, by casting such out: not as though the Church Communion were defiled,* 1.360 if they continued in; but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it; the preservation whereof, is the true cause of the Churches Discipline. But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Com∣munion, though such persons still continued in it. For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity, which will not hold as to publick Com∣munion. For our Communion in publick, is a thing which chiefly respects God, and a necessary duty of his own appointing, the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises, and all the communion they have with other Men, is only joyning toge∣ther for the performance of a common Religious Du∣ty: but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with, and a thing of mere choice, and hardly to be imagined without ap∣probation at lest, if not imitation of their wickedness. And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable.

The matter of Separation being th••s stated ac∣cording to the Scripture, there can be no way le••t to justifie the Separation from our Church, but to prove, either that our Worship is Idolatrous, or

that our Doctrine is false, or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation; which are all so remote from any color of Truth, that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to under∣take it. But however, what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined.

PART III.

The Pleas for Separation examined.

Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Sepa∣ration may be reduced to these Heads. 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church. 2. To the terms of Communion with it. 3. To the Con∣sciences of Dissenters. 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome.

1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church: which are these,

• 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution.
• 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull.
• 3. That our National Church hath no foun∣dation.
• 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours.

1. I begin with our Parochial Churches; because it is Separation from these, with which we principally

charge our Adversaries; for herein they most disco∣ver their principles of Separation, since in former times, the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them. But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England, the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it, whatever their principles are, at least so far as concerns forsa∣king Communion with our Parochial Churches, and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship. This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined. And the main foundation of that way, I said, was, that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules, which were onely particular and Congregational Churches. Concerning which I laid down two things. (1.) That supposing Congrega∣tional Churches to be of Christ's Institution, this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches, which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them. (2.) That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations.

In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things, (1.) That they do not deny, at least some of our Parochial Chur∣ches to be true Churches: but why then do they deny Communion with them? But, he saith, he hopes it will not be made a Rule, that Communion may not be withheld (so the sense must be although not be left out) or withdrawn from any Church in any thing, so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so. This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed.* 1.361 But as long as he grants, that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine, or idolatrous

Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches, I do assert it to be a Sin to sepa∣rate from them. Not but that I think, there may be a separation without sin, from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church; but then I say, the reason of such separation is, some heinous Errour in Doctrine, or some idolatrous Practice in Worship, or some tyranny over the Consciences of men; which may not be such, as to destroy true Baptism; and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church. And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter.

(2.) He answers, That they do not say, that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Chur∣ches as Christ hath instituted, that therefore it is law∣full and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches, but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them, it is the duty of them who doe so, to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation.

To which I reply, that This is either not to the business, or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Inde∣pendency. For, wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations, when not one of the things, now particularly alleged against our Church, was required of them? But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches, then they are such things, as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches; And then I intreat him to tell me, what difference there is, between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted;

and separating from them because they have things re∣pugnant to the first Institution of Churches? Is not this the primary reason of Separation, because Christ hath appointed unalterable. Rules for the Government of his Church; which we are bound to observe, and which are not observed in Parochial Churches? In∣deed, the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution; but the primary ground is, that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably ob∣served. Let us then (1.) suppose, that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation, so qualified; and that these by en∣tring into Covenant with each other become a Church, and choose their Officers, who are to Teach, and Admo∣nish and Administer Sacraments, and to exercise Dis∣cipline by the consent of the Congregation; And let us (2.) suppose such a Church not yet gathered, but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes. (3.) Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church. (4.) Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these mem∣bers; neither the aëreal sign of the Cross, nor kneeling at the Communion, &c. I desire then to know, whe∣ther Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches, on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church, according to Christ's Institu∣tion? Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules, and the Institution of Christ; or he must acknow∣ledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches. If they do suppose but one of those Ordi∣nances

wanting which they believe Christ hath insti∣tuted in particular Churches, do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation? It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church, which is the true Cause of their separation; but such Reasons as are common to all Churches, that are not formed just af∣ter their own model. If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches, those must be ob∣served, and separation made in order to it; and there∣fore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds, not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us, but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way. But this was a neces∣sary piece of art at this time, to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party, and to make them believe (if they can be so forgetfull) that they do not own separation from their Churches, but onely from ours, the con∣trary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren, and the setting up Congrega∣tional Churches in those days, that they must be for∣getfull indeed, who do not remember it. Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judg∣ments? Hath Dr. O. yielded, that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon, they would give over separation? Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congrega∣tions? And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration, would they not have continued their Separation? Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation, when it is notoriously otherwise; and they did separate and form their Churches, upon rea∣sons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches? This is more artificial than ingenuous.

Sect. 2. As to the Second, Dr. O. answers, that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact,* 1.362 and so neces∣sary from the nature of the thing, that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations, that many wise men, wholly unconcerned in our Con∣troversies, do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute. And for this two Testimonies are alleged, of Iustice Hobart, and Father Paul; but neither of them speaks to the point. All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is, That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity, was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles, and after to other Pastours. Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin, it signifies so very little to the purpose; or rather, quite overthrows his Hypothesis; as appears by these two Arguments. (1.) Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set, were no limited Congre∣gations of any one particular Church; but those Con∣gregations over whom the Apostles were set, are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks. And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles, which he calls voluntary Congregations. (2.) Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease, were no particular Congregations in one City; but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks, were such; for he saith, they first submitted to the Apostles, and after to other Pastours. But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City. And therefore, if he consults Iustice Hobart's honour or his own, I advise him to let it alone for the future. As to the Testimony

of Father Paul, it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church, and I wonder how it came into this place; I shall therefore consider it in its due season.

Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now, the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches; concerning which,* 1.363 these are my words.

It is pos∣sible at first, there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship; but where doth it appear, that when they multiplied into more Congregations, they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government? Of this I am well assured, there is no mark or foot∣step in the New Testament, or the whole History of the Primitive Church. I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man, that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Wor∣ship; not, if we make all the allowances for stran∣gers which can be desired: but if this were gran∣ted, where are the unalterable Rules, that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly, they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority?

To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars.

1. That an account may e're long be given of the in∣sensible deviation of the First Churches after the de∣cease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institu∣tion: which although at first it began in matters of small moment; yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy; Or as he after expresses it, leaving

their Infant state, by degrees, they at last brought forth the Man of Sin. But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches; but be∣ing I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Anti∣quity, I shall not onely so far take notice of it, as to let him know, that when that is done, I do not que∣stion, but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England: but I desire that undertaker to consider, what a blot and disho∣nour it will be to Christian Religion, if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution, not for one Age after the Apostles. I know what abomi∣nable Heresies there were soon after, if not in the Apostles days; but the question is not concerning these, but the purest and best Churches; and about them, not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise, and humane infirmities be discovered; but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ, and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church? This seems utterly in∣credible to me upon this consideration among many others: That Government is so nice and tender a thing, that every one is so much concerned for his share in it, that men are not easily induced to part with it. Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first, as Dr. O. seems to doe; is it probable, that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Govern∣ment so soon and made no noise about it? Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage;* 1.364 and others say, a great deal longer: there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so

soon after. And why should we imagin it otherwise, as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction? Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Con∣gregation; the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation, than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London, could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it; and appoint their several Teachers, and call them to an ac∣count for their proceedings. I appeal now to any man of consideration, whether there be the least pro∣bability that such an alteration could be made with∣out great noise and disturbance? Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more, think themselves con∣cerned to stand up for their own Rights? And if they could be drawn into the design, would the People submit? Let us put the case, as to New-England. Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since, had planted such Congregational Churches there, as have been formed within these last 50 years at Pli∣mouth, Boston, Hereford, Newhaven, &c. and had in∣vested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys, the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships, within their own Congrega∣tion; but so, as not to have any Power or Authority, over the Elders or Members of any other Congre∣gation: let us then suppose, that after the decease of the Apostles, these Churches gradually declined so far, that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take up∣on him the whole Power of the Keys, and not one∣ly so, but appoint Pastours over other Congregations, and keep a great number of Elders under him, and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets, of which Boston is the chief

Town, and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies; would not this be a won∣derfull alteration of the Church Government? And is it possible to conceive, such a change should be brought about insensibly, without any complaint of the subordinate Elders, or the members of the Congre∣gations, who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ, and so late an establishment by the Apostles? Doctrines may be insensibly chan∣ged by continuing the names and altering opi∣nions, through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People: but in matters of Government, the meanest People are sensible, and look big with an opinion of it. If therefore it be not conceivable in this case, the Government should be thus changed from the In∣stitution of Christ in so short a time; let the same con∣sideration be applied to the Ages which really suc∣ceeded the Apostles.

Sect. 4. I shall, to prevent all cavils, choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions, and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to, and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time. Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determi∣ning Church affairs;* 1.365 but Mr. Cotton hath further dis∣covered the judgment of the Elders, the Votes of the Congregation, and the Consent of neighbour Ministers; in short, he hath found there, the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Disci∣pline; and the same for substance wherein they walk (as he calls it) at this day. Hitherto then, there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider, what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was: concerning which these things may be observed.

1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage, and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation. This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement.* 1.366 In one he gives them advice how to vi∣sit the Confessours in Prison, which he would have them to doe by turns, every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidi∣ous: and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them, the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable. When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage,* 1.367 he gives this reason of it, that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men, it being now impaired by the fall of some, during the persecution.* 1.368 In the case of Philumanus, Fortu∣natus and Favorinus, he declares he would give no judgment, cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint, when many of his Clergy were absent. And in another Epistle he complains,* 1.369 that a great number of his Clergy were absent, and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work.* 1.370 At one time Felicis∣simus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage; and then he mentions Britius, Rogatianus and Numidicus, as the chief Pres∣byters remaining with them;* 1.371 besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers. About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City.* 1.372 And in Constantinople of old, saith Iustinian in his Novels,* 1.373 were 60 Presbyters (for in one he saith, The custom was to determin the number, and in another, that 60 was to be the number at Con∣stantinople.) Let any one now consider, whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single

Congregations; and at Carthage, we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians; that in the time of Persecution, although very many stood firm, yet the number of the lapsed was so great,* 1.374 that Saint Cypri∣an saith, Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for re∣conciliation to the Church: and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty per∣sons,* 1.375 the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation?

2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop. Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline,* 1.376 without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement. Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command, nor their own Place, nor the future Iudgment of God, nor the Bishop who was set over them, and had done that which was never done in foregoing times, to challenge those things to them∣selves, with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop, which was to receive Penitents to Communion with∣out imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy. Wherein,* 1.377 he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle, saying, that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will: for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop, that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over. In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion,* 1.378 he complains of these Presbyters, that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui & Cathedrae reservare, reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his

Place: and therefore charges, that nothing further be done in this matter till his return,* 1.379 when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops. Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour, to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen. Lucian returns him answer,* 1.380 that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name, and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed; but with this con∣dition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop, and upon such Discipline as he should impose, they were to be received to Communion.* 1.381 So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church; yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop. Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presby∣ters and Confessours;* 1.382 they return him answer, that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office, especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence. In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him;* 1.383 and threatens excommunica∣tion to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it. The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See, take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remit∣ting the lapsed to the Bishop,* 1.384 as an argument of their great modesty, and that they did not think the Disci∣pline of the Church belonged to them: and they de∣clare their resolution,* 1.385 to doe nothing in this matter, till they had a new Bishop. By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in

the Congregation, or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys; but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters. And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People, to appoint and ordain their own Officers,* 1.386 Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage, that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy; although his gene∣ral custom was in Ordinations to consult them before, and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one:* 1.387 which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers: the same he doth soon after, concerning Celerinus and Numidicus.* 1.388 When he could not go among them himself, by reason of the persecution, he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops,* 1.389 and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters, to visit in his name; and to take care of the poor, and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy. Who give an account in the next Epistle,* 1.390 that they had excommuni∣cated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation.

3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Autho∣rity which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People, but from the Institution of Christ.* 1.391 So upon the occasion of the Martyrs inva∣ding the Discipline of the Church, he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter, Thou art Peter, &c. And whatsoever you shall bind, &c. From whence, saith he, by a constant succession of times, such a course hath been always observed in the Church, that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops, and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct. Since this, saith he, is a Divine Institution, I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to

me (concerning the lapsed) since the Church consists in the Bishop, the Clergy and the standing People. In his Epistle to Antonianus,* 1.392 he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world:* 1.393 and in that to Cornelius, that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him, which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God:* 1.394 and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ; and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders. To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus,* 1.395 and to Pupianus; where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop;* 1.396 and to Stephanus, that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course.

Let the Reader now judge, whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way; and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church. But we have this advantage from this appeal, that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Pri∣mitive Institution, and what that was in Saint Cypri∣an's judgment any one may see; when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church, but what was generally observed over the Christian world. And now let Dr. O. give an account, how a change so great, so sudden, so universal, should happen in the Christian world, in the Government of the Church; that when Christ had placed the Power in the People, the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled, and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs, without any controul from the People: which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear, that the Power was at first lodged in them, and not in the People. For,

as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues, It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power, as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History,* 1.397 and that over all the world; and in a way of ambition, in such humbling times, without all manner of opposition for 300 years together, and immediately after the Apostles; had it been usurpation or innovation. When and where is in∣novation without opposition? Would not Elders, so many seeing and knowing men, at least some of them, have contended for Truth, wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed? Aërius his op∣posing of Bishops, so long after their rise and standing, is inconsiderable. The force of which reasoning, will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind, than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side. So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles de∣cease.

Sect. 5. (2.) Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches, that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scrip∣ture.* 1.398 The matter of fact is, that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City, then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Of∣ficers, with a separate Power of Government. Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it. For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers: i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture: yet, saith he, there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province. But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way? The thing

I desired was, that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations, they would prove, that they did make new and distinct Churches; and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province. Who ever denied or disputed that? On the contrary, the proof of this, is a great advantage to our Cause; for since, where the Scrip∣ture speaks of the Churches of a Province, it speaks of them as of different Churches; but when it mentions the Christians of one City, it calls them the Church of that City (as the Church of Ierusalem, the Church of Ephesus;* 1.399 but the Churches of Iudea, Galilee and Sama∣ria) what can be more evident, than that the Chri∣stians of one City, though never so numerous, made but one Church? If one observe the language of the New Testament, one may find this observation not once to fail: that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number,* 1.400 they are the Churches of a Province, as the Churches of Iudea,* 1.401 the Churches of Asia; the Churches of Syria and Cilicia;* 1.402 the Churches of Galatia; the Churches of Macedonia;* 1.403 but where all the Chri∣stians of one City are spoken of,* 1.404 it is still c••lled the Church of that City;* 1.405 as the Church at Antioch; the Church at Corinth; and when the 7 Churches are spo∣ken of together, they are the 7 Churches; but when spoken to single, it is the Church of Ephesus, the Church of Smyrna, &c. Which being spoken, without any discrimination, as to the difference of these pla∣ces, in greatness and capacity, or the number of Be∣lievers in them, doth evidently discover that what number soever they were, they were all but the Church of that City. For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephe∣sus, Sardis, Pergamus and Laodicea, which were great

and populous Cities, than in Thyatira and Philadel∣phia, which were much less; especially, considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephes••s;* 1.406 and the mighty success which he had in preaching there; which will amount to no great matter,* 1.407 if in three years time, he converted no more, than made up one single Congre∣gation. And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power, and prevalency of the Gospel. I cannot but wonder, what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province,* 1.408 as Galatia and Mace∣donia, he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations: who denies that? but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved, but because it could not be proved was pru∣dently let alone: whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City, though ne∣ver so great, made but one Church; and uncontrou∣lable evidence from Antiquity, that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City. All that he saith further to this matter,* 1.409 is, that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves, because in every one of them Elders were ordained, Act. 14. 22. which is again an argument on our side: for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so that by the Church is understood the Body of Chri∣stians inhabiting in one City, as the '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here; and particular Con∣gregations are but like the several Companies, all which together make up but one City.

Sect. 6. (3.) Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation, although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them, and occasional distinct As∣semblies for some Acts of Divine Worship. Then, say I, the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation: For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship, why not for others? if the number of Elders be unlimitted, then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship, and yet all together make up the Body of one Church; to which, if he had but al∣lowed a single Bishop over these, he had made up that representation of a Church, which we have from the best and purest Antiquity.* 1.410 And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens, Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities; the number of Pres∣byters with the Senates of the Cities; and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate. But Dr. O. adds, that when they did begin to exceed in number, beyond a just proportion for Edification; they did immediately erect other Churches among them, or near them. Name any one new Church erected in the same City, and I yield. And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edifi∣cation? But he names the Church at Cenchrea, which was a Port to the City of Corinth; because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth, Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer, (1.) It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth, as made them plant a distinct Church; and yet at Ephesus, where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence, and had great success, there was no need of any new and distinct Church. And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months,* 1.411

but at Ephesus three years;* 1.412 as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably? (2.) Stephanus Byzant. reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth;* 1.413 and so doth Strabo, who pla∣ceth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain; and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth:* 1.414 and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there, and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth.

As to the Church of Ierusalem,* 1.415 he saith, that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed, that some years after, there was such a Church there, as did meet together in one place, as occasion did require, even the whole multitude of the Brethren; nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella. To which I answer (1.) the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church,* 1.416 before any dispersion, or persecution. In which time we must sup∣pose a true Church to be formed, and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion: the Question then is, whether it be in the least pro∣bable, that 5000 persons should at that time, make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion? What place was there large enough to receive them, when they met for Prayer and Sacraments? Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience, and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed; but my question was about them, while they were toge∣ther. Were they not a Church then? Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers? But how could 5000

then doe all this together? Therefore a Church accor∣ding to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation. (2.) A Church consisting of many Con∣gregations, may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together; as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment, which yet ma∣nage their particular interests apart: so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congrega∣tions may meet by themselves; but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together;* 1.417 as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did,* 1.418 at their general Assemblies; which Strabo and Eustathius say, were 174. (3.) There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella,* 1.419 nei∣ther by Eusebius, nor Epiphanius who relate the sto∣ry, so that nothing can thence be concluded; but if the force lies, in his calling Pella a Village, I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea, beyond Iordan; and Epiphanius adds, that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria, and Decapolis, and Basanitis. So that all this put together makes no proof at all, that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations.

Sect. 7. (4.) He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter,* 1.420 since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it. But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches, and the Rules for their disposal and Government through∣out the world,* 1.421 are the same, stable and unalterable? Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing? Is it not Dr. O.

that saith, that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them,* 1.422 but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ? Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath in∣stituted and appointed for them? The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship; for all Parties are agreed therein; but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians? whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self, and unac∣countably, as to subordination to any other? How doth this appear from the nature of the thing, and the necessary duties of Christians? I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification: And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things. Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians, in my judgment tends to Edification. Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians: much less how it fol∣lows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter. And here the main Controversie lies, between us and the Congregational Churches. Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter? then it follows as much from the nature of the thing, that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Chur∣ches as well as Persons, every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self, but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace. And I cannot yet see, by all that

hath been said, how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Re∣ligion are acknowledged to be sound, and set up parti∣cular Independent Churches in opposition to it, can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism, how great and intolerable soever it be thought.* 1.423

As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila, and Nymphas and Philemon, I say,* 1.424 that this is to be understood, not of a Church mee∣ting in their Houses, but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say,* 1.425 most of our Divines are of that Opinion: and therefore the Argument holds against them. And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before, what obligation of Conscience can be upon any, when they may serve God in their Families, in opposition to Laws, to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them. For (1.) he grants that a Church may be in a Family; although a Family as such be not a Church. Then the members of a Family sub∣mitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church: for a Church, he saith, may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Fa∣mily. Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion; especially, when the addition of four more, may provide suffi∣ciently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church. (2.) All that he saith, is, that there is no such example given of Churches in pri∣vate Families in Scriptures, as should restrain the ex∣tent of Churches from Congregations of many Families. And what then? the Question is not now whether they be lawfull, but whether they be necessary; for

nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law; but where is that Command? Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing, and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches, as his great Rule in these cases? But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law? so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families. All that he saith further, as to this matter is,* 1.426 that if through non-compliance any di∣sturbance happen, the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution. Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compli∣ance; which in this case amounts to separation. But this primitive Constitution had need be far better pro∣ved, before it can be thought a good ground for brea∣king the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land; and much more, before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them. All men no doubt that ever broke Laws, if this Plea would be admitted, would transfer the blame upon those that made them. And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party.

Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those, who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be un∣lawfull. In my Sermon, as it is printed, I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter,* 1.427 That to devise new species of Churches (beyond Parochial or Congregational) without God's Authority, and to impose them on the world (yea in his name) and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks,* 1.428 is a far worse usurpation, than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies. Which I said

doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ; that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable: which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert. Now for our better understanding Mr. B.'s meaning, we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted. 1. He saith, Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches. 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new spe∣cies of Churches devised by men without God's Authority, and imposed in such a manner, that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it. 3. That such an im∣position is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies; and consequently affords a better plea for Separation. But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning, I will set down his own Cautions.* 1.429 1. That the Que∣stion is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons: i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop, if he hath Curates under him. This he calls Parochial Episcopacy. 2. Nor, whether these should have Arch∣bishops over them, as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary con∣tinued parts of their Office. 3. Nor, whether Partri∣archs, Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull, as Officers of the King, exercising under him such Go∣vernment of the Church as belongeth to Kings, to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit. 4. Nor, if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes, all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels, whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them. You will ask then, where lies this horrible imposition, and intole∣rable

usurpation? It is in requiring the owning the law∣fulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy; and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it. But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that? 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority. 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making: which, according to Mr. B. requires two things. 1. Local and presential Communion, as he calls it, i.e. That it consists onely of so many, as can well meet together for Church Society. 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours; which be∣ing taken away, they are onely Curates, and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches. This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B.'s opinion in this matter. Which tending so apparently to over∣throw our present Constitution as insupportable, and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church; Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church, I shall undertake these three things.

• 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primi∣tive Church.
• 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ, nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority.
• 3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches.

1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for sub∣stance which was in the Primitive Church. This I begin with, because Mr. B. so very often makes his

Appeal to Antiquity in this matter. And my first in∣quiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches;* 1.430 because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others; for in Saint Cyprian's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world; and that the Bishops there were the most godly, faithfull, peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times. And of the following times he thus speaks,* 1.431 Most of the African Councils, saith he, were the best in all the world.* 1.432 Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils, no Bishops being faithfuller than they. Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised, I shall lay down these two Observations.

Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them, That there was to be but one Bishop in a City, though the City were never so large, or the Christians never so many. This one Observation made good, quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis. For upon his principles, where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great,* 1.433 that they could not conveniently as∣semble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence, as he speaks; there either they must al∣ter the instituted species of Government, or they must have more Bishops than one in a City. For, he saith, the Church must be no bigger, than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion, and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 7, 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach, and have Conversation with. But that this was not so understood in the African Chur∣ches, appears by their strict observance of this Rule; of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever

it was. And how punctually they thought them∣selves bound to observe it, will appear by this one Instance, That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened, might have been pre∣vented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City; and that was the Schism of the Donatists, upon the competition between Majorinus and Coeci∣lian; as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian. Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so im∣portant an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City, unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them? When there were 46 Pres∣byters at Rome, had it not been fair to have divided them? or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bi∣shops that every one might have had three or four for his share? But instead of this, how doth Saint Cy∣prian, even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian, as Saint Augustin calls him,* 1.434 aggravate the Schism of No∣vatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City, where there was one chosen before? His words are so considerable to our purpose, that I shall set them down.* 1.435 Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit, quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat, factus est, non jam secundus ille sed nullus est. Since there cannot be a second after the first, whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already, who ought to be alone, he is not another Bishop, but none at all. Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can. What! in such a City of Christians, as Rome then was, where were 46 Presbyters, to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen? Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops; but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the

Apostles times, and I am apt to think, knew as well the Constitution of Churches then, thought it over∣threw that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City. At Carthage it seems some turbulent Pres∣byters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government, or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one, chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there:* 1.436 with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius; and there tells him, how far they had proceeded, and what mischief this would be to the Church, since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms. After the election of Cornelius, some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party,* 1.437 and were received back again at a solemn As∣sembly, where they confessed their fault, and declared, That they were not ignorant, that as there was but one God, and one Christ, and one Holy Ghost, so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church. Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pa∣melius, who would have it understood of one Pope; but that according to the ancient and regular Disci∣pline and Order of the Church, there ought to be but one Bishop in a City. After the Martyrdom of Corne∣lius at Rome,* 1.438 Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was, that was chosen in his place. And the necessity of this Vnity,* 1.439 he insists on else∣where; and saith, Our Saviour so appointed it, unam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdem originem, ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair; for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy, saying, all the Apostles were equal; and a little after, Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in so∣lidum pars tenetur. But this is sufficient to my pur∣pose,

to shew that these holy men, these Martyrs and Confessors, men that were indeed dying daily, and that for Christ too, were all agreed that a Bishop there must be, and that but one in a City, though ne∣ver so large and full of Christians.* 1.440 Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists, gives an ac∣count of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus, and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper, offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus, with this Proviso, that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City, he that was first consecrated was to remain Bi∣shop, and the other to have another People provided for him. For which Saint Augustin commends him, as an excellent man, a true Son of Peace, and Father of Christian People. By which we see the best, the wisest, the most moderate Persons of that time, ne∣ver once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City. In the famous Conference at Car∣thage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops, the Rule on both sides was,* 1.441 but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese; and if there had been any new made, to increase their number, as it was objected on both sides; if it were proved, they were not to be allowed: for generally then, every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties; but in some places they had but one, where the People were of one mind; and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bi∣shops in Africa; both Parties striving to increase their Numbers.

Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop, there were several Con∣gregations and Altars, and distant places. Carthage was a very large City,* 1.442 and had great numbers of Chri∣stians even in S. Cyprians time, as I have already shewed.* 1.443 And there besides the Cathedral called Ba∣silica Major & Restitutaa 1.444, in which the Bishops al∣ways sate, as Victor Vitensis saith; there were several other considerable Churches, in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage;b 1.445 as the Basilica Fausti; thec 1.446 Basilica Leontiana; thed 1.447 Ba∣silica Celerinae mentioned by* 1.448 Victor likewise, who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum. Thef 1.449 Ba∣silica Novarum. Theg 1.450 Basilica Petri. Theh 1.451 Basi∣lica Pauli. And I do not question there were many others, which I have not observed; for Victor saith, that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop, & maximam turbam Cleri∣corum, a very great multitude of Clergy, all which he immediately banished. And without the City there were two great Churches, saith Victor; one where S. Cypri∣an suffered Martyrdom, and the other where his body was buried, at a place called Mappalia. In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage,* 1.452 taking in those who were trai∣ned up to it; And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation? or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion, as he calls it, in one Church; and at one Altar? Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop; and so setting up one Altar against another, was setting up one Bishop against another, as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cy∣prian and Saint Augustin; sometimes for the place at

which the Christians did communicate, and so there were as many Altars as Churches. So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist, that in the City where he was Bishop,* 1.453 the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars: which is the thing Opta∣tus objects so much against them.* 1.454 And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence, that not onely the Oblations were made there, and the Communion received, but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them: as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin (which I have mentioned elsewhere) but from Optatus, who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Al∣tars of Churches, he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers, for, saith he, illàc ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio. The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way. And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove. In the African Code,* 1.455 there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church, and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside; which evident∣ly proves, that there were not onely more places, but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese. And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks, as they of∣ten did, the African Council decrees, that after the de∣cease of such a Bishop,* 1.456 if the People had no mind to have another in his room, they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop. Which shews, that they thought the Dioceses might be so large, as to hold the Peo∣ple that were under two Bishops. And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops. In one it was determined, that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them, without limi∣tation

of distance;* 1.457 after that, that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before:* 1.458 but if the Do∣natist Bishop were converted, then the Diocese was to be divided between them. If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Dio∣cese, he that did take the pains in it, was to have those places laid to his Diocese;* 1.459 unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop, that he was not to blame. Let Mr. Baxter now judge, whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes;* 1.460 as he confidently affirms. Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo,* 1.461 where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government: and he tells this par∣ticular story of it; that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance, in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout, and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there; the man did accor∣dingly, and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized, and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages. It seems the Dona∣tists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo, whereupon Saint Au∣gustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Ro∣man President,* 1.462 to complain of their insolence, and to crave his assistance, which he saith, he did, lest he should be blamed for his negligence, who was the Bi∣shop of that Diocese. And can we think all these per∣sons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo? While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo, in the absence of the Bi∣shop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter,* 1.463 for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena, and he saith,

he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it.* 1.464 At the same place lived one Dona∣tus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will, to be better instructed, as being under his care, but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away him∣self,* 1.465 upon which he writes a long Epistle to him. In another Epistle he gives an account, that there was a place called Fussala, which with the Country about it, belonged to the Diocese of Hippo; where there was abundance of People, but almost all Donatists; but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them, those places were all reduced; but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo, he took care to have a Bishop placed among them; but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care. For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop, he was fain to resume it; as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala,* 1.466 which he mentions afterwards. However it appears, that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint, and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was. And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches? How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala, and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him? And it is no hard matter to guess what answer Saint Augustin would have given him.

But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses, we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches. Quidam de Epi∣scopis

in Provinciâ nostrâ,* 1.467 saith Saint Cyprian; and yet he speaks of his Predecessours times, which shews the very ancient extent of that Province,* 1.468 In provin∣ciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates, saith he again; which shews that more Cities than Carthage were under his care. Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra, in his Epistle to Cornelius.* 1.469 In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place; in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration. Victor mentions one Crescens,* 1.470 who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan. And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops, Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy.

Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onely in these parts of Africa, let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexan∣dria. And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points, but had some for the right Constitution of Churches; and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him.* 1.471 It is observed by Epiphanius, that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches, especially those in Maraeotis; of which Athanasius himself gives the best account.* 1.472 Maraeotis, saith he, is a Region belonging to Alexan∣dria, which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it; but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria; but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village; and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did offi∣ciate. All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself, whence we observe, (1.) That here were true Parochial Churches; for so Athanasius calls them

Churches, and not bare Oratories. (2.) That these had Presbyters fixed among them, who performed divine Offices there. (3.) That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria, so that the whole Government belonged to him. (4.) That these were at that distance, that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria. Which is directly con∣trary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy. So in Alexandria it self,* 1.473 there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them, as Epiphanius several times ob∣serves: and it would be a very strange thing indeed, if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria, and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for perso∣nal Communion with the Bishop.* 1.474 But Mr. Baxter's great argument is, from the meeting of the whole mul∣titude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexan∣dria to keep the Easter Solemnity; whence he con∣cludes, that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly.* 1.475 Whereas all that Athanasius saith, amounts to no more than this, that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches, and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church; Athanasius pres∣sed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches; the People grew impatient, and so at last he yielded to them. But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christi∣ans in the whole City were then present, and that this Church would hold them all? If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion, and finding themselves

too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished, because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number, would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London? Atha∣nasius saith not a word more, than that it was Easter, and there appeared a great number of People, such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City. Doth he say, or intimate, that all the Christians of the City were present? that none of them went to the lesser Churches? or were absent, though the Croud was so great? Doth he not say, the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies, that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead? And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time. In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation; because at the dedication of Solo∣mon's Temple there was so great a multitude present, that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them. But the argument is of greater force in this respect, that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews: and therefore he inten∣ded no more than a single Congregational Church. But to serve this hypothesis, Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass;* 1.476 although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a very great City; and the Geographer pub∣lished by Gothofred saith it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.477 an exceeding great City; so great that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 past mens comprehension:* 1.478 and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities.* 1.479 And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athana∣sius, Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great

persecution, when he was banished, he kept up the As∣semblies in the City; and at Cephro he had a large Church, partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him, and partly from other places, and when he was removed thence to Colluthion, which was nearer the City, such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him, that they were forced to have distinct Con∣gregations: so the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie, and so Athanasius useth them,* 1.480 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the Christians meeting in several Congregations. If there were such a number of Christians at Alexan∣dria so long before, under the sharpest persecution, is it possible to imagin, in so great a City, after Chri∣stianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire, that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation? There is no hopes of convincing men, that can build Theo∣ries upon such strange improbabilities. I shall onely add one Instance more from Antiquity, which is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Power then; and that is of Theodoret, a great and learned Bishop; and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest, yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith,* 1.481 he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches; for so many Parishes, saith he, are in my Diocese, which he had then enjoyed twenty six years. Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret? And yet these Parishes did not change their species, for he saith, they were Churches still.

This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremp∣tory,* 1.482 that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it, but to call in question the Authority of

the Epistle. But without any considerable ground, unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis. For, what if Theodoret's Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy? Is that a sufficient argument to reject them, unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles, with the History of those times, or with his other Writings?* 1.483 Which are the Rules, Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them. That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious, is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant; which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death. And it is supposed, that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cy∣ril; which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it. But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo? when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles? As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him, (which was the occasion of writing it) his other Epistles are so full of it, that Mr. B. never read the rest, if he calls this into question upon that account. That Hypatius, Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account, appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius,* 1.484 which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost, which Nicephorus saw, doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit? But he is much mistaken, if he thinks, there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius;* 1.485 for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples, which he compa∣red with the Vatican, and published the various Rea∣dings of the Epistles from it. What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret's name? Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie, to be spurious?

What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret's Works, I do not well understand, unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pro∣nounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings, without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them. But there are two things he ob∣jects which seem more material. (1.) That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of An∣tioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time. (2.) That he proves from other places in Theodoret, that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches.

1. As to the first; certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove, that one such City as Cyrus then was, had 800 Churches in it. But by Cyrus, Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus; as will after∣wards appear. If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy,* 1.486 Stra∣bo and Pliny, then there would not appear the least improbability in it,* 1.487 since many considerable Cities were within it;* 1.488 as Beroea (now Aleppo) and Hiera∣polis, and extended as far as Euphrates; Zeugma being comprehended under it. The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large, and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis,* 1.489 which in Ammi∣anus his time took in Comagena and extended to Sa∣mosata (but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others) in that Province there was a Metropolitan,* 1.490 who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis, which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus, or Cyrrhus. But notwithstanding, I

do not think the words of Theodoret are to be under∣stood of the Province, but of his own peculiar Dio∣cese;* 1.491 for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under. By Cyrus therefore we understand the Re∣gion about the City, which was under Theodoret's care; within which he was confined by the Empe∣rour's Order,* 1.492 as he complains in several Epistles, and there it is called by him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Regio Cyrrhestica; and Theodoret himself sets down the ex∣tent of it in his Epistle to Constantius,* 1.493 where he saith, it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth. And he saith in another Epistle,* 1.494 that Christianity was then so much spread among them, that not onely the Cities, but the Villages, the Fields, and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace. And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop, appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon;* 1.495 where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them, and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop, then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown.* 1.496 In his Epistle to Nomus, he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion, another with the Eunomian, ano∣ther with the Arian Heresie; which were all converted by his care:* 1.497 and in another place he saith, he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism. In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion's Doctrine in his Diocese,* 1.498 and the great pains he took to root it out; and the success he had therein. And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives, as Tillima, Targala, Nimuza, Teleda, Telanissus, which are suffi∣cient

to shew, that Theodoret had properly a Dioce∣san Church, and that his Episcopal care and Authori∣ty did extend to many Parochial Churches; his Dio∣cese being forty miles in length, and as many in breadth. So that Mr. B. must reject, not onley that Epistle to Leo, but the rest too, and his other Works, if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy; which is too hard a task to be undertaken, without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought.

2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches. The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses, which all men know to have been very different; but about the extent of Episcopal Power, whether it were limited to one Parochial Church, or was extended over many. And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this? I extreamly failed of my expectation, as to the other places of Theodoret, which he promised to produce;* 1.499 For I find five or six places cited out of his History, but not one that comes near any proof of this matter. The (1.) proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria, nineteen Presbyters and Dea∣cons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia, where there were no Christians.* 1.500 Therefore in Theodoret's time, there was no Diocesan Episcopacy. The (2.) shews that in a small City of Thebais,* 1.501 Whither Eulo∣gius and Protogenes were banished, and there were but a few Christians, yet there was a Bishop. Who ever denied this, where there was a prospect of conver∣ting more, as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there? But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased, new Bishops were

made, which this is very far from. The (3.) proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force,* 1.502 without any Synod of Bishops, or Choice of the Clergy, or Request of the People. I suppose by this time, Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder, how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church: which I am sure he had not from Theodoret, nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria.* 1.503 The (4.) is intended to prove, that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly, which met onely in one place at once. But it is very unhappy, that Theo∣doret shews just the contrary in that place, for he saith, that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are his ve∣ry words: to whom, he saith, Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church. Which Mr. B. thus trans∣lates, Valens found the Orthodox, even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church, which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them, of which he dispossessed them. I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these mat∣ters, but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret; and I dare say, he will see cause to admire it. But if any one can imagin that the Pa∣triarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation, for my part, I must give him over, as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me. I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to, but of what it was in its settled state.* 1.504 The (5.) is, from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens; which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers.

I am ashamed to reade, much more to confute such arguments as these. For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London, doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congrega∣tion?* 1.505 The (6.) proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism. It is true, Theodoret saith, Doliche was a little City, and so he tells us, Cyrus was no great one; but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese; which for any thing we see in Theodoret, might be as large, as, we have evidently proved from him, the Diocese of Cyrrhus was. Let the Reader now judge, whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy.

But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ; and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches, viz. for personal Communion, and men make another, is not this a violation of Christ's Command, and setting up Man against God? I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ, which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation; and therefore the ex∣tending it to more, can be no violation of Christ's Command, or setting up a new species of Churches, as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next par∣ticular. Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meek∣ness towards his Adversaries, charges me, for speaking against this principle of his,* 1.506 with pleading for pre∣sumption, profanation, usurpation, uncharitableness, schism, what not? What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness? Why, I set down a saying of his, as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority, and to impose

them on the world, yea in his name, and call all dissen∣ters Schismaticks, a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies. But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed? That is not to the busi∣ness; for that which I quoted it for, was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial, as Churches meerly of mens devising; and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable; and that the imposing it as Divine, is an intolerable usurpation; and all this at the same time, when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord. My business is now to shew

Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practi∣sed here, and was so in the Primitive Church is no de∣vising a new species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this, I need no more than one of Mr. B.'s own Cau∣tions in his Premonition; viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops, as he calls them, over Parochial Bishops, as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace:* 1.507 There are some of us, that much incline to think that Arch∣bishops, that is, Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours, are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work. But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter's Arguments to prove, that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Of∣fice,* 1.508 was settled for all following Ages. 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form, but we never reade of any abolition, discharge, or cessation of the Institution.

〈…〉〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of Government for one Age onely, and no longer. 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastours, Sacraments, &c. and to say, they were but for an Age. 4. It was ge∣neral Officers Christ promised to be with, to the end of the world, Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages suc∣ceeding the Apostles, that the Apostles did leave Suc∣cessours in the care and Government of Churches, have a great deal of weight in them, and overballance the difficulties on the other side. As upon this occasion I think fit to declare. From whence I argue thus, That which is onely a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy. We intend no quarrel about names: If it be Mr. B.'s pleasure to call our Bishops, Archbishops, let him enjoy his own fancy. It already appears from Saint Cyprian, and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needfull, that the Bishops of the several Chur∣ches were looked on as Successours to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches. Now the Of∣fice of Mr. B.'s Parochial Bishops was onely to at∣tend to one particular Congregation; but the Aposto∣lical Office was above this, while the Apostles held it in their own hands; and did not make a new species of Churches, nor overthrow the Constitution of Paro∣chial Churches. It seems then a strange thing to me, that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church, should be called the devising a new species of Churches.

But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake, that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordi∣nary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Chur∣ches; but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church, which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters, and leaves them onely a bare name of Curates, and destroyes the being of Parochial Churches. But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church, I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government, and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in Peoples minds against it.

Sect. 12. Now to examin this, let us consider two things. (1.) What Power is left to Presbyters in our Church. (2.) What Authority the Bishops of our Church have over them.

I. What Power is left to presbyters in our Church: and that may be considered two ways. 1. With re∣spect to the whole Body of this Church. 2. With re∣spect to their particular Congregations or Cures.

1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church: and so (1.) There are no Rules of Discipline, no Ar∣ticles of Doctrine, no Form of Divine Service, are to be allowed or received in this Nation; but, by the Constitution of this Church, the Presbyters of it have their Votes in passing them, either in Person, or by Proxy. For, all things of that Nature, are to pass both Houses of Convocation; and the lower House consists wholly of Presbyters; who represent the whole Presbytery of the Nation; either appearing by their own Right, as many do; or as being chosen

by the rest, from whom by Indentures they either do, or ought to receive Power to transact things in their names. And the Custom of this Church hath some∣times been, for the Clergy of the Dioceses to give li∣mited Proxies in particular Cases to their Procuratours. Now I appeal to any man of understanding, whe∣ther the Clergy of this Church have their whole Power swallowed up by the Bishops, when yet the Bishops have no power to oblige them to any Rules or Canons but by their own consent; and they do freely vote in all things of common concernment to the Church; and therefore the Presbyters are not by the Constitu∣tion deprived of their share in one of the greatest Rights of Government, viz. in making Rules for the whole Body. And in this main part of Government the Bishops do nothing without the Counsel of their Presbyters, and in this respect our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches, which had their Coun∣cils of Presbyters together with their Bishops; onely, there, they were taken singly in every City; and here they are combined together in Provincial Synods; model'd according to the Laws of the Nation. And when the whole Body of Doctrine, Discipline and Worship are thus agreed upon by a general consent, there seems to be far less need of the particular Coun∣cils of Presbyters to every Bishop; since both Bishops and Presbyters are now under fixed Rules, and are accountable for the breach of them.* 1.509 (2.) In gi∣ving Orders; by the Rules of this Church four Pres∣byters are to assist the Bishops; and to examin the Per∣sons to be Ordained (or the Bishop in their presence) and afterwards to joyn in the laying on of hands upon the Persons ordained. And is all this nothing but to be the Bishop's Curates, and to officiate in some of his Chapels?

2. As to their particular charges; one would think those who make this objection, had never read over the Office of Ordination; for therein (1.) For the Epistle is read the charge given by Saint Paul to the Elders at Miletus, Act. 20. or the third Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy; concerning the Office of a Bishop. What a great impertinency had both these been, if the Presbyters Power had been quite swal∣lowed up by the Bishops? But it hence appears, that our Church looked on the Elders at Ephesus, and the Bishop in Timothy to be Presbyters, as yet under the care and Government of the Apostles, or such as they deputed for that Office, such as Timothy and Titus were. Which I suppose is the true meaning of Saint Ierome and many other doubtfull passages of Anti∣quity, which relate to the community of the names of Bishop and Presbyter, while the Apostles governed the Church themselves. And at this time Timothy being appointed to this part of the Apostolical Office of Government, the Bishops mentioned in the Epistle to him, may well enough be the same with the Pres∣byters in the Epistle to Titus, who was appointed to ordain Elders in every City, Titus 1. 5. (2.) In the Bishop's Exhortation to them that are to be ordained, he saith, Now we exhort you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ, to have in remembrance into how high a dignity, and to how chargeable an Office ye be called, that is to say, the Messengers and Watchmen, the Pa∣stours and Stewards of the Lord, to teach, to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord's Family, &c. have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge; for they be the Sheep of Christ which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his bloud. The Church and Con∣gregation

whom you must serve is his Spouse and Body. And if it shall chance the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hinderance, by reason of your negligence, you know the greatness of the fault and of the horrible punishment which will ensue, &c. Is this the language of a Church which deprives Presbyters of the due care of their flocks, and makes Parochial Congregations to be no Churches? (3.) The person to be ordained doth solemnly promise to give faith∣full diligence to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath comman∣ded, and as this Realm hath received the same, accor∣ding to the Commandments of God, so that he may teach the People committed to his Cure and charge, with all diligence to keep and observe the same. Here we see a Cure and charge committed to the Presby∣ters; Preaching and Administration of Sacraments required of them; and the exercise of Discipline as far as belongs to them, (of which afterwards): but now in the Consecration of a Bishop, this part is left out, and instead of that it is said, That he is called to the Government of the Church; and he is required to correct and punish such as be unquiet, disobedient and criminous in his Diocese. So that the more particu∣lar charge of Souls is committed to every Pastour over his own Flock, and the general care of Govern∣ment and Discipline is committed to the Bishop; as that which especially belongs to his Office as distinct from the other.

Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be con∣sidered, viz. What Authority the Bishop hath, by virtue of his Consecration, in this Church? And that, I say, is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical

Authority; which lies in three things, Government, Ordination and Censures. And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office, I shall make appear by these things. (1.) In the Preface before the Book of Or∣dination, it is said, That it is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient Authours, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Or∣ders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. What is the reason that they express it thus, from the Apostles time, rather than in the A∣postles times, but that they believed, while the Apo∣stles lived, they managed the affairs of Government themselves; but as they withdrew, they did in some Churches sooner, and in some later, as their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and the qualification of Persons were, commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto? Of which, we have an uncon∣troulable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus; for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist; and all their removes do not invalidate this, because while the Apostles lived, it is probable there were no fixed Bishops, or but few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled in their several Churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church, so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the diffe∣rent Testimonies of Antiquity. For hereby the suc∣cession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times, for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian, and others, are so plain; hereby room is left to make good all that Saint Ierom hath said; and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing

settlements of Churches at first. So that we may al∣low for the Community of names, between Bishop and Presbyter, for a while in the Church, i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves; but afterwards, that which was then part of the Aposto∣lical Office, became the Episcopal, which hath conti∣nued from that time to this, by a constant succession in the Church. (2.) Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church.* 1.510 As for this part of the Apostles function, saith he, to visit such Churches as were before planted, and to provide that such were placed in them, as were vertuous and godly Pastours, I know it remaineth still, and is one of the chief parts of the Bishops function. And again, there is now no planting of Churches,* 1.511 nor going through the whole world, there is no writing of new Gospels, no prophesying of things to come, but there is Governing of Churches, visiting of them, reforming of Pastours and directing of them, which is a portion of the Apo∣stolical function.* 1.512 Again, Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is cea∣sed; yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City, by moderating and Governing them, by visiting the Churches, by cutting off schisms and con∣tentions, by ordering Ministers remaineth still, and shall continue, and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops, as most meet men to execute the same. Bishop Bilson fully agrees, as to these particulars. (1.) That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops,* 1.513 but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands. (2.) That upon experience of the confusion and disorder

which did arise through equality of Pastours, did ap∣point at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops.* 1.514 (3.) That these Bishops did succeed the Apo∣stles in the care and Government of Churches, as he proves at large; and therefore he calls their function Apostolick. Instead of many others, which it were easie to produce, I shall onely add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy, who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it, and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason. In his third Paper to Henderson, he hath these words, Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same (which I deny to be always so) it is in the Apostles times; now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles, and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour. In his first Paper at the Treaty at New∣port, he thus states the case about Episcopal Govern∣ment. I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God, and of an Apostolical Institution, as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by them com∣mitted and derived to particular persons as their sub∣stitutes or successours therein (as for ordaining Presby∣ters and Deacons, giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others) and hath ever since to these last times been ex∣ercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ, and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government. In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines, he saith, that meer Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis onely, they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching, Administration of

Sacraments, publick Prayer, Exhorting, Rebuking, &c. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis & Pastorum too, ha∣ving the oversight of Flock and Pastours within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government. And that, although the Apostles had no Successours in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraor∣dinary in them, as namely the Measure of their Gifts, the extent of their charge, the infallibility of their Doc∣trine, and the having seen Christ in the flesh: but in those things that were not extraordinary (and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the ser∣vice of the Church in all times, as the Office of Teach∣ing and the Power of Governing are) they were to have and had Successours; and therefore the learned and godly Fathers and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scru∣pling thereat. Many other passages might be produ∣ced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose, but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles, and there∣fore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches, and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches.

Sect. 14. 3. It now remains, that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution? To make this clear, we must understand that the Disci∣pline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion; or the ca∣sting of them out for Scandal afterwards.

1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members. The Rubrick after Con∣firmation

saith, That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion, untill such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. Now to capaci∣tate a person for Confirmation, it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice, as they are contai∣ned in the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Com∣mandments and the Church Catechism; and of his suf∣ficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge. For he is either to bring or send in writing, with his hand subscribed thereunto, the names of all such per∣sons within his Parish, as he shall think fit to be pre∣sented to the Bishop to be confirmed. Now, if this were strictly observed (and the Church is not respon∣sible for mens neglect) were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-mem∣bers to the Lord's Supper? And I do not see, but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed, if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it, were duly practised; and might attain to as great purity, as is ever preten∣ded to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline. For, even the Churches of New-England do grant,* 1.515 that the In∣fant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents, and when grown up are personally under the Watch, Discipline and Go∣vernment of that Church. And, that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges, if they appear quali∣fied for them. And the main of these qualifications are, understanding the Doctrine of Faith, and publick∣ly professing their assent thereto, not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church. Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant, and not their

Church Covenant, our Church owns the same thing, onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation. But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications,* 1.516 which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case. Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church; and then adds, that such profession is to be tried,* 1.517 judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs; because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed; and they are the Stewards of God's House, &c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments.* 1.518 But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation. This is a thing indeed to be lamented, that it is too hastily and cursorily performed: but let the fault then be laid, where it ought to be laid; not upon the Church, whose Rules are very good, but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty. But is it not more becoming Christians in a peace∣able and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Pa∣rochial Churches; than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline, and to reject Communion with our Church on that account? And I shall desire Mr. Bax∣ter to consider his own words, That the practice of so much Discipline,* 1.519 as we are agreed in, is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest, than all our dis∣putings will do without it. Yea Mr. Baxter grants, That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those, that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation; and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England,* 1.520 is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire. This is a very fair confession, and sufficient to make it appear

that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters, as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion.

Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal, who have been Church-members. In case of open and publick Scandal,* 1.521 our Church doth allow if not re∣quire the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table, until he hath openly declared him∣self to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be sa∣tisfied, which before was offended. And in case the offender continue obstinate, he may repel him from the Communion; but so, that after such repelling, he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days; and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon. Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament, whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congrega∣tion; but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Pow∣er, but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary. Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Pa∣rochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline? Is it that they have not Power to exclude men, whe∣ther their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not? Or is it, that they are bound to justify what they doe, and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Com∣munion? Or is it, that they have not Power to pro∣ceed to the greater Excommunication, that being re∣served

served to the Bishop, upon full hearing of all parties concerned? But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders, it will be impossi∣ble to prove from other circumstances that the be∣ing of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy.* 1.522 Mr. B. saith, that if it could be proved, that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers, it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy; but if it be so, he hath been in a sleep these 50 years, that could never hear or read of any such thing. It is strange, in all this time, he should never reade or consider the 26 Canon, which saith, that no Mini∣ster shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock, or un∣der his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper, who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin. This is not in the Reformatio Le∣gum Ecclesiasticarum, which he mentions as an abor∣tive thing, published by Iohn Fox, (which last any one that hath seen them, knows to be a mistake) nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt; yet not so destroyed, but with some diligence he might have seen it (but it was for nothing of this kind, that Book underwent so severe a censure; as Mr. B. insi∣nuates; but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative.) But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons; which I think are plain in this case. But Mr. B. saith, this is not the lesser excommunication, but a temporary sus∣pension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sa∣crament to such persons. Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth; this is certain, the Minister is im∣powred, is required to doe this; the question then

is, whether this be not such a Censure of the Church, as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament; and that within the Power of the Parochial Mini∣ster? I grant, this is not the lesser excommunication, according to the Vse of this Church, for that suppo∣seth the sentence passed; and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person, upon extraordinary occasions. But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders, and was ac∣counted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church; for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunica∣tion;* 1.523 as appears by several passages in S. Augustin, produced by Spalatensis to this purpose,* 1.524 viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication. But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Ex∣communication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament.* 1.525 Which is very true of the greater Excommunication; but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders, whereby they were suspended from full Communion; but not debarred the hopes of it up∣on satisfaction given. These were said to be in the state of Penitents.* 1.526 It was a favour to the excommu∣nicated to be brought into this state; and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Commu∣nion; others onely on their death-beds; others ac∣cording to the nature and degrees of their Repen∣tance; of which those were left to be Iudges, who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Pe∣nitents. Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men re∣mained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of Church-communion; but he saith, the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommu∣nicated

and the faithfull, being still Candidates, as he calls them; so that all that were Penitents were sus∣pended from Communion; but not wholly cast out of the Church; because the Christians might as freely converse with these, as with any, but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries. But there was no question, wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion, there was a Power of Discipline; because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunica∣tion; no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged; but in so governing the Members of the Church, that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion, and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it. Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Of∣fenders from the Communion, it is thereby evident, that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline. But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name,* 1.527 not censured by the Ordinary, the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him. I answer, 1. What need this publick Admonition by name? Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that? Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself, is not this sufficient? I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo,* 1.528 he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences, and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Com∣munion, he advised them to withdraw themselves from it, till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences, and then they might come

to it. Here is no publick Admonition by name; and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offen∣ders, and yet the Church be a true Church, and Chri∣stians obliged to communicate with it; as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists. 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law: the question then comes to this, whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender, or to deny him the Sacra∣ment, if he will come to it, be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law; made by pub∣lick Authority, with a design to preserve our Reli∣gion? But my design is onely to speak to this case, so far as the Church is concerned in it.

Sect. 16. If it be said, that notwithstanding this, the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified, and too notorious to be concealed; I answer,

1. That is not our question, but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline? and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy? which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny. And what other abuses have crept in, ought in an orderly way to be reformed, and no good man will deny his assistance in it.

2. It is far easier to separate, or complain for want of Discipline, than to find out a due way to restore it.* 1.529 No man hath more set out the almost insupera∣ble difficulties which attend it, than Mr. Baxter hath done; especially in that, it will provoke and exas∣perate

those most who stand in need of it; and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least.

3. The case of our Churches now, is very diffe∣rent from that of the Churches in the Primitive times. For, the great Reason of Discipline is not, that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled (for to assert that, were Dona∣tism) but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained. If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due pu∣nishment of Scandalous Offenders, there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline. To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very consi∣derable.* 1.530

But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as large as the exercise there∣of at some times appeareth to have been; the exer∣cise thereof being variable according to the vari∣ous conditions of the Church in different times. And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely, as was exercised in the Primitive times, by Bishops before the days of Constantine. The reason of the difference being evident, that in those former times under Pagan Princes, the Church was a distinct Bo∣dy of it self, divided from the Common-wealth, and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Ru∣lers; the Bishops therefore of those times, though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates, yet in as much as every

Christian man when he became a Member of the Church, did ipso facto, and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Govern∣ment, they exercised a very large Power of Juris∣diction in spiritualibus, in making Ecclesiastical Ca∣nons, receiving accusations, converting the accu∣sed, examining Witnesses, judging of Crimes, ex∣cluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper, enjoyning Penan∣ces upon them, casting them out of the Church, receiving them again upon their Repentance, &c. And all this they exercised as well over Presby∣ters as others. But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth, whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power, the Iurisdiction of Bishops (in the out∣ward exercise of it) was subordinate unto, and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power, and hath been, and is at this day, so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm.

4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty, that the greatest Zea∣lots for it, have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particu∣lar Congregation.* 1.531 Calvin declares, that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication: not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing, and the danger of the example; but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into, and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice. And to the same purpose, Beza delivers his judgment, who likewise gives this ac∣count

of the Discipline of Geneva,* 1.532 that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admoni∣tion; but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presby∣tery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline, and as they judge fit either give admonition, or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper; or, which is a rare case, and when no other remedy can prevail, they go on to publick Ex∣communication. Where we see, every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us; nay, the Minister here hath no power to repel, but all that he can doe there is to admonish; and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true, and not ours? Besides, why may not our Mi∣nisters be obliged to certify the Bishop, as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery?* 1.533 since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reser∣ved to the Bishop, that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop; and Saint Augustin proposed it, that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop, should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved; and it was allowed by the Council. Alipius, Saint Au∣gustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia,* 1.534 proposed the case of a Presbyter under the cen∣sure of his Bishop, who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church;* 1.535 and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it; and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism, and ought to be anathe∣matized, and to lose his place. And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops, for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any

others; and saith, their Councils were the best in the world; and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline. But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there, was but like one of our Parishes, which I have already refuted at large, by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops. So that the bringing the full power of Disci∣pline into every Parochial Church, is contrary to the practice of Antiquity, as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad, which plead most for Discipline; and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders, by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication; as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands, and by their foolish and passionate, and indis∣creet use of it, brought more dishonour upon their Churches, than if they had never meddled with it at all. And in such a matter, where the honour of the Chri∣stian Society is the chief thing concerned, it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promo∣ting of that; and whether the good, men promise themselves by Discipline, will countervail the Schisms and Contentions, the heart-burnings, and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it. The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say,* 1.536 That they had the fatal miscarriages and ship∣wrecks of the separation, as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon; and there∣fore they say they never exercised the Power of Ex∣communication.* 1.537 For they saw plainly, they could never hold their People together if they did; since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough, at least to make breaches among them; and they holding together by mutual consent, such

ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces. Besides, this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish; because there are no certain Rules to proceed by; no standing determination what those sins and faults are, which should deserve excommunication; no me∣thod of trials agreed upon; no security against false Witnesses; no limitation of Causes; no liberty of Appeals, (if Parochial Churches be the onely insti∣tuted Churches, as Mr. Baxter affirms:) besides multi∣tudes of other inconveniencies, which may be easily foreseen; so that I do not question, but if Mr. Bax∣ter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London, and proceeded by his own Rules; his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time, as more arbitrary and tyrannical, than any Bishop's Court this day in Eng∣land: Let any one therefore judge, how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches, for want of that, which being set up ac∣cording to his own principles, would destroy the Peace and Vnity, if not the very being, of any Pa∣rochial Church whatsoever.

5. That want of Discipline, which is in Parochial Churches, was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old, destructive to the Being of them. Of which I have already produced the Testi∣monies of Cartwright, Hildersham, Giffard, and many others.

Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences, as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion, we may observe these

things; which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches.

(1.) That the greatest Offenders do generally ex∣communicate themselves; not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing, as they account the holy Com∣munion to be, for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving. So that, the most constant Com∣municants, are the most pious and sober and devout Christians.

(2.) That if any such do voluntarily come, it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience; some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life; after some dangerous sickness, or under some great affliction; when they are best inclined, and have strong convictions, and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations. So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not, by God's Institution, yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it, puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace; if they be not looked on as the effects of it.

(3.) That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared, if those who are not, do come to it; any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them. And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommu∣nication and are not excommunicated, do overthrow the being of a Church; then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church, when Iudas was present with them; as in probability he was, at his last Supper. At least, if this kind of Discipline had been so neces∣sary,

it would never have been left so doubtfull, as it is by the Evangelists; since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church, to have set it down expresly; not onely that he was not present, but that he ought not to be; and therefore was cast out before.

(4.) That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them; nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred. And were these true Churches all that while, and are not ours so now?* 1.538 Nay Mr. Baxter saith, That some Non-con∣formists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize,* 1.539 or administer the Lord's Supper, or to be Pastours of any Churches. Now I would fain know, what Churches these men are of? Some or other they must own, if they be Christians; New Churches they have not, they say; either then they must own our Churches to be true, notwithstanding the defect of Discipline, or they must be of no Church at all.

(5.) That our Church is but in the same condi∣tion, the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in, when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it, or rather took it quite away. For, the Poeniten∣tiary, whom he removed for the scandal given, was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church, and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them, for satisfaction of the Church. And, the consequence of it Socrates saith was,* 1.540 That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience, as to the participation of the holy Mysteries. And this Socrates saith, he had from Eudaemon himself, who gave the Counsel to

Nectarius to take that Office away; which was accor∣dingly done;* 1.541 and no more restored, saith Sozomen: the consequence whereof was, saith he, that every one went to the Lord's Table, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as his Conscience gave him leave, and as he was assured in his own mind. And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches, saith Sozomen; and so the Discipline of the Church decayed. But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being, by the loss of Discipline. And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government.

Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constituti∣on of our Church.* 1.542 By the Church of England, I said,

we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith, the same Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine Worship. And that this was a very consi∣stent and true notion of our National Church, I proved from the first notion of a Church, which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion. And since, the lowest kind of that So∣ciety, viz. Congregations for Worship, are called Chur∣ches; since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church; and both from their union and consent in some common thing; I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith, and under the same Government and Discipline, might not be as truly and properly a Church, as any particular Con∣gregations? Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing: the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom, as

the small Kingdom of Ivetot: and as several Fami∣lies make one Kingdom, so several lesser Churches make one National. And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I shewed, that at Athens, from whence the word was taken, it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together, although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too; and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church, the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities, and therefore might by pa∣rity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion.

This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject; against which all my Adversaries have something to say, though not with equal strength, clearness, or temper. Dr. Owen saith (1.) That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire,* 1.543 it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches, and therefore they are not concerned in it: because he sup∣poseth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution, and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves, independently as to any National Constitution. To which I answer, that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations, as I have already proved, then the gradual increase of Churches, till they came to be National, doth not alter any Institution of Christ; and consequently the Power of those Chur∣ches must limit and determin that of particular Con∣gregations; or else nothing but disorder and confu∣sion will follow, if every Congregation may have a

several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith, with∣out being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority. Which is all one, as to suppose that every Family may govern it self, because a Kingdom is made up of Families, without any re∣spect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom. No,* 1.544 saith Dr. O. the case is not the same. For God never appointed that there should be no other Govern∣ment but that of Families. And where hath he ap∣pointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations? But God by the Light and Law of Nature, by the ends and use of the Creation of man, by express Revelation in his Word, hath by his own Authority, appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government. So say I, that God by the Light and Law of Reason, by the ends and use of a Christian Society, by express Institution of the Apostolical func∣tion in the care and Government of many Churches did declare, that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations. For, if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud, had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions, it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves; but that they ought to be governed according to their ap∣pointment; so in the case of Churches; since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant, settle and go∣vern Churches, and set up Rulers in them, but still under their Authority, can any thing be plainer, than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves? But as in the former case, if we suppose those twelve Princes to

have led out their several Divisions, and to have placed them in convenient Seats, and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint, and as they found themselves decaying, should no∣minate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies, were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours? Without breaking in pieces into so many Families, every Master governing his family by himself; which would certainly ruin and destroy them all; because they could not have strength and union to defend them∣selves. So it is again in the case of Churches, The Apo∣stles planted them, and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them, still re∣serving the main care of Government to themselves; but giving excellent Rules of Charity, Peace, Obedi∣ence and Submission to Governours; and as they with∣drew from particular Churches (within such a pre∣cinct, as Crete was) they appointed some, whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches, and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them; and therefore in this case, here is no more indepen∣dency in particular Congregations; than in the other, as to private Families; which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians, and their mutual preservation and defence, as in the former case. In which, we believe the civil Govern∣ment to be from God, although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first disper∣sion; and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles, when the matter of fact is attested by the most early, knowing, honest and impartial Witnesses? Lastly,

as in the former case, several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security, and become one Kingdom: so in the latter case; several Bishops with the Churches under them, might for promoting the common ends of Christianity, and the Peace and establishment of their Churches, joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church: which being intended for the good of the whole so united, and no ways repugnant to the de∣sign of the Institution, and not usurping upon the Rights of others, nor assuming more than can be managed, as an universal Pastour must doe; will ap∣pear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel, as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is. Which I therefore mention that any one may see, that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations.

But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution,* 1.545 before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Chur∣ches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction;* 1.546 for the Nature of the thing it self, and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches, is sufficient for it. And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches, viz. What the nature of a Christian Society, and the duty of men with re∣spect to the end of it doth require. For, whatever tends to the support of Religion, to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians, to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions, from the

very nature of the thing, and the end of a Christian So∣ciety becomes a Duty. For the general Rules of Go∣vernment lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it. It being then taken for granted among all Christians, 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church; 2. That he designs the conti∣nuance and preservation of it; 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it; provided the Union be such as doth not over∣throw the ends of it: We may reasonably infer, that whatever tends to promote this Vnion, and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it, is within the design of the first Institution; although it be not contained in ex∣press words.

Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider, whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation; or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith, Government and Worship, be the more likely way to promote Re∣ligion, to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church.

Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason, as to these ends.

In the Congregational way, there may be as many Religions as Churches. I do not say there are, but we are arguing now upon what may be, from the nature of the thing. Supposing then every Congre∣gation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self; what hinders but of ten Congregations

one may be of Socinians, another of Papists, another of Arians, another of Quakers, another of Anabap∣tists, &c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind. But if they be, it is meer chance and good hap; there being no obligation upon them to have any more than mutual forbearance towards each other. Let now any rational man judge, whether it appear pro∣bable, that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is, should answer the obligation among Christians, to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians? But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds, that the Preacher is accountable to superiours; that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith, and promise obedience; that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace: here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Reli∣gion among us. And that this is no meer theory, ap∣pears by the sad experience of this Nation, when up∣on the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government, there came such an overpowring in∣undation of Errours and Schisms among us, that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it. And in New-England, two or three men, as Williams, Gor∣ton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government: which being very ma∣terial to this business, I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them. Mr. Roger Williams was the Tea∣cher of a Congregational Church at Salem, and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him:* 1.547 he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches; but being a thinking man,

he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit, for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer, or taking an Oath; and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opi∣nions. &c. These Doctrines, and some others of his not taking, he proceeded to Separation from them, and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs; this gave such a disturbance to them, that the Magi∣strates sent for him, and the Ministers reasoned the case with him. He told them, he went upon their own grounds, and therefore they had no reason to blame him. Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them; Mr. Williams replied, this would return upon themselves; for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England? In short,* 1.548 after their debates, and Mr. Williams continu∣ing in his principles of Separation from their Churches, a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates, and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches. For these are Mr. Cotton's words, That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private, to a neglect or deserting of pub∣lick Ordinances, and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations, provoked the Magistrates, ra∣ther than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country, to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country. This Mr. Williams told them, was falling into the National Church way, which they disowned; or else, saith he, why must he that is banished from the one, be banished from the other also? And he char∣ges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way;* 1.549 and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly, to live in the same air with them, if they set up any other Church or Worship

than what themselves practised. Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before: and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches, confesseth that by the Laws of the Country,* 1.550 none are to be free men, but such as are members of Churches. I now appeal to any man, whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the appa∣rent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches? why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they? why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permit∣ted among them? Because these ways would disturb their Peace, and distract their People, and in time overthrow their Churches. Very well: but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congrega∣tion, the mean while? Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Ply∣mouth? The plain truth is, they found by experi∣ence, this Congregational way would not do alone, without civil Sanctions, and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches. For when Williams, and Gorton, and Clark had begun to make some im∣pressions on their People, they besti••red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt, and their persons banished. This I do onely mention, to shew, that where this way hath prevailed most, they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the pre∣servation of their Religion, and of Peace and Vnity among themselves. And in their Synod at Boston, 1662, the New-England Churches are come to ap∣prehend the necessity of Con••eciation of Churches, in case of divisions and contentions; and for the recti∣fying

of male-administrations, and healing of errours and scandals,* 1.551 that are unhealed among themselves: For, Christ's care, say they, is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons. Of which Consociation they tell us, that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death. Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not, in such cases? If not, why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government, for which they have no Command in Scripture? If there be a Command in Scripture, then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches. It is but a slender evasion, which they use, when they call these onely voluntary Combinations, for what are all Churches else? Onely, the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty; and so the obli∣gation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions, will make such Consociations a Duty too. And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Chur∣ches; which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn to∣gether. Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine, and Rules of Worship and Discipline, are the National Church representative; and these being owned and established by the civil Power, and re∣ceived by the Body of the Nation, and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congrega∣tions for Worship; these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion, make up the compleat National Church.

Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter; which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose, I shall reduce to these following heads, wherein the main difficulties lie.

1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom. 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church; which he calls the Constitutive regent part. 3. Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church.

1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church.* 1.552 A Christian King∣dom, he saith, they all own, but this is onely equivo∣cally called a Church, but, he saith, the Christian Bi∣shops for 1300 years, were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church, or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys. If there be any such Christi∣ans in the world, that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church, let Mr. Baxter confute them; but I am none of them; for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Prin∣ces, that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes, and will be such, if there were none left. I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing,* 1.553 from the Office of the Civil Magistrate; and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion, he should have rather sent it to his learned, sincere, and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin; if he had been still living. But if I onely mean a Christian

Kingdom,* 1.554 who denies it? saith he; If all this con∣fused stir, be about a Christian Kingdom, be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command. Nay farther,* 1.555 if we mean all the Churches of a King∣dom associated for Concord as equals, we deny it not. What is it then, that is so denied and disputed against, and such a flood of words is poured out about? It seems at last it is this, that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head, personal or collective, Monarchical or Aristocratical. Before I answer this Question, I hope, I may ask another; whence comes this zeal now against a National Church? For, when the Presbyterians were in power, they were then for National Churches, and thought they proved them out of Scriptures; and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex, or trouble them. Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no diffi∣culty of owning National Churches;* 1.556 and particularly the Church of England; in these words. And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church; let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England, be called the Church of England. But this you will say, is by association of equal Churches. No, they say, it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation li∣ving under one Civil Government, agreeing in Doctrine and Worship, are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies, and in this sense, say they, we assert a Na∣tional Church.* 1.557 Two things saith Mr. Hudson are re∣quired to make a National Church. 1. National agree∣ment in the same Faith and Worship. 2. National uni∣on in one Ecclesiastical body, in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government. The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England,

and thought they understood what was meant by it. Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter? Is the thing grown so much dar∣ker than formerly? But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions, and their Con∣sciences ensnared by needless Scruples.

To give therefore a plain answer to the Question, what we mean by the National Church of England. By that is understood either (1) the Church of En∣gland diffusive. Or (2) The Church of England repre∣sentative.

1. The National Church of England diffusive, is, the whole Body of Christians in this Nation, con∣sisting of Pastours and People, agreeing in that Faith, Government and Worship, which are established by the Laws of this Realm. And by this description, any one may see, how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side, and the Dissenters on the other. Which makes me con∣tinue my wonder at those who so confidently say, they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of En∣gland. For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth? Hath not the same Doctrine, the same Government, the same manner of Worship, continued in this Church? (bating onely the interruption gi∣ven by its Enemies.) How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy, so plain, so intelligi∣ble a thing? If all the Question be, how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church? I say, by unity of consent; as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church. If they ask, how it comes

to be one National Church? I say, because it was re∣ceived by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament, as other Laws of the Nation are; and is universally received by all that obey those Laws. And t••is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes, that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England.

2. The representative Church of England, is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church, meeting toge∣ther according to the Laws of this Realm, to consult and advise about matters of Religion. And this is de∣termin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church.* 1.558 We do not say, that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England, as the Church of En∣gland is a National Church; for that is onely repre∣sentative of this Province, there being another Con∣vocation in the other Province; but the Consent of both Convocations, is the representative National Church of England.

Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty, concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church. I say, 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition. 2. It is capable of a plain resolution.

1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition: which is, that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church, there must be a Constitutive Regent part, i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power, which is an essential part of it. Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself. He asserts, that there is one Catholick visible Church; and that all particular

Churches,* 1.559 which are headed by their particular Bishops, or Pastours, are parts of this Vniversal Church, as a Troop is of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom. If this Doctrine be true,* 1.560 and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it, then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head, to a Catholick visi∣ble Church. And so Mr. Baxter's Constitutive Regent part of a Church, hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness, and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship. But there are some men in the world, who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery; so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England. But doth not Mr. Baxter say, that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself? I grant he doth; but this doth not remove the difficulty; for the Question is about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts; and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them; there∣fore the whole visible Church must have likewise a vi∣sible Constitutive Regent part, i. e. a visible Head of the Church; as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer, an Army must have a General; if a City hath a Mayor, a Kingdom must have a King, that is equally present and visible as the other is. This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks, by the help of which they may enter and take possession.

2. The plain resolution is, that we deny any ne∣cessity of any such Constitutive Regent part, or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church. For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church; as an Vniversal Consent to

make a Catholick Church. But if the Question be, by what way this National Consent is to be declared? then we answer farther; that by the Constitution of this Church, the Archbishops, Bishops, and Presbyters being summoned by the King's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion; which being received, allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom; there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law. And all Bishops, Ministers, and People, taken toge∣ther, who pr••fess the Faith so established, and wor∣ship God according to the Rules so appointed, make up this National Church of England: which notion of a National Church being thus explained, I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter's Quaeries and Objections about this matter.

Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a diffi∣culty is (3.) concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church. For Mr. B. would know,* 1.561 whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule. If it be a Divine Rule, they are of the National Church as well as we; if it be a humane Rule, how comes consent in this to make a National Church? how come they not to be of it for not consenting? how can such a consent appear, when there are differences among our selves? This is the sub∣stance of what he objects. To which I answer (1.) Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule, viz. the Holy Scriptures, which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith; and according to which, all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable. (2.) Our Church requires a Confor∣mity to those Rules which are appointed by it, as

agreeable to the word of God. And so the Churches of New-England doe, to the orders of Church Go∣vernment among themselves by all that are members of their Churches; and annex civil Privileges to them; and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them. And al∣though they profess agreement in other things, yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches, they do not own them as members of their Churches. Why should it then be thought unrea∣sonable with us, not to account those members of the Church of England, who contemn and disobey the Orders of it? (3.) There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church, or the duty of submission to them. If there be any other differences, they are not material, as to this business: and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things, which may happen in the best Society in the world, without breaking the Peace of it. As about the difference of Orders; the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed; the true explication of one or two Articles; which are the things he mentions.* 1.562 A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us, as to make us not to be members of the same National Church.

Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries, the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these, will admit of a quicker dispatch. Mr. A. objects,* 1.563 (1.) That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves, then so have Congregational; and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation.

I grant it, if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it, than a National Church hath: i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is a∣gainst the Pope's Vsurpations. When he doth prove that,* 1.564 he may have a farther answer. (2.) That Na∣tional Churches destroy the being of other Churches un∣der them; this I utterly deny, and there wants no∣thing but Proof; as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet, onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.565 (3.) By my description the Par∣lament may be a National Church, for they are a Socie∣ty of men united together for their Order and Govern∣ment, according to the Rules of the Christian Reli∣gion. But did I not immediately before say, that National Churches are National Societies of Christians, under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship? from whence it is plain that in the next words, when I went about to prove National Chur∣ches to be true Churches, I used such a general de∣scription as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church.* 1.566 (4.) He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational; because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants; and that is onely for Worship, and not to destroy their own being. This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill; still round a∣bout the same thing. And therefore the same answer may serve.* 1.567 (5.) Out come Mr. B.'s Objections, against a visible Head of this National Church; and the manner of union, and the differences among our selves; as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Argu∣ments, and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour; and makes them

appear again in the field, in another dress, and if they could not stand the field in the former habit, they can much less doe it in this.

The Authour of the Letter saith,* 1.568 I onely prove a National Church a possible thing. He clearly mistakes my design; which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church, then no single Congre∣gations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith. To prove that there was such a thing, I shewed that if the true No∣tion of a Church doth agree to it, then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches, and the Ca∣tholick Church, we are to own a National Church; so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing; but the truth and reality of it.* 1.569 But, saith he, Can it be proved that Christ hath invested the Guides of this Church, not chosen by the People, with a Power to make Laws and Decrees, prescribing not onely things necessary for common order and decency, but new federal rites, and teaching signs and symbols, superadded to the whole Christian Institution? &c. I answer, that such a Church hath Power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the word of God, which on that account others are bound to submit to; and to take such care of its preservation, as to admit none to its privileges but such as do submit to them; and if any disturb the Peace of this Church, the Civil Ma∣gistrate may justly inflict civil Penalties upon them for it. All which is no more than any settled Church in the world asserts, as well as ours. And I wonder this should be so continually objected against our

Church, which all Societies in the world think just and necessary for their own preservation. As to the Guides of the Church not being chosen by the People, I shall speak to that afterwards. One objection more he makes, which the others did not, viz. I had said that by whole or National Churches, I understood the Churches of such Nations which upon decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of Governing themselves, and upon their owning Christianity incor∣porated into one Christian Society, under the same com∣mon ties and Rules of Order and Government. Such Churches, I say, have a just right of Reforming them∣selves, and therefore are not liable to the imputation of Schism from the Roman Church. Would one think, what unlucky Inferences he draws from hence? (1.) Then all that remain within the Empire,* 1.570 were bound to continue in the Communion of the Roman Church. What, if I should deny the continuance of the Roman Empire? then all would be safe. But do I any where say, that being in the Empire, they were bound to submit to the Roman Church? No; but as the Nation resumed its just civil Rights, the Church might as rightfully recover it self from Papal Vsurpations; not laying the force of one upon the other, but paralleling them together: and the ad∣vantage of the argument is on the Churches side. (2.) Then where Princes have not resumed their just rights as to Reformation, they are Schismaticks that separate from Rome.* 1.571 That doth not follow: for in the cases before mentioned separation is lawfull; but no Reformation is so unexceptionable, as when there is a Concurrence of the Civil Power.

My last Adversary doth not deny a National Church from consent in the same Articles of Religion,* 1.572 and Rules of Government and Order of Worship; but then he saith, such ought to be agreeable to the esta∣blished Rule of Holy Scriptures. And therein we are all agreed. So that after much tugging, this point is thought fit to be given up.

Sect. 24. The next thing to be considered, is, the interest and Power of the People as to the choice of their Pastours; for want of which great complaints are made by my Adversaries, as a thing injurious to them, and prejudicial to the Church, and that we therein go contrary to all Antiquity.* 1.573 Dr. O. puts the depri∣ving the People of their liberty of choosing their Pastours among the Causes of Separation. Mr. Baxter is very Tragical upon this argument; and keeps not within tolerable bounds of discretion, in pleading the People's Cause,* 1.574 against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws: and he tells me, I go against all the ancient Fathers and Churches for many hundred years, and am so far a Separatist from more than one Parish Priest; and therefore my charge of them is schismatical and unjust, and recoileth on my self; who instead of God's Rule, accuse them that walk not by our novel crooked Rules, which may make as many modish Religions as there are Princes. When I first read such passages as these, I wonder'd what I had said, that might give occasion to so much undecent Passion, as every where almost discovers it self in his Answer: and the more I con∣sider'd the more I wonder'd; but at last I resolved as Mr. A. doth about the Assembly, that Mr. B. is but a man, as other men are; and for all that I see, of equal passions, and that upon little or no provoca∣tion.

For I had not said one word upon this Argu∣ment. What then? would Mr. B. seek a Cause to express his anger against me? as if I had allowed Princes to set up what Religions they please. Surely, he thought himself writing against Hobbs and Spinosa then. No: but thus he artificially draws me into this snare. I spake much against Separation. How then? They would never have separated, if they had not been silenced; therefore my being against their separation, shews I am for their silencing. As though these necessarily followed each other. What is this to Princes imposing what Religion they please? Thus▪ Then Magistrates by their Laws may put out Non∣conformists and put in Conformists. But have we not the same Religion still? But, saith Mr. Baxter, these must be my supposed Grounds; that Magistrates may appoint what Religion they please, and those are Sepa∣ratists who do not obey them. Is not this admirable ingenuity, to rail upon a man, for suppositions of his own making? However Mr. Baxter will have it so, let me say what I will. The People's part he will take, and let me take that of the Magistrates and Laws, if I think good; and since they are fallen to my lot, I will defend them as well as I can, as to this matter. Mr. B. appearing very warm in this business, what doth Mr. A. coming after him, but make it the very first and fundamental Ground of their Separation? viz.* 1.575 That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances, has an inherent right to choose its own Pastour, and every particular Christian the same Power to chuse his own Church. Nay then, I thought, we were in a very fair way of settlement; when the Anabaptists in Germany never broached a looser prin∣ciple than this; nor more contrary to the very possi∣bility

of having an established Church: for it leads to all manner of Schisms and Factions in spight of all Laws and Authority in Church or State. The Authour of the Letter goes upon the same principle too,* 1.576 and saith, The Guides of the Church are to be chosen by the People, according to Scripture and Primitive practice. This I perceive is a popular argument, and a fine de∣vice to draw in the common People to the dissenting Party; whatever becomes of Laws, and mens just and legal Rights of Patronage, all must yield to the antecedent Right of the People. But to bring this matter to a strict debate, we must consider these three things. 1. What Original, or inherent Right and Power the People had. 2. How they came to be de∣vested of it. 3. Whether there be sufficient ground to resume it. And from thence we shall understand, whether some of the People's consenting to hear the Nonconformists preach, notwithstanding the Laws, can excuse them from Separation? for this lies at the bottom of all.

1. As to the Original, inherent Right and Power of the People. Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People; for to manifest how favou∣rable wise men have been to the Congregational way, he quotes a saying of F. Paul;* 1.577 out of a Book of his, lately translated into English, that in the beginning, the Government of the Church had altogether a Demo∣cratical Form; which is an opinion so absurd and un∣reasonable, that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person. For was there not a Church to be formed in the begin∣ning? Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end? Where was

the Church power then lodged? Was it not in the Apostles? Did not they in all places, as they planted Churches, appoint Officers to teach and govern them? And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed? Were not then the several Pa∣stours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them? And if they had such Power and Authority over the People, how came their Power to be derived from them, as it must be, if the Church Government then were Democratical? Besides, Is it reasonable to sup∣pose the People should assemble to choose their Officers, and convey the Power of the Keys to them; which never were in their hands? And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities, when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands? For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them. But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles, in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons, no more is required, as to the People, than barely their Testimony; there∣fore it is said they must be blameless,* 1.578 and men of good report. But, where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys, must meet together, and choose their Pastour, and then convey the Ministerial Power over them∣selves, to them? If it were true that the Church Go∣vernment at first was Democratical, the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury; for they have said no more of their Power in the Church, than they have done of the Pope's. It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle:* 1.579 but were not the Women so too? And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too? Suppose not, doth this

prove that the Churches Power was then Democrati∣cal? then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power; which I do not think any man would say, much less F. Paul. As to the election of Deacons; it was no properly Church Power which they had; but they were Stewards of the common Stock; and was there not then, all the reason in the world, the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men?* 1.580 When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith, he gave an account of it to all the Church. And what then? Must he therefore derive his power from it? Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds? But here is not all the Church mentioned;* 1.581 onely those of the Circumcision at Ieru∣salem had a mind to understand the reason of his re∣ceiving a Gentile Convert. And what is this to the power of the Church? But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene, and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders, Apostles, Priests and faithfull Brethren. I grant it; but is it not expresly said, that the Question was sent up from the Churches, to the Apostles and Presbyters?* 1.582 Is it not said, that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it; and that the multitude was silent?* 1.583 Is it not said, that the De∣crees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters, with∣out any mention of the People?* 1.584 And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power; but in the other place, it signifies no more than their gene∣ral consent to the Decrees that were then made. In success of time, it is added, when the Church increased in number, the faithfull retiring themselves to the af∣fairs of their Families, and having left those of the Congregation, the Government was retained onely in the

Ministers, and so became Aristocratical, saving the elec∣tion which was Popular. Which account is neither agreeable to Reason, nor to Antiquity. For, was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times? How came it to be changed, from that to a Democratical Form? Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches, and charged the People to obey them? And was this an argument the Power was then in the People? It was not then the People's withdrawing (of which there can be no evidence, if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power, in Antiquity) but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles.

Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections, as to which there is so fair a pre∣tence from Antiquity; but yet not such, as to fix any inherent, or unalterable Right in the People. As I shall make appear, by these following observa∣tions.

1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon,* 1.585 That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report.

2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections, caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church.

3. That to prevent these, many Bishops were ap∣pointed without their choice, and Canons made for the better regulating of them.

4. That when there were Christian Magistrates, they did interpose as they thought fit, notwithstan∣ding the popular claim; in a matter of so great con∣sequence to the Peace of Church and State.

5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments, and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes, and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons.

6. That things being thus settled by established Laws, there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws.

If I can make good these Observations, I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded, concerning the Right and Power of the People, which my Adversaries build so much upon.

(1.) That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon, that a Bishop must be blameless, and of good report. For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy, If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, How much rather of the Brethren, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chry∣sostom. So it is said concerning Timothy himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium.* 1.586 And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's

taking him into the Office of an Evangelist. So in the choice of the Deacons, the Apostles bid them find out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.587 men of good reputation among them. And there is a very considerable Testi∣mony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose;* 1.588 where he gives an account, how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries, did appoint their First-fruits, having made a spiritual trial of them, to be Bi∣shops and Deacons of those who were to believe. Here it is plain, that they were of the Apostles appointment, and not of the Peoples choice; and that their Autho∣rity could not be from them, whom they were ap∣pointed first to convert and then to govern; and al∣though their number was but small at first, yet as they increased, though into many Congregations, they were still to be under the Government of those, whom the Apostles appointed over them. And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others: and he brings the Instance of Moses, when there was an emulation among the Tribes, what method he took for putting an end to it, by the blossom∣ing of Aarons Rod; which, saith he, Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel, and thereby to bring Glory to God; now, saith he, the Apostles fore∣saw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church; which the sense shews to be his meaning: therefore, foreseeing these things perfectly, they appoin∣ted the persons before mentioned, and left the distribu∣tion of their Offices, with this instruction, that as some died, other approved men should be chosen into their Office. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or other eminent Men, the whole Church being therewith

well-pleased, discharging their Office with humility, quietness, readiness, and unblameableness, being men of a long time of good report, we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office. It seems, some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church, and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more, and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal, not onely on themselves, but the Christian Church; which made Clemens write this Epistle to them; wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves, than to continue making such a disturbance in it; and if they were good Christians they would do so; and bring more glory to God by it, than by all their heat and contentions. Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain, (1.) That these Officers of the Church were not cho∣sen by the People, but appointed by the Apostles, or o∣ther great Men, according to their Order? (2.) That they took this course on purpose to prevent the con∣tentions that might happen in the Church, about those who should bear Office in it. (3.) That all that the People had to doe, was to give Testimony, or to ex∣press their approbation of those, who were so appoin∣ted. For he could not allow their power of choosing, since he saith, the Apostles appointed Officers on pur∣pose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it. And it seems very probable to me, that this was one great reason of the faction among them; viz. that those few Popular men in that Church, who cau∣sed all the disturbance, represented this, as a great grievance to them; that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others, and not chosen by them∣selves. For they had no objection against the Pres∣byters

themselves, being allowed to be men of un∣blameable lives; yet a contention there was, and that about casting them out; and such a contention, as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succes∣sion from such whom themselves ordain••d; and there∣fore it is very ••ikely, they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen. But it seems, the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church, took 〈…〉〈…〉 them, leaving to the People their Testimony concer∣ning those whom they ordained. And this is plain, even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter,* 1.589 in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis, to which Mr. Baxter refers me. For, the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onely to this giving Testimony;* 1.590 therefore, saith he, God ap∣pointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People, thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be, sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ, in the Presence of the People: for what reason? that they might give them Power? no; that was never done under the Law; nor then imagined, when S. Cyprian wrote; but he gives the account of it himself; that by their presence, either their faults might be published, or their good acts commended; that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination, which hath been exa∣mined by the suffrage and judgment of all. The People here had a share in the Election, but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person. And therefore, he saith, it was almost a general Custom among them, and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Aposto∣lical Practice, that when any People wanted a Bishop, the neighbour Bishops met together in that place, and

the new Bishop was chosen, plebe praesente, the People being present, (not by the Votes of the People) quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit, which best under∣stands every mans Conversation: and this, he saith, was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus, who was put into the place of Basilides. Where he doth express the Consent of the People, but he re∣quires the Iudgment of the Bishops; which being thus performed, he incourages the People to with∣draw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus. For, Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry, and joy∣ned blasphemy with it, had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick, and desired onely to be recei∣ved to Lay-Communion, upon this Sabinus was con∣secrated Bishop in his room; after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to inter∣pose in his behalf, that he might be restored; Sabi∣nus finding this, makes his application to Saint Cypri∣an and the African Bishops, who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides, saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad. Which is the strongest Testimony in Anti∣quity for the Peoples Power; and yet here we are to consider (1.) It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned. (2.) Another Bishop was put into his room, not by the Power of the People, but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bi∣shops. (3.) They had the judgment of a whole Coun∣cil of African Bishops for their deserting him. (4.) For a notorious matter of fact, viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession. (5.) All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this, doth amount to no more, than that the People were most concerned to give Testi∣mony, as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops.

This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus, who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People, to hear what they had to object against them, and said it was a hard case, when the Christians and Iews did so about their Priests, the same should not be done about Governours of Provinces, who had mens lives and fortunes in their hands. But no man could ever from hence imagin, that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governours of Roman Provinces.* 1.591 Origen saith, The Peoples presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop, that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop; it must be astante Populo, the People standing by; and this is that Saint Paul meant, when he said, A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without.

(2.) That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church.* 1.592 Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop, by the Divisions of the Peo∣ple, that they were like to have shaken the Emperour's Kindness to the Christians. For, such a flame was kindled by it, that he saith, it was near destroying both the Church and the City: and they had certainly drawn Swords, if the Providence of God, and fear of the Emperour had not restrained them. Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet: and after much trouble to the Emperour and many meetings of Bishops,* 1.593 at last Eustathius was chosen. Greg. Na∣zianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop, saying it came to a dangerous sedition, and not easy to be suppressed:

and he saith, the City was very prone to it, on such oc∣casions. And although there was one Person of in∣comparable worth above the rest, yet through the Parties and Factions that were made, it was a hard matter to carry it for him. He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections, that he wishes them alter'd; and the Elections brought to the Clergy; and he thinks no Common-wealth so disorder∣ly as this method of Election was.* 1.594 Evagrius saith, the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable, upon the divi∣sion of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius; the People rising against the Magistrates and Souldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order: and at last they mur∣thered Proterius. Such dangerous Seditions are de∣scribed at Constantinople, upon the Election of Pau∣lus and Macedonius, by Sozomen; and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius,* 1.595 and after the death of Atticus by Socrates;* 1.596 and after the depriva∣tion of Nestorius.* 1.597 And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius; and about the Election of Flavianus; at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom, at Ver∣selles by Saint Ambrose;* 1.598 at Milan by Socrates, and many other places.* 1.599 I shall onely adde a remarka∣ble one at Rome on the choice of Damasus: which came to bloodshed for several days;* 1.600 and is particu∣larly related by Ammianus Marcellinus;* 1.601 and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum. Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the Peoples consen∣ting Power,* 1.602 and so there are in all humane affairs.* 1.603 But are these tolerable inconveniencies? Is this Pow∣er still to be pleaded for, in opposition to Laws, as though Religion lay at stake; and onely Magistrates were bad men, and the People always good and wise and vertuous? A man must have great spite against

Men in Power, and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wick∣ed, debauched, and enemies to Piety, and at the same time dissemble, and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People; besides their Ignorance and in∣capacity of judging in such matters, and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreaso∣nable contentions on such occasions.* 1.604 But Saint Chry∣sostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases.* 1.605 Saint Hierom saith, they are apt to choose men like themselves: and saith else∣where, they are much to be feared whom the People choose.* 1.606 Origen saith, the People are often moved ei∣ther for favour or reward.

(3.) That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People, and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections.* 1.607 In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters; as Saint Ierom and others shew. For by the Constitu∣tion of that Church, before the alteration made by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria was not onely to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters, but by them. So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs,* 1.608 saith, that after the death of their Patriarch, the Presbyters met together and prayed, and proceeded to election; and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop, and to the other Bishops to consecrate him. To which the Bishops assented, onely saying, if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose, but not otherwise. Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church; and saith it continued to the time of the

Nicene Council:* 1.609 and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith, the custom was alter'd, by a Council among them∣selves, which determin'd that they might choose the most deserving person, whether of that Body or not. And there could be no room for popular elections, whereever that Custom obtained, which the Coun∣terfeit Ambrose speaks of, ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet; speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding. But if this be onely a particular conceit of that Authour, yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches with∣out any mention of choice made by the People. So, when Narcissus retired from Ierusalem,* 1.610 Eusebius saith, the neighbour Bishops assembled, and consecrated one Dius in his room;* 1.611 and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius, in whose time Narcissus returned: but being grown very old, Alexander was brought in to assist him, by Revelation, and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren. Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successour, and acquainted the Clergy with it, but not the People; great distur∣bance was feared hereupon; the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them,* 1.612 and to settle their new Bishop; who went, and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly. S. Augustin himself declares, the sad effects he had often seen of the Chur∣ches Election of Bishops, through the ambition of some, and the contention of others, and therefore he desired to prevent any such disturbance in his City, when he was dead. And for that reason, he acquainted the People that he designed Eradius, or as some Copies have it, Eraclius for his Successour. So Paulus the Novation Bishop at Constantinople,* 1.613 appointed his Suc∣cessour Marcianus to prevent the contentions that might

happen after his death; and got his Presbyters to con∣sent to it.

The Greek Canonists are of opinion, that the Council of Nice took away all power of election of Bi∣shops from the People,* 1.614 and gave it to the Bishops of the Province. And it is apparent from the Council of Antioch,* 1.615 that Bishops were sometimes consecrated in the East, without the consent of the People; for it doth suppose a Bishop after consecration may not be received by his People, which were a vain supposition if their election necessarily went before it. And withall, it puts the case of a Bishop that refused to go to his Peo∣ple after consecration;* 1.616 which shews, that the conse∣cration was not then performed in his own Church. Gregory subscribed at Antioch as Bishop of Alexandria,* 1.617 before ever he went thither. So Saint Basil mentions his consecration of Euphronius to be Bishop of Nicopo∣lis, without any consent of the People before; it be∣ing then performed by the Metropolitan in his own See;* 1.618 but he perswades the Senate and People to accept of him. If the People did agree upon a Person to be Bishop, their way then was, to petition the Metro∣politan and his Synod, who had the full Power either to allow or to refuse him. And it is evident from the twelfth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, that al∣though all the People chose a Bishop, if he intruded himself into the possession of his See without the con∣sent of a Provincial Synod, he was to be turned out or rejected by them. Which shews how much the business of elections was brought into the Bishops Power in the Eastern parts. And by virtue of this Canon, Bassianus and Stephanus were rejected in the Council of Chalcedon.* 1.619 By the Law of Iustinian, the common

People were excluded from elections of Bishops;* 1.620 and the Clergy and better sort of Citizens were to nominate three to the Metropolitan; out of which he was to choose one.* 1.621 By the Canon of Laodicea▪ the common People were excluded from the Power of choosing any into the Clergy:* 1.622 For they were wont to raise tumults upon such occasions;* 1.623 such as Saint Augustin describes in the case of Pinianus; but some of the Greek and Latin Canonists inlarge the sense of the Laodicean Canon to the election of Bishops too. The second Council of Nice restrained the election onely to Bishop;* 1.624 which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church;* 1.625 as Can. 28. Concil. Constantinopol. against Photius; and the People are there excluded with an Anathema. So far were popular Elections grown out of request in the Eastern Church.

(4.) That when there were Christian Magistrates, they did interpose in this matter as they judged ex∣pedient.* 1.626 So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch, when there was great dissension there, upon the de∣position of Eustathius, he recommended to the Synod Euphronius of Cappadocia, and Georgius of Arethusa, or whom they should judge fit, without taking any notice of the interest of the People: and they accor∣dingly consecrated Euphronius. After the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople,* 1.627 the People fell in∣to Parties, some were for Paulus, and others for Ma∣cedonius; the Emperour Constantius coming thither puts them both by, and appoints Eusebius of Nico∣media to be Bishop there.* 1.628 Eusebius being dead, the Orthodox Party again choose Paulus, Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force:* 1.629 and was very angry with Macedonius for being made Bishop with∣out

his leave; although afterwards he placed him in his throne.* 1.630 When Athanasius was restored, Constan∣tius declared, it was by the decree of the Synod, and by his consent. And he by his Authority restored like∣wise Paulus and Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius to their several Sees.* 1.631 When Gregory Nazianzen resigned the Bishoprick of Constantinople, Theodosius commen∣ded to the Bishops the care of finding out a Person, who recommending many to him, the Emperour him∣self pitched upon Nectarius,* 1.632 and would have him made Bishop, though many of the Bishops opposed it. When Chrysostom was chosen at Constantinople,* 1.633 the royal assent was given by Arcadius, the election being made, saith Sozomen, by the People and Clergy; but Palladius gives a more particular account of it,* 1.634 viz. That upon the death of Nectarius many Competi∣tours appeared, some making their application to the Court, and othes to the People; in so much that the People began to be tumultuous, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Palla∣dius) upon which they importuned the Emperour to provide a fit man for them. Eutropius being then chief Minister of State, recommended Chrysostom to the Emperour, and immediately an express was sent to the Comes Orientis, that he should with all privacy, for fear of a tumult at Antioch, send him away to Con∣stantinople: whither being brought, he was soon after consecrated Bishop. So that here was no antecedent election of the People, as Sozomen saith, but what∣ever there was, was subsequent to the Emperour's de∣termination. After the death of Sisinnius, the Empe∣rour declared, That to prevent disturbance they would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen Bi∣shop there;* 1.635 and so Nestorius was brought from An∣tioch. Maximianus being dead he gave order that

Proclus should be made Bishop, before the others body was buried. These instances are sufficient to shew, that Christian Princes did from the first think fit, when just occasion was given, to make use of their Authority in this matter.

(5.) Upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magi∣strates interposing than before. For upon the en∣dowment of Churches by the great liberality of the Northern Princes, it was thought at first very reaso∣nable, that the Royal assent should be obtained, though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People: which at first depended onely on tacit consent; but after the solemn Assemblies of the People came to be much used, these privileges of Princes came not one∣ly to be confirmed by the Consent of the People,* 1.636 but to be inlarged.* 1.637 For, the Princes obtained by de∣grees not onely the confirmation of the elected, but the liberty of nomination;* 1.638 with a shadow of election by the Clergy and others of the Court;* 1.639 as appears by the Formulae of Marculphus. This way was not al∣ways observed in France where frequently according to the Edict of Clotharius,* 1.640 the Clergy and People chose, the Metropolitan consecrated, and the Prince gave his Royal assent:* 1.641 but in doubtfull or difficult cases, he made use of his Prerogative, and nominated the Per∣son,* 1.642 and appointed the Consecration. Afterwards, there arose great contests between the Papal and Royal Power; which continued for several Ages; and at last among us,* 1.643 the royal Power overthrowing the other,* 1.644 reserved the Power of Nomination of Bi∣shops,* 1.645 as part of the Prerogative; which being al∣lowed in frequent Parlaments, the Consent of the People

is swallowed up therein: since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation. For not onely the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares, The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King; but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise de∣clared, That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage, derived from his An∣cestours before the freedom of elections was granted. Which shews not onely the great Antiquity of this Right, but the consent of the whole Nation to it. And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said,* 1.646 That the King did dis∣pose of them, jure suo Regio, by his Royal Preroga∣tive; as his Ancestours had done from the first foun∣ding of a Christian Church here. This is likewise ow∣ned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People, than here in England; and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here. As to the inferiour Right of Patronage; it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Chri∣stianity in peace and quietness. For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches, where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters, as in a College together; a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them. For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Country Presbyters, c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures, and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice. In the time of the first Council of Orange, A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches, c. 10. viz.

If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese, yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him. And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles, c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno.* 1.647 A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established, upon the agree∣ments at first made in the endowments of Churches. This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian,* 1.648 A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk:* 1.649 And the same were settled in the We∣stern Church; as appears by the ninth Council of To∣ledo, about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Pa∣tronage, and the endowments of Churches, till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs, and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presen∣ted,* 1.650 and to give institution to the Benefice. The Ba∣rons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX. plead, That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage, from the first planting of Christianity here. For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built, and at whose cost and charges they were erected, and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed, thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves.* 1.651 And this Ioh. Sarisburien∣sis saith, was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom. So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration; and hath been ever since received by as universal a Con∣sent as any Law or Custom among us. And the onely Questions now remaining are, whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons, who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their

own Pastours? and supposing, that it might be done, whether it be reasonable so to doe? And I conclude, that,

6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections: (1.) because it was no unalterable Right, but might be passed away; and hath been by consent of the People upon good consi∣derations, and (2.) because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings, but may be remedied by Laws; far ea∣sier, than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves, which cannot be done in a divided Nation, without throwing all into re∣mediless confusion. (3.) Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence. Beza declaims against it,* 1.652 as a thing without any ground in Scripture, or any right in Antiquity, and subject to infinite disorders. In Sweden the Archbishop and Bi∣shops are appointed by the King: and so are the Bishops in Denmark; In other Lutheran Churches, the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates:* 1.653 and in these the Patrons present before Ordination. The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage, Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers; at Geneva by the Council of State, which hath Power to depose them. And it would be very strange, if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onely be discovered here; where it is as unfit to be practised, as in any part of the Christian world.

But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter;* 1.654 for when the objection is put by him, That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power, and therefore they now consent; he saith, this seemeth a Iest; for, he saith, 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power. 2. They ne∣ver consented that Parlaments should do what they list, and dispose of their Souls, or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls. 3. They may as well say, that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it. 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting. 5. The obligation on the People was Personal, and they have not God's consent for the transmutation.

So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine, all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves; and all Rights of Advowson in the King, or Noblemen and Gentlemen, or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations, and things utterly unlawfull among Christians, since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People, that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny, that the free∣dom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them, do lie within the Magistrates Power, and so binding Laws may be made about them; unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives. And if these may be justly settled by Laws, then the Rights of Patro∣nage are as just and legal Rights as men have to their Estates; and consequently every Minister duly pre∣sented

hath a legal Title to the Temple and Tithes, as Mr. B. calls them. But this doth not, saith he, make a Minister for their Souls, and the Parlament cannot dispose of their Souls. The meaning of all which is, if the People be humorsome and factious, they may run after whom they please, and set up what Minister they please, in opposition to Laws. And so for instance, suppose a Parish be divided in their Opinions about Religion, (as we know too many are at this day) all these several parties, viz. Anabaptists, Quakers, yea and Papists too, as well as others, will put in for an equal share in what con∣cerns the care of their Souls, and consequently, may choose a several Pastour to themselves, and leave the Incumbent the bare possession of the Temple and Tithes. But if there be no other objection, this may be thought sufficient, that he was none of their choo∣sing, being imposed upon them by others, who could not dispose of their Souls. By which means, this pre∣tence of taking care for their Souls, will be made use of, to justifie the greatest disorder and confusion, which can happen in a Church. For, let the Person be never so worthy in himself, the People are still to have their liberty of choosing for themselves. And who are these People? Must all have equal Votes? then according to Mr. B.'s opinion of our Churches, the worst will be soonest chosen; for why should we not think the worst People will choose their like as well as the worst Patrons, and the worst Bishops? But if the Profane must be excluded, by what Law? Is it because they have no right to the Ordinances? But have they no right to their own Souls and to the care of them? therefore they are equally concerned with others. Yet let us suppose all these excluded, as

no competent Iudges; shall all the rest be excluded too, who are incompetent Iudges? then I am afraid, there will not be many left. And whatever they pretend, the People wher•• they do choose, do trust other mens Judgments, as well as where the Patrons present; and to prevent popular tumults, such elec∣tions are generally brought by a kind of devolution to a few Persons who are entrusted to choose for the rest. But if all the People were left to choose their own Pastours, it is not to be imagined, what parties and factions, what mutual hatreds, and per∣petual animosities, they would naturally fall into on such occasions. Do we not daily see such things to be the fruits of popular elections, where men are con∣cerned for the strength and reputation of their Par∣ty? What envying and strife, what evil speaking and backbiting, what tumults and disorders, what unchristian behaviour in general, of men to each other, do commonly accompany such elections? Which being the natural effects of mens passions stirred up by such occasions, and there being so much experience of it in all Ages of the Christian Church, where such things have been; I am as certain, that Christ never gave the People such an unalterable Right of choosing their own Ministers, as I am, that he de∣signed to have the peace and unity of the Church pre∣served. And of all Persons, I do the most wonder at him, who pretends to discover the Onely way of unity and concord among Christians, that he should so much, so frequently, so earnestly insist upon this; which if it be not the onely, is one of the most effectual ways to perpetuate disorder and confusion in a broken and divided Church. And so much for the Plea for Separation, taken from the Peoples Rights to choose their own Ministers.

Sect. 26. Having thus dispatched all the Pleas for Separation, which relate to the Constitution of our Church, I come to those which concern the Terms of Communion with us; wh•••• are said to be unlawfull.

One of the chief Pleas alledged for Separation, by Dr. O. and Mr. A. is,* 1.655 that many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men, which are not according to the mind of Christ. These are very ge∣neral words; but Dr. O. reckons up the particulars, which (setting aside those already considered) are, the use of the Aëreal sign of the Cross,* 1.656 kneeling at the Communion, the Religious observation of Holy-days; and the constant use of the Liturgy in all the publick Of∣fices of the Church. As to this last, I shall say nothing, it being lately so very well defended by a learned Di∣vine of our Church.* 1.657 To the other, Mr. B. adds, the use of Godfathers and Godmothers; and now I am to examine what weight there is in these things, to make men seriously think Communion with our Church un∣lawfull.

When I found our Church thus charged with pre∣scribing unlawfull terms of Communion, I expected a particular and distinct proof of such a charge, because the main weight of the Cause depended upon it. And this is the method we use in dealing with the Church of Rome. We do not run upon general char∣ges of unscriptural Impositions, and things imposed on mens Consciences against the mind of Christ; but we close with them upon the particulars of the charge, as Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the Host, and we offer to prove by plain Scri∣pture,

that these are forbidden and therefore unlaw∣full. But I find no such method taken or pursued by our Brethren; onely we are told over and over, that they judge, they think, they esteem them unlaw∣full; and they cannot be satisfied about them; but for particular arguments to prove them unlawfull I find none; which makes the whole charge look very sus∣piciously. For men do not use to remain in generals, when they have any assurance of the Goodness of their Cause. Yet, to let the Reader see that I de∣cline nothing that looks like argument in this matter, I shall pick up every thing I can find, which seems to prove these terms of our Communion to be unlaw∣full, or to justify their Separation.

In the Epistle before my Sermon I had used this Argument against the present Separation,

that if it be lawfull to separate on a pretence of greater pu∣rity, where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship, as is acknowledged in our Case; then a bare difference of opinion, as to some circumstantials of Worship and the best Con∣stitution of Churches will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches; which, considering the great variety of mens fan∣cies about these matters, is to make an infinite Di∣visibility in Churches, without any possible stop to further Separation.

This Argument others were willing to pass over, but Mr. A. in his Preface, undertakes to answer it in all the parts of it; which being so material to our business, I shall now distinctly consider: and like an able Disputant he allows nothing at all in this Ar∣gument;

for he denies the Supposition, viz. that there is any such agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship; he denies the first consequence; and as though that were not sufficient, he denies the re∣moter consequence too. And what Argument can stand before a man of such prowesse in disputing?

1. He denies an Agreement in Doctrine, which I have already shewed was allowed by all Dissenters before him, from the days of R. Brown to Mr. A. But we must not mistake him, for as fierce as he seems to be at first, yet let him but have scope to shew some tricks of Wit, and trials of his skill in fencing; and he is as tame and yielding as you would wish him; for at last he confesses they gene∣rally agree with the Doctrine contained in the 39 Ar∣ticles; and but for meer shame, he would have said all; for I never heard of one before him made any scruple of it. And this is the Doctrine established in this Church; and if there be an Agreement in this, then this Supposition is granted.

2. As to substantial parts of Worship; he denies an Agreement in this too:* 1.658 although Dr. O. saith, we are agreed in the substantial parts of Religion; and I hope the parts of Worship are allowed to be some of them. But he pretends not to know what we mean by the difference between the parts of Worship, making some substantial, and others circumstantial; and then he offers to prove that our Church appoints new sub∣stantial parts of Worship, and therefore he must know one from the other; and after he hath spent some leaves in the proof of that, at last he fairly concludes, that there is a difference at least in a circumstantial part of Worship.

But because this is a weighty charge against our Church, I shall take the more pains to consider it, because the main objection against our Ceremonies lies under it, and that which most sticks with the more sober Nonconformists.

Mr. A.'s charge about a substantial part of Worship being appointed by our Church, is thus drawn up. An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace, whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of, and subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Wor∣ship. Now this he chargeth our Church with, but gives no instance; but the sign of the Cross after baptism,* 1.659 is that which he means: which Mr. B. calls the transient dedicating Image of the Cross. For the clearing of this, it will be necessary to shew,

1. What we mean by a substantial part of Worship.

2. How it appears that the sign of the Cross is made no substantial part of Worship by our Church.

1. What we mean••••y a substantial part of divine Worship. For I have observed, that the want of a clear and distinct notion of this, hath been one of the greatest occasions of the Scruples of the most conscientious Non-conformists. For being afraid of displeasing God, by using any other parts of Worship, than himself hath appointed; and looking on our Ceremonies, as real parts of divine Worship, upon this reason they have thought themselves obliged in conscience, at least to forbear the use of them. The great principle they went upon was this, that what∣ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God, was a real and substantial part of his Worship; and when their Adversaries told them that Divine In∣stitution

was necessary to make a part of Worship; their answer was, that Divine Institution did not make that a part of Worship which was none, but that to be a part of true Worship, which otherwise would be a part of false Worship. In the mean time, they did not deny the lawfulness of the application of com∣mon circumstances to Acts of Religious Worship, as Time and Place, &c. but the annexing any other Rites, or Ceremonies to proper Acts of Religious Wor∣ship (as the sign of the Cross to Baptism) they suppo∣sed to be the making new substantial parts of Divine Worship; and therefore forbidden by all those places of Scripture, which imply the Scripture it self to be a perfect Rule of Worship. This as far as I can gather is the strongest Plea of the Non-conformists side, which I have represented with its full advantage, because my design is, if possible, not so much to confute, as to convince our Dissenting Brethren.

Let us then seriously consider this matter, and if we can find out a plain discernible difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and mere acciden∣tal appendices, this discovery may tend more to dis∣entangle scrupulous minds, than the multiplying of arguments to prove the lawfulness of our Ceremonies. And that we may better understand where the diffi∣culty lies, these following things are agreed on both sides.

1. That besides proper Acts of Worship there are some Circumstances which may be differently used, without setting up new parts of Worship. As for in∣stance, Adoration is a substantial and proper Act of Divine Worship; but whether that Adoration be per∣formed

by prostration, or by bowing, or by kneeling, is in it self indifferent; and no man will say, that he that makes his adoration kneeling makes another new part of Worship, from what he doth who performs it standing or falling on his face. And so, if the An∣cient Eastern Church did at certain times forbid knee∣ling in acts of Adoration; this doth not prove that they differ'd in point of Adoration from the Western Church which requires kneeling in the same Offices of Divine Worship; because they agreed in the act of Adoration, but onely differ'd in the manner of expressing it.

2. That Divine Institution makes those to be ne∣cessary parts of Worship which of themselves are not so. As is plain in the Sacraments of the New Testa∣ment; which of themselves are no necessary substan∣tial parts of the worship of God; but onely become so, by being appointed by Christ. So under the Law, many things meerly ritual and ceremonial in themselves, yet by vertue of Divine appointment be∣came substantial parts of Divine Worship.

3. That for men to make new Parts of Divine Worship is unlawfull. For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship; and that Su∣perstition is no fault; and consequently that our Sa∣viour, without cause, found fault with the Scribes and Pharisees for their Traditions.

4. That there are many things which may be done in the Worship of God; which are not forbidden to be done unless they be Parts of Divine Worship. For, if the supposed reason of their prohibition, be

their being made Parts of Divine Worship, if it be made appear, that they are not so, then it follows they are not forbidden.

5. That what is neither forbidden directly, nor by consequence is lawfull and may be practised in the Wor∣ship of God. For although Mr. A. quarrels with me, for saying, they require express Commands to make things lawfull in the Worship of God;* 1.660 yet he allows, that what is not required either directly or by con∣sequence is unlawfull; and by parity of Reason, what is not forbidden in the same manner must be lawfull.

Sect. 27. It remains now to find out those certain notes and marks of distinction in this matter, as may give satisfaction to the consciences of men, in the difference between innocent Ceremonies, and supersti∣tious parts of Divine Worship. For the difference here doth not lie in supposing some things of Divine Institution which are not, but in making those to be parts of Divine Worship which are not. And that may be done these ways.

1. By supposing them to be so necessary, that the doing them would be a thing pleasing to God, and the omitting of them would be a thing displeasing to God, although there were no humane Law which re∣quired the doing of them. For, where there is no obligation by vertue of any humane Law and yet men suppose they should please God by doing, or displease God by not observing some particular Cere∣monies; it is a sign they esteem those to be parts of Divine Worship. And this was the case of the Scribes

and Pharisees whom our Saviour reproved, not so much for their frequent washings, as for supposing that a mans Conscience was defiled,* 1.661 if he did not ob∣serve them. For they had taken up an opinion among them, (as H. Grotius observes) that any thing that was touched by a Person unclean by the Law, did communicate an uncleanness first to their Bodies, and then to their Souls; but that this ceremonial washing did purifie both Body and Soul: upon which supposition, they concluded this washing so necessary a part of God's Worship, that the doing of it was a thing very pleasing to God, and the omissi∣on of it must be displeasing to him, because it left an inward defilement upon their Consciences, which might have been removed by the use of it. But it is lately pleaded by Mr. A. that this washing of hands among the Iews condemned by our Saviour,* 1.662 was just of the nature of our Ceremonies, being onely observed as a command of their Superiours not repugnant to the Law of God,* 1.663 but rather more agreeable to it than our Ceremonies are: from whence he infers, that all Tra∣ditions,* 1.664 Canons, Injunctions, concerning unnecessary things are contrary to the Law of God, and consequent∣ly invalid and not obligatory. But I say, the Reason of our Saviour's opposing the Pharisees about this matter, was not because a thing in it self unne∣cessary, was determined by their Superiours, but be∣cause of the superstitious opinion which the Pharisees had concerning this washing with respect to the Con∣sciences of men. And that I shall prove 1. From the force of our Saviour's reasoning. 2. From the gene∣ral sense of the Iews concerning it.

1. From the force of our Saviour's reasoning: which will appear, by observing what He proves, viz. that they set up their Tradition above the Law. v. 3. Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God by your Tradition? and v. 6. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition. v. 9. Full well ye reject the Commandment of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition. Our Saviour here proves by a plain and undeniable Instance about the Vow Corban, that they did believe their Traditi∣ons to have a force superiour to the Law; else it were impossible they should suppose such an arbitrary Vow should supersede the obligation of the Law, as to the duty which Children owe to their Parents; but from hence it appeared that they believed the keeping of this Vow to be a thing more pleasing to God, than relieving their Parents, and so they esteemed it a more necessary and substantial part of Divine Worship. The force of his Argument then extends to all things which they looked on as things pleasing to God, on the account of the Tradition of their Elders; for he argued against the main supposition, the truth of which he proves by a clear instance, where the Tra∣dition did contradict the Law. And since by this, it appeared, that they thought their Tradition to over-rule the Law, it was no wonder they set up others equal to it; and thought mens consciences strictly obliged to observe them. But how doth the argument reach to the present case, viz. Because that when their Traditions contradicted the Law, they were not to be observed; therefore, not, when agreeable; unless he rejected all kind of Traditions? I answer, the Pharisees did think a man's Conscience defiled if he did not observe that Tradition, as appears by what

follows, when he taught the People upon this occa∣sion, v. 11. That which entreth into the mouth defileth not a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth defileth a man. This was the Doctrine Christ taught the People with respect to this dispute with the Pha∣risees: which signified nothing, unless the opinion among them was, that eating of bread with unwashen hands, did really defile a man's Conscience towards God. At which the Pharisees were much offended, as the Disciples told him, v. 12. and they were not so very well satisfied, but they desire a further expli∣cation of this matter from himself; which he gives them, v. 17, 18, 19. where he shews that no defile∣ment could come to mens Consciences meerly by what they did eat; but that mens inward lusts were the things which defiled them, for these were the source of those wicked actions, which were most displeasing to God. And so he concludes his Discourse, v. 20. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. From whence it follows, that the main thing in dis∣pute was, whether this Ceremony of washing hands could be omitted, without defiling the conscience? or else our Saviour's conclusion doth not reach the Question. But if the conclusion was contrary to the Pharisees Doctrine, then they must look upon this Ceremony of washing of hands, as a part of Worship equal to the Law of God, and which men pleased God by doing, and displeased him by omitting it; not meerly with respect to the command of Superiours, but as they supposed some lesser guilt upon the Con∣science might be expiated by it, which would remain, if they did not use it.

2. From the general sense of the Iews. Even Mr. A. himself, in the very same discourse, where he would make this washing of hands like our Ceremonies, quotes several passages of the Talmudists,* 1.665 to prove that they equalled their Traditions with the Laws of God; and sometimes set them above them; and par∣ticularly of this Tradition he saith, It is a saying of the Talmud, that he that eats bread with unwashen hands, sins as grievously as if he lay with a Whore. Which is a saying of R. Ase in Sota;* 1.666 and abundantly proves, that this was not looked on as an indifferent Ceremony, but as a thing, whose omission brought a guilt on the Conscience. And I wonder Mr. A. did not discern, that by this one saying, he overthrew all the rest of his discourse: but this opinion is not built on the saying of any Rabbi, but on a constant Tradition among them, which they derive from the days of Solomon; who, they say, appointed it first, when they did eat of Sacrifices; afterwards, the wise men applied it to the Terumah, and at last Hillel and Schammai decreed it ought to be observed for their greater purification, before the eating their com∣mon Meals. And the Pharisees placing the greatest part of their Religion in the nice observance of such Traditions, thought themselves so much more holy than others, as they did more carefully avoid the defilements of common Conversation; and for that reason they observed this washing especially when they had been in promiscuous company.* 1.667 For they thought themselves defiled by any touch from the or∣dinary sort of People; and this, Maimonides saith, They looked on, as a peculiar part of Sanctity; and the more strict and punctual they were in this, the more holy they were accounted. Therefore in the

Talmud one Iohn the Son of Gudged is particularly admired for his Sanctity,* 1.668 because he exceeded others in the niceness of washing his hands. And they have a saying in the Misna to this purpose, The Garments of the common People, are a pollution to the Pharisees, the Garments of the Pharisees to those that eat the Terumah, and theirs to those that eat of the Sacrifices, and theirs to those that touched the water of cleansing. So that they had different degrees of Sanctity about this matter of washing, none of which was imposed for the sake of cleanliness, but from the supposition of some inward purification they obtained by it, from the common filthiness of the world. And upon this principle, even the vessels of the Temple were to be washed all over, if they were but touched by the com∣mon People. In the washing their hands, they put a difference between that before, and that after meat; the latter they accounted a matter of liberty, or at least onely for health to wash off the dangerous saline particles which they supposed to remain; but the former was required for inward purification; which they require so strictly, that if water may be had with∣in four miles, a Iew is bound not to eat till he hath washed, no not with a fork; and in case none can be had, then he is to cover his hands and so eat; nor can he take meat from another in his mouth, untill his mouth be first washed. If there be no more water than will serve for his drink, he must part with enough of it to wash his hands;* 1.669 and therefore R. Akiba in prison said, He would rather perish with thirst than want water to wash his hands. And they say, Whosoever disesteems this Custom, deserves not onely excommunication but death too. Since all this is evident from the most authentick Writers among the Iews, I cannot but ad∣mire

at Mr. A.'s design, who would make the world believe, that this was no more than an indifferent Ceremony among the Iews, that was onely required for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are, when those very citations he brings from Buxtorf and Dr. Lightfoot do manifestly prove the contrary. This I thought necessary to be cleared, because this is the chief place in the New Testament which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies.

From hence it now appears that the reason of Christ's condemning that Ceremony of washing of hands, was not upon the account of Decency, but a supersti∣tious Opinion they had concerning it, that it did expiate a lesser kind of guilt and spiritual filthiness which they contracted by the impure touches of men less holy than themselves. And this the Pharisees more wondred at in Christ's Disciples, because it was a Rule among them, that the Disciples of the Wise ought to be more strict in these cases than others, be∣cause these things tended to advance the reputation of their holiness, among the People. And where such an opinion prevails, there such Ceremonies are made parts of Divine Worship.

Sect. 28. And thus it is in many of the Ceremonies of the Roman Church,* 1.670 which their Divines assert to have a purifying and cleansing faculty as to the Souls of men; not for justification of men from mortal sins, but for other spiritual effects, and taking away the guilt of venial sins. For say they, no doubt they are ef∣fectual for the ends to which the Church appointed them, and of this, there is no dispute among Catholicks. And withall, they add, That it is probable that the Church

hath power to appoint Ceremonies in such a manner, that they may produce these effects, ex opere operato, as the Sacraments do justification, because Christ hath left it in the power of the Church to apply his merits for lesser effects, having appointed the Sacraments himself for the greater. But Bellarmin thinks this latter part dispu∣table concerning the opus operatum of Ceremonies; but as to the former, viz. by way of impetration, he saith, it is past all doubt among Catholicks. So, as to the sprinkling of Holy Water,* 1.671 Bellarmin saith, it is no meer significant Ceremony; but it is effectual for the blotting out of venial sins; and he quotes Saint Tho∣mas, and Dom. à Soto, and Gratian for it; who pro∣duceth the Canon of Alex. 1. whereby it appears it was first instituted ut eâ cuncti aspersi sanctificentur & purificentur; that all that were sprinkled might be sanctified and purified by it.* 1.672 In the prayer of Con∣secration for the Salt to make holy Water, one expres∣sion is, that it might be wholsome both to Body and Soul;* 1.673 and the Water is consecrated to drive away the power of the Devil. Azorius saith, that holy Water cleanseth venial sins,* 1.674 ex opere operato, and drives away Devils. Greg. de Valentia agrees in the thing, but is not so peremptory in the manner. But Marsi∣lius Columna hath written a whole Book of the admi∣rable effects of this Ceremony.* 1.675 And so for the sign of the Cross, Bellarmin attributes wonderfull effects to it, for driving away Devils and Diseases, and sanctifying the things it is applied to:* 1.676 and he saith, it hath power against the Devil ex opere operato. Pet. Thyraeus the Iesuit, attributes a proper efficiency to the sign of the Cross against the power of the Devil.* 1.677 Coccius saith it is a terrour to the Devils, and very beneficial to man∣kind. Which makes me wonder at Dr. Ames his dis∣ingenuity,

when he would go about to make the Doctrine of our Church about Ceremonies not to dif∣fer from that of the Church of Rome.* 1.678 It is true, Cassander and some few others, talk at another rate; and Cassander himself saith, the best men on both sides were agreed about these matters. But we are not to take their general sense from such as Cassander; espe∣cially when their publick Offices speak the sense of their Church better than Cassander. Greg. de Valen∣tiâ indeed,* 1.679 saith, it is a lie that they attribute as much to Ceremonies as to Sacraments: and in truth they do it not; for they attribute Iustification to the Sacra∣ments, and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies. However, since they attribute so spiritual effects to them; it is an argu∣ment they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship, as much as they do on Prayer, with which they compare them in point of efficacy. But with what face can this be objected against our Church; which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy, as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us; and de∣clares that they are no otherwise received in our Church,* 1.680 than as they are purged from Popish Supersti∣tion and Errour. And therefore all opinion of me∣rit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them; which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship; which being removed, they remain onely naked Ceremonies, i. e. as Cassander well expresses it, Words made visible, or teaching Actions; whose design and intention be∣ing towards us, and not towards God, they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship, al∣though they be used in the performance of them. As if the Christians in the East did wear the b••dge of a Cross upon their Arms, at some solemn days, as on

good Friday at their devotions, to distinguish them from Turks and Iews; would any one say, that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship? But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix, they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Wor∣ship. So that the distinction between these two, is not so hard to find, if men apply their minds to the consideration of it.

2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable, and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians: for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution. If men do assert so great a Power in the Church, as to appoint things for spiritual effects, and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them; it is all one as to say, the Church may make new parts of Worship. But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as ex∣presly as it is possible,* 1.681 that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein, as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable; and that changes and alte∣rations may be made, as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority; And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies;* 1.682 and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremo•••• any parts of Divine Worship than these things d•• And thus I have at once shewed, what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship, and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so.

Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church. For Mr. A. saith, An out∣ward visible sign of an inward invisible grace, where∣by a person is dedicated to the profession of and sub∣jection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. I answer,

1. An outward visible sign between men represen∣ting the duty or engagement of another, is no part of Divine Worship at all, much less a substantial part of it. There are some visible signs from God to men, repre∣senting the effects of his Grace to us; and those we call Sacraments; there are other signs from men to God, to testifie their subjection and dependence, and these are acts of Worship; and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action; and these are significant Ceremonies, such as the Cross in Baptism is. For, after the Child is baptized and received into the Church, the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, &c. To whom is this token made? Is it to God? no certainly. If it were a permanent sign of the Cross, would it be for a Testimony to God, or to Men? When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ cru∣cified, was this a dedicating sign to God, or a decla∣rative sign to men? And what if it represents subjec∣tion to Christ as the Redeemer? must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace, as the Sacraments are? It represents the Duty and not the Grace; the Duty is ours and may be represented by us; but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that, because he alone is the Giver of it.

2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God, but of obligation on the person. It is true, that in the 30 Ca∣non it is said, that this Church retains the sign of the Cross, following the example of the Primitive and Apo∣stolical Churches; and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof, we must consider, That Baptism is declared to be compleat be∣fore; so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it, nor being omitted, takes nothing from it; as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church. This therefore, is no part of the Baptismal Dedication. And the Minister acts in a double capacity, when he doth baptize, and when he signs with the sign of the Cross: when he bapti∣zeth, he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, &c. Which being done, and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism; he then speaks in the name of the Church, varying the number; We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, &c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number; and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one, do make use of this sign of the Cross, as the Rite of Admission into the Church, and of his obliga∣tion to behave himself, as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense, as no doubt it was so intended,* 1.683 all the difficulties about a Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental Sign, concerning which some have made so great a

stir,* 1.684 will soon appear to be of no force. For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism? Let us suppose an adult person to be bap∣tized, and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church; and the Cere∣mony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant, i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe among them; the Pastour of the Church then bap∣tizes him, and immediately after, upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Cove∣nant, he saith in the name of the Church, we receive thee into this Congregation, and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter be∣have thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us. What harm is there in all this? And yet is not this a Professing, Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sa∣cramental Sign, as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us? Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent? Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony? Doth it not import an obliga∣tion lying on the person? Is it not therefore dedica∣ting, covenanting, and sacramental, as much as the sign of the Cross? Why then should this be scrupled more than the other?

And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter;* 1.685 who supposeth that the Minister speak∣eth in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross; and as God's Officer from him, and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross; whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church, as evidently ap∣pears

by those words, We receive him into the Con∣gregation of Christ's Flock; and then follows, as the solemn rite of Admission, And do sign him with the sign of the Cross, &c. All publick and solemn Ad∣missions into Societies, having some peculiar Ceremo∣ny belonging to them. And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church; so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England: in which this Ceremo∣ny is used, without any prescription to other Churchs.

Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull,* 1.686 as a transient, arbitrary, profes∣sing sign;* 1.687 yet not as a dedicating sign, and as the com∣mon professing symbol of baptized Persons. If it be lawfull in the former sense, I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter. Yes, saith he, the instituting of the latter belongs to God onely. How doth that appear? Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end. True, but not onely for that end; but to be the means and instru∣ments of conveying his Grace to men; which none but God himself can doe, and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end. And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches, for them to take upon them to make appli∣cation of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own In∣stitution; which is the onely possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments; but if every signifi∣cant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament, then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament, be∣cause we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ; then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament, because it is a professing sign of Reverence;

then laying on the hand, and kissing the Book in swea∣ring are new Sacraments, because they are publick symbolical Rites. But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onely to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects. Yet I hope, every Nobleman or Gen∣tleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason. And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body? But the obligation here is to the common duties of Chri∣stians. And is not every Church-member bound to perform these? That which is peculiar, is the man∣ner of admission by the sign of the Cross; and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members, i. e. makes it necessary to none else; and to shew it to be onely a solemn Rite of Admission, it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism. But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are suffi∣cient, we need not devise more, and accuse his Institu∣tions of insufficiency. If it be lawfull, the Church is to judge of the expediency; and not every private person. And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ, by challen∣ging any effect peculiar to them, is no charging them with insufficiency. Well, saith Mr. B. but it is un∣lawfull on another account, viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship, and so forbidden in the Second Commandment. He may as well make it un∣lawfull to use Words in God's Worship, for are not they Images and represent things to our minds, as well as a transient sign of the Cross? Nay, doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exci∣ting our minds to Worship God? as he instanceth in a Crucifix, or historical Image of Christ, or some holy man.

If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose, what out-cries of Popery had been made against us? How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry? How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted, to shew, that they went no further and de∣sired no more than this? Yet the transient sign of the Cross, without any respect to Worship, is condemned among us, as forbidden by the Second Commandment; and that by the same person and in the same page. But it is used as a medium in God's Worship. Is our Worship directed to it? or, do we kneel before it, as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix? Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God? No; all these are rejected by our Church. How then is it a medium in God's Worship? Why forsooth, it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship. What, as much as kneeling before a Cru∣cifix? and yet that is lawfull according to him, sup∣posing the mind be onely excited by it. Suppose then we onely use the sign of the Cross to excite mens con∣sideration in the act of Worship; what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground? But our Church allows not so much, onely taking it for a lawfull outward Cere∣mony, which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it; how comes it then to be a medium in God's Wor∣ship? For Mr. B. saith, in the same place, there is a twofold medium in God's Worship. 1. Medium ex∣citans, that raises our minds to Worship God, as a Cru∣cifix, &c. 2. Medium terminans; or as he calls it ter∣minus, in genere causae finalis, a worshipped medium or the terminus, or the thing which we worship mediately, on pretence of representing God, and that we worship him in it ultimately. And this he takes to be the thing for∣bidden

directly in the second Commandment, viz. to worship a Creature (with mind or body) in the Act of Divine Worship, as representing God, or as the medi∣ate term of our Worship, by which we send it unto God, as if it were more acceptable to him. So that it is law∣full, saith he, by the sight of a Crucifix to be provoked to worship God, but it's unlawfull to offer him that Wor∣ship, by offering it to the Crucifix first, as the sign, way, or means of sending it to God. Observe here a strange piece of partiality. 1. It is allowed to be lawfull to pray before a Crucifix, as a medium excitans, as an object that stirs up in us a worshipping affection; and so all those Papists are excused from Idolatry who profess they use a Crucifix for no other end, although they perform all Acts of adoration before it; and it will become a very hard Question whether the mind in its consideration, uniting the Image with the Ob∣ject may not give the same Acts of Worship to one as to the other, but in different respects. For the Image being allowed to excite the mind to consideration of the object to be worshipped, the object is considered in the mind as represented by the Image, and consequent∣ly is so worshipped; and why then may not the wor∣ship be as well directed to the Image as representing, as to the Object represented by the Image; provided, that the Act of the mind be still fixed upon the Ob∣ject as represented by the Image? And thus even La∣tria may be performed to a Crucifix. Is not this a very fair concession to the Papists? But on the other side, 2. The sign of the Cross, even the aëreal sign, as Dr. O. calls it, must be made a medium in God's Worship, though it be utterly denied by our Church; and there be no colour for it, from his own grounds. For it is neither medium excitans, being not intended

by our Church for that purpose, a Crucifix being much fitter for that purpose; and our Church calls it onely a lawfull ceremony and honourable badge; much less can it be thought to be any mediate object of our Wor∣ship, there being nothing like Worship performed to∣wards it. But if all his meaning be, that whatever is used in the time of Worship that is not a meer circumstance must be a medium of Worship, that is so weak a pretence, that I shall consider it no farther.

Sect. 31. But suppose it be no medium of Wor∣ship,* 1.688 yet it cannot out of Mr. B.'s Head, but that it must be a new Sacrament; For, saith he, If Christ had instituted the Cross as our Church doth; would you not have called this a Sacrament? And if it want but Divine Institution and Bene∣diction, it wanteth indeed a due efficient, but it is still a Human Sacrament though not a Divine, and therefore an unlawfull Sacrament. If Christ had in∣stituted it with such promises, as he hath his other Sacraments, no doubt it had been one; but then the use of it had been quite changed, from what it is now. For then its signification had been from God to us; and the Minister had signed in Christ's Name and not in the Churches; and then it had been in token that Christ will not fail of his Promise, if we perform our Conditions. But here it is quite contrary, as hath already appeared.

There is one thing yet remaining in Mr. B. about this matter to be considered,* 1.689 viz. That according to the Rule of our Church, the Cross in Baptism hath a

Sacramental efficacy attributed to it; for, saith he, As the Water of Baptism worketh morally, by signi∣fying the washing of Christ's Body; so the Cross is to operate morally, by signifying Christ's Crucifixion, the benefits of his Cross and our Duty. And then he adds, That it is the common Doctrine of Prote∣stants that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically, but onely morally; and that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain onely such moral Causality in Sacraments. And so by this means he would make the sign of the Cross to have the nature of a Sacrament with us. But that he hath misrepresented or misapplied both the Popish and Protestant Doctrine about the effi∣cacy of Sacraments to serve his purpose, I shall now make appear,

1. Concerning the Popish Doctrine; that which overthrows the strength of all that Mr. B. saith is, that it is unanimously agreed among them as a matter of faith, that the Sacraments do confer grace, ex opere operato, where there is no actual impediment; and that it is no less than heresie to assert, that they are bare outward professing signs, i. e.* 1.690 That they are meer Ceremonies. This not one of them, whom I ever saw, either denies, or dis∣putes; and it is expresly determin'd in the Coun∣cils of Florence and of Trent. But then they have a very nice and subtle question among them about the manner how the Sacraments do confer Grace, whether physically or morally. By physically, they mean, when a thing by its own immediate action hath influence on producing the effect; by morally, they mean that which doth effectually concurr to

the producing the effect, but after another manner, as by perswasion, by intreaty, &c. As he that runs the sword into anothers bowels, kills him physi∣cally; he that perswades and incourages him effec∣tually to doe it, is as really the cause of his death as the other; but then they say, he is but a mo∣ral and not a physical cause of the murther. They all agree, that the Sacraments do effectually con∣vey Grace, where there is no obstacle put; but the onely question is, about the manner of pro∣ducing it. And as to this they agree, that the Sacraments do work as moral Causes, not principal but instrumental; the principal they say is the Me∣rit of Christ, the Instrumental the Sacraments as deriving their efficacy from the former; as the Writing from the Seal, and the Seal from the Au∣thority of the Person; or as Money from the Stamp, and the Stamp from the King: but besides this, they question whether there be not a proper effici∣ency by Divine Power in the Sacraments, to produce at least the character from whence Divine Grace immediately follows. And about this indeed they are divided. Some say, there is no necessity of asserting more than a bare moral Causality; be∣cause this is sufficient for the infallible efficacy of the Sacraments,* 1.691 sublato obice, as Gamachaeus a late Professour in the Sorbon delivers their Doc∣trine: and of this opinion, he reckons Bona∣venture, Altissidore, Scotus, Durandus, Canus, Le∣desma, and many others: and with this he closes, because this is sufficient, and the other is to make Miracles without cause; as long as the effect follows certò, infallibiliter & ex opere operato, as he there speaks. And for the same reason Card. de Lugo

yields to it,* 1.692 although he there saith, that a Sa∣crament is signum practicum infallibile Gratiae. So that those who do assert onely this moral Causa∣lity of Sacraments, do not suppose any uncertain∣ty in the effect, any more than the others do, but onely differ about the way of producing it. Yet Ysambertus,* 1.693 another late Professour of the Sorbon proves the Doctrine of a Physical efficiency to be much more agreeable to the sense of their Church; and that the argument is of no force against it, because it is so hard to be understood, for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this. Ioh. Baptista Gonet, a late learned Thomist not one∣ly contends earnestly for this opinion, but saith, The greater part of their Divines assert it,* 1.694 and those of greatest reputation, as Ruardus Tapper, Vega, Say∣rus, Ysambertus, Suarez, Valentia, Bellarmin, Regi∣naldus, Moeratius, Ripalda and many more. And Conquetius, he saith, reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacra∣ment. So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools, and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments, as it is asserted by their Divines, to the significancy of our Ceremonies.

2. As to the Protestant Doctrines, he represents that in very ambiguous terms; for, he saith, That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically, but onely morally. If it be their Doctrine, that the Sacra∣ments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all, which he seems to yield; (and if he did not, might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the

most eminent Reformers abroad, as well as at home) This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacra∣ment among us; since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace.

And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onely invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons. There being not the least ground for it, that I can discern; and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds, and have filled them with strange fears and scruples; yea, some who have conquer'd their pre∣judices as to other things, have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block; which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way.

And yet after all,* 1.695 Mr. B. declares, That if it be a sin, it is the Ministers, and not the Person's who offers the Child to be baptized; and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty. And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it, yet it can be no pretence for Sepa∣ration.

Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church,* 1.696 for allowing worshipping towards the Altar, the East, and at the sound of the word Iesus; which, he saith, are made the Motive of Worship, if not some∣thing else. The lawfulness of these things, so far, as they are required by our Church, I had formerly defended against the Papists, and now Mr. A. bor∣rows

their Weapons from them; although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used. I had said, that bowing at the name of Iesus, was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell, the Worship being not given to the Name, but to Christ at the sound of his Name. Why may not, saith he, an Image give warning to the Eye, when to worship God, as well as a Bell to the Ear? I will tell him, since he needs it, because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being; it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image; it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages; this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists, that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant. But such men do too much discover, whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England. He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs, but the Question is, whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use, to make it an or∣dinary stated Motive to Worship. When I read this, I began to pity the man, being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy. For where do we ever allow such an use of Ima∣ges in our Church? If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans, he had some reason to have answered him, but I have none. But he brings it home to us; for, saith he, If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship, then how shall we excuse our own adorations? What doth the man mean? I am yet afraid, all things are not

right somewhere. We acknowledge no adorations, but what are due to the Divine Majesty; and do these need to be excused? And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images, against our worshipping of God? Let him first prove, that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty, before we shall go about to excuse our adorations. But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship(whoever said they did not? I am sure, not our Church. But let this pass, what follows?) then, saith he, why do we not introduce Images into our Churches? Ask Mr. B. that Question, and not us of the Church of England. If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull, this were a pertinent Que∣stion; but since we deny it, what makes all this against us? which if our Church-men shall venture upon; I pray stay till they do, before you charge us with it. Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate? But, he saith, they may doe it with equal reason. Here is something now fit to be proved. We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason, that we perform external adora∣tion to God by bowing the Body; or to Iesus at the mention of his name. Hold now to this, and prove it. Instead of that, he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell, and bowing at the name of Iesus; viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it; but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship, when mens minds should be intent on de∣votion, and not sit listening and watching, as Whit∣tington's Cat watcht the Mouse, (there 'tis for you,

viz. what he hath laboured for all this while) for the casual starting of a word, and the dropping of two syllables. But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God, which no body contends for, that I know of, but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service, when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons, or the Creed; and the Canon which requires it refers to the for∣mer Custom, and in the Injunctions of Queen Eli∣zabeth, the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned par∣ticularly; and although it be said, or otherwise in the Church pronounced, yet by the manner of shewing this Reverence, viz. with lowness of courtesie and un∣covering of heads of mankind; it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion. And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it; nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word, as though all our Worship consisted in it; but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony, we ought not to refuse it at seaso∣nable times; unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self. Which I say, can never be done, as long as the Worship is directed to a true object, viz. the Person of Christ; and the mention of his name, onely expresses the time, as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church. Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose, whether Persons be in the Church or out of it, when the Bell rings; for in the same page he menti∣ons the Mass-bell; which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it; and if the Object of their Worship were true, as it is false, that would make him better understand the parallel.

But, saith he, if it be a duty to give external Reve∣rence to God, when ever the word Iesus is mentioned, there is more need of it in our ordinary converses, and the secular affairs of the world; and so, he addes, this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets, at which all are bound to fall down and wor∣ship. Now, what a strange piece of crosness is this, to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church, because we do it not at the Market-place? My business is to defend what our Church requires, if he will allow that, and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation, let him defend his own new in∣vented wayes of Reverence; as for us, we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship, and that it is not enough to do what is lawful, unless it be done at its convenient time, but there are some men, who know no mean between doing nothing, and over-doing. But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God, as our Church declares, Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host, when it is carried up and down the streets? At last, he commends the moderation of the Ca∣non, 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar, that they which use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and they who use it not, condemn not those that use it: but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites, as the sign of the Cr••s••, and kneeling at the Lords Supper? It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church. But the case was not the same as to those things which were re∣quired by our Church, ever since the Reformation▪ and as to some customes, which although in themselves lawful, yet were never strictly enjoyned, but left in∣different. And therefore the moderation used in

the Canon, 1640, was very suitable to the principles of our Church; but how doth it follow, that because some things are left at liberty, therefore nothing should be de∣termin'd; or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed? It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary (as to practice) than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation; but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled, for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless, I do not take upon me here to determine. But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance, Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages, and as to all things, about which Christians have different apprehensions; and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration. And so those who do not worship the Host, or Images, or use Auricular Confes∣sion, must not censure those that do, unless he will say, that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience, as to such things; but if notwithstanding these scruples, our Laws put a just restraint upon them, then the Rule of Forbearance, Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages; and consequently, notwith∣standing that, our Church may justly require the ob∣servation of some things, though it leaves others un∣determin'd.

But he saith, these Customes though left indifferent, are still observed among us, and practised by all the lead∣ing Church-men. And what then? are they lawful, or are they not? If not, why are they not proved to be unlawful? And if that were proved, what is all this to the point of Separation, unless they were en∣joyned to all People, and made terms of Communion; i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us, unless they did them. How∣ever,

he thinks this will prove(What, that they dif∣fer from us in any substantial part of Worship? No, he dares not say that: but what then?) that we dif∣fer in more than a circumstance, even at least in a cir∣cumstantial part of Worship, yet we must be supposed to be agreed. To convince the Reader, what an admi∣rable faculty of proving this man hath, let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove. I had said, that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship; this he undertakes to disprove, for two or three leaves together, and the conclusion is, that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship, and his con∣sequence must be, therefore we differ in a substantial, or else it is idle and impertinent talk. T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion: but they are to be pittied, they both do as well, as their Cause will bear.

Yet Mr. A. cannot give over, for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church, although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it. My argument was,

If it be lawful to separate upon pre∣tence of greater purity, where there is an agreement in doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship, then a bare difference in opinion, as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches.

Hitherto we have considered his deni∣al of the Antecedent; and the charge he hath brought against our Church, about new substantial parts of Wor∣ship; we now come to his denying the Consequence, viz. that although it be granted that there is an agree∣ment in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship, yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches. To

understand the consequence we must suppose, 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship. 2. A Separation, for greater parity of Worship. And what then can justifie this Separation, but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship? Hold, saith he, the consequence is not good, for there are cer∣tain middle things, between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances, about which it will be lawful to divide, though otherwise we agree in doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship. So that here a Separati∣on is justified (1.) on the account of such things, which are confessed to be neither substantial nor cir∣cumstantial parts of Worship, (2.) Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship; and con∣sequently, although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship. For that he char∣ged us with in the Antecedent; and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence, he must grant, that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies, although they be made no parts of worship at all. For if they be neither substantial nor circum∣stantial parts of worship, they can be none at all; and yet he saith, it is lawful to divide about them. And which is more pleasant, when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things, he doth it by undertaking to shew, that they are made substantial parts of Worship. For thus he argues, The Church of England hath exalted these things, i. e. Cere∣monies, to a high preferment in worship, to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements, to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them; and therefore they conclude them sinful. If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful, then they must be either substantial, or circumstantial parts of Worship, and their separation is not upon the account

of their being Ceremonies, but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship, which I have answered already.

But after all our arguings about these matters,* 1.697 Mr. A. saith, the Controversie stands still, where it did these hundred years, and more: I utterly deny that, for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Se∣paration these last ten years, than they did in a hun∣dred years before; as appears by the foregoing dis∣course. However, they are still unsatisfied in Consci∣ence about these matters, and so long they cannot joyn with us, and our Church excommunicates those who con∣demn our ceremonies; so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation; and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful. This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation, which I shall consider both wayes. (1.) As it respects the Churches censures. (2.) As it respects the judgement of Conscience.

1. As it respects the Churches censures.* 1.698 This Mr. B. often insists upon. The Canons, saith he, excommu∣cate ipso facto, all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful.* 1.699 If this be unjust, is it separation to be so excommunicated? And who is the Schismatick here? Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you? And if men be wrongfully excommunicate, are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God? or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion? To this I answer, That the Excommunication denoun∣ced, is not against such as modestly scruple the law∣fulness of things imposed, but against those who obsti∣nately affirm it? The words of the Canon are not, as Mr. B. quotes them, If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy, Ceremonies, &c. to be unlawful are ex∣communicate,

ipso facto;* 1.700 but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England, established by Law, to be impious, Anti-Christian, or Superstitious, let him be Excommunicate ipso facto. Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon; for to say, if any man do but affirm, &c. it implies that a bare sin∣gle affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto; but when the Canon saith, if any shall affirm, &c, it im∣plies, these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunicati∣on, viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately: (Both which the word Affirm will bear.) For, as S. Augustin very well saith,* 1.701 every mans errour is born with, until he either finds an accuser, or he obstinately de∣fends his opinion. Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut er∣ror cujus••ibet, donec aut accusatorem inveniat, aut pra∣vam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat. All ex∣communication doth suppose precedent admonition, ac∣cording to the Rule, If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen, or a Publican. Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak, do not affect particular persons, until the evidence be notorious, not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it. Besides, such excommunications which are de jure & latae sententiae, are rather to be looked on, as Comminations, than as formal excommunications.* 1.702 For Gerson putting the question, what the effect of such excommunications is? he answers, that it is no more than this, that there needs no new judicial process, but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence. Which, he saith, he learnt from his Master, who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray. And if it requires a new sentence,* 1.703 then it doth not actually excommunicate. But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath dis∣coursed

coursed at large; to whom I refer the Reader. As to the practice of Canon Law in England,* 1.704 Lyndwood saith, that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessa∣ry, notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto. And it is a Rule in our Church,* 1.705 that Persons excommu∣nicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months, that others may have notice of them; and until the sentence be thus declared, I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Com∣munion on the account of a general sentence of excom∣munication, though it be said to be ipso facto. For al∣though the sentence seem peremptory, yet ipso facto, doth suppose a fact, and such as deserves excommuni∣cation in the sense of the Church; of which there must be evident proof brought, before the sentence can take hold of the Person. And to make the sentence valid as to the person, there must be due execution of it; and the question in this case then is, whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication, be bound to execute this sentence upon himself? which he must do, if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication.* 1.706 And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point; Although, saith he, we are excom∣municated ipso facto, yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence; but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact, and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us. And so he hath fully answered his own objection. But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating with a Church, who are first ex∣communicated by that Church? Yes, in these cases they may (1.) when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence. For, otherwise, no Church could con∣demn

any excommunicated Persons for Schism; if it de∣clared before hand, that all those who held such Doctrines, or condemned such Practices, should be excommunicated. To make this plain by Instances: Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sen∣tence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism; R. Williams and his Company oppose it; they upon this are actually excommunicated; may the Churches of New England call these men Schismaticks or not? If they are Schismaticks notwith∣standing the sentence of excommunication; then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism.* 1.707 By the Constitution of the Churches of France, every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatick; Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatick, because this amounts to an excom∣munication, ipso facto? So in Scotland 1641. Subscri∣ption to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication; if any had been excommu∣nicated on this account, would this excuse them from the charge of Schism, in the judgement of the Cove∣nanters? By the Constitutions of Geneva, any one that opposes, or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together, is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year; as Calvin himself relates it. Sup∣pose this were meerly excommunication for so long;* 1.708 would not Calvin have thought them Schismaticks for all that? For he fully declares his mind in this case,* 1.709 on occasion of a certain Non-conformist in an Epistle to Farell; where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate; if that did not prevail, they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church; which, saith he, is agreeable to ancient

Councils and the mind of God in Scripture; therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it. Here we see excommunication justi∣fied against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church; and much more certainly, if they publickly affirm them to be Impious, Antichristian or Supersti∣tious as 8. Canon expresseth: and no Church in the world, but will think excommunication reasonable up∣on the like grounds; and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism, they may be guilty of it still, al∣though excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts. (2.) If they proceed to form new Churches; as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances; and let him judge, whether all persons so excommunicated, would not have been condemned much more for Schisma∣ticks, if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs.* 1.710 S. Augustin puts the case of good men un∣justly excommunicated; and he saith, they are to bear it with patience, for the peace of the Church, and such will still maintain the true faith, sine ullâ Conventi∣culorum segregatione, without running into separate Meetings; although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated. Such as these, saith he, the Father which seeth in secret, will reward and crown in secret. This kind seems very rare, but there want not instan∣ces, yea, there are more than can be believed.

2. As to the judgement of Conscience.* 1.711 The Author of the Letter out of the Countrey lays the Foundation of the separation upon the force of Scruples,* 1.712 mighty Scruples, Scruples of a long standing, and of a large extent, Scruples that there is no hopes to remove, with∣out some very overpowering impression on mens minds. I am so much of another mind, that I think a little

impartiality, and due consideration would do the busi∣ness; but as long as men read and hear and judge only of one side, and think it a temptation to exa∣mine things as they ought to do, and cry out, they are satisfied already, there is not much hopes of do∣ing good upon such, but I think they can have no great comfort in such Scruples. Men that really scru∣ple things out of tenderness of Conscience, are sincere∣ly willing to be better informed, and glad of any light that brings them satisfaction, and do not fly out into rage, and violent passion against those who offer to remove their Scruples. Hath this been the temper of our scrupulous Brethren of late? Let their Scruples be touched never so tenderly, they cannot bear it, and take it extremely ill of those who would better inform them.* 1.713 Mr. B. freely tells me, that he that thinks his own, or others reasonings will ever change all the truely honest Christians in the Land(as to the unlawfulness of the things imposed) knoweth so lit∣tle of matters, or of men, or of Conscience, as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest. What is the rea∣son of such a severe saying? Where lies the strength and evidence of these Scruples? Why may not ho∣nest men be cured of their errors and mistakes, as I am perswaded these are such which they call Scru∣ples? Is there no hopes to bring the People to a better temper, and more judgement? For I know nothing more is necessary for the cure of them. Here is no depth of learning, no subtilty of reasoning, no endless quota∣tion of Fathers necessary about these matters. The dispute lies in a narrow compass, and men may see light if they will. But what if they will not? Then we are to consider, how far a wilfull mistake or error of Conscience, will justifie men? I say it doth not, cannot justifie them in doing evil; and that I am

sure breaking the Peace of the Church for the sake of such Scruples, is. And this I had said in my Ser∣mon, which I take to be very material for our scru∣pulous persons to consider. For suppose they should be mistaken, doth this error of Conscience justifie their separation, or not? If not, they may be in an ill con∣dition, for all their Scruples, or their confidence. And so Mr. Baxter hath long since declared,* 1.714 that if we do through weakness, or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful, that will not excuse us in our disobedi∣ence. Our error is our sin, and one sin will not ex∣cuse another sin. But Mr. A. saith, (1) That I do ill to put together wilfull Error and mistake of Consci∣ence,* 1.715 when I say they do not excuse from sin, since there is so great a difference between a wilfull Error and a mistake of simple ignorance. What strange cavilling is this? When any one may see that I join wilfull both to Error and Mistake. And is not a mistake or error of Conscience all one? If I had said a mistake of simple ignorance doth not excuse from sin, I had con∣tradicted the whole design of that discourse, which is to shew that there must be wilfulness in the error or mistake which doth not excuse. For I say expres∣ly, if the error be wholly involuntary, it doth ex∣cuse. This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience.

2. If no error will excuse from sin, why is the Que∣stion afterwards put by me, What error will excuse? I answer, (1.) it is an exercise of patience, to be troubled with a cavilling adversary. (2.) Do not I say as plainly, as words can express it, that a wil∣ful error doth not excuse from sin? And the questi∣on afterwards put, concerns the same thing; and the Answer I give to it is, if the error be wholly

involuntary, it doth excuse, but if it be wilful it doth not. Is this mans conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate, with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute?

3. He saith, I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put,* 1.716 viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation, that separation is ne∣vertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it. For (1.) It may be justly questioned, whether it be pos∣sible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to di∣vide the Church by sinful Separation. What Sophisters arguments are these? As though we did not com∣monly speak of the thing as it is, and not as the Per∣son apprehends it. S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution, although he did not think it so, when he did it. The Iews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles, which was wilful murder, and yet they were men in their wits. The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation. How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing it self? for I was not so foolish to put the case concer∣ning men, who thought themselves bound to com∣mit a sin, knowing it to be a sin. (2.) He much questions, whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church, he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it. If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church, it is sufficient to my purpose. And did not the false Apostles do so, and have not others followed their examples? And thus, after other trifling Cavils to the same pur∣pose, after his manner, he yields all that I say, and saith, It is freely granted by all the world, that wilful

Error doth not excuse from sin. And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience,* 1.717 he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common do∣ctrine of all Casuists; only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand. Why so? was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule? And was it not very pertinent to this, to shew how far an erroneous conscience may, or may not ex∣cuse from sin? But Mr. A. saith, it should have been about the Power of Conscience, concerning an established Rule of mans making; and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make. Is not this indeed to the purpose? First to sup∣pose an unlawful rule imposed, and then to enquire what conscience is to do about it. My business was to shew, that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfie themselves with this, that they followed their consci∣ences; because their consciences might err, and if that Error happened to be wilful, being contracted for want of due care, what they did, might not only be sinful in it self, but imputed to them as sins. Which all men who pretended any regard to consci∣ence ought to have an eye to: for why do they pre∣tend conscience, but to ••void sin? And if under a wil∣ful error of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins, as the Ie•••• and S. Paul were, then men ought not to satisfie the••selves barely with this pretence, that they do as 〈…〉〈…〉 direct them. This was the plain 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that ••art of my Sermon; and I leave any 〈…〉〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent.

But he saith, 〈…〉〈…〉,* 1.718 if they be such, are wholl•• 〈…〉〈…〉 invincible Ignorance. If 〈…〉〈…〉 better for them. I hope they have 〈…〉〈…〉 in their

own breasts for it, than what appears in some of their late Books; for neither a peevish, angry, scornful, provoking way of writing about these matters; nor a light, scurrilous, cavilling, Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse, are any great signs of such an im∣partial endeavour after satisfaction, as Mr. A. boasts of. I cannot tell how much they have read the Scri∣ptures, and studied this Controversie; nor how earnestly they have pray'd for direction; but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates, which give me no great satisfaction in this matter. But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge; being very willing to hope and believe the best.

To return to the Author of the Letter.* 1.719 The main force of what he saith, lies in this, that those who can∣not conquer their scruples as to communion with our Church,* 1.720 must either return to the State of Paganism, or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers. This is new doctrine, and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans; for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church, although there were some things they scrupled, and could not conquer those scruples. And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism.

But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us;* 1.721 and much more living under some of our Ministers. I ne∣ver heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately, and it hath been considered already. And it is a very hard case with a Church, if People must fly into Separation, because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be. But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church, I would fain know, whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others, their Separation be lawful? If it be, it is a

vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church; whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Indepen∣dent; for this Principle overthrows them all. I will instance particularly in the last, as most favourable to such kind of Liberty. And I need not suppose a case, since such hath already happened several times in New England. R. Williams is one remarkable In∣stance, who scrupled many things in their Churches, and therefore could joyn no longer with them; and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them; and the People who scrupled as well as he, chose him for their Pastor. What is there in this case, but is every whit as justifiable, as the present separation? But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause?* 1.722 so far from it, that R. Williams publish∣ed grievous complaints to the world, of the persecu∣tion he underwent for it. Mr. Baxter mentions ano∣ther Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Nor∣ton,* 1.723 an eminent Minister of New England, viz. of a Church that separated from a Church, on the account of their Preachers having human learning; and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them, their answer was, That is your judgement, and this is ours, i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples, and therefore must persist in separation, or return to Paga∣nism. Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance;* 1.724 one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth, with∣draws from their Communion, and sets up another As∣sembly in the Town; and upon his obstinate continu∣ance therein, was solemnly excommunicated by them. And what the late differences among them concern∣ing the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to, time will discover. I would only know, whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting

party there from the determination of their Synod, should proceed to Separation, whether this Separati∣on be justifiable or not? This is certain, that the Dis∣senters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles;* 1.725 and say, their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees: and if they proceed, those Churches may be broken in pieces, by these principles of Separation. As the Separate Congre∣gations in the Low Countreys, most of them were by new Scruples, which the People could not conquer; for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members, and carried away many of them. And so they had done in New England, and dissolved those Churches before this time, if this principle had been allowed there, viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples, they may proceed to Separation. No, they tell them, they must preserve the Peace of their Chur∣ches, and if they cannot be quiet among them, the world is wide enough for them. So they sent R. Wil∣liams and others out of their Colonies; notwithstand∣ing the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians. This I only mention, to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation, because men cannot conquer their Scruples. And upon the same ground, not only Anabaptists and Quakers, but the Pa∣pists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations. For, I suppose this Gen∣tleman will not deny, but they may have Scruples too, many Scruples, and of long standing, and among great numbers, and they have Priests enough at liberty to at∣tend them. And by that time all these have set up among us, shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion?

These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles, that I wonder that none of those who have

undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation, have ta∣ken any care to put any stop to it, or to let us know, where we may fix and see an end of it; what scruples are to be allowed, and what not: and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scru∣pling, and say they cannot conquer their Scruples. Are there no Scruples among us, but only against the sign of the Cross, and God-fathers and God-mothers in Bap∣tism, and kneeling at the Lords Supper? Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us? Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper, saying they are not to be literal∣ly understood? Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry? Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations, and say, we can have no true Churches, because we re∣nounce Communion with the Pope? What is to be done with all these, and many more scruplers, who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies, and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers.

This I mention,* 1.726 because this Gentleman seems to look on it, as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross.* 1.727 For, having spoken of that, he addes, Nor is it in it self of less weight (perhaps 'tis of much greater) that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Spon∣sors for their Children, but others must appear and under∣take for them:* 1.728 which he repeats soon after. And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters, as any that have come after him, in the Admonitions decla∣red, that this was a thing arbitrary, and left to the discre∣tion of the Church.* 1.729 And in his first Answer he saith, For the thing it self, considering that it is so generally re∣ceived

of all the Churches, they do not mislike of it. So that, on the same ground it seems, all o••••er Prote∣stant Churches may be scrupled at, as well as ours; and yet not only this Gentleman, but Mr. B. several times mentions this,* 1.730 as one of the grounds of the unlawful∣ness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us: nay, he calls this, his greatest objection; and yet he confes∣seth,* 1.731 that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents, our Baptism is valid and lawful. Now where is it, that our Church excludes such a representation? Indeed by Canon 29, the Parents are not to be compelled to be present, nor suffered to answer, as Susceptors for their Children; but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office.* 1.732 In the Bohemian Churches, there seems to be an express compact between the Pa∣rents and the Sponsors; but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one, as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties. For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them; and so they may be said to re∣present the Parents. If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the consent of the Pa∣rents; then none cou•••• in reason suppose, that there was any implicit compact between them. But since they are of the Parents choosing, what they do in that office, is supposed to be with their full consent. If Ba∣ptism were solemnly celebrated as of old, at some cer∣tain seasons only, and indispensable occasions requi∣red the Parents absence, might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves? Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence; and the inten∣tention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation

of Parents, but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of perfor∣mance. If men be negligent in doing their duty, must the Church bear the blame, and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion?

But there is something beyond this, which lies at the bottom of this scruple; viz. that the Childs Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents, and therefore if the Parents be excluded, and only Sponsors ad∣mitted, the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism. For Mr. B.'s first Question is,* 1.733 which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism, any more than all the Infidels Children in the world? And his next is, whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant, besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fa∣thers, and Gods general promise?

I answer, (1.) The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism, which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents. For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity. 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Bap∣tism; and so whatever right the Parents have, that is challenged, when the Child is brought to be baptized. 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism; which is a very ancient and univer∣sal practice of the Christian Church; for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time;* 1.734 and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's;* 1.735 and hath so continued ever since; but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it. 3. In their own capacity; when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Chri∣stian faith; in the charge given to them, after Bap∣tism. So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another, they all succeeding each other, there is

no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents.

(2) If the Parents be supposed to have no right, yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers, the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children. Not, as though their Sponsion gave the right, but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance. To make this clear, we must consider, that administration of Baptism, is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys, which Christ first gave to the Apostles, and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church. By vertue of this Power, they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects. The Church of Christ, as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity, hath alwayes allowed Children to be capa∣ble Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church; but lest the Church should fail of its end, and these Chil∣dren not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty, it required Sponsors for them,* 1.736 who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes. And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this, for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give ad∣mission to capable Subjects; since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable, there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name. All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle, ad Boni∣facium; where he saith (1.) That the Childs bene∣fit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him. For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Chil∣dren to Baptism, not for any spiritual benefit, but for

corporal health; notwithstanding this, saith S. Au∣gustine, if the due form of Baptism be observed, the spiritual effect of it is obtained. (2.) That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants. For, saith he, the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby, not so much by those in whose arms they are carried (for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms) as by the whole Society of the Faithful. Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit, quia tota omnes, tota singulos parit: so that it is by the Churches right, that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the bene∣fits by it. (3.) That there is no necessity, that the Parents themselves offer their Children. For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism, as to the remission of Original Guilt, or the account of their Parents offering them. For many are offered to Baptism by strangers, and slaves some∣times by their Masters. And when Parents are dead, Children are offered by such as take pity upon them; and sometimes Children exposed by Parents, and some∣times as they are taken up by holy Virgins, which nei∣ther have Children, nor intend to have any. (4.) That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Ba∣ptism. Not as though the Child did really believe, yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith. For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things repre∣sented by them, do carry the name of the things repre∣sented; as, saith he, the Sacrament of Christs body af∣ter a certain manner is called his Body; and the Sacra∣ment of his blood is called his blood, so the Sacrament of faith is called faith, i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part, the Church supplies

that part by the Sponsors, which cannot be perform∣ed by the Children. Thence he saith, ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti, so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering, as a ne∣cessary part of the solemnity of Baptism. Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith,* 1.737 that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works; and in another place he declares, that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil,* 1.738 and turn to God, and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins.

(3.) Those who think themselves bound to ba∣ptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right, must run into many perplexing Scruples about bapti∣zing Children, and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered. For, (1.) They are not well agreed, what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized; whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient, or a justifying faith be necessary? If saving faith be necessary, whe∣ther the outward profession of it be sufficient? Whe∣ther that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind, or that only which is really so? Whether profession be requi∣red for it self, or as a discovery of something further? Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient, or real serio••sness be required? What we must judge real seriousness in profession, as distinct from inward sincerity? What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious? Whether besides a se∣rious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession? and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical? Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be

not necessary? And whether besides all these, actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary? And if it be, whether the Children of con∣federated Parents not being confederated themselves, can convey a right to their Children? About these, and other such like Questions, those who go upon the Pa∣rents Right are in perpetual disputes, and can neither give others, nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them. (2.) The consequence of this is, that they must baptize many with a doubting mind; and must exclude many more, than they can baptize. For Mr. B. saith,* 1.739 if he took a dogmatical faith it self, or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary quali∣fications of them I must admit, I would baptize none, because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith, and who not. The like others are as ready to say, of his serious, voluntary, not prevalently contradicted, practical profession; or at least, that no man can ba∣ptize with a good Conscience, till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Pa∣rents, and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their professi∣on. Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace; or are not actu∣ally confederated with them. And upon all these seve∣ral bars to the Parents Right, how few Children will be left, that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience? Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than deny∣ing the lawfulness of Separation? Thus I have consi∣dered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers, as Mr. B. calls them; and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches, Communion.

As to kneeling at the Communion, I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consi∣deration,* 1.740 which I have not answered in another place.

Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion,* 1.741 viz.* 1.742 that upon the same Reason these are imposed, the Church may impose some use of Images, Circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer,

(1.) That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed; and is this a reasonable pre∣tence for men not to do what is required, because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds? A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him, or else he shall not stay in his House; at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father, because he hath some scru∣ples, whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremo∣ny or not; not meerly on the account of its signifi∣cancy, but because it seems to him to be giving wor∣ship to a Creature. This he thinks so weighty a scru∣ple, that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition, on his conti∣nuing in his house, and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fa∣thers House, and drawing away as many of his ser∣vants from him, as he can infuse this scruple into. But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship, yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his diso∣bedience. For faith he to his Father,

Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence, and to make this the condition of my staying in your

House? Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son, and ask you blessing Morning and Even∣ing, and am very willing to sit at your Table, and depend upon you for my subsistence? Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son, but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Cere∣mony as putting off my Hat? You say, it is a token of respect; I say for that reason I ought not to do it. For, how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect? It is true, you require no more now, but I consider what you may do, and for all that I know, the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you, for that is a token of respect in some Countries; next you may require me to kiss your Toe, for that is a token of respect used some where; and who knows what you may come to at last; and therefore I am resolved to stop at first, and will rather leave your House, than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence.

Let any one judge whe∣ther this be a reasonable ground for such an obsti∣nate disobedience to the Command of his Father. Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other, that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns, that may represent the Trade and Company they are of; would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it, to say,

What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last; it is true, the matter is small at present, but I consider, it is a Badge, it is a moral significant ceremony, a dan∣gerous teeming thing, no man knows what it may bring forth at last; for how can I or any man li∣ving tell, but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat.

Would such an unreasonable jealousie

as this justifie such a mans refractoriness, in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company, than submitting to wear the Badge of it? So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required. (2.) There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies, than what it hath al∣ready done, supposing that it might do it, on the same ground: Because the Church hath rather re∣trench••d than increased Ceremonies; as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Litur∣gies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ce∣remony hath been required, as a condition of Com∣mmunion. But besides, our Church gives a particu∣lar reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies: be∣cause the very number of them,* 1.743 supposing them lawful is a burden; of which S. Augustin complained in his time, and others had much more cause since; and there∣fore for that cause many were taken away, And withall, it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremo∣nial Law. So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine, which it must do, if it increased our Cermo∣nies, so as to make a new argument against them, from the number of them. (3.) There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us. For, (1.) As to the Vse of Images, our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them, in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry; and that from such rea∣sons, as cannot extend to our Ceremonies: viz. from the express Law of God, and the general sense of the Primitive Church; which allowed and practised the sign of the Cross, at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images. (2.) For Circum∣cision,

which he tells us, may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart. He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency toge∣ther in the matter of Ceremonies; and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions, should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us. Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law, that he saith, If ye be circum∣cised, Christ profiteth you nothing: which was never said of any of our Ceremonies. And whereas he saith, it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony; he is much mistaken, if their Emperour Claudius say true;* 1.744 for he saith, it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion, like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia, and boreing the ear among the Indians. And Ludolphus proves it to be no other, because it is done by a woman in private, without any witnesses. (3.) As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us; We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come, than to pre∣sume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past. Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb; since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation. But why are things never used by the Primitive Church (for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false, it is no∣thing to us) brought to parallel our Ceremonies, when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremo∣nies was declared from the beginning of the Reforma∣tion to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, which observed the same kind of Ceremonies?

The only remaining pretence for the present Sepa∣ration,* 1.745 is, that there is a parity of reason, as to their Separating from us, and our Separating from the Church of Rome. For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument, we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain,* 1.746 false for true, new for old, absurd for reasonable; then this will hold for themselves be∣cause they think so; and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike? When (1.) They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true, we reject all their additional Articles, in Pius 4. his Creed, not only as false, but some of them as absurd and unreasonable, as men can invent, viz. that of Transubstantiation; which is made by them the great trying and burning point. But what is there, which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine, as new, as false, as absurd? nay, they all yield to the Antiquity, to the Truth, to the Reaso∣nableness of our Doctrine; and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel. But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it? You may be sure it is some mighty thing; for, he saith, presently after it, that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness, and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice. Alas for him, that his modesty should ever hurt him! But what is this dan∣gerous Secret, that they have hitherto kept in, out of meer veneration to the Church of England? Let us prepare our selves for this unusual, this killing charge. Why, saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church, this Doctrine is contained (It is matter of Do∣ctrine then, I see; although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles, as far as they concern▪ Doctrine.

But what is this notorious doctrine?) It is, saith he, that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sure∣ties. Did I not fear, it was some dreadful thing; some notorious heresie, condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils? But is it said so, in plain words? or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Conse∣quences? No, it is plain enough; for the Question is, What is required of Persons to be baptized. Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin; and faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament. Quest. Why then are Infants bapti∣zed, when by reason of their tender age, they cannot per∣form them? Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties; which promise when they come to age them∣selves are bound to perform. But I pray doth it hence follow, that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties? Are not the words express, that they promise both by their Sureties? And is promising and performance all one? I do not find it so by this In∣stance. For here was a great matter promised, and no∣thing performed. It is true the Catechism saith, Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be bapti∣zed: which supposeth the persons to be baptized ca∣pable of performing these things themselves. And then comes a Question, by way of objection; why then are Infants baptized, &c. to which the sense of the Answer is, that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing; yet the Church doth allow Sureties to en∣ter into Covenant for them; which doth imply a Pro∣mise on their parts for the Children, and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised. And now let the Reader judge, since this horrible Se∣cret is come out, whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with

the monstrous, absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church. And I know nothing can do them greater Service, than such Parallels as these.

(2.) We charge them with those Reasons for Sepa∣ration, which the Scripture allows; such as Idolatry, perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ, and Ty∣ranny over the Consciences of men, in making those things necessary to salvation, which Christ never made so: But not one of these, can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England, since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God; we worship no Images; we invocate no Sains; we adore no Host; we creep to no Crucifix; we kiss no Relicks. We equal no traditions with the Gospel; we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language; we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did; we set up no Monarchy in the Church to under∣mine Christs, and to dispence with his Laws and Insti∣tutions. We mangle no Sacraments, nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself. We pretend to no skill in expia∣ting mens sins when they are dead; nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a quick motion of the hand. We do not cheat mens souls with false bills of exchange, called Indulgences; nor give out that we have the Treasure of the Church in our keeping, which we can apply as we see occasion. We use no pious frauds to delude the People, nor pretend to be infallible, as they do when they have a mind to deceive. These are things which the Divines of our Church have with great clearness and strength of Reason made good against the Church of Rome; and since they cannot be objected against our Church, with what face, can men suppose the cases of those who separate from each of them to be parallel?

(3.) As to the Ceremonies in the Roman Church and ours, there are these considerable differences,

(1.) They have a mighty number, as appears by their Rituals and Ceremonials, and the great volums, written in explication of them; we, very few, and those so very easie and plain; that it requires as great skill not to understand ours, as it doth to understand theirs. (2.) They place great holiness in theirs, as appears by the Forms of consecration of their Water, Oyle, Salt, Wax, Vestments, &c. but we allow none of these, but only the use of certain ceremonies, without any prece∣ding Act of the Church importing any peculiar holiness attributed to them. (3.) They suppose great vertue and efficacy to be in them, for the purging away some sorts of sins; we utterly deny any such thing to be∣long to our ceremonies, but declare, that they are ap∣pointed only for Order and Deceny. (4.) They make their ceremonies being appointed by the Church to become necessary parts of Divine Worship; as I have already proved; but our Church looks upon them, even when determined as things in their own nature indifferent, but only required by vertue of that general obedience which we owe to lawful Authority. So that as to ceremonies themselves there is a vast di∣sparity between the Roman Church and ours; and no man can pretend otherwise, that is not either grosly ig∣norant, or doth not wilfully misunderstand the state of the Controversie between them and us.

Thus I have gone through all the Pleas for the pre∣sent Separation I could meet with, in the Books of my Answerers: and I have not concealed the force or strength I saw in any of them. And however Mr. A. reproaches me with having a notable talent of misrepresenting my Adversaries,* 1.747 (a thing which I

have alwayes abhorred, and never did it wilfully in my life, it appearing to me an act of injustice as well as disingenuity) yet I do assure him, I have endea∣voured to understand them truly, and to represent them fairly, and to judge impartially. And although I make no such appeals to the day of Iudgement as others do; yet I cannot but declare to the world, as one that believes a day of Judgement to come, that upon the most diligent search, and careful Inquiry I could make into this matter, I cannot find any Plea sufficient to justifie in point of conscience, the present Separation from the Church of England.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131.
• * 1.2

  Mischief of Impositions Preface.
• * 1.3

  Fresh suit a∣gainst Cere∣monies, p. 467.
• * 1.4

  Pet. Martyr, Epist. Theo∣log. Hoopero, Buc. r. Script. Anglic. p. 708.
• * 1.5

  Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319.
• * 1.6

  Ridiey's Ar∣ticles of Vi∣sitation, 1550.
• * 1.7

  Vindicat. of Nonconf. p. 13.
• * 1.8

  P. 35. 37.
• * 1.9

  Iacob's An∣swer to Iohnson, p. 20, 21.
• * 1.10

  Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason.
• * 1.11

  Bradford's Confer. with the B••. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298.
• * 1.12

  Iacob's An∣swer, p. 82.
• * 1.13

  Letters of the Martyrs, p. 50.
• * 1.14

  Plea for Peace, p. 1••0.
• * 1.15

  Page 19.
• * 1.16

  Page 21.
• * 1.17

  Calvin, Ep. 164.
• * 1.18

  Ep. 55.
• * 1.19

  Ep. 165.
• * 1.20

  Tr. of Fr. p. 30.
• * 1.21

  Page 31.
• * 1.22

  Letters of the Martyrs, p. 60.
• * 1.23

  Bonavent. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ps. 21.
• * 1.24

  Angel. Roecha de So∣ll••••i Com∣munione Summi Pon∣tificis, p. 33. 38.
• * 1.25

  Calvin. Epist. ad Sadolet. De verâ Eccl. Reformatio∣ne, c. 16. ••••••olamp. Epist. f. 17.
• * 1.26

  Bucer. Scri••t. ••••gl. p. 479.
• * 1.27

  Dialogue be∣tween a Sol∣dier of Bar∣wick, and a-English Chaplain, p. 5, 6.
• * 1.28

  Beza Epist. 23.
• * 1.29

  Part of a Register, p. 23.
• * 1.30

  Beza Epist. 24. p, 148.
• * 1.31

  Gualter. Ep. ded. ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad C••∣rinth.
• * 1.32

  Zanchii, E∣pist. l. 2. p. 391.
• * 1.33

  See his Let∣ter in Fullers Church-Hi∣story, l. 9. p. ••06.
• * 1.34

  Bullinger, Ep. ad Ro∣bert Winton▪ in the Ap∣pendix to Bishop Whit∣gifts first Book.
• * 1.35

  Parker on the Cross▪ Part. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 2.
• * 1.36

  Vide Profane Schism of the Brow∣nists, Ch. 12.
• * 1.37

  Giffords first Treatise a∣gainst the Donatists of England, Preface.
• * 1.38

  Gifford's Second Treatise. Preface.
• * 1.39

  Answer to Giffords Preface.
• * 1.40

  Dangerous Positions, &c. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.41

  The Second Answer for Communica∣ting, p. 20. Printed by John Win∣det, A. D. 1588.
• * 1.42

  Page 46.
• * 1.43

  Answer to Ainsworth, p. 13.
• * 1.44

  Page 57.
• * 1.45

  Preface to the Read••r, p. 17.
• * 1.46

  Brownists Apology, p. 7. A. D. 1604.
• * 1.47

  A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, Middle∣burgh, p. 3. A. D. 1599.
• * 1.48

  Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply, n. 4. p. 240.
• * 1.49

  Brownists Apol. p. 92.
• * 1.50

  Brownists Apology, p 7.
• * 1.51

  Barrow, ib.
• * 1.52

  Barrow's Refutation of Giffard. Pre∣face to the Reader. Sum of the Causes of Se∣paration.
• * 1.53

  Ibid.
• * 1.54

  Brownists Apology, p. 7, 8, 9.
• * 1.55

  Ainsworth's Counter-poy∣son, p. 3. Ib. p. 87.
• * 1.56

  T. Cs. Let∣ter to Harri∣son against Separation, in Defence of the Ad∣monition to the follow∣ers of Brown p. 98, 99.
• * 1.57

  Page 106.
• * 1.58

  Page 107.
• * 1.59

  Page 91.
• * 1.60

  Counterpoy∣son, p. 117.
• * 1.61

  Ball against Can, p. 77.
• * 1.62

  Giffard's Answer to the Brow∣nists, p. 55.
• * 1.63

  Grave Con∣futation, &c. p. 9, 10, 11.
• * 1.64

  ••rav••con∣••utation, &c. ••. 12, 13, 15.
• * 1.65

  Ibid.
• * 1.66

  Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8.
• * 1.67

  Giffard's Plain Decla∣ration, &c. Preface.
• * 1.68

  Answ. to the Brown. p. 10, 11.
• * 1.69

  Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation, Sect. 2. high∣ly commend∣ed by Mr. J. Cotton, in his Preface before his Commenta∣ries, on 4 John.
• * 1.70

  I••. Sect. C, 7, 8.
• * 1.71

  V. Brad∣shaw's An∣swer to Johnson.
• * 1.72

  Hildershams Letter, Sect. 3.
• * 1.73

  Grave Con∣futation, &c. p. 17.
• * 1.74

  Giffard's An∣swer to the ••rownists, p. 47.
• * 1.75

  Grave Con∣futation, &c. p. 18.
• * 1.76

  Acts. 8, 12, 19, 31.
• * 1.77

  Grave Con∣futation, &c. p. 51. 52.
• * 1.78

  Giffard's An∣swer, p. 59. 95, 100, 101, 102.
• * 1.79

  Grave Con∣futation, &c. p. 19.
• * 1.80

  Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson, p. 65. Ed. 1642.
• * 1.81

  Page 49.
• * 1.82

  Stephen Off∣woo••'s Ad∣ve••tisement to Jo••n De∣lecluse and H. May, p. 10, 39.
• * 1.83

  Defence of the Admon. to the Fol∣lowers of Brown, p. 127.
• * 1.84

  Page 133.
• * 1.85

  Page 135.
• * 1.86

  Page 134.
• * 1.87

  Page 140.
• * 1.88

  Page 141.
• * 1.89

  Pag. 138, &c.
• * 1.90

  Counterpoy∣son p. 25. Cotton's Answ. to R. Will••••ms, p. 122.
• * 1.91

  Offwood's Advertise∣ment, p. 15.
• * 1.92

  Cotton's Answer to R. Williams p. 17.
• * 1.93

  Ib.
• * 1.94

  Clifton's Advertise∣ment, p. 22. 26.
• * 1.95

  Way of Con∣gregational Churches cleared, p. 6.
• * 1.96

  Profane Schism of the Brownists, p. 63.
• * 1.97

  Ib. ch. 2. p. 9.
• * 1.98

  Page 71.
• * 1.99

  Offwood's Advertise∣ment, p. 43.
• * 1.100

  Schism of the Browni••s, p. 87.
• * 1.101

  Way of Con∣gregational Churches, p. 7.
• * 1.102

  See Smith's Reasons in B••nard against Br••••nists, ca••led P••ain Evidences, p. 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.103

  Smith's Ep. to the Cha∣racter.
• * 1.104

  Cotton's Way cleare••, p. 8.
• * 1.105

  Page 15.
• * 1.106

  Page 14.
• * 1.107

  Page 138.
• * 1.108

  R. Williams Answer to Cotton's 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3••.
• * 1.109

  Page 39.
• * 1.110

  Page 43.
• * 1.111

  Cotton's Answer to Williams, p. 129, 132.
• * 1.112

  Apologet. Narrative, p. 5, 6.
• * 1.113

  Anatomy of Independen∣cy, p. 18, 19, 20, &c.
• * 1.114

  Answer to the Antapologia p. 245.
• * 1.115

  Disswasive from the Er∣rors of the Times, p. 76▪
• * 1.116

  Anatomy of Independ. p. 6.
• * 1.117

  Anatomy of Independ. p. 49.
• * 1.118

  Duply to M. S. p. 53.
• * 1.119

  Arguments of the Scotch Commiss. p. 3, 4.
• * 1.120

  Serm. Nov. 8. 1641.
• * 1.121

  Serm. before the Com. Feb. 19. 1645.
• * 1.122

  Serm. before the Lord Mayor, Jan. 14. 1645.
• * 1.123

  Serm. before the Parlia∣ment, Sept. 12. 1644.
• * 1.124

  Observations and Annota∣tions on the Apologetical Narration, p. 17.
• * 1.125

  Sermon at St. Paul's, Feb. 8. 1645. p. 41.
• * 1.126

  Narrative of New-Eng∣land, &c. Postscript, p. 52.
• * 1.127

  Baylies Dis∣swasive, p. 104.
• * 1.128

  Papers for Accommod. p. 47.
• * 1.129

  Baxter's An∣swer, p. 89. Dr. O. p. 50.
• * 1.130

  Mischief of Impos. p. 58, 68, 69.
• * 1.131

  ••etter out of the Country, p. ••8.
• * 1.132

  Answ. to my Sermon, p. 21.
• * 1.133

  Giffard's An∣swer to the Brownists, p. 104.
• * 1.134

  Barrow a∣gainst Gif∣fard, p. 105.
• * 1.135

  Page 70, 72.
• * 1.136

  Confut. of the Brown. p. 51.
• * 1.137

  Page 2••▪
• * 1.138

  Page 41.
• * 1.139

  The Second Quaere.
• * 1.140

  Answer to Letter, p. 22.
• * 1.141

  Vnreasona∣bleness of Separation, p. 89.
• * 1.142

  Answer to Serm. p. 99.
• * 1.143

  Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 55.
• * 1.144

  Cassand. Anglic. p. 2.
• * 1.145

  Page 232▪
• * 1.146

  Vindication of Non con∣formists, p. 8, 9.
• * 1.147

  Page 22.
• * 1.148

  Answ. to Serm. p. 27.
• * 1.149

  Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 64.
• * 1.150

  Restor of Sutton, p. 15.
• * 1.151

  Page 30.
• * 1.152

  Mischief of Imposition. Preface.
• * 1.153

  Iacob against Johnson, p. 21, 23, 29, 32, 33, 37, 40, 42, 47, 54, 68, 79, 82.
• * 1.154

  Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson's Third Reason Sect. 2. Giffard a∣gainst Brow: p. 97, 98, 10••.
• * 1.155

  Counterpoy∣son, p. 9. 10, 27, 51, 92.
• * 1.156

  Letter out of the Country, p. 34.
• * 1.157

  Mischief of Imposition. Preface. Rector of Sutton, &c. p. 35.
• * 1.158

  Answ. to Let. p. 24.
• * 1.159

  Ans. to Let∣ter, p 17. Answer to Sermon, p. 57.
• * 1.160

  Cure of Di∣vis. p. 393.
• * 1.161

  Sacrileg. de∣sertion, p. 102. &c.
• * 1.162

  First Plea, Sect. 9. p. ••41.
• * 1.163

  Page 45.
• * 1.164

  Answ. to Serm p. 49.
• * 1.165

  Plea for Peace, p. 47.
• * 1.166

  Letter out of the Country, &c. p. 9.
• * 1.167

  Dr. O. Vin∣dication, &c. p. 35.
• * 1.168

  Mischief of Impositions, &c. p. 36.
• * 1.169

  Mischief of Impositions, p. 65.
• * 1.170

  Sacrileg. de ••ertion, p. 16.
• * 1.171

  Defence of the Cure of Divis. In∣trod. p. 50.
• * 1.172

  Ibid. p. 170.
• * 1.173

  Answ. p. 23.
• * 1.174

  Dr. O. Vin∣dicat. p. 20,
• * 1.175

  Christian Di∣rectory, part 3. p. 739, 741.
• * 1.176

  Sacrileg. de∣sert, p. 102, &c.
• * 1.177

  Cure of Di∣vis. p. 393.
• * 1.178

  Answ. to my Letter; p. 23.
• * 1.179

  Apology of the Brow∣nists, n. 36.
• * 1.180

  Chap. 13.
• * 1.181

  Order of Congregatio∣nal Churches, n. 28.
• * 1.182

  Irenic. c. 22.
• * 1.183

  Answ. to Letter, p. 18.
• * 1.184

  Sacrileg. de∣sert, p. 86.
• * 1.185

  Answ. p. 18.
• * 1.186

  Answer to my Sermon, p. 63.
• * 1.187

  Sacrileg. de∣sert. p. 34.
• * 1.188

  True way of Concord, Ch. 10.
• * 1.189

  Answ. p 15, 50.
• * 1.190

  Plea for Peace, p. 55.
• * 1.191

  Brownis••s Apology, Sect. 23.
• * 1.192

  Mischief of Imposit. Pre∣face.
• * 1.193

  Dr. O's. Vin∣dic. p. 36.
• * 1.194

  Answ. p. 50.
• * 1.195

  Plea for Peace, p. 83.
• * 1.196

  Cure of Di∣visions, Di∣rect. 36.
• * 1.197

  Sacrileg. de∣sert. p. 10.
• * 1.198

  Ball against Can, p. 1, 4, 5, &c.
• * 1.199

  Pag. 15, 42, 56.
• * 1.200

  Trial of New Church way, p. 11.
• * 1.201

  Christian Di∣rect. Part. 3. p. 747.
• * 1.202

  Answ. p. 50.
• * 1.203

  Cure of Di∣vis. p. 393.
• * 1.204

  Answ. p. 54.
• * 1.205

  Answ. p. 50.
• * 1.206

  Plea for Peace, p. 108.
• * 1.207

  Sacrileg. de∣sert. p. 43.
• * 1.208

  Answer to Serm. p. 46.
• * 1.209

  Plea for Peace, p. 220. 223, 226, 339.
• * 1.210

  Answ. to Sacril. deser∣tion, p. 13.
• * 1.211

  Answ. p. 19.
• * 1.212

  Answ. p. 50.
• * 1.213

  Answ. p. 4••.
• * 1.214

  Answ. p. 54.
• * 1.215

  Plea for Peace, p. 55.
• * 1.216

  Answ. p. 44.
• * 1.217

  1 Kings 2. 35.
• * 1.218

  Mischief of Impos. Pre∣face.
• * 1.219

  Rector of Sutton &c. p. 26.
• * 1.220

  Plea, p. 55.
• * 1.221

  Answ. p. 9.
• * 1.222

  Plea, p. 81, 82.
• * 1.223

  Ibid.
• * 1.224

  Answ. p. 49.
• * 1.225

  Plea, p. 82.
• * 1.226

  Preface to Defence of his Cure, p. 9.
• * 1.227

  Plea, p. 42.
• * 1.228

  Answ. p. 61.
• * 1.229

  Plea, p. 42.
• * 1.230

  Rector of Su••to•• &c. p. 25.
• * 1.231

  Answ. p. 46.
• * 1.232

  Mischief of Impos. P. 48.
• * 1.233

  Tract of Schism, p. 3.
• * 1.234

  Mischief of Impos. p. 48, 49.
• * 1.235

  Mischief of Impos. p. 53.
• * 1.236

  Answ. p. 46. 60, 87.
• * 1.237

  Answ. p. 47.
• * 1.238

  Answ. 15, 52, 53, 84.
• * 1.239

  Answ. p. 21.
• * 1.240

  Answ. p. 64.
• * 1.241

  Page 24.
• * 1.242

  Page 62.
• * 1.243

  Page 86.
• * 1.244

  Mischief of Impos. P. 85.
• * 1.245

  Page 33.
• * 1.246

  Page 51.
• * 1.247

  Page 50.
• * 1.248

  Mischief of Impos. p. 84.
• * 1.249

  Answ. p. 105.
• * 1.250

  Rom. 12. 18.
• * 1.251

  Mischief of Impos. P. 39.
• * 1.252

  Ibid.
• * 1.253

  Plea. p. 240.
• * 1.254

  Mischief of Impos. p, 40.
• * 1.255

  Answ. p. 64.
• * 1.256

  Trial of Grounds of Separation. Chap. 10. p. 791.
• * 1.257

  Robinson's Treatise, p. 11.
• * 1.258

  Ainsworth's Consider. examin'd, p. 5.
• * 1.259

  John 10, 22, 23.
• * 1.260

  Matt. 23. 2.
• * 1.261

  Luk. 24, 53.
• * 1.262

  Vindication of Non-con∣form••ts. p. 25, 30.
• * 1.263

  Act. 16. 13.
• * 1.264

  Phil. 1▪ 27. 2. 2.
• * 1.265

  Act. 15. 1.
• * 1.266

  Rector of Sutton, p. 15, 16.
• * 1.267

  Gal. 5. 2.
• * 1.268

  Vindication of Non-con∣formists, p. 26.
• * 1.269

  Page 27.
• * 1.270

  Page 28,
• * 1.271

  Page. 28▪ 31.
• * 1.272

  Act. 15, 28.
• * 1.273

  Page 7, 8.
• * 1.274

  Letter cut of the Country, p. 24.
• * 1.275

  Mischief of Imposit. p. 6, 7.
• * 1.276

  De Baptis∣mo, ••c, Do∣nat. l. 2. c, 4, 5.
• * 1.277

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.278

  Vindicat. p. 14.
• * 1.279

  Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n. 9.
• * 1.280

  Numb. 10.
• * 1.281

  Numb. 11.
• * 1.282

  Numb. 13, 14, 15, 16.
• * 1.283

  Numb. 18.
• * 1.284

  Numb. 19.
• * 1.285

  Cap. 2. n. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.286

  Numb. 9, 10, 11, 12.
• * 1.287

  Apology, c. 3.
• * 1.288

  Cap. 4.
• * 1.289

  Cap. 5.
• * 1.290

  Cap. 7.
• * 1.291

  Cap. 8.
• * 1.292

  Cap. 18.
• * 1.293

  De secess. ab Eccles. Rom. &c, p. 233.
• * 1.294

  Prejuges le∣gitimes con∣tre les Cal∣vinistes.
• * 1.295

  Claude sa Defence de la Reforma∣tion. 8. part. Pajon Exa∣men du livre, &c. 3. partie. Turretini disput. 1. de necessariâ secessione ab Ecclesiâ. Rom. Sect. 11.
• * 1.296

  Le Blanc. Theses de Reunione.
• * 1.297

  Praefat. ad Confess. He∣lot. & art. 17, 27.
• * 1.298

  Consens. Po∣lon. p. 220.
• * 1.299

  Confess. Au∣gust. art. 7.
• * 1.300

  Confess. Ar∣gent. c. 14.
• * 1.301

  Croc. de Ec∣c••es unit. & Schism. c. 6. ••. 4.
• * 1.302

  Comment. de Aug. confess. 9. c. 4. p. 33. c. 29. Page 435.
• * 1.303

  Zanch. 1. de. Re••. p. 765.
• * 1.304

  Amyrald. de Secess. ab Eccl. Rom. Deque pace cum Evan∣gel. constit. p. 23.
• * 1.305

  Hornbeck de Consociat. Evang. Sect. 1. n. 3.
• * 1.306

  Sencent. D. Daven. p. 5.
• * 1.307

  Iren••c. tract. Pror. p. 55.
• * 1.308

  Vindication of Non-con∣f••rmists, p. 13. 36.
• * 1.309

  Cyprian. ad Anton. Ep. 52. n. 13.
• * 1.310

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.
• * 1.311

  Pacian. E∣pist. 3. ad Sempron.
• * 1.312

  Cyprian. E∣p••st. 51, 52. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unit. Ec∣cl. de latsis. Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.
• * 1.313

  Theod. haeret, fab, l 3. 5. Epiph. haer. 59.
• * 1.314

  Cyprian. de Vnit. Eccl. n. 11, 12, &c.
• * 1.315

  Epiph. haer. 68.
• * 1.316

  Theod. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.317

  Epiph. haer. 70.
• * 1.318

  Sect. 15.
• * 1.319

  Rector of Sutton, &c. p. 42.
• * 1.320

  Cotton's Answer to R. Williams p. 121.
• * 1.321

  Mischief of Imposit. in the Preface.
• * 1.322

  Aug. c. Ep. Parmen. l. 1. c. 7. l. 2. c. 1, 3, 11. l. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.323

  De bapt. c. Donat. l. 2. c. Crescon. l. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.324

  Aug. Ep. 43. & 51.
• * 1.325

  Col•• at. 3. Carthag. n. 258.
• * 1.326

  Mischief of Imposi••ions in the Preface.
• * 1.327

  Collat. 3. Carthag. n. 258.
• * 1.328

  Aug 〈…〉〈…〉 ••6.
• * 1.329

  C. Parmen. l. 1. c. 5. l. 2. c. 18.
• * 1.330

  Cure of Di∣visions, Direct. 7. Defence of the Cure, p. 3.
• * 1.331

  Christian Dire••tory, p. 739, &c.
• * 1.332

  M••schief of Impos. Sect. 1.
• * 1.333

  Christian Di∣rectory, p. 741.
• * 1.334

  Defence of his Cure, 2 Except. p, 6.
• * 1.335

  Heb. 10. 25.
• * 1.336

  Act. 2. 42.
• * 1.337

  1 Cor. 10. 17.
• * 1.338

  1 Cor, 12. 13.
• * 1.339

  Ephes. 4. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.340

  Joh•• 17. 21.
• * 1.341

  Iren. l. 4. c. 62.
• * 1.342

  Chrysost in. Eph. 4. p. ••22,
• * 1.343

  1 Cor. 10. 6. 14.
• * 1.344

  1 St. John 5.
• * 1.345

  Matt. 4. 19.
• * 1.346

  2 Cor. 6. 17.
• * 1.347

  Heb. 13. 7. 17.
• * 1.348

  1 Thess. 5. 12. 13.
• * 1.349

  Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8.
• * 1.350

  Tit. 3. 10.
• * 1.351

  2 John 10.
• * 1.352

  Revel. 2. 6. 15.
• * 1.353

  A••t. 15. 2.
• * 1.354

  Phil. 3. 3.
• * 1.355

  Rom. 14. 2▪
• * 1.356

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.357

  18,
• * 1.358

  19.
• * 1.359

  1 Cor. 5. 11.
• * 1.360

  Vers. 12. 13,
• * 1.361

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.362

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 37.
• * 1.363

  Serm. p. 26.
• * 1.364

  Vindic p. 41.
• * 1.365

  Cotton's way of Congrega∣ti••nal Chur∣ches cleared, p. 98, 99.
• * 1.366

  Cyprian l. 5. Ep. 2. in the late Edit. Ep. 5.
• * 1.367

  L. 4. 10. Ep. 35.
• * 1.368

  L. 5. Ep. 3.
• * 1.369

  Ep. 28.
• * 1.370

  L. 3. Ep. 22. Ep. 24.
• * 1.371

  Ep. 40.
• * 1.372

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 35.
• * 1.373

  Phot. Nomo-Can. tit. 1. c. 30.
• * 1.374

  L. 3. Ep. 5. Ep. 15.
• * 1.375

  L. 3. 15. Ep. 11.
• * 1.376

  L. 3. Ep. 14. Ep. 10.
• * 1.377

  L. 3. Ep. 15. Ep. 11.
• * 1.378

  L. 3. Ep. 10. Ep. 12.
• * 1.379

  Ep. 21.
• * 1.380

  Ep. 22.
• * 1.381

  Ep. 25.
• * 1.382

  Ep. 26.
• * 1.383

  Ep. 28.
• * 1.384

  Ep. 30.
• * 1.385

  Ep. 31.
• * 1.386

  Ep. 33.
• * 1.387

  Ep. 34.
• * 1.388

  Ep. 35.
• * 1.389

  Ep. 38.
• * 1.390

  Ep. 39.
• * 1.391

  Ep. 27.
• * 1.392

  Ep. 52.
• * 1.393

  Ep. 55.
• * 1.394

  Ep. 65.
• * 1.395

  Ep. 69.
• * 1.396

  Ep. 75.
• * 1.397

  Moses and Aaron, p. 62.
• * 1.398

  Vindic. p. 39.
• * 1.399

  Act. 9. 31.
• * 1.400

  1 Thess. 2. 14.
• * 1.401

  1 Cor. 16. 19.
• * 1.402

  Act. 15. 41.
• * 1.403

  1 Cor. 16. 1.
• * 1.404

  Gal. 1. 2.
• * 1.405

  2 Cor. 8. 1.
• * 1.406

  Act. 20. 19. 31.
• * 1.407

  1 Cor. 16. 9.
• * 1.408

  Vindic. p. 40.
• * 1.409

  p. 4••.
• * 1.410

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 3.
• * 1.411

  Act. 18. 11.
• * 1.412

  Act. 20. 31.
• * 1.413

  S••t. l. 8.
• * 1.414

  Thucyd. l. 4. & l. 8.
• * 1.415

  p. 41.
• * 1.416

  Act. 4. 4.
• * 1.417

  S••••. l. 9. Eustar. ad Il. ••.
• * 1.418

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.419

  Epiph. haer. 29.
• * 1.420

  p. 42.
• * 1.421

  Evangel. Love. p. 59.
• * 1.422

  p. 65.
• * 1.423

  p. 43.
• * 1.424

  p. 44.
• * 1.425

  Reasons a∣gainst the In∣stances, &c. p. 83.
• * 1.426

  p. 46.
• * 1.427

  p. 24.
• * 1.428

  True and one∣ly way of Concord. p III.
• * 1.429

  Premonition to the true way of Con¦cord.
• * 1.430

  Plea for peace, p. 66. Church-History. p. 37.
• * 1.431

  p. 73.
• * 1.432

  Church-History, p. 57.
• * 1.433

  Answ. to Serm. p. 74.
• * 1.434

  Aug. de Bapt. l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.435

  Cypt. Ep. 52. n. 4.
• * 1.436

  Cypr. Ep. 55. n. 6, 9.
• * 1.437

  Ep. 46. n. 3.
• * 1.438

  Ep. 58. n. 2.
• * 1.439

  De Vnit. Eccl. n. 3, 4.
• * 1.440

  S. August. Ep. 162. N. E. Ep. 43.
• * 1.441

  Collat. Car∣thage 1.
• * 1.442

  Aug. Ep. 43.
• * 1.443

  Victor Vi∣tens. l. 1.
• a 1.444

  Aug. Serm. 4. 14. 102. de diversis.
• b 1.445

  Serm. 12. 122. de di∣versis.
• c 1.446

  De divers. 11.
• d 1.447

  96. de Temp.
• * 1.448

  Vict. l. 1.
• f 1.449

  110. de Temp.
• g 1.450

  251. de Temp.
• h 1.451

  24. de di∣vers.
• * 1.452

  Victor Vit. l. 5.
• * 1.453

  Collat. 1. Carthage n. 139.
• * 1.454

  Optat. l. 6.
• * 1.455

  Cod. Eccl. Afric. c. 71.
• * 1.456

  c. 98, 99.
• * 1.457

  c. 117.
• * 1.458

  c. 118.
• * 1.459

  c. 121.
• * 1.460

  Church Histo∣ry, p. 73.
• * 1.461

  De Curd pro Mortuis c. 12.
• * 1.462

  Aug. Ep. 60.
• * 1.463

  Aug. Ep. 203.
• * 1.464

  Ep. 204.
• * 1.465

  Ep. 262.
• * 1.466

  Ep. ad Quodvult∣deum ante lib. de haeres.
• * 1.467

  S. Cyprian. Ep. 52. n. 13.
• * 1.468

  Ep. 23. n. 2.
• * 1.469

  Ep. 45. n. 2.
• * 1.470

  Victor Vit. l. 1.
• * 1.471

  Epiph. haer. 68. n. 6.
• * 1.472

  Athanas. Ap. p. 781. 802.
• * 1.473

  Haeres. 68. n. 4. 69. n. 1.
• * 1.474

  Abridgment of Chur. hist. p. 9.
• * 1.475

  Athanas. Ap. p. 682.
• * 1.476

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 21.
• * 1.477

  Vetus Orbis descript. p. 18.
• * 1.478

  Amm. Marc. l. 22.
• * 1.479

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 11.
• * 1.480

  Athan. Apol. p. 683.
• * 1.481

  Theodor. Ep. 113.
• * 1.482

  Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 67.
• * 1.483

  Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c. 21.
• * 1.484

  Theod. Ep. 116. Ep. 117.
• * 1.485

  Sirmond. Praef. ad Theod. Opera.
• * 1.486

  Ptolem. l. 5. c. 15.
• * 1.487

  Strab. l. 16.
• * 1.488

  Plin. l. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.489

  Amm. Mar∣cel. l. 14.
• * 1.490

  Notitiae An∣tiq. Append. ad Car. à S. Paulo, p. 59.
• * 1.491

  Theodor. Ep. 16.
• * 1.492

  Theodor. Ep. 79, 81.
• * 1.493

  Ep. 42.
• * 1.494

  Ep. 72.
• * 1.495

  Religios. Hist. Vit. Symeon. p. 879.
• * 1.496

  Ep. 81.
• * 1.497

  Ep. 145.
• * 1.498

  Vita Jacobi jun. p. 860. 861, &c. 858, 869, 876, 877, 878, 879.
• * 1.499

  Treatise of Episcopacy, part 2. p▪ 49, 50.
• * 1.500

  Theod. Hist. l. 4. c. 19.
• * 1.501

  l. 4. c. 15.
• * 1.502

  l. 4. c. 19.
• * 1.503

  l. 4. c. 21.
• * 1.504

  l. 4. c. 2▪
• * 1.505

  l. 5. c. 4.
• * 1.506

  Answ. to Serm. p. 73.
• * 1.507

  p. 263.
• * 1.508

  Christian Directory. Eccles. Cases, Q. 56. p. 831.
• * 1.509

  Can. 31. & 35.
• * 1.510

  Defence of the Answer to the Admo∣nit. p. 218.
• * 1.511

  p. 424.
• * 1.512

  p. 427.
• * 1.513

  Perpetual Government of Christ's Church. ch. 12. p. 224.
• * 1.514

  ch. 13 p. 244.
• * 1.515

  Synod of New-Eng∣land concer∣ning the sub∣ject of Bap∣tism, &c. 1662.
• * 1.516

  Baxter of Confirmation, p. 20.
• * 1.517

  p. 49, 52.
• * 1.518

  p. 155.
• * 1.519

  p. 172.
• * 1.520

  p. 262.
• * 1.521

  Rubrick be∣fore Commu∣nion.
• * 1.522

  Defence of the Plea. p. 58.
• * 1.523

  Epist. 108.
• * 1.524

  Post collat. c. Donat. c. 20.
• * 1.525

  Spalat. l. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.526

  Albaspin. l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.527

  Defence of the Plea. p. 65, 72.
• * 1.528

  De T••mp••re Serm. ••52.
• * 1.529

  Of Confirma∣tion. p. 174, &c.
• * 1.530

  His Majesties final Answer to the Di∣vines at Newport, n. 4.
• * 1.531

  Calvin. Ep. 136.
• * 1.532

  Bez. Ep. 20.
• * 1.533

  Codex Ec∣cles. Afric. c. 6, 7, 9, 43.
• * 1.534

  c. 10.
• * 1.535

  c. 11.
• * 1.536

  p. 5.
• * 1.537

  p. 9.
• * 1.538

  Plea for Peace, p. 243.
• * 1.539

  Answ. 10 Serm.
• * 1.540

  Socr. l. 5. c. 19.
• * 1.541

  Soz. l. 7. c. 16.
• * 1.542

  Serm. p. 19.
• * 1.543

  Vindicat. of Non-conform. p. 16.
• * 1.544

  p. 17.
• * 1.545

  p. 17.
• * 1.546

  p. 42.
• * 1.547

  Williams his Answer to Cotton's Letter, p. 1.
• * 1.548

  Cottons Answer to R▪ Williams, p. 57.
• * 1.549

  〈…〉〈…〉 p. 46.
• * 1.550

  Cobbet's Answer to Cla••ks N••r∣rative, p. 40, 47.
• * 1.551

  Synod of New-Eng∣land. p. 30. Defence of the Synod, p. 1••2.
• * 1.552

  Answ. p. 31, 32.
• * 1.553

  Difference between the Power of the Magistrates and Church Past••••rs, 1••••1.
• * 1.554

  p. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 40.
• * 1.555

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.556

  〈…〉〈…〉 p. 12, 13, 14.
• * 1.557

  Hudson of the Church. p. 15.
• * 1.558

  Can. 139.
• * 1.559

  Christian Di∣rectory. Eccl. Cases Q. 5••. p. 830.
• * 1.560

  Answer to my Sermon, p. 77.
• * 1.561

  Anws. p 34.
• * 1.562

  p. 39.
• * 1.563

  Mischief of Impos. p. 27.
• * 1.564

  ibid.
• * 1.565

  p. 29.
• * 1.566

  p. 30.
• * 1.567

  p. 31.
• * 1.568

  Letter out of the country, p. 24.
• * 1.569

  p. 25.
• * 1.570

  p. 26.
• * 1.571

  Part 2.
• * 1.572

  Rect••r of Sutton, &c. p. 2••.
• * 1.573

  Vindicati∣on, &c. p. 3••.
• * 1.574

  Answ. p. 15, 16.
• * 1.575

  Mischief of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Preface.
• * 1.576

  Letter out of the Country, p. 25.
• * 1.577

  Vindicat. p. 37.
• * 1.578

  1 Tim. 3. 2, 7, 10.
• * 1.579

  Act. l. 14.
• * 1.580

  Act. 6. 3, 5.
• * 1.581

  Act. 11. 3.
• * 1.582

  Act. 15. 2.
• * 1.583

  6. 12.
• * 1.584

  16. 4.
• * 1.585

  1 Tim. 3. 2, 7.
• * 1.586

  Act. 1••. 2.
• * 1.587

  Act. 6. 3.
• * 1.588

  Clement. Epist. p. 54, 55, 56, 57.
• * 1.589

  Answ. p. 27.
• * 1.590

  Cypr. Epist. 68.
• * 1.591

  Orig. hom 6. in Levit.
• * 1.592

  Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 59.
• * 1.593

  Greg. Naz. Orat. 19.
• * 1.594

  Evagr. l. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.595

  Socr. l. 4. c. 14.
• * 1.596

  Soz. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.597

  Socr. l. 7. c. 26, 35.
• * 1.598

  Ambros. Ep. 82.
• * 1.599

  Socr. l. 4. c. 30.
• * 1.600

  Soz. l. 4. c. 28.
• * 1.601

  Socr. l. 5. c. 9. l. 6. c. 11.
• * 1.602

  Amm. Marc. l. 27.
• * 1.603

  Answ. p. 15.
• * 1.604

  De Sacerd. l. 3.
• * 1.605

  Hieron. ad∣versus Iovin. in Ezek. c. 33.
• * 1.606

  Orig in Num. hom. 22.
• * 1.607

  Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr.
• * 1.608

  Ecc••ellens. de Orig. Eccl. Alex. c. 6.
• * 1.609

  Ambros. Comment. in 4 Eph.
• * 1.610

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 10.
• * 1.611

  c. 11.
• * 1.612

  Aug. ep. 110.
• * 1.613

  Socr. l. 8. c. 46.
• * 1.614

  Concil. N••cen. c. 4.
• * 1.615

  Concil. An∣tioch. c. 18.
• * 1.616

  c. 17.
• * 1.617

  Socr. l. 2. c. 10.
• * 1.618

  Basil. Ep. 194.
• * 1.619

  Concil. Chal∣ced. Act. 11.
• * 1.620

  Novell. Ju∣stin. 123, 137.
• * 1.621

  C. de Episc. lex. 42.
• * 1.622

  Can. Laod. c. 13.
• * 1.623

  Aug. Ep. 225.
• * 1.624

  Conc. Nic. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.625

  Concil. 8. c. 28.
• * 1.626

  Soz. l. 2. c. 19.
• * 1.627

  Socr. l. 2. c. 6, 7.
• * 1.628

  c. 13.
• * 1.629

  c. 16.
• * 1.630

  c. 23.
• * 1.631

  Soz. l. 7. c. 7.
• * 1.632

  l. 8. c. 2.
• * 1.633

  Socr. l. 7. c. 29.
• * 1.634

  Pallad. Vit. Chrys. p. 42.
• * 1.635

  So••r. l. 7. c. 40.
• * 1.636

  Concil. Au∣relian. A. D. 549.
• * 1.637

  V. Concil. Tarracon.
• * 1.638

  A. D. 599. Can. 3.
• * 1.639

  Concil. Tolet. 12. c. 6. & ibi Lo∣aisam.
• * 1.640

  Grati. Dist. 63.
• * 1.641

  Concil. Ver∣nense Can. 2.
• * 1.642

  Sirmond. Append. ad To. 2. Concil. Gall.
• * 1.643

  Lup. Ferra∣riens.
• * 1.644

  Ep. 81, 98, 99.
• * 1.645

  V. Grotii Piet. p. 91.
• * 1.646

  Walsingh. in Edw. 3. p. 161.
• * 1.647

  C. si quis 15. Cod de Sa∣cros. Eccles.
• * 1.648

  Nov. 57.
• * 1.649

  Nov. 123. c. 18.
• * 1.650

  Matt. Paris ad A. 1239.
• * 1.651

  Joh. Saris••. Ep. 6. & 119.
• * 1.652

  Epist. 83.
• * 1.653

  Rittershus. ad Novell. p. 1. c. 7. n. 36, 37.
• * 1.654

  Treatise of Episcop. p. 2. p 123.
• * 1.655

  Mischief of Impositi••ns, p. 41.
• * 1.656

  Vindic. of Non-conf. p. 13.
• * 1.657

  Dr. Falkner's Vindication of Liturgies, 1680.
• * 1.658

  Vindication, p. 22.
• * 1.659

  Answ. p. 49.
• * 1.660

  Mischief of Impos. p. 29.
• * 1.661

  Matt. 15. 11. 19, 20.
• * 1.662

  Exercit. on Matt. 15. 1, 9.
• * 1.663

  p. 23, 25.
• * 1.664

  p. 28.
• * 1.665

  p. 17.
• * 1.666

  E••ce. pta G••mar. c. 1. •• 6.
• * 1.667

  Ma••k 7. 4.
• * 1.668

  Chagiga c. 2. § ult.
• * 1.669

  Erub i•• f. 21.
• * 1.670

  Bellarm. de effectu Sa∣cra. l. 2. c. 31. Sect. tertia.
• * 1.671

  Bell. de cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. § Nota.
• * 1.672

  Benedict. Salis ad a∣quam lustral. Pastoral. de Sacr. Bap.
• * 1.673

  Azor. Instit. Moral. l. 4. c. 11.
• * 1.674

  Greg. de Va∣lent. To. 4. disp. 7. q. 4. puncto 1.
• * 1.675

  Marsil. Co∣lumnae Hy∣dragiologia. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 30.
• * 1.676

  Thyrae. de locis infest. p. 3. c. 68.
• * 1.677

  Thesaur. Cathol. To. 1. l. 2. art. 9.
• * 1.678

  Fresh Suit against Ce∣rem. p. 70. p. 427. Cassand. Consult. art. 7. & 9.
• * 1.679

  To. 4. disp. 3. q. 1. p. 4.
• * 1.680

  Preface to the Common-Prayer. Can. 30.
• * 1.681

  Preface to Common Prayer.
• * 1.682

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.683

  Plea for Peace, p. 178, 179.
• * 1.684

  Defence of the Plea, p. 4••.
• * 1.685

  plea 〈…〉〈…〉 p. 18.
• * 1.686

  Christian Di∣rectory.
• * 1.687

  Ecclesiastical Cases, Q. 113.
• * 1.688

  Defence of the Plea, p. 41.
• * 1.689

  Defence of the Plea, p. 49.
• * 1.690

  Concil. Flo∣rent. Decret. Vnion. Concil. Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 6.
• * 1.691

  Gamachae Sum. Theol. To. 3. qu. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.692

  Lu••o de Sa∣cram. disp. 4. Sect. 4. n 32.
• * 1.693

  Ysambert. de Sacram. ad. Qu. 62. disp. 4 art. 3.
• * 1.694

  Clypeus Theolog. Tho∣mist. To. 5. disp. 3. art. 2. § 1.
• * 1.695

  Christian Directory Eccles. Cases Q. 49. p. 826.
• * 1.696

  Mischief of Imposit. Pre∣face.
• * 1.697

  §. 33.
• * 1.698

  1. Answer to Serm. p. 47, 48.
• * 1.699

  Plea for Peace, p. 232, 233.
• * 1.700

  Ca••. 6.
• * 1.701

  Aug. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 R••ig. c. ••.
• * 1.702

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.703

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.704

  De Constit. c. quia inconti∣nent. ipso facto.
• * 1.705

  Can. 65.
• * 1.706

  Plea for Pea••e p. 2••••.
• * 1.707

  Dis••ipl. de France, Des Minist. art. 5.
• * 1.708

  Calvin. Epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 311.
• * 1.709

  p. 122.
• * 1.710

  〈…〉〈…〉. c. 6.
• * 1.711

  §. 34.
• * 1.712

  Letter out of the Country, p. 5, 6, &c.
• * 1.713

  Answ. p. 81.
• * 1.714

  5. Disputati∣ons of Church Gov. p. 48••.
• * 1.715

  Mischief of Impos. p. 72.
• * 1.716

  P. 73.
• * 1.717

  P. 77.
• * 1.718

  P. 78.
• * 1.719

  §. 35.
• * 1.720

  p. 4.
• * 1.721

  p. 8.
• * 1.722

  Answ. to Cot∣ton's Letter. Bloody Te∣nent.
• * 1.723

  Defence of the Cure of Divis. p 124.
• * 1.724

  〈…〉〈…〉. to Ma∣gist••a••es Power, ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.725

  First Princi∣ples of New England by I. Mather, 1675.
• * 1.726

  §. 36.
• * 1.727

  p. 6.
• * 1.728

  p. 8.
• * 1.729

  T. C.'s first Answer to W••itg. p. 13••.
• * 1.730

  Answ. p. 49. Plea for Peace, p. 143. 10••.
• * 1.731

  Defence of his Plea. p. 26. Plea for Peace, p. 149.
• * 1.732

  Ratio Discip. Fratr. c. 3. Sect. 2.
• * 1.733

  Def. of the Plea. p. 25.
• * 1.734

  Aug. ep. 23.
• * 1.735

  Chrysost. in Psal. 14.
• * 1.736

  Tert••l. de Bap∣tismo. c. 18.
• * 1.737

  Serm. 116. de Tempore.
• * 1.738

  De peccat. me∣ritis & remiss. l. 1. c. 34.
• * 1.739

  Preface to Right to Sa∣craments.
• * 1.740

  Conferen•••• first Part.
• * 1.741

  §. 37.
• * 1.742

  Mischief of Impos. p. 85, 86, 87.
• * 1.743

  〈…〉〈…〉 to the 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.744

  Confe••••o Fid••i Claudii Regis Aethiopiae.
• * 1.745

  §. 38.
• * 1.746

  Mischief of 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.747

  Mischief o•• Impo••. ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.