A Collection of cases and other discourses lately written to recover dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some divines of the city of London ; in two volumes ; to each volume is prefix'd a catalogue of all the cases and discourses contained in this collection.

THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND.

THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks, Ecclesiastical and Civil, usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity, Ministers and Peo∣ple. The Clergy, besides the things essentially belonging to their Office, are, by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World, strictly obliged, by Declarations or Subscrip∣tions, or both, to own and maintain the Doctrine, Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted. Thus in the Church of England, they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles, and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites con∣tained in the Liturgy, and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders. The design of all which

is to preserve the Peace of the Church, and the Unity of Christians, which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers.

But the Laity are under no such Obligations, there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them, nor any thing more than to attend upon, and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church. Thus it is in the Church of England, as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter, to whom when it was objected, that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion; he replies, What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Commu∣nion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches, but your actual Communion it self? In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church, the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed, lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all. It's observed by one, That the Original of all Our Mischiefs sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity, with those of Lay-Communion with the Pa∣rochial Assemblies; there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People: Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God, tho performed by the Litur∣gy, than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths, &c. Certainly, if this Difference were but observ'd, and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and under∣stood, the People would not be far more averse to Commu∣nion with the Parish-Churches than the Nonconforming Ministers are, as one complains; and whatsoever they might think of the Conformity of Ministers, be∣cause of the previous Terms required of them, they would judg what is required of the People to be lawful, as some of them do. And as the Ministers by bringing their

Case to the People's, may see Communion then to be lawful, and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private Capacity; so the People, by perceiving their Case not to be that of the the Ministers, but widely different from it, would be induced to hold Commu∣nion with the Church, and to joyn with those of their Ministers that think it their Duty so to do; and are therein of the opinion of the old Non-Conformists that did not act as if there were no middle between Se∣paration from the Church and true Worship thereof, and Subscription unto, or Practice or Approbation of all the Corruptions of the same. For † though they would not subscribe to the Ceremonies, yet they were against Separa∣tion from God's publick Worship, as one of them in the name of the rest doth declare. So that as great a Difference as there is betwixt Presence and Consent, betwixt bare Communion and Approbation, betwixt the Office of the Minister and the Attendance of a private Person; so much is there betwixt the Case of Ministerial and Lay-Communion: And therefore when we consider the Case of Lay-Communion, we are only to respect what is required of the People, what part they are to have and exercise in Communi∣on with the Church. Now what they are concerned in, are either, the Forms that are imposed, the Ge∣stures they are to use, and the Times they are to ob∣serve, for the Celebration of Divine Worship; or, the Ministration, which they may be remotely suppos'd also to be concerned in.

The lawfulness of all which, and of all things re∣quired in Lay-Communion amongst us, I shall not undertake to prove and maintain by Arguments taken from those that already are in full Communion with the Church of England, and so are obliged to justify it; but from those that in some things do differ from

it, who may therefore be supposed to be impartial, and whose Reasons may be the more heeded as coming from themselves, and from such that are forward in o∣ther respects to own the Miscarriages of the Church, as those that wholly separate from it.

For the better understanding of the Case, and of their Judgment in it, I shall consider,

• 1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England.
• 2. What Opinion they have had of Communion with that Church.
• 3. What Opinion they have had of such Practices and Usages in that Church, as Lay-men are concerned in.

1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England. And that will appear in these two things; First, That they owne her to be a true Church; Secondly, To be a Church in the main very valuable.

First; They own her to be a true Church. Thus Mr. Baily saith of the old Non-Conformists, They did always plead against the Corruptions of the Church of England, but never against the Truth of her Being, or the Comfort of her Communion: And as much is affirmed of the present, by a grave and sober Person amongst them, The Presbyterians generally hold the Church of England to be a true Church, though defective in its Order and Discipline. Thus it's acknowledged in the name of the rest, by one that undertakes their De∣fence, and would defend them in their Separation, We acknowledg the Church of England to be a true Church, and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them. This they do not only barely assert, but also undertake to prove: This is done by the old Non-Conformists, in their Confutation of the Brownists,

who thus begin, That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ, and such an one, as from which whoso∣ever wittingly and willingly separateth himself, cutteth himself off from Christ, we doubt not but the indifferent Reader may be perswaded by these Reasons following.

1.

We enjoy and joyn together in the use of those outward means, which God hath ordained in his Word for the gathering of a visible Church, and have been effectual to the unfeigned Conversion of many, as may appear both by the other Fruits of Faith, and by the Martyrdom which sundry have endured that were Members of our Church, &c.

2.

Our whole Church maketh Profession of the true Faith. The Confession of our Church, toge∣ther with the Apology thereof, and those Articles of Religion which were agreed upon in the Convoca∣tion-House, Anno 1562. (whereunto every Minister of the Land is bound to subscribe) so far forth as they contain the Confession of Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, do prove this evidently, &c.

So Mr. Ball: Wheresoever we see the Word of God truly taught and professed in Points fundamental, and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred, there is the true Church of Christ, though the Health and Sound∣ness of it may be crazed by many Errors in Doctrine, Cor∣ruptions in the Worship of God, and Evils in the Life and Manners of Men. As much as this is also affirmed in the Letters passed betwixt the Ministers of Old-Eng∣land and New-England, It is simply necessary to the being of a Church, that it be laid upon Christ the Foundation; which being done, the remaining of what is forbidden, or the want of what is commanded, cannot put the Society from the Title or Right of a true Church.

And if we enquire into the Judgment of the pre∣sent Non-Conformists, we shall find them likewise ar∣guing

for it: Thus the Author to Jerubbaal,

The Essentials constitutive of a true Church, are, 1. The Head: 2. The Body: 3. The Union that is be∣tween them. Which three concurring in the Church of England, Christ being the professed Head, she be∣ing Christ's professed Body, and the Catholick Faith being the Union-band whereby they are coupled to∣gether, she cannot in justice be denied a true (though God knows far from a pure) Church.

If we should proceed in this Argument, and consi∣der the Particulars, I might fill a Volume with Testi∣monies of this kind.

1. The Doctrine of the Church is universally held to be true and sound; even the Brownists owned it of old in their calm mood, who declare, We testify to all Men by these Presents, That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true, ancient, Apostolick Faith professed in our Land, but hold the same Grounds of Christian Reli∣gion with them. See more in Baily's Disswasive, cap. 2. p. 20, 33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1. § 9. p. 31. The Presbyterians (if I may so call them for distinction sake) do own it. So Mr. Corbet, The Doctrine of Faith, and Sacraments by Law established, is heartily received by the Non-conformists. So Mr. Baxter, As for the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land, the Bishops and their Followers from the first Refor∣mation begun by Edw. 6. were sound in Doctrine, adhe∣ring to the Augustan Method express'd now in the Articles and Homilies, they differ'd not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritans. The like is affirmed by the Independents, The Confession of the Church of England, declared in the Articles of Religion, and here∣in what is purely doctrinal, we fully embrace.

2. As to the Worship, they own it for the Matter and Substance to be good, and for Edification. So the old Non-Conformists, as Mr. Hildersham, There is nothing in our Assemblies, but we may receive profit by it, &c. And again, There is nothing done in God's Pub∣lick Worship among us, but what is done by the Instituti∣on, Ordinance, and Commandment of the Lord. So a∣mong the present, it is owned by both Presbyterians and Independents; by the former in the Morning Ex∣ercise, Why may it not be supposeable, that Christians may be moved by reasonable Considerations to attend the publick Forms, the substantial Parts of them being thought agree∣able to a Divine Institution, though in some Circumstan∣tials too disagreeable? So it is acknowledged, That in private Meetings the same Doctrine and Worship is used as in the Parish Churches, only some Circumstances and Cere∣monies omitted. By the latter, We know full well that we differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion establish∣ed in England, but only in some few things in outward Worship. But I shall have further occasion to treat of this under the third General.

3. As for the Ministry of the Church: 1. It is ac∣knowledged to be true, and for substance the same which Christ hath established. So Mr. Bradshaw, I affirm, That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies (how∣soever it may in some particular parts of the Execution hap∣ly be defective in some Places) is, for the Substance there∣of, that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church. This he speaks, as he saith, of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State. 2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office; so the grave and modest Confutation maintains, The preaching of the whole Truth of God's Word, and nothing but it; the Administration of the Sacraments and of Publick Prayer, as they are of all parts of the Mi∣nisters

Office prescribed in the Word, so they are all ap∣pointed to our Ministers by the Law. 3. They own, That all the Defects in it, whether in their Call or Ad∣ministration, do not nullify the Office. Thus much Mr. Bradshaw doth contend for, So many of our Mini∣sters (who in the Book of Ordination are called Priests and Deacons) as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry, are qualified according to the intent of the Laws, have their Offices, Callings, Adminstration and Maintenance, for the Substance thereof, ordained by Christ. And yet I deny not, but there may be some accidental De∣fects, or Superfluities in or about them all; yet such as do not, or cannot be proved to destroy the Nature and Sub∣stance of any of them. This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England, &c. p. 86, 87.

And the like is also affirmed even by those of the Congregational Way; so the Brethren in their Apolo∣gy, The unwarrantable Power in Church-Governours did never work in any of us any other Thought, much less Opinion, but that the Ministry thereof [of the English Churches] was a true Ministry. So Mr. Cotton. The Power whereby the Ministers in England do administer the Word and Sacraments, is either spiritual and proper, essential to their Calling, or advantitious and accidental. The former they have received from Christ, &c. The latter from the Patron who presents, or the Bishop who or∣dains, &c. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordinati∣on defended, may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii E∣vangelici, part 2, p. 12, 16, 17, 25, &c. Jus Divinum Regim. Eccles. p. 264, &c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism, pag. 116. and his Defence of it, pag. 35, 37.

Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed, that the Church of England is a true Church in its Do∣ctrine, Worship and Ministry. But when we come

to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true, there we shall find that they do differ. The Presbyterians generally own a National Church, and have writ much in the behalf of it, as may be seen in the Books quoted in the Margin. Others look upon it as a prudential thing, and what may lawfully be complied with; So Mr. Tombs, | It is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England, the Church of England, than it is to term Believers throughout the World, the Catholick Church; nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church; nor is there need to shew any Institution of our Lord, more for the one than the other.

But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a Constitution, or that speak doubt∣fully of it, do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches. It's acknowledged by all, that the Distribution into Parishes is not of Divine but Humane Institution; but withal, its thought by some agreeable to the reason of the thing, and somewhat favoured by Scripture, and by Experience has been found to be of such Con∣venience, Advantage, and Security to Religion, that Mr. Baxter hath more than once said: † I doubt not, but he that will preserve Religion here in its due Advantages, must endeavour to preserve the Soundness, Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches. And Mr. Corbet saith, | That the nullifying and treading down the Parish-Churches is a Popish Design. But whatever Opinion others may have of that Form, yet, all of one sort and another, agree that the Churches so called, are, or may be true Churches. This was the general Opini∣on of the old Non-Conformists. Thus saith a late Writer, who, though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church, yet doth admit (as he needs must at least)

that they did own the several Parishes, or Congregations in England to be true Churches, both in respect of their Constitution, and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship; and that there were in them no such intolerable Corruptions, as that all Christians should fly from them. And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church, did so declare. It was, saith Mr. Baxter, the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy, which Mr. H. Jacob, the Father of the Congregational Party, wrote for Communion with, against Fr. Johnson, and in respect to which, he called them Separatists, against whom he wrote. The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Ames, and other Non-conformists, whom the Congre∣gational Brethren think were favourable to their way.

And if you will hearken to the abovesaid Apolo∣gist, he saith again, and again, That the general Sence of the present Non-conformists, both Ministers and People, is, that the Parishes of England generally are true Churches, both as to the Matter of them, the People being Christians; and as to the form, their Ministers being true Ministers, such as for their Doctrine and Manners deserve not to be degraded. But lest he should be thought to incline to one side, I shall produce the Te∣stimony of such as are of the Congregational Way. As for those of New-England, Mr. Baxter doth say, That their own Expressions signify, that they take the English Pa∣rishes, that have godly Ministers, for true Churches, though faulty. Mr. Cotton professeth, that Robinson's denial of the Parishional Churches to be true Churches, was never received into any Hearts amongst them; and otherwhere saith, We dare not deny to bless the Womb that bare us, and the Papes that gave us suck.

The five Diss••nting Brethren do declare, We have this sincere Profession to make before God and the World, that all the Conscience of the Defilements in the Church

of England, &c. did never work in us any other Thought, much less Opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof, were the true Churches and Body of Christ. To come nearer, Dr. T. Goodwin doth condemn it as an Error in those who hold particu∣lar Churches (those you call Parish-Churches) to be no true Churches of Christ, and their Ministers to be no true Ministers, and upon that Ground forbear all Church-Communion with them in hearing, or in any other Ordi∣nance, &c. and saith, I acquitted my self [before] from this, and my Brethren in the Ministry.

But the Church of England is not only thus acknow∣ledged a true Church, but hath been also looked upon as the most valuable in the World; whether we con∣sider the Church it self, or those that minister in it. The Church it self, of which the Authors of the grave and modest Confutation thus write: All the known Churches in the World acknowledg our Church for their Sister, and give unto us the Right-hand of Fellowship, &c. Dr. Goodwin saith, If we should not acknowledg these Churches so stated [i. e. Parish-Churches] to be the true Churches of Christ, and their Ministers true Mini∣sters, and their Order such, and hold Communion with them too in the Sence spoken of, we must acknowledg no Church in all the Reformed Churches, &c. for they are all as full of Mixtures as ours. And Mr. J. Goodwin saith, that there was more of the Truth and Power of Religion in England, under the late Prelatical Government, than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides. If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England, as it was then, Mr. Bradshaw gives it, Our Churches are not inferiour for number of able Men, yea, and painful Ministers, to any of the Re∣formed Churches of Christ in foreign Parts, &c. And certainly the Number of such is much advanced since

his time. But I cannot say more of this Subject, than I find in a Page or two of an Author I must frequent∣ly use, to which I refer the Reader.

Before I proceed, I shall only make this Inference from what hath been said; That if the Church of England be a true Church, the Churches true Chur∣ches, the Ministry a true Ministry, the Doctrine sound and Orthodox, the Worship in the main good and allowable, and the Defects such as render not the Or∣dinances unacceptable to God, and ineffectual to us; I think there is much said towards the proving Com∣munion with that Church lawful, and to justify those that do joyn in it. Which brings to the second Gene∣ral, which is to consider:

II. What Opinion the sober and eminent Non-conformists have of Communion with the Church of England. And they generally hold,

1. That they are not totally to separate from it; this follows from the former, and must be own'd by all them that hold she is a true Church: for to own it to be such, and yet to separate totally from it, would be to own and disown it at the same time: So say the Members of the Assembly of Divines, 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. And saith Mr. Baxter, Nothing will warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church [which yet is the case in total Separation] but the want of something essential to a Church: But if the Church have all things essential to it, it is a true Church, and not to be separated from. When the Church of Rome is called a true Church, it's under∣stood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence; as a Thief is a true Man; and the Devil himself, though the Fa∣ther

of Lies, is a true Spirit: But withal she is a false Church (as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall) an He∣retical, Apostatical, Antichristian Synagogue: And so to separate from her is a Duty. But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church, or the Paro∣chial Churches true Churches, it's in a moral Sence, as they are sound Churches, which may safely be communicated with. Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Opposition: The Church of Rome is a part of the uni∣versal visible Church of Christians, so far as they profess Christianity, and acknowledg Christ their Head; but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Ʋsurpers, so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head, &c. From this Church therefore, which is Spiritual Babylon, God's Peo∣ple are bound to separate, &c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome, as the refor∣med Protestant Churches in France, and these of Great Britain have done, in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine, a lawful Ministry, and a People pro∣fessing the true Religion, submitting to, and joyning toge∣ther in the true Worship of God. Such a Separation would (as has been said) unchurch it. This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it, or to deny Communion with a Church, with which Christ holds Communion, contrary to a Principle that is, I think, universally maintained.

The Error of these Men, saith Mr. Brightman , i•• full of Evil, who do in such a manner, make a Departure from this Church [by total Separation] as if Christ were quite banished from hence, and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there. Let these Men consider, that Christ is here feasting with his Members; will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there, where Christ is not ashamed to sit? Further, this would be a notorious Schism;

so the old Non-conformists

conclude, Because we have a true Church, consisting of a lawful Ministry, 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; for what is that, saith ano∣ther, † but a total Separation from a true Church? This, lastly, would not diminish, but much increase the Fault of the Separation. As another saith; | For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church, which I profess to be true, and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving, than from a Church which I conceive to be false, and whose Mini∣sters I take to have no Calling from God, nor any Bles∣sing from his Hand. This therefore is their avow'd Principle, That total Separation from the Church is unlawful: And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists; and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part, † We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actu∣ally over-spread with Defilements, or in the greatest Danger thereof, &c. that we both did, and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ. And amongst the present Non-conformists, several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it, and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice. So Mr. Baxter, | I constantly joyn i•• my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament. It's said of Mr. Joseph Allen, That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship, as his Op∣portunities and Strength permitted: † Of Mr. Brinsley, that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship. Dr. Collins saith as much of himself.

| Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God, to hear the best they could, and not to separate, but to do as the old

Puritans did thirty Years before.

Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth, That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed, he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Wor∣ship of God. Mr. Hickman freely declares, I profess where-ever I come, I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies, my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise. And Mr. Cor∣bet, as he did hold Communion with the Church of England, so saith, That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick † Assemblies. It's evident then that it is their Principle, and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Con∣formity to it. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for him∣self.

I own Parish-Churches, having a competent Minister, and a number of credible Professors of Christianity, for true Churches, and the Worship therein performed, as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word, to be in the main sound, and good for the Substance or Matter thereof: And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof, for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant.

And if these two, Judgment and Practice, be not concordant, it would be impossi∣ble to convince Men that they are in earnest, or that they do believe themselves, while they declare against Separation, and yet do not keep it up. Those good Men therefore were aware of this, who met a little after the Plague and Fire, to consider (saith Mr. Bax∣ter) whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament [and much more if it was total] might not tend to deceive Men, and make them believe that we were for Separation from them, and took their Communion to be unlawful: And upon the Reasons given in, they agreed such Communion

to be lawful and meet, when it would not do more Harm than Good; that is, they agreed that it was lawful in it self.

2. They hold that they are not to separate further from such a true Church, than the things that they separate for, are unlawful, or are conceived so to be; that is, that they ought to go as far as they can, and do what lawfully they may towards Communion with it. For they declare, That to joyn in nothing, because they cannot joyn in all things, is a dividing Practice, and not to do what they can do in that case, is Schism; for then the Separation is rash and unjust. † Therefore if the Ministerial Communion be thought unlawful, and the Lay-Communion lawful, the Un∣lawfulness of the former doth not bar a Person from joyning in the latter.

The denying of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, doth not gainsay the Lawfulness of partaking in that Worship, it be∣ing sound for the substance in the main, &c.

as a judicious Person hath observed. This was the Case generally of the old Non-conformists, who not∣withstanding their Exclusion from their Publick Mi∣nistry, held full Communion with the Church of England. We are told by a good Hand,

That as heretofore Mr. Parker, Mr. Knewstubs, Mr. Ʋdal, &c. and the many Scores suspended in Queen Elizabeth, and King James's Reign: So also of later times, Mr. Dod, Mr. Cleaver, &c. were utterly against even Semi-Separation; i. e. against absenting them∣selves from the Prayers and the Lord's Supper.

So it's affirmed of them by Mr. Ball, They have ever∣more condemned voluntary Separation from the Congre∣gations and Assemblies, or negligent frequenting of those Publick Prayers. And some of them earnestly press

the People to prefer the publick Service before the private, and to come to the beginning of the Prayers, as an help to stir up God's Graces, &c. And others did both receive the Sacrament, and exhort others so to do, as I shall afterwards shew. 2. Again, if in Lay-Communion any thing is thought to be unlaw∣ful, that is no reason against the things that are lawful: This was the Case of many of the godly and learned Non-conformists in the last Age, as we are told, that were perswaded in their Consciences, that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England, in receiv∣ing the Sacrament kneeling, without Sin; yet did they not separate from her. Indeed in that particular Act they withdrew, but yet so, as they held Communion with her in the rest. And thus much is owned by those of the present Age, as one declares.

The Church of Eng∣land being a true Church (so that a total Separa∣tion from her is unwarrantable) therefore Com∣munion with her in all parts of real solemn Wor∣ship, wherein I may joyn with her, without either Let or Sin, is a Duty.

So another saith of them; They are ready and desirous to return to a full Ʋnion with the Parishes, when ever the Obstacles shall be removed. And again, They hold Communion with the Parishes, not only in Faith and Doctrine, but also in Acts of Wor∣ship, where they think they can lawfully do it. This those of the Congregational-Way do also accord to, that they ought in all lawful things to communicate with the Churches of England; not only in Obedi∣ence to the Magistrate (in which case they also ac∣knowledg it to be their Duty as well as others) but also as they are true Churches; and therefore plead for the Lawfulness of hearing the established Ministry, and undertake to answer the Objections brought a∣gainst it, whether taken from the Ministers Ordina∣tion,

or Lives, or the Church in which they are Ministers, &c. as you may find them in Mr. Robin∣son's Plea for it of old, and Mr. Nye's of late, as they are printed together. Upon the Consideration of which, the latter of these thus concludes.

In most of the Misperswasions of these latter Times, by which Mens Minds have been corrupted; I find, in whatsoever they differ one from another, yet in this they agree, That it's unlawful to hear in publick; which I am perswaded is one constant Design of Sa∣tan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on Foot by Jesuits amongst us. Let us therefore be the more aware of whatsoever tends that way.

Of this Opinion also is Mr. Tombs (though he con∣tinued an Anabaptist) who has writ a whole Book to defend the hearing of the present Ministers of Eng∣land, and towards the close of the Work hath given forty additional Reasons for it, and in opposition to those he writes against doth affirm; Sure if the Church be called Mount Sion from the preaching of the Gospel, the Assemblies of England may be called Sion, Christ's Candlesticks, and Garden, as well as any Chri∣stians in the World. I shall conclude this with what Mr. Robinson saith in this Case, viz. For my self thus I believe, with my Heart before God, and profess with my Tongue, and have before the World, that I have one and the same Faith, Spirit, Baptism and Lord, which I had in the Church of England, and none other; that I esteem so many in that Church, of what State or Order soever, as are truly Partakers of that Faith (as I ac∣count thousands to be) for my Christian Brethren, and my self a Fellow-Member with them, of that one Mysti∣cal Body of Christ, scattered far and wide throughout the World: that I have always in Spirit and Affection, all Christian Fellowship and Communion with them, and

am most ready in all outward Actions and Exercises of Religion, lawful and lawfully done, to express the same: And withal, that I am perswaded, the hearing of the Word of God there preached, in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned, both lawful, and upon occasion neces∣sary for me and all true Christians, withdrawing from that Hierarchical Order of Church-Government and Mi∣nistry, and the uniting in the Order and Ordinances in∣stituted by Christ. Thus far he.

From what hath been said upon this Head we may observe, That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons, according to the Principles they espouse, they agree not in the Constitution of Churches, &c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be (as I have observed before) true Churches of Christ, that Communion with such Churches is lawful, and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them. Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing, as whether it be an Act of Communion, and about the Call of those they hear, yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it. And therefore to separate wholly in this Or∣dinance, and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches, are equally condemned by all.

3. They hold, that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things, if the things accoun∣ted unlawful, are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church, and affect the Vitals of Reli∣gion, or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Com∣munion.

1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church, or affect the vital Parts of Religion.

So saith Mr. Tombs, Not every, nor many Corrupti∣ons of some kind do unchurch, there being many in Faith, Worship and Conversation in the Churches

of Corinth, and some of the seven Churches of Asia, who yet were Golden Candlesticks, amidst whom Christ did walk. But such general, avowed, un∣repented of Errors in Faith, as overthrow the Foun∣dation of Christian Faith; to wit, Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man, and Salvation by him, Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry, in Life by evil Manners, as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity, till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched.

For till then the Corruptions are tolerable, and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church, or to depart from it.

So Mr. Brinsly: Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us, yet are they tolerable? If so, then is Separation on this ground intolerable, unwarrantable: in as much as it ought not to be, but upon a very great and weighty Cause, and that when there is no Re∣medy.

So Mr. Noyes: Private Brethren may not separate from Churches, or Church-Ordinances; which are not fundamentally defective, neither in Doctrine or Manners, Heresy or Prophaneness.

To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen, and Mr. Cot∣ton.

The former asserts, That many Errors in Doctrine, disorders in sacred Administrations, irre∣gular walking in Conversation, with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers, may fall out in some Churches, and yet not evacuate their Church-state, or give sufficient warrant to leave their Com∣munion, and separate from them. The latter saith; Unless you find in the Church, Blasphemy, or Idola∣try, or Persecution [i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion] there is no just Ground of Sepa∣ration.

This is universally own'd. But if any one should yet continue unconvinced, let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scrip∣ture,

collected by Mr. Baxter, and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable. Observe, saith he, that no one Member is in all these Scriptures, or any other, com∣manded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches, as if their Communion in Worship were un∣lawful. And therefore before you separate from any, as judging Communion with them unlawful, be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these re∣cited were.

2. They are not to separate, if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion, that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them.

Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these. The Church may be corrupted many ways, in Do∣ctrine, Ordinances, Worship, &c. And there are degrees of this Corruption; the Doctrine in some remote Points, the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom. How many Churches do we find thus corrupted, and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church, nor any Command∣ment to the Godly of Corinth, &c. to separate. I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption, hold the Communion—.But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals, the Foundation of Doctrine is de∣stroyed, the Worship is become idolatrous; and what is above all, if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful, in that Case, Come out of Babylon. The Churches of Protestants so se∣parated from Rome.

But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature, nor thus strictly required, then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful, and may be a Duty. So saith Mr. Corbet, in the name of the present Non∣conformists,

We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a true Church, as no Church, for the Corruptions and Dis∣orders found therein, or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof, while our personal Profession of some Error, or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion.

And Mr. Burroughs him∣self doth grant as much and more; for he saith, Where these Causes are not, [viz. the being con∣strained to profess, believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith, or being deprived of Means alto∣gether necessary, or most expedient to Salvation] but Men may communicate without Sin, professing the Truth, and enjoy all Ordinances, as the Free-men of Christ: Men must not separate from a Church, tho there be Corruption in it, to gather into a new Church, which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable.

And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Commu∣nion, yet if not actually imposed upon us, our commu∣nicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition, as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions, as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue: So though they should be imposed, and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion, that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation, as it is also own'd; for saith one, When the Corruptions of a Church are such as that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoid∣ably, that seems to me to be a just Ground, though not of a Positive, yet of a Negative; though not of a total, yet of a partial Separation; i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser, but is not so for the greater.

Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature, not respecting the Fun∣damentals of Religion; supposing again they are not necessarily imposed and unavoidable, then Separation

for the sake of such is unwarrantable. But to make this the more uncontroulably evident, I shall consi∣der the Corruptions, as they respect Worship, or Discipline. In Worship, I shall consider the Defects of it in it self, in the Ministration, the Ministers, and those that joyn with it, and shew that these do not disoblige from Communion in it, and Attendance up∣on it.

1. The Defects of Worship, if not essential, are consistent with Communion, and no just Reason for withdrawing from it. This the Brownists did ac∣knowledg with some Qualification.

Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellow∣ship of the Church, for Blemishes and Imperfecti∣ons, which every one, according to his Calling, should studiously seek to cure, &c. So Mr. Cotton, Suppose there were, and are sundry Abuses in the Church, yet it was no safe Ground of Separation. When the Sons of Eli corrupted the Sacrifices of God, their Sin was great, yet it was the sin of the People to separate and abhor.

Thus a Reverend Person, in his Farewel Sermon doth rightly instruct his Au∣ditors:

A means to hold fast what you have re∣ceived, is diligent Attendance on the publick Ordi∣nances and Worship of God, if and when you can enjoy them in any measure according to God's Will, though not altogether in the manner you desire, and they should be administred in, &c. Though I dare not advise you to joyn in any thing that is in it self, or in your Judgment evil, till you be satisfied about it; yet I must advise you to take heed of Separation from the Church, or from what is good, and God's own Ordinance, &c.

For the fuller Proof of which, it may not be amiss to produce the several Arguments used by them in Confirmation of this Truth. As,

First, To break off Communion, or to refuse it for [Arg. 1] such Defects, would be to look after a greater Per∣fection than this present State will admit of. So the Brownists do declare, None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established, for Faults and Corrupti∣ons, which may, and, so long as the Church consisteth of mortal Men, will fall out and arise among them. And Mr. Jenkins argues upon this Principle.

Must not he, who will forbear Communion with a Church till it be altogether freed from Mixtures, tarry till the day of Judgment, till when we have no pro∣mise that Christ will gather out of his Church what∣soever doth offend? This was it that amongst other Reasons conquer'd the Prejudices of that good Man Mr. J. Allen, and kept him from Separation, of which we have this Account.

He knew of how great Mo∣ment it was that the publick Worship of God should be maintained, and that its Assemblies should not be relinquished, though some of its Administra∣tions did not clearly approve themselves unto him; because upon the account of some Imperfections and Pollutions in them, supposed, or real, to withdraw Communion, is evidently to suppose our selves join'd before our time to the heavenly Assembly, or to have found such an one upon Earth exempt from all Mixtures and Imperfections of Worshippers and Worship.

The want of this prudent Consideration makes many to expect more than can be reasonably expected, and to look upon every Defect or Cor∣ruption as intolerable; to prevent which, therefore Mr. Baxter doth give this Advice to his Brethren. Teach them to know that all Men are imperfect and faul∣ty, and so is all Men's Worship of God; and that he that will not communicate with faulty Worship, must re∣nounce Communion with all the World, and all with him.

Secondly, They argue, our Saviour and the Apo∣stles [Arg. 2] did not separate from defective Churches and Worship, but communicated in it notwithstanding the Corruptions, and therefore it's not unlawful for others so to do. No doubt it was written for our Instruction, (saith one in a Farewel-Sermon) our Lord Jesus Christ (who was as zealous for Purity in God's Worship, as much against corrupt Mixtures of Mens Inventions therein, as any can pretend to be) used to attend on the Publick Worship in his time, notwithstanding the many Cor∣ruptions brought into it. That he went into their As∣semblies not to joyn in any Worship, but only to bear witness against their Corruptions, is no where written; but rather the contrary is held forth in Scripture, when he acknowledgeth himself a Member of the Church of the Jews, approves of, and justifies their Worship, as right for substance, that Salvation might be attained therein, which he denies to be attainable in any other Worship, John 4. 22. We know (including himself amongst those that worshipped God aright) what we worship, for Sal∣vation is of the Jews. This is sufficiently proved by many, that Christ did communicate with the Jewish Church, and is granted as well by those of the Con∣gregational, as † Presbyterial Way: And yet Do∣ctrine and Discipline, and Worship were much cor∣rupted, of which Mr. Hildersham doth give a | Spe∣cimen, but especially Dr. Brian;

There were many great Corruptions in the Church of the Jews in Christ's time, the Priests and Teachers were ig∣norant and wicked, and had a corrupt and unlawful entrance into their Calling; and the People were like to the Priests, generally notoriously and obstinate∣ly ungodly; and the Worship used in that Church was wofully corrupt; many superstitious Ceremo∣nies, the Observation whereof were more strictly

urged, than the Commandments and Ordinances of God; the Temple made a Den of Thieves, the Discipline and Censures shamefully abused, the Doctrine was corrupt in many Points; yet the Word tells you, Christ (whose Example it binds you to follow, and you profess your selves Followers of him in all imitable things) made no Separation from this Church, professed himself a Memeber of it, was by Circumcision incorporated a Member, re∣ceived Baptism in a Congregation of that People, was a Hearer of their common Service and their Teachers, allowing and commanding his Disciples to hear them, communicated in the Passover with the People and the Priests: No more did his Apostles make Separation from this Church after his Ascensi∣on, till their day had its Period, &c. By their Ex∣ample it appears, that till God hath forsaken a Church, no Man may forsake it, &c.

So that we conclude from hence with Mr. Hildersham: Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation, though they have many Corruptions re∣maining in them, are to be acknowledged as true Churches of God, and such as none of the Faithful may make Separation from. We shall need no fur∣ther proof of this Doctrine than the Example of our Saviour himself, &c.

For, why should our Saviour use it if it was unlawful? Or why should it be a Sin to us, who have not such Eyes to pierce into the Impiety of Mans Traditions as he had, as Mr. Bradshaw argues.

The same Measures were observed also by the Apo∣stles after the Establishment of the Christian Church: This is not to be gainsaid, and is therefore granted by one, in other things rigid more than enough;

I do not say that every Corruption in a true Church, is sufficient Ground of Separation from it: The

Unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision, and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law, were not sufficient Ground of Separation from them; for the Apostles held Communion with them notwith∣standing these Corruptions.

Now by Parity of Rea∣son it will follow, that if Separation was not to be al∣lowed from those corrupted Churches, then surely not from such as are not so corrupted as they; So Mr. Caw∣drey pleads, Corinth had (we suppose) greater Disor∣ders in it than are to be found (blessed be God) in ma∣ny of our Congregations; why then do they fly and se∣parate from us? And if our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from such Churches, much less should we, who may without doubt safely follow the Advice given by an Author above quoted; When you are at a stand, think how Christ would have carried, what he would have done in the like case with yours, and we may thereby be concluded.

Thirdly; They further argue, That Christ doth [Arg. 3] still hold Communion with defective Churches, and not reject the Worship for tolerable Corruptions in it, and so neither ought we.

It is supposed by Dr. Owen, That there is no such Society of Christi∣ans in the World, whose Assemblies, as to instituted Worship, are so rejected by Christ, as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them, until they are utterly, as it were, extirpate by the Providence of God, &c. For we do judg, that where ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon, there is Salvation to be ob∣tained; however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own Sins and Errors.

And if this may be said of Churches, though fundamen∣tally erroneous in Worship, then, Who shall dare, as

another saith, to judg when Christ hath forsaken a Peo∣ple, who still profess his Name, and keep up his Worship for substance according to his Word, though they do, or are supposed to fail in circumstances, or lesser parts of Duty? Now, this granted, the other will follow, that then we are not to separate from such Churches. Thus Mr. Hildersham concluded of old from the Practice of Christ, and observes:

1. So long as God conti∣nueth his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People, so long it is evident that God dwells among them, and hath not forsaken them, &c. And till God hath forsaken a Church, no Man may forsake it. 2. No Separation may be made from those Assemblies, where Men may be assured to find and attain Salvation: But Men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies, where the Mi∣nistry of his Word, and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained.

So Mr. Vines, The Argument, saith he, of Mr. Brightman, is considerable, If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances, Grace and Spirit, it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother, while his Father owns her for his Wife.

I might heap up Authorities of this kind, but shall content my self with a considerable one from † Mr. Cotton, who reasons after this manner: The Practice of the Brownists is blame-worthy, because they separate where Christ keeps Fellowship, Rev. 1. 18. And that he walks with us we argue, because he is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life, and edifies many Souls thereby, and therefore surely Christ hath Fellowship with us; and shall Man be more pure than his Maker? where Christ vouchsafes Fellowship, shall Man renounce it?

Upon this are grounded the wholesome Exhorta∣tions of many eminent Non-conformists, as that of

Mr. Calamy: You must hold Communion with all those Churches with which Christ holds Communion; you must separate from the Sins of Christians, but not from the Ordinances of Christ. Of Mr. R. Allein: Excommunicate not them from you, excommu∣nicate not your selves from them with whom Christ holds Communion. Judg not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way.

Methinks, saith another, in his Farewel Sermon, where a Church, as to the main, keeps the Form of sound Words, and the Substantials of that Worship which is Christ's, some adjudged De∣fects in Order cannot justify Separation. I dare not dismember my self from that Church that holds the Head. I think, whilst Doctrine is for the main sound, Christ stays with a Church, and it is good staying where he stays: I would follow him, and not lead him, or go before the Lamb.

To such we find a se∣vere Rebuke given very lately by one of themselves: Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World, but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ, and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him.

Fourthly; They argue, That to separate for such [Arg. 4] Defects and Corruptions, would destroy all Commu∣nion. If this should be, saith Mr. Bradshaw, then no Man can present himself with a good Conscience, at any publick Worship of God wheresoever; because (except it should be stinted and prescribed) he can have no Assu∣rance, but that some Errors in Matter and Form will be committed.

So Mr. Ball: One Man is of Opinion, that a prescribed Form is better than another; ano∣ther, that a prescribed Form is unlawful, &c. In these Cases, if the least E••ror do stain the Prayers to

others, that they may not lawfully joyn together, with whom shall the Faithful joyn at all? Is not this to fill the Conscience with Scruples, and the Church with Rents? Such as these must, if they will be true to their own Principles, renounce Communion with all the World, and be like those that Mr. Baxter tells us he knows, That never communicate with any Church, nor ever publickly hear, or pray, or worship God at all, because they think all your ways [which he directs to Mr. Bag∣shaw, and other Non-conformists] of Worship to be bad.

With this there can be no continuance in any Communion: so much Mr. Burroughs doth maintain:

There would be no continuance in Church-Fellow∣ship if this [a Separation from a Church for Cor∣ruptions in it] were admitted; for what Church is so pure, and hath all things so comfortable, but within a while another Church will be more pure, and some things will be more comfortable there? Upon the mischievous Consequences of this did Mr. R. Allein ground his last Advice to his Parishioners: De∣stroy not, saith he, all Communion by seeking after a purer Church, than in this imperfect State we shall ever attain. According to this Principle [no Communion at all, if not in all] where shall we rest? In all Society something will offend.

With this, lastly, there can be no Order, Union, or Peace in the Church: So Mr. Baines, a Person of great Experience: This [seeking the Peace of Sion] reproveth such as make a Secession or Departure from the Church of God, our visible Assemblies, either upon dislike of some Disorders in Administration Ecclesiastical, or dis∣allowed Forms, and manner of procuring things which the Communion of Saints for full Complement and Perfection requireth. This is not, in my conceit, so much to reform as to deform, to massacre the Body, and

divide the Head, &c. and will end in the Dissolution of all Church-Communion (if it be followed) as is notoriously evident in the case of Mr. R. Williams of New-England, that for the sake of greater Purity separated so long, that he owned no Church nor Or∣dinances of God in the World; and at his motion, the People that were in Communion with him dissol∣ved themselves, as we have the account from thence.

This therefore is one of the Doctrines we are to a∣void, according to the prudent Advice in a Book above-cited: Doctrines crying up Purity to the Ruine of Unity, reject; for the Gospel calls for Unity as well as Purity.

Fifthly; They argue, That to separate upon such [Arg. 5] an account, is not at all warranted in Scripture.

Thus Mr. Cawdrey: It is no Duty of Christ's imposing, no Priviledg of his purchasing, either to deprive a Mans self of his Ordinances for other Mens Sins, or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church, as no Church rightly constituted, for want of some Reformation in lighter Matters.

Saith Mr. Blake, We read not of Separation in his way [for the sake of Abuses and Corruptions] approved, nor any Presidents to go before us in it; we read a heavy Brand laid upon it, Jude 19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, not having the Spirit.

So the Congregations in New-England declare: The Faithful in the Church of Corinth, wherein were many unworthy Persons and Practices, are never commanded to absent themselves from the Sacrament because of the same; therefore the Godly in like Cases are not presently to separate.

It should rather have been inferr'd, are not to sepa∣rate, for so much must be concluded from the Pre∣mises, if any thing at all. This is accordingly in∣fer'd by Mr. Noyes: For Brethren to separate from

Churches and Church-Ordinances, which are not funda∣mentally defective, neither in Doctrine or Manners, in Heresy or Prophaneness, is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice both of Christ and his Apostles.

Unto whom I shall add the Testimony of Mr. Tombs: Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in Worship or Conversation, &c. is utterly disso∣nant from any of the Rules or Examples, which ei∣ther of old the Prophets, or holy Men, or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed, is for the most part the Fault of Pride or bitter Zeal, and tends to Strife and Confusion, and every evil Work.

Sixthly; They argue, That there is no necessity [Arg. 6] for Separation for the sake of such Corruptions, be∣cause a Person may communicate in the Worship with∣out partaking in those Corruptions. It was the Opi∣nion of the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy-Con∣ference, that not only the hearing, but the reading a defective Liturgy was lawful to him, that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none. And if there was a Possibility of thus separating the substance from the circumstantial Defects in the Ministerial Use of such Worship, much more may this be supposed to to be done by those that only attend upon it, and are not obliged by any Act of their own to give an explicite Consent to all and every thing used in it. 1. This Separation of the good from the bad in Di∣vine Worship they grant possible. So Mr. Ball; If some things human be mixed with divine, a sound Chri∣stian must separate the one from the other, and not cast away what is of God, as a nullity, fruitless, unprofitable, defiled, because somewhat of Men is annexed unto them. In the Body we can distinguish betwixt the Substance, and the Sickness which cleaveth unto it; betwixt the Substance of a Part or Member, and some Bunch or Swel∣ling,

which is a Deformity, but destroyeth not the Na∣ture of that Part or Member, &c. So Mr. Calamy: It's one thing to keep our selves pure from Pollution; another, to gather Churches out of Churches. 2. They grant, that what is faulty and a Sin in Worship, is no Sin to us, when we do not consent to it. So Mr. Corbet: My partaking in any Divine Worship, which is holy and good for the Matter, and allowable or passable in the mode for the main, doth not involve me in the blame of some sinful Defects therein, to which I consent not, and which I cannot redress. So another, in his Fare∣wel Sermon: While all necessary fundamental Truth is publickly professed and maintained in a Church, is taught and held forth in publick Assemblies, and the Corruptions there (though great, yet) are not such as make the Worship cease to be God's Worship, nor of necessity to be swallowed down, if one would communicate in that Worship, while any Christian (that is watchful over his own Heart and Carri∣age, as all ought ever to be) may partake in the one, without being active in, or approving the other; there God is yet pre∣sent, there he may be spiritually worshipped, served accepta∣bly, and really enjoyed. 3. They grant, that the being present at Divine Worship is no consent to the Cor∣ruptions in it.

Thus Mr. Robinson: He that partakes with the Church in the upholding any Evil, hath his part in the Evil also. But I deny, as a most vain Ima∣gination, that every one that partakes with a Church in things lawful, joyns with it in upholding the things unlawful to be found in it. Christ our Lord joyned with the Jewish Church in things lawful, and yet upheld nothing unlawful in it.

So Mr. Nye: Approbation is an act of the Mind, it is not shewed until it be expressed outwardly by my Words and Gestures. This Mr. Baxter undertakes to prove by several Ar∣guments, as that no Man can in Reason and Justice

take that for my Profession, which I never made by Word or Deed. That the Profession made by Church-Communion is totally distinct from this. That this Opinion would make it unlawful to joyn with any Pastor, or Church on Earth, since every one mixeth Sin with their Prayers. 4. They say, that Corruptions, though foreknown, do not yet make those that are present guilty of them.

Thus the old Non-conformists declare: It is all one to the Peo∣ple, whether the Fault be personal (as some distin∣guish) or otherwise, known before-hand, or not known. For if simple Presence defile, whether it was known before-hand or not, all Presence is faulty. And if simple Presence defile not, our Presence is not condemned, by reason of the Corruptions known, whereof we stand not guilty. If the Error be such as may be tolerated, and I am called to be present, by such Fault I am not defiled, though known before.

Mr. Baxter replies to those of a contrary Opinion after this manner: Take heed that thus [by affirming that fore-knowing Faults in Worship makes them ours] you make not God the greatest Sinner, and the worst Being in all the World. For God fore-knoweth all Mens Sins, and is present when they commit them; and he hath Communion with all the Prayers of the Faithful in the World: what Faults soever be in the Words or Forms, he doth not reject them for any such Failings. Will you say therefore that God approveth or consent∣eth to all these Sins? I know before-hand, that every Man will sin that prayeth (by defect of De∣sire, &c.) But how doth all this make it mine?

&c.

And he otherwhere adds: It is another Man's Fault or Error that you fore-know, and not your own.

5. It's granted, that the Fault of another in

the Ministration of Divine Worship is none of ours, nor a sufficient Reason to absent from it, or to de∣prive our selves of it.

Thus Mr. Baxter: The wording of the publick Prayers is the Pastors Work, and none of mine, &c. And why should any hold me guilty of another Mans Fault, which I neither can help, nor belongeth to any Office of mine to help, any farther than to admonish him.

And that the Faults of him that ministers, are no sufficient Rea∣sons to debar our selves of Communion in the Wor∣ship, Mr. Nye affirms, and proves by this Argument: If I may not omit a Duty in respect to the Evil mixed with it, which is my own; much less may I thus leave an Ordinance for the Evil that is another Mans, no way mine, or to be charged upon me; this were to make another Mans Sins or Infirmities more mine than my own.

Thus is the Case resolved with respect to the Cross in Baptism: I may not only, saith one, do that which I judg to be inconvenient, but suffer another to do that which I judg to be un∣lawful, rather than be deprived of a necessary Or∣dinance: e. g. If either I must have my Child bap∣tized with the sign of the Cross, or not baptized at all; I must suffer it to be done in that way, though I judg it an unlawful Addition, because the manner concerns him that doth it, not me (at least not so much) so long as there is all the Essence. He must be responsible for every Irregularity, not I.

Thus Jacob took Laban's Oath, though by his Idols, &c. After the same manner doth Mr. Baxter resol•••• the Case in his Christian Directory, pag. 49.

Seventhly; They grant, That it is a Duty to joyn [Arg. 7] with a defective and faulty Worship, where we can have no better.

Thus the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy: An inconvenient mode of Worship is a

Sin in the Imposer, and in the Chuser and volunta∣ry User, that may offer God better and will not: And yet it may not only be lawful, but a Duty to him, that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none.

This is acknowledged by an Au∣thor that is far from being favourable to Communion with the Church: If the Word of God could be no where heard, or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed, but only in such Churches that were so corrupt, as yours is conceived to be; it might be lawful, yea, and a Duty to joyn with you, so far as possibly Christians could without Sin. Accordingly Mr. Baxter declares, That it is a Duty to hold Communion constantly with any of the Parish Churches amongst us, that have honest competent Pastors, when we can have no better; and professeth for his own part: Were I, saith he, in Arme∣nia, Abassia, or among the Greeks, I would joyn in a much more defective Form than our Liturgy, rather than none. And he adds, That this is the Judgment of ma∣ny New-England Ministers (to joyn with the English Liturgy, rather than have no Church-Worship) I have reason to conjecture from the Defence of the Synod, &c. Now in what Cases this is to be presumed, that we can have no better; he shews, 1. When it is so by a necessity arising from Divine Providence. 2. A necessity proceeding from humane Laws which forbid it. 3. A necessity from the Injury done to the Publick. And 4. When it is to our own greater hinderance than help, as when we must use none, or do worse. In these and the like Cases it becomes a Duty, and what is otherwise lawful, is thereby made necessary. And he that cannot joyn with a purer Worship, than what is publickly established, without the breach of Humane Laws, or the disturbance of the Publick Peace, or dividing the Church of God, or the bringing Dan∣ger

upon himself, is as much, where any of these or the like Reasons are, restrained from so doing, as if it did proceed from natural or providential Necessity; that is, the one he cannot do physically and naturally, the other he cannot do morally, honestly, and pru∣dently. Having thus far stated the Case, and shew'd that it's universally owned by those that dissent from the Church of England, that Communion in a Wor∣ship not essentially defective and corrupted is lawful; and that it's a received Opinion, that where better is not to be had, it's a Duty; and that better is not to had, where it is not to be had lawfully. I might freely pass on, but because there is a common Objection against what has been said, taken from Malac. 1. 14. Cursed be the Deceiver, &c. that voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing: I shall briefly return their Answer to it, and proceed. To this the old Non-conformists reply: 1.

No Argument can be brought from this place to the purpose, but by Ana∣logy, which is a kind of arguing of all other most ready at hand, but liable to most Exceptions, and apt to draw aside, if Care be not had (which in this Case we find not) to take the Proportion in every material Point just and true. 2. The cor∣rupt Sacrifice is that which the Deceiver bringeth voluntarily, and out of neglect, having a Male in his Flock; but the Faithful bringeth himself, and his goodly Desires, according to the Will of God; and as for Corruptions whether respecting Matter or Form, they are none of his, they cleave not to his Sacrifice, to stain or pollute it, &c.

3. He offers not a corrupt thing, who offers the best he hath 4. It is to be considered, saith Mr. Ball, that what is simply best, is not best in Relation to this or that Cir∣cumstance or End; what is best in a time free, is not best

in a time not free. It is granted, saith Mr. Baxter, that we must offer God the best that we can do, but not the best which we cannot do. And many things must concur (and especially a respect to the Publick Good) to know which is the best. So that before this Text can be opposed to what has been said, it must be proved; 1. That the things in question are Corruptions, as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law. 2. That they are such as a Person doth chuse, and it is in his Power to help, and offers it when he hath a Male in his Flock. 3. That such a Corrupti∣on as affects not the substance of Worship, doth yet alter the Nature of it, and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing, and abominable to God. If these things are not, the Objection reacheth not the Case, and there is no ground from that place for this Ob∣jection.

I shall conclude this Head with a remarkable Say∣ing of the Ministers of New-England: To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceived, or indeed in the Church, which might and should be tolerated and healed with a Spirit of Meekness, and of which the Church is not yet convinced, though perhaps himself be; for this or the like Reasons, to withdraw from Publick Com∣munion in Word, Seals, or Censures, is unlawful and sinful.

But supposing it may be unlawful to separate from a Church for a defective and faulty Worship; yet it may be supposed, that it may be lawful when it is for better Edification, and that we may chuse what is for our Edification before what is not, and what is more for our Edification before what is less. For the Decision of which Case I shall shew from them,

P. 2. That as Defects and Faults in Worship, so nei∣ther is the pretence of better Edification a sufficient

Reason against Communion with a Church. Some∣times they say it is no better than a meer Pretence and Imaginary, a seeming Contentment of Mind, as one calls it. This Mr. Hildersham takes notice of: Some prefer others before their own Pastor, only because they shew more Zeal in their Voice and Gesture, and Phrase of Speech, and Manner of Delivery, though haply the Doctrine it self be nothing so wholesome or powerful, or fit to edifie their Consciences, as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is; of such he saith, we may wish them more Knowledg and Judgment.

Mr. Baxter observes the same; One thinks that this is the best way, and ano∣ther, that the other is best—And commonly ap∣pearance, and a taking Tone and Voice, do more with them than solid Evidence of Truth.

There∣fore it's fit to have a right Notion of Edification, which, saith a Reverend Person of late, lies more in the informing of our Judgments, and confirming our Re∣solutions, than in the Gusts and Relishes of Affection. These, as he saith, are indeed of great use to the other, but without them are far from making a Person bet∣ter, and leaving him truly edified. Again, it may be, and 'tis no better than a meer Pretence, when the Fault is in themselves that complain they do not e∣dify.

Mr. Hildersham charges it upon such: Thou mightest receive Profit (if the Fault be not in thy self) by the meanest of us that preach.

And he thus freely again declares himself: I am perswaded, there is never a Minister that is of the most excel∣lent Gifts (if he have a godly Heart) but he can truly say, he never heard any faithful Minister in his Life, that was so mean, but he could discern some Gift in him that was wanting in himself, and could receive some Profit by him.

And therefore they ad∣vise to cure the Fault before they make use of this

Plea.

So the pious Person above-said argues: How shouldest thou profit by his Ministry, if thou come with Prejudice, without any Reverence or Delight unto it, nor dost scarce acknowledg God's Ordi∣nance in it?

So Mr. Jenkin directs: Labour for experimental Benefit by the Ordinances. Men se∣parate to those Churches which they account better, because they never found those where they were before (to them) good—. Find the setting up Christ in your Hearts by the Ministry, and then you dare to account it Antichristian.

Thus one (in a Farewel Sermon, speaking of supposed Defects in a Church) doth advise his Auditors: Enlarge your Care and Pains in your Preparations; a right Stomach makes good Nourishment of an indifferent Meal; you may be warm (though in a colder Air and Room than you have formerly been) if you will put on more Cloaths before you come: Watch your Hearts more narrowly, and speak things to your Hearts more than you have done. Ecclesiast. 10. 10. If the Iron be blunt, then must he put to more Strength.

But supposing it be really for Edification, yet this they declare is no sufficient reason for Separation.

So Mr. Burroughs: If you be joyned to a Pastor, so as you believe he is set over you by Christ, to be a Pastor to you, though this Man hath meaner Gifts than others, and it would be more comfortable for you to have another Pastor; yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you.

And so the Ministers in New-England deliver their Minds: To separate from a Church for greater Enlargements, with just Grief to the Church, is unlawful and sinful. So when this Question was put, Are they not at all times obliged to use the Means which are most edifying? It's answered by the aforesaid Author,

They may say at all times, when they have nothing to out∣weigh their own Edification. So that Edification may be outweighed, and then it can be no standing and sufficient Reason.

So Mr. Burroughs declares in this case: Men must consider not only what the thing is in its own Nature, but what it is to them, how it stands in reference to their Relations—. It is not enough to say, the thing is in it self better; but is it better in all the References I have, and it hath? Is it better in regard of others, in regard of the Pub∣lick, for the helping me in all my Relations? may it not help one way, and hinder many ways? Of the same Opinion is Mr. Baxter: Many things, saith he, must concur (and especially a respect to the publick Good) to know which is the best.

So that Edification is not to be adjudged of alone, our own Improvement is not to determine us in our Actions, and especially not with respect to Church-Communion, for then other Reasons do give Law to it, and over-rule it. Thus we see, those that dissent from the Church in other things, agree with her in this: And they give several Reasons and Arguments for it.

First; If we were sure we could not profit, yet we must [Arg. 1] come to do Homage to God, and shew Reverence to his Ordinance. This is Mr. Hildersham's Opinion.

Secondly; The leaving a Church for better Edifica∣tion, [Arg. 2] is built upon a false and dangerous Principle, which is, that we must always chuse the best. So Mr. Burroughs: To hold what is in it self best, must be cho∣sen and done, not weighing Circumstances or References, is a dividing Principle. And afterwards, he saith, A Christian without comparing one thing with another, will hack and hew, and disturb himself, and others in the ways of Religion. I belive some of you have known those who, whatsoever they have conceived to be better

than other, they have presently followed with all Eagerness, never considering Circumstances, References or Conse∣quences, but the thing is good, it must be done; yet being wearied with this, they have after grown loose, in as great an excess the other way.

Thirdly; This Principle of better Edification, if fol∣lowed, [Arg. 3] would bring in Confusion. So Mr. Hilder∣sham: This factious Disposition of the Hearers of God's Word, hath in all Ages been the cause of much Confusion in the Church of God, and greatly hindred the Fruit of the Gospel of Christ.

This, saith Mr. Brinsly, the moderate Author of the late Irenicum [Mr. Bur∣roughs] will by no means allow, but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of Disorder and Confusion into the Church; and I think none who are judicious, but will therein subscribe to him.

It will not be amiss to transcribe his own Words: It is in it self a better thing to enjoy a Ministry of the most eminent Gifts and Graces, than one of lower; but if this should be made a Rule, that a Man who is under a Pastor who is faithful, and in some good measure gifted, upon another Mans coming into the Country that is more eminent, he should forsake his Pastor, and joyn to the other; and if after this, still a more eminent Man comes, he should leave the former, and joyn to him; and by the same Law a Pastor who hath a good People, yet if others be more likely to receive more good, he may leave his own People and go to them, what Confusion and Disorder would there be continually in the Church? This is con∣demned also by the New-England Ministers.

This Mr. Cawdrey doth expose: If a Man may lawfully separate from a true Church, &c. only with a good mind to serve God in Church-Institutions, true, or conceited by his own Light, all the Sectaries and Se∣paratists, Donatists, Brownists in the World may be

justified.

This, saith another (speaking of hearing for this Reason) is a Church-destroying Principle; sure if one Member be not fixed, then not another, nor ano∣ther, &c. and then not the Pastor, nor Teacher, and so farewel Churches.

Fourthly; This will be endless. So Mr. Burroughs: [Arg. 4] Men must not separate from a Church, though there be Corruptions in it, to gather into a new Church which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable. First, Because we never find the Saints in Scripture separating or raising Churches in such a Case. And Secondly, There would be no con∣tinuance in Church-Fellowship, if this were admitted; for what Church is so pure, and hath all things so comfortable, but within a while another Church will be more pure, and some things will be more comfortable there?

And he concludes with this prudent Maxim: The general Peace of the Church should be more regarded, than some comfortable Accommodations to our selves. So Mr. Baxter: What if twenty Ministers be one abler than another in their several degrees, doth it follow that only the ablest of all these may be joyned with, because that all the rest do worse? And yet this must be, if Edification be always to be consulted, and is to de∣termine us in our choice of Ministers, Churches, and Ordinances.

Fifthly; They say, Edification doth not depend [Arg. 5] so much upon the external Administration of Wor∣ship, as God's Blessing; and that we are not to break the Order, Peace, and Union of the Church for the sake of it.

The former is asserted by Mr. Hildersham: It's our Sin and Shame, and is just cause of hum∣bling to us, if we cannot profit by the meanest Mi∣nister God hath sent. The Power of the Ministry

dependeth not on the Excellency of the Teacher's Gift, but God's Blessing.

The latter is maintained by Mr. Vines: It's said, Order in an Army kills no Body, yet without it the Army is but a Rout, nei∣ther able to offend or defend: So haply Order in the Church, converts no Body, yet without it I see not how the Church can attain her End, or preserve themselves in begetting or breeding up Souls to God.

Therefore is the Advice of Mr. Baxter; Do not think to prosper by breaking over the Hedg, under the pretence of any right of Holiness [so of Edifi∣cation] whatsoever, following any Party that would draw you to Separation.

The Mischief of which is represented by Dr. Tuckney: Experience, saith he, hath taught us, that the Church of God hath been poorly edified by those who have daubed up their Babel with untempered Mortar, &c. when the Church is rent by Schisms and Factions, and one Congregation is turned into many Conventicles, false∣ly now called Churches, this doth diminish, weaken, and ruine.

Lastly; When they do grant that Edification may serve to guide us, and that we may hear where we can most profit, it's with such Limitations and Cauti∣ons as these: it must be seldom, in a great Case, with∣out Offence and Contempt.

Thus Mr. Hildersham: I dare not condemn such Christians, as, having Pa∣stors in the places where they live of meaner Gifts, do desire (so they do it without open breach or contempt of the Churches Order) to enjoy the Mi∣nistry of such as have better Gifts, &c. so they do it without contempt of their own Pastors, and with∣out Scandal and Offence to them and their People.

So again: You ought not to leave your own Pastor at any time with contempt of his Ministry, as when you say or

think, alas! he is no body; a good honest Man, but he hath no Gifts, I cannot profit by him. And as if he could not be too cautious in the case, he lays down this as the Character of one that doth this innocently: He only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent Gifts, than his own Pastor's, and learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better, and to pro∣fit more by him. That this is to be but seldom, we have the concurrent Testimony of the Provincial Assembly of London, who upon this Question, Would you have a Man keep constantly to the Minister under whom he lives? do answer, We are not so rigid as to tye up People from hearing other Ministers occasionally, even upon the Lord's-Day.

But yet we believe 'tis most agree∣able to Gospel-Order, upon the Grounds forementioned. Thus it is resolved also by one of a more rigid way, who puts this Question: Whether Members of particular Churches may hear indifferently elsewhere? and returns this Answer: God will have Mercy and not Sacri∣fice, as distance of Habitation, handing such a point. But most certainly Members of Churches ought most∣ly to be with their own Churches—.The imagined Content in hearing others, is rather a Temptation than Motion of the Spirit.

From all which we may conclude, that the pre∣tence of better Edification is no sufficient Reason for Separation from a Church, Worship, or Ministry, without there be other Reasons that do accompa∣ny it: and then it is not for this Reason, so much as those it is in conjunction with.

But admitting this, yet it will hardly be granted to be a reason for Separation from the Church of England, if the Testimony of many worthy Persons be of any Consideration.

Thus Mr. Hildersham de∣clares, when he is reproving such as make no Consci∣ence

to come to the beginning of God's Publick Wor∣ship, and to stay to the end of it; he thus proceeds: Because I see many of them that have most Know∣ledg, and are forwardest Professors, offend in this way, I will manifest the Sin of these Men. 1. They sin against themselves in the Profit they might receive by the Worship of God—. There is no part of God's Service, (not the Confession, not the Prayers, not the Psalms, not the Blessing) but it concerns every one, and every one may receive Edification by it.

This he otherwhere repeats, and saith; By the Con∣fession, and all other Prayers used in the Congre∣gation, a Man may receive more Profit than by ma∣ny other.

Of this Opinion, as to the most of the Prayers in our Liturgy, were the old Non-confor∣mists: We are perswaded, that not only some few select Prayers, but many Prayers and other Exhor∣tations may lawfully be used, with Fruit and Edifi∣cation to God's People.

As for the Word preach'd amongst us, Nr. Nye saith,

That there is a Sum of doctrinal Truths, which in the Enlargement and Application, are sufficient both for Conversion and Edification, to which the Preachers are to assent.

And, That the Word of God interpreted and applied by preaching in this way, is a choice Mercy and Gift, wherewith God hath blessed this Nation for many Years, to the Con∣version and Edification of many thousands.

And he afterwards ascribes the want of Edification to the prejudices of People; Such reasonings, saith he, against hearing, though they convince not the Ʋnlawfulness of it, yet they leave such Prejudices in the Minds of them which are tender, as perplex, and render hearing less pro∣fitable and edifying, even to those that are perswaded of its Lawfulness.

This Mr. Tombs declares himself freely

in; If we look to experience of former Times, there is now ground to expect a Blessing from con∣forming Preachers, as well, or rather more, than from Preachers of the separated Churches. Sure the conversion, consolation, strengthening, establish∣ing of Souls in the Truth, has been more in Eng∣land from Preachers, who were Enemies to Sepa∣ration, whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies, or Conformists, Presbyterial or Episcopal, even from Bishops themselves, than from the best of the Sepa∣ratists. I think all that are acquainted with the Hi∣story of things in the last Age, will acknowledg that more good hath been done to the Souls of Men, by the Preaching of Ʋsher, Potter, Abbot, Jewel, and some other Bishops; by Preston, Sibbs, Taylor, Whate∣ly, Hildersham, Ball, Perkins, Dod, Stock, and many thousands, Adversaries to the separated Churches, than ever was done by Ainsworth, Johnson, Robin∣son, rigid Separatists, or Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and others (though Men of precious Memory) Pro∣moters of the way of the Churches Congregational. And therefore if the Bishops and Conforming Prea∣chers now apply themselves (as we hope, when the heat of Contention is more allayed, they will) to the profitable way of preaching against Popery and Prophaneness, exciting their Auditors to the Life of Faith in Christ, &c. there may be as good Ground, if not better (considering how much the Spirits of Separatists are for their Party, and the speaking of the Truth in Love, and edifying in Love, is necessary to the growth of the Body; Ephes. 4. 16.) to expect by them a Blessing in promoting the Power of God∣liness, than from the Separatists.

So that whether we consider the Worship or Doctrine, or the preach∣ing of it, the Church of England in their Apprehen∣sion

doth not want a sufficiency of Means for the Conversion and Edification of Souls: And conse∣quently the Argument taken from Edification, in justification of forsaking the Communion of it, is inclusive and of no force. But this branch of it will be further confirmed under the third General.

But however, this will not be so easily quitted, for supposing the Doctrine good, and those that teach it capable (as far as Learning and Parts are requi∣site) to improve it to the Conversion and Edification of others; yet if they themselves are loose and scan∣dalous, it may give just Offence, and be thought a sufficient cause to separate from the Worship in which such do officiate.

P. 3. Therefore I shall shew, that the badness of the Ministers is of it self no sufficient Reason to for∣sake the Communion of a Church, or to separate from the Worship administred in it.

What holy Mr. Ro∣gers saith, is a great Truth: It is not to be denied, but that the Example of ignorant and unreformed, especially notorious Persons in the Ministry, hath done and doth much harm; and if either they can∣not be convicted, or if their Crimes be such as can∣not remove them out of their places, there is just cause of Grief, that such should have any thing to do in God's Matters, which are so weighty, and to be dealt withal in high Reverence.

But yet before the Objection is admitted, it is to be premised, 1. That if there be such in the Church, it doth not proceed from their Conformity to it. For good and pious Men of this sort always were, and still are in the Church.

What there were formerly, may be read in Mr. Baxter, who thus delivers him∣self: When I think what learned, holy, incompara∣ble Men, abundance of the old Conformists were, my

Heart riseth against the thoughts of separating from them; such as Mr. Bolton, Mr. Whately, Mr. Fen∣ner, &c. and abundance other such; yea, such as Bishop Jewel, Bishop Grindal, Bishop Hall, &c. yea, and the Martyrs too, as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper him∣self, &c.

What there are now in the Church, he also tells us; I believe there are many hundred godly Mi∣nisters in the Parish-Churches of England. And of his own knowledg, saith,

I profess to know those of them, whom I take to be much better than my self; I will say a greater word, that I know those of them whom I think as godly and humble Ministers, as most of the Non-Conformists whom I know.

So saith Dr. Bryan, In some Countries, I am sure there are many Sober, Godly, Orthodox, able Preachers yet in possession of the publick Places.

2. It is to be premised, that this Argument, if of any, yet is of no farther force than against the Con∣gregations where such are, and so is of none against the Church it self, where are good as well as bad, nor against Parochial Communion where such are not. So Mr. Baxter argues; I doubt not but there are many hundred Parish Ministers, who preach holily, and live holily, though I could wish that they were more. And what reason have you to charge any other Mens Sins on them, &c. or to think it unlawful to join with the Good for the sake of the Bad? this is to condemn the Sound for the sake of the Infected.

Having premised this, we shall re-assume the Case, and consider how it is stated and resolved by them.

1. It's granted, that it is not unlawful to join with bad Ministers in some Cases where they may have bet∣ter.

So Mr. Rogers; As it is far from me to be a Patron of such, or to justify them; so yet, while we may enjoy the Ministry of better, I would not

refuse to be partaker of the Prayers which are of∣fered by them.

2. It's granted, that it's lawful, and a duty to hear and join with such where a better cannot be had. That it is lawful, so Mr. Rogers; Who can blame him, who desireth to pray with better than they be? And yet better to join with them sometimes, than to leave the publick Assemblies altogether.

So Mr. Baxter; No People should chuse and prefer an ungodly Mini∣ster before a better; but they should rather submit to such than have none, when a better by them cannot be had.

That it's a Duty, so the old Non-Conformists; The Scripture teacheth evidently, that the People must and ought to join with them [un∣worthy Ministers] in the Worship of God, and in se∣parating from the Ordinance they shall sin against God. For the Worship is of God, and the Mini∣stry is of God; the Person unworthily executing his place, is neither set up by some few private Chri∣stians, nor can by them be removed: And warrant to withdraw themselves from the Worship of God, because such as ought not, are suffered to intermed∣dle with Holy Things, they have none from God.

So Mr. Ball; To communicate with Ministers no bet∣ter than Pharisees in the true Worship of God, is to worship God aright, to reverence his Ordinances, to rely upon his Grace, to hearken unto his Voice, and submit unto his good pleasure.

This they main∣tain by several Arguments. As,

First, Such were always in the Church, and Com∣munion [Arg. 1] must never have been held with the Church, if no Communion was to be where such were.

So the old Non-Conformists argue; If the Minister make it unlawful, then all Communion in any part of God's Worship with such Ministers, is unlawful, and

so the Church in all Ages of the World, the Pro∣phets, our Saviour Christ, the Apostles, and the Faithful in the Primitive Churches, sinned, in holding Communion with such, when the Priests were dumb Dogs that could not bark, and greedy Dogs that could never have enough; when the Prophets pro∣phesied Lyes, when the Priests bought and sold Doves in the Temple, &c. when they were such, and did such things, they were ungodly Ministers; but we never find that the Prophets, our Saviour, and the Apostles, did either forbear themselves, or warn the Faithful not to communicate with such in the Ordinance of Worship.

So much Mr. Nye doth grant; More cannot be objected against our Mini∣sters that Conform, than might against the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's Time; either in respect of their Doctrine, which was loaden with Traditions; their Standing, which was not according to Law; their Lives, which were vicious; yet Christ not only permits, but requires us to attend the Truths they deliver.

Secondly, They plead that our Saviour himself did [Arg. 2] Communicate where such did Officiate.

So Dr. Bryan; In some Countries, I am sure there are many Sober, Godly, Orthodox, able Preachers, &c. And if you know any Country where it is worse.

This is attested by another in his Farewel Sermon.

Our Sa∣viour Christ used to attend on the publick Worship in his Time, notwithstanding such Formalists and superstitious Ones, as the Scribes and Pharisees did Officiate in it.

Thirdly, They say, that the Sin of the Minister is [Arg. 3] not theirs, nor doth bring any detriment to them, though they Communicate with him.

So Mr. Bax∣ter;

A Minister's personal Faults may damn himself, and must be matter of Lamentation to the Church, who ought to do their best to reform them, or get better by any lawful means; but in case they can∣not, his Sin is none of theirs, nor doth it make his Administration null or ineffectual; nor will it allow you to separate from the Worship which he Admi∣nistreth.

So the Ministers sent to Oxford do as∣sert; Some evil Men may, and always have, de facto, been Officers and Ministers in the Church, &c. and the wickedness of such Men did not null or eva∣cuate their Ministerial Acts; for our Saviour would have the Scribes and Pharisees heard while they sate in Moses's Chair, &c.

And that the Ministrations in such a case are not invalid, and that the People suffer not by it, they further prove: 1. Because they offi∣ciate not in their own Name.

So the Old Non-Con∣formists; It hath ever-more been held for a Truth, in the Church of God, That although sometimes the Evil hath chief Authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own Name, but in Christ's, and minister by his Commission and Authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacraments; neither is the effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their wickedness.

2. The virtue of the Ordinance doth not depend up∣on their Goodness, but God's Promise.

So Mr. Ro∣gers saith of Prayer; If this burden [of bad Mini∣sters] must be born, I ask, If among many sweet Liberties we enjoy, we may not join in Prayer with them, if we can pray in Faith, seeing their unwor∣thiness cannot with-hold the Fruit of God's Pro∣mise from us, which is to one kind of Prayer as well as another? So saith Mr. Cradacot of the Word;

Take heed, saith he, of being leavened with preju∣dice against the Ministry of the Word, because of the misdemeanors or miscarriage of the Minister. It is the Word of the Lord which converts, not the Person of the Dispenser or Speaker. Hence it was that the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to be rejected, but to be esteemed, so long as they failed not of the Substance thereof, &c. I con∣ceive it's a rare thing for unconverted Ministers to convert; and yet we must remember not to tie the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments, to the good∣ness or badness of a Minister's Person.

So when it's objected; How can we expect a Blessing upon the La∣bours of such, though they preach truth? Mr. Nye replies, Answ. 1. The mixtures in Sermons are nearest, the irre∣gularities of their Calling next, the sins of their Conver∣sations furthest from their Doctrine, and therefore have less efficacy at such a distance to prejudice it. Answ. 2. It's God's Word, and not their own they preach, &c. 3. That if Persons themselves do believe and are sin∣cere, they are, notwithstanding such a Ministry, ac∣cepted. The Sacrifice of a faithful Elkanah, saith one, was pleasing to God, even when Hophni and Phineas were Priests. From all which we find some declaring, that notwithstanding this they would Communicate.

So a Learned Person; The Peoples Prejudices against the Liturgy, are grounded, for the most part, upon the wicked Lives of those that are the most constant readers and frequenters of it, [doubt∣less the Author, if he had considered this, would rather have said that they are grounded upon the wicked Lives of some of those that read and frequent it.]

I shall never upon that account cease to join in Prayers, and to hear Sermons.

Others, we find, exhorting their Auditors to attend even upon such.

So Mr. Fairclough in his Farewel-Sermons; Get all good from, shew all Duty to him that follows.—If he should be weak or evil, yet while he preacheth Truths, while he sits in Moses's Chair, hear him se∣riously, and carry your selves towards him as be∣comes a People to their Minister.

I have thus far considered the Case of scandalous Ministers, because many make it an Objection, as well those that are not concerned, as those that are. Otherwise it must be acknowledged, that England was never better provided with a Learned and Pious Ministry, than at present; who have as good Ʋnder∣standing, preach as good Doctrine, do as much good by their Preaching as any others, as a late Writer doth confess. But though many Congregations are well supplied with a Pious, Able, and Industrious Mini∣stry, yet there are few or none but what have some, more or less, amongst the Laity, that are (as it may be supposed) not fit to be received into Commu∣nion with a Church, or to be communicated with. This brings me to the next thing in Worship, which is,

P. 4. The Case of Mixed Communion. This is a Plea, saith Mr. Vines, that is plausible to easy Capacities, because it pretends to set up Holiness of Ordinances and People; but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim; Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical, and others, as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin, that it's the common Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismaticks, in defence of their separation from the Church; and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it, as Mr. Baxter doth advise. And as they do disclaim it, so they declare that those that separate upon this account, do it very unjustly (a); that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning,

but not of separation (b); that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate Sinners, and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church, though such be not cast out (c).

That the suffering of prophane and scan∣lous Livers to continue in the Church, and partake in the Sacrament, is doubtless a great Sin; yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it.

There is, saith Mr. Burroughs (d), an error on both sides; ei∣ther those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament, or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away, and yet they should be suffered to come, that they themselves may not come to partake of it.

This both the Presbyterians and Independents so far agree in; and for this their Opinion they urge several Arguments.

First, It's no where commanded, but is a vain [Arg. 1] pretending to Holiness above Rule and Example, saith Mr. Vines.

It's no Duty, as he elsewhere saith, be∣cause there is no Command; it's no Duty, and there∣fore we read not this word, come forth, in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches, against which Christ saith he hath such and such things. They that lived in the Impurer, are not called forth into the Purer, but there are Promises made to them that keep themselves pure, and Duties injoined them toward the impurer part. For we may not make every Disease the Plague. Shall the Sons of God, the Angels, forsake the Lord's Presence, be∣cause Satan came also amongst them? &c.

The Pro∣vincial Assembly of London doth affirm; In the Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament, as we believe few, if any of our Congrega∣tions can be charged withal: And yet the Apostle doth

not perswade the Godly Party to Separate, much less to gather a Church out of a Church.

From which Conside∣ration, Mr. Tombs concludes ; Sure it can be no sin in any Person to join in the True Worship and Service of God with any, if he have no command to withdraw himself from that Service because of their Presence, nor Power to exclude them, and yet is bound to the Duties there performed.

Nay, they do not only plead that it's not com∣manded, but that it's forbidden and unlawful. So Mr. Hooker; To separate from a Church, because of the Sin of some Worshippers, is unlawful.

So the New-Eng∣land Ministers do declare; As separation from a Church, wherein prophane and scandalous Livers are tolerated, is not presently necessary: So for the Members thereof, otherwise worthy, hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church, in the participation of the Sacraments, is unlawful.

Secondly, They plead, that the communicating in [Arg. 2] God's Service with open Sinners, whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to commu∣nicate with, is not sufficient to make such prophane, or to pollute to them the Holy Things of God: So the old Non-Conformists. So Mr. Vines; The pre∣sence of wicked Men at God's Ordinances, pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their Sin, nor yet to their presence there. This Mr. Burroughs disclaims; You are not defiled by the meer presence of wicked Men in the Sacrament, (for that is a meer deceit and gull, that some would put upon them that differ from them) but thus are you defiled, if you do not your Duty, and the uttermost you are able, to purge them out. But if this be done, according to the Power and Capacity Persons are in, it's universally granted that the In∣nocent shall not suffer for the Nocent.

So Mr.

Ball; The Precept of debarring scandalous Offen∣ders bindeth them to whom God hath given this Power, and them only so far as God hath put it in their Power. But God regularly doth not leave that Power in the hand of one single Steward, or some few private Christians.—And if the Steward, or one or few private Christians, cannot debar the unworthy from the Lord's Table, it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the Wicked, whom they desire to re∣form or expel, but cannot, because Power is not in their hand to do it lawfully.

This they confirm. 1. From the Examples of the Prophets and good Men, who of old joined with many that were notoriously stained with gross Sins; from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the publick Service of God; from the practice of Christians in Apostolical Times, all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon. This is also pleaded by those of New-England and others.

This would make all the Sins of the Congregation to be ours.

So Mr. Baxter; If you be wanting in your Duty to reform it, it is your Sin; but if bare presence made their Sin to be ours, it would also make all the Sins of the Assembly ours.

From all which it appears, that their sense is, that scandalous Members are no sufficient Reason for Sepa∣ration; for that must be, either because it's com∣manded in Scripture, or that those that do commu∣nicate with such, are in so doing corrupted also; but if neither of these be, then we may safely Com∣municate with such, or in a Church where such are, without Sin.

Thirdly, To separate upon this Ground, is to main∣tain [Arg. 3] a Principle destructive to the Communion of

the Church visible, which consists of good and bad.

This Mr. Cotton is peremptory in; It is utterly un∣true to say, that Christ admits not of any dead Plants to be set in his Vineyard, or that he takes not to himself a compounded Body of living and dead Members, or that the Church of God is not a mixed Company, &c.

From the ill Effects of which, Mr. Cartwright used to call this Separation, up∣on pretence of greater purity, the white Devil.

And because there are some Scriptures that seem to look this way, and are made use of by those that make mixed Communion an Argument for Separation; therefore they have taken off the force of them.

If a Brother be a Fornicator, &c. the Apostle ex∣horteth [Object. 1] not to eat with him.

To this they Answer;

That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion, it must be done by the Church, [Answ. 1] and not a private Person. But you are not commanded to separate from the Church, if they exclude him not; So Mr. Baxter, &c.

That it concerns not Religious, but Civil-Commu∣nion, [Answ. 2] and that not all Civil Society or Commerce, but Familiar also. For which they produce several Rea∣sons; 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread, which is a Token of Love and Friendship in phrase of Scripture; not to partake of, or to be shut from the Table, is a sign of Familiarity broken off. So Mr. Ball, &c. 2.

The eating which is here forbidden, is allowed to be with an Heathen: but it's the civil eating which is only allowed to be with an Heathen; therefore it's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother.

So Mr. Jenkin, &c. 3.

The eating here forbidden, is for the punishment of the Nocent, not of the Innocent.

To these there

are added others by the Old Non-Conformists.

As for other Objections, they are also undertaken by the same Hands, and to which Mr. Baxter's Answer is sufficient; If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel, you shall find that all the Separation which is command∣ed in such cases (besides our separation from the Infidels and Idolatrous World, or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies, and No-Churches) is but one of these two sorts; 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys.

Or, 2. That private Men a∣void all private Familiarity with them; but that the private Members should separate from the Church, because such Persons are not cast out of it; shew me one Text to prove it if you can? This, saith Mr. Vines, hath not a syllable of Scripture to allow or countenance it.

But supposing it be allowed, that we ought not to separate from a Church, where corrupt Members are tolerated or connived at under some present cir∣cumstances, (as for want of due proof, or through particular favour) yet it seems to be allowable where there is no Discipline exercised, or taken care of. For then we are without an Ordinance. To avoid this Objection, I shall consider,

2. The Case with respect to Discipline; and shall shew from them, 1. That the want of that, or de∣fects in it, are no sufficient reason for Separation. 2. What Discipline is exercised or taken care of in the Church of England.

The former of these they do own and prove.

First, As Discipline is not necessary to the being [Arg. 1] of a Church.

This was of old maintained by Mr. Cartwright, who thus argues; That Church-Assem∣blies are builded by Faith only, on Christ the Foun∣dation; the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remain∣ing

of that which is forbidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the Right and Title of so being the Church of Christ.—For though there be many things necessary for every Assembly, yet they be necessary to the comely and stable Being, and not simply to the Being of the Church.

And afterward he gives an Instance in the Dutch Assemblies, (or Lutheran Churches) which, he saith, are maintained in Discipline.

So Dr. T. Goodwin; Whereas now in some of the Parishes of this Kingdom, there are many Godly Men that do constantly give themselves up to the Worship of God in Publick, &c. These, notwithstanding their mixture and want of Disci∣pline, I never thought, for my part, but that they were True Churches of Christ, and Sister Churches, and so ought to be acknowledged.

So that if Dis∣cipline be not essential to a True Church, and a True Church is not to be separated from, (as has been pro∣ved above) then the want of Discipline is no suffi∣cient reason for Separation.

Secondly, This they further prove, by an Induction [Arg. 2] of Particulars.

This way Mr. Blake proceeds in; Discipline was neglected in the Church of Israel, yet none of the Prophets, or Men of God, ever made attempt of getting up purer select Churches, or made Separation from that which was in this sort faulty. All was not right in the exercise of Discipline in the Churches planted by the Apostles, some are censured as foully faulty, &c. yet no∣thing heard by way of Advice for any to make Separation, nor any one Instance of a Separatist given.

To come lower, we are told by Mr. Vines, That the Helvetian or Switzerland Churches, claim to be Churches, and have the Notes, Word, and Sacraments,

though the Order of Discipline be not setled among them, and I am not he that shall blot out their Name. To come nearer Home; it was so in the late Times when this was wanting, as was acknowledged (a), and of which Mr. Vines saith (b), we know rather the Name than the Thing. And if we shall look into the seve∣ral Church-Assemblies amongst the Dissenters, we shall find, that as there are many Preachers without full Pastoral Charge, as it is acknowledged, that have little Authority over their Flocks in this kind, that have not so much as the Name of Discipline a∣mongst them. And so they have little reason to ju∣stify themselves in a Separation by such an Argument, that will as well wound themselves, as those they bend it against; and they that do so, are guilty of Sin. So Mr. Baxter; Many that observe the Pollution of the Church, by the great neglect of Holy Discipline, avoid this Error, by turning to a sinful Separation.

I shall conclude this, with that grave Advice of Dr. Owen; When any Church, whereof a Man is, by his own con∣sent, antecedently a Member, doth fall in part or in whole, from any of those Truths which it hath professed, or when it is overtaken with a neglect of Discipline, or Irregulatities in its Administration; such a one is to consider, that he is placed in his present State by Divine Providence, that he may orderly therein endeavour to put a stop unto such Defections, and to exercise his Charity, Love, and Forbearance towards the Persons of them whose Miscarriages at present he cannot Remedy. In such Cases there is a large and spacious Field for Wisdom, Patience, Love and prudent Zeal to exercise themselves. And it is a most perverse imagination, that Separation is the only Cure for Church-Disorders.

If this Advice be good in one

Case, it is so in another; and if it were well under∣stood, and faithfully followed, this Argument would be of little or no force.

2. I shall shew how little this Plea of the Defe∣ctive Discipline reaches the Case. It's granted, that there is such a Power and Authority of Ecclesiasti∣cal Discipline resident in the Church of England, that if open and scandalous Persons are not cast out, the Fault is in the Governours, for the Law takes order they shall be, as Dr. Bryan saith (a). And the Power of Suspension put thereby into the Minister's Hands, is so evident, that after Dr. Collins had proved it from the Rubricks, Canons, &c. he concludes (b), It's plain, that the Judgment and Practice of the Church of England in all Times, ever since it was a Church, hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord. So that if there be Defects, through some past and present Obstructions in the Exercise of Discipline, yet cannot the Church properly stand charged with them, as is ac∣knowledged (c); or whatever may be charged upon the Church, there can be no sufficient Cause from a Defect, Remisness or Corruption therein, for a Sepa∣ration from it.

This was the constant Judgment of the old Non-conformists, which I shall transcribe from a grave Author; Those, saith he, that for many Years together, during the Reign of the three last Princes, denied to come up to a full Confor∣mity to this Church, had a low Opinion of the Discipline then exercised (of which they have left behind them large Evidences) yet how tender were they of the Churches Honour to keep Christi∣ans in Communion? How zealous were they against Separation? as may appear in the Labours of Mr. Parker, Mr. Paget, Mr. Ball. Mr. Brightman laid us low enough, when he did not only parallel us with

luke-warm Laodicea, but made that Church the Type, and we the Antitype, by reason of our Discipline; yet how zealous is he against Separation from these Assemblers, and breaks out in these words; There∣fore their Error is wicked and blasphemous, who so for∣sake the Church, as if Christ were altogether banished thence.

Having thus far considered what opinion the gra∣ver sort of the Non-conformists have of Communi∣on with a Church, and what Rules they do lay down about it; and shew'd that according to those Rules, Separation from the Church is unlawful.

I shall close all with the last Advice given by a Reverend Person to his Parishioners, in a Farewel Sermon in these words; Take heed of Extreams. It is the ordi∣nary Temptation, in a time of Differences, to think we cannot run too far from them we differ from; and so whilst we decline one Rock, we split upon another. Remember the old Non-conformists were equal Enemies to Superstition and Separation. Main∣tain (I beseech you) sober Principles, such as these are, that every defective Ministry, is not a false Mi∣nistry; that sinful Super-additions, do not nullify Divine Institutions; that sinful Defects in Ordinan∣ces, do not hinder the saving Effects of them. That there is a difference betwixt directing a Worship, prescribing things simply Evil, and manifestly Idola∣trous, and directing about Worship, things doubt∣fully good being injoined, but the unquestionable Substance of Worship being maintained. This latter ter doth not justify Separation.

And that the supposed Corruptions in the Church of England are of that nature, as do not affect the sub∣stance of it, nor are such but what may be safely com∣municated in, I shall now proceed to shew from them.

3. I shall consider what Opinion the eminent Non-conformists have had of the several Practices in the Church of England, that are injoined upon those that hold Lay-Communion with it, which respect Forms, Gestures, &c. In general, they acknowledg that they are Things tolerable, and what no Church is without, more or less (a). 2. That they are not sufficient to hinder Communion. 3. That they are but few (b).

First, Forms; and so it's required of the Members of the Church, that they join in the use of Liturgy or Common-Prayer. For the better understanding their Judgment in this Matter, I shall shew what their Opini∣on is of Forms of Prayer, of publick Forms, of Forms prescribed, and of that particular Form of Divine Ser∣vice used in this Church.

1. The use of Forms is declared by them to be a thing lawful in it self, and what God hath left us at liberty to use, or not to use, as we see occasion.

So Mr. Ball; The Word of God doth not prescribe any particular Form, stinted or not stinted, as necessary, but doth warrant both as allowable; for where nothing is in particular commanded touch∣ing the external Form of Words and Order, in which our Petitions should be presented to the Lord, there we are left at liberty. And to put Religion, in reading or uttering Words, in a stin∣ted or conceived Form, What is it less than Supersti∣tion? Of the same mind is Mr. Baxter, and others : And even Dr. Owen, though he doth disallow the composing Forms of Prayer for our own private use, yet at the same time declares †, that he doth not argue against Forms of Prayer, as unlawful to be used.

And he adds a little after; If they appear not contra∣ry unto, or inconsistent with, or are not used in a way

exclusive of that Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, which we have described from Scripture, &c. I shall not contend with any about them.

But they do not only assert, but they also under∣take to prove the lawfulness of Forms (a), from the Nature, Use, and Ends of Prayer, and charge the con∣trary Opinion with Enthusiasm (b), and Novelty (c).

Secondly, As to Forms in Publick, they declare;

1. That it is lawful to use them, and that this was the Tenent of all our best and most judicious Divines (d). This Dr. Owen is cautious of denying, who saith (e), Supposing that those who make use of, and plead for Forms of Prayer, especially in Publick, do in a due manner pre∣pare themselves for it by Holy Meditation, &c. I do not judg that there is any such Evil in them, as that God will not communicate his Spirit to any in the use of them.

2. They do not only grant it lawful to use them, but that it's expedient.

So Mr. Egerton declares (f); As for the Publick Congregation, special care must be had, that nothing be done in Praying, Preaching, or Administring the Sacraments, but what is decent and orderly, because there many Eyes do see us, and many Ears hear us; and upon this account, it is expedient for the most part to keep a constant Form, both of Matter and Words.

Mr. Bradshaw pleads for it, (as Mr. Gataker informs us in his Life) for the avoiding Hesitation, which in Prayer is more offensive than in other Discourse. And when, in a late Collection of Sermons, we find it complained of, that in our days some have such Schismatical Phrases, Notions, and Doctrine in Preaching, Praying, and Praising, that a sober Christian cannot say, Amen; it renders a Form so much the more considerable.

3. They declare that Publick Forms were universal∣ly used.

So Mr. Clark saith, That Set Forms of

Prayer are according to the practice of all Churches, even the best Reformed; yea, and Mr. Smith himself saith, upon the Lord's Prayer, (though as then he was warping, and afterwards wandred far in the ways of Separation) that it was the pra∣ctice of the Ancient Church, and of all the Refor∣med Churches in Christendom, of the Churches immediatly after the Apostles; nay, (saith he) of the Church in the Time of the Apostles, as may be probably gathered out of 1 Cor. 14. 26. This hath also been the practice of the best Lights that ever were set up in the Churches of Christ.

4. Ac∣cordingly this was the practice of the Old Non-conformists. So Mr. Clark; It is very well known that the Flower of our own Divines went on in this way, when they might have done otherwise, if they had pleased, in their Prayers before Sermons. This we are told of Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Cartwright (a). And we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon Prin∣ted (b), and others. This was so universally and con∣stantly practised, that Mr. Clark tells us (c), that the first Man who brought conceived Prayer into use in those parts where he lived, was Mr. Sam. Crook, who died but in the Year 1649.

Thirdly, As to prescribed Forms and Liturgies; of this Mr. Ball saith; I have shewed the use of a stinted Liturgie lawful and allowable by the Word of God, of ancient use in the Churches of Christ, approved by all Reformed Churches, which is a very convenient me∣thod for the consideration of their Judgment in the case. 1.

They grant that they are lawful, It's con∣trary to no Precept or Commandment, directly, or by lawful Consequence, saith Mr. Ball. So Mr. Norton of New-England doth determine; Such things be∣ing observ'd as are to be observed, it may be law∣ful

to use Forms of Prayers, &c. prescribed in the Church; neither are the Churches which use them guilty of Superstition, Will-Worship, and violating the second Commandment.

And Dr. Owen him∣self complies with it, who yields, That Men or Churches may agree upon a prescribed Form by common consent, as judging and avowing it best for their own Edification; and only argues against prescribing such Forms of Prayer universally, in opposition, and unto the exclusion of free Prayer. 2. They grant that they are not only lawful, but that there are foot-steps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Te∣stament, as Mr. Tombs and others have shewed (a); and Mr. Ainsworth himself (that did otherwise argue a∣gainst them) doth confess (b). 3. They grant that they are very ancient in the Christian Church: The Christian Churches of ancient Times, for the space of this 1400 Years at least, if not from the Apostles Time, have had their stinted Liturgies, saith Mr. Ball (c): And they answer Objections to the contrary (d). 4. They grant that in the best Reformed, nay, in all Reformed Churches, they are not only used and tolerated, but also useful and expedient (e). 5. That those amongst us, to whom the use of the Common-Prayer hath been thought most burthensome, have, from time to time, professed their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy, as Mr. Ball assures us (f). 6. That they thought it al∣together unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies. This is not on∣ly frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g), but little less even by Mr. Norton (h), who saith, It is lawful to em∣brace Communion with Churches, where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use; neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer, that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church: And they give this rea∣son

for it, that then they must separate from all Churches. So Mr. Baxter, &c.

Is it not a high de∣gree of Pride, to conclude, that almost all Christ's Churches in the World, for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day, have offered such Wor∣ship unto God, as that you are obliged to avoid it? and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day, is below your Communion for using Forms? and that even Calvin, and the Presbyteri∣ans, Cartwright, Hildersham, and the old Non-con∣formists, were unworthy your Communion? I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer, but I know also that these are answered by them.

But since the most common is, that of quenching and stinting the Spirit; I shall briefly give their sence of it. They say,

1. To say that Persons should use no set Form, but pray as moved by the Spirit, is a fond Error.

2. They say, that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask, not in what phrase of speech. It stirreth up in us holy Desires, but giveth not ability suddenly and without help, to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words.—Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit, which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad, &c.

3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Words and Forms, but in fervent Sighs and Groans.

4.

That there is nothing letteth, but that in such Forms, the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same, both to humble, to quicken, and to com∣fort.

And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may be for edification, and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God.

5. They say, that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case, are grounded upon Mistakes, and are mis∣applied,

as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly mani∣fested.

Fourthly, I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy, or Common-Prayer, both as to the Liturgy it self, and Communion in it. As to the Liturgy it self, it's acknowledged,

1. That the Matter for the most part is good, sound, and divine, and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers, that may not bear a good constru∣ction, and so Amen may be said to it, as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain.

2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms, so ours is the best. So the old Non-conformists; Compare the Doctrines, Prayers, Rites at those Times [throughout] in use in the Churches with ours, and in all these (blessed be the Name of the Lord) we are more pure than they. And it's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter, in the name of the present Non-conformists.

3. That which is accounted faulty, is tolerable, and hinders not but that it's acceptable to God, and edify∣ing to pious and well-disposed Persons.

Tolerable.

So Mr. Corbet; The Worship contained in the Liturgy, may lawfully be partaked in, it be∣ing sound for substance in the main, and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders, and passable in the most, though in some offensive, inconvenient, or less perfect.

Acceptable to God. So the old Non-conformists; In them that join with the Prayers, according to Christ's Command, (and liberty of absence from Christ, hath not been shewed) notwithstanding the Corruptions, we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God, &c.

Edifying to well-disposed Persons. To this purpose

Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Rogers, &c.

And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own ex∣perience; (a) Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired, yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein, and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper. I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal, and spiritually by those that are Spiritual. It is my part to make the best of it, being the established Form.

As to Com∣munion in the Liturgy, it is granted, 1. That there is no cause to renounce it, or the Communion of the Church for it, and that so to do is a Sin (b). 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom, do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy, if they come among us where it is used (c). 3. It's declared on the part of the old Non-con∣formists, That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d); and that the People generally were in their days satis∣fied in it (e). And for the present it's declared, We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer, but read it our selves (f).

I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Ob∣jections against the Liturgy, and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists, but shall content my self with that, which it seems was much insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball, and their Reply to it.

The Liturgy, in the whole Matter and Form thereof, is [Object.] too like unto the Mass-Book.

If the Liturgy be Antichristian, it is so either in [Answ.] respect of the Matter, or of the Form. Not of the Matter; for that which properly belonged to An∣tichrist, the foul and gross Errors, is purged out.

Not of the Form; for Order and Phrase of Speech is not properly Antichristian.

2.

That the English Liturgy is gathered according to the Ancients, the purest of them, and is not a Collection out of the Mass-Book, but a refining of that Liturgy which heretofore had been stained with the Mass, &c. and is not a Translation of the Mass, but a Restitution of the Ancient Liturgy.

Thus saith that Learned Person, and much more, to whom many others do likewise consent. And in this Mr. Tombs is so zealous, that he concludes; I can∣not but judg, that either much Ignorance, or much Ma∣lice it is, that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book, as if it were the Popish Mass-Book, or as bad as it; and to deter Men from joining with those Pray∣ers and Services therein, which are good, as if it were joining with Antichrist the Pope, (when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days were burnt for it) is impudent falshood.

Having thus far considered the Forms, I shall now proceed to shew what their Opinion is of the Ge∣stures required in Lay-Communion, such as Kneeling at the Sacrament, and standing up at the Creed and Gospels.

As to Kneeling.

1. It's granted, that the Posture in the Sacrament is not determined. So Mr. Baxter; I never yet heard any thing to prove Kneeling unlawful, there is no Word of God for or against any Gesture.

2. It is granted, whatever the Gesture of our Savi∣our in it was, yet that doth not oblige. This Mr. Tombs hath undertaken to shew; 1.

Because this Gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Christ. 2. Because St. Paul omits the Gesture, which he would not have done, if it had been binding. 3. He men∣tions

the Night, and calls it the Lord's Supper, and if the Time be not necessary, much less the Gesture. 4. If the Gesture doth oblige, then Christians must use the self-same that Christ used.

3. It is granted, that the nature of the Ordinance doth not forbid Kneeling. So Mr. Bains; Kneeling is not unbeseeming a Feaster, when our joy must be mingled with reverent trembling.

So Mr. Baxter; The nature of the Ordinance is mixed. And if it be law∣ful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees, I know not what can make it unlawful to take a sea∣led Pardom from Christ, by his Ambassador, upon our Knee.

Hence Mr. Bailey reckons it as an Error of some Independents, that they accounted sitting necessa∣ry, as a Rite significant of fellowship with Christ, and a part of our imitation of him, and for both these reasons, de∣clared it necessary to keep on their Hats at the time of par∣ticipation.

4. It is granted not to be Idolatrous.

So Mr. Bains; Kneeling is neither an occasion, nor by participation Idolatry: Kneeling never bred Bread-worship. And our Doctrine of the Sacrament, known to all the World, doth free us from suspicion of adoration in it.

To these Mr. Tombs adds; 1. That the Papists. a∣dore not the Bread at putting it into their Mouths, but at the Elevation. It being inconsistent with their Principles, to worship that which is not above them. 2. That the Worship of God not directed to a Creature, but before it, as an occasional Object of adoration to God, is not Idolatry. 3. That yet in the Church of England the Elements are not occasio∣nally so, but the Benefits of Christ in the Lord's Sup∣per. And 4. Kneeling is not to the Bread, but as the signification of an humble and grateful mind; as he shews from the Rubrick.

Fifthly, Those that do account it inconvenient, yet account it not to be unlawful.

Thus Mr. Cart∣wright; Kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, being incommodious in its own nature, and made far more incommodious by Popish Superstition, is not there∣fore so to be rejected, that we should abstain from the Sacrament (if we cannot otherwise be partakers of it) because the thing is not in its own nature un∣lawful.

So it's said of the old Non-conformists; Kneeling at the Sacrament was disliked by all, but yet thought tolerable, and that it might be submitted to by some of the most Learned.

From all which we may conclude with Mr. Vines, that the Posture being a circumstance of Action, as well as the Time and Place, is not of the Free-hold of the Or∣dinance; and with Mr. Baxter, that those that think they must not receive kneeling, think erroneously.

As for standing up at the Creed, &c. Mr. Baxter saith, his judgment is for it, where it is required, and where not doing it would be divisive and scandalous. Nay else∣where he saith, that 'tis a convenient praising Gesture, &c.

Thus I have considered the most material Points, in which the Lay-Members of the Church of England are concern'd, and shew'd that the lawfulness of the things injoined upon such, is declared and justified by the Suffrage and Judgment of as eminent Non-con∣formists as have lived in the several Ages since that unhappy Controversy was first set on foot amongst us. And now what remains, but that every one con∣cerned, set himself seriously and impartially to consider it; and it becomes such so to do, when they go against the stream of the most experienced Writers of their own Party, who might pretend to understand the Case as well, if not better, than any that were conversant in it.

It becomes such, when they bury that under

the condemnation of false Worship, which the Lord, the Author of all Truth, doth allow in his Service. When they forsake the Prayers of the Congregati∣on, and depart from the Table of the Lord, and break off Society and Communion with the Churches of Christ, &c. when they expose Religion to Con∣tempt, and the Truth of God to Reproach, by the Rents and Divisions in the Church; as Mr. Ball doth represent it.

It becomes them, when our Division gratifieth the Pa∣pists, and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion, and by it we may lose all which the several Parties contend about, as Mr. Baxter hath proved.

It becomes them, when the Church of England is the Bulwark of the Protestant Religion amongst us at Home, and that according to the noted saying of Mr. Egerton, The withdrawing totally from it, would more effectually introduce Popery, than all the Works of Bellar∣mine.

It becomes them, when this is the Bulwark of it a∣broad, and all the Reformed Churches in the World have a Venture in this Bottom, which if compar'd to a Fleet, the Church of England must be acknowledg∣ed to be the Admiral. And if it go ill with this Church, so as that miscarry, there is none of the Churches of Christ this day under Heaven, but are like to feel it; as Mr. Brinsley discourses.

Lastly, It becomes them, when Divisions and Sepa∣rations draw down the Displeasure of God, and lay us open to his Judgments.

Therefore Dr. Bryan, af∣ter he hath largely insisted upon the Argument, and the present Case amongst us, doth thus apply himself; O that I could prevail with you, to lay sadly to heart the greatness of the Sin of Divisions, and grie∣vousness of the Punishment threatned against it,

and hath been executed for it; and that the Leaders and Encouragers of private Christians to make this sinful Separation, would read oft, and meditate upon St. Jude's Epistle to vers. 20. and that the Multitudes that are willing to be led by them, would follow the prescription of the means here to preserve or recover themselves from this Seduction, vers. 20, 21. And that both would leave off their reviling the Government Ecclesiastical, and the Ministers that conform, and submissively behave themselves by the Example of Michael, &c.

I shall conclude the whole with the peaceable and pious Advice of Mr. Baines; Let every Man walk within the compass of his Calling. Whatsoever lieth not in us to reform, it shall be our Zeal and Piety to tolerate, and with Patience to forbear, especially in things of this nature, which concern not so much the outward Communion with God or Man, essentially required in a visible state, as the due ordering of Business in the said Communion, wherein there be many Superfluities and Defects, salvâ tamen Ecclesiâ; yea, and such a Church notwithstanding, as wherein the best and truest Members (Circumstances consi∣dered) may have more cause to rejoice than to grieve.

FINIS.

Notes

• Defence of the Cure, part 2. pag. 29.
• A Book li∣censed by Mr. Cranford.
• Baxter's Cure, p. 311.
• Continuat. Morning Ex∣ercise, Serm. 4. p. 89.
• Rathband's Epistle to the Reader, pre∣fixed to the grave and mo∣dest Confuta∣tion, &c.
• †

  Nichol's plea for the Puritans.
• Disswasive, ••. 2. p. 21.
• Corbet's Dis∣course of the Religion of England, p. 33.
• Non-Confor∣mists no Schis∣maticks, p. 13.
• A grave and sober Confut. p. 1. &c. p. 57.
• Friendly Try∣al of the G••ounds of Separat. c. 13••. p 306.
• A. Letter of many Mini∣sters in Old-England to others in New▪England, p. 24.
• Jerubbaal; or, the Plea∣der implead∣ed, p. 18, & 27.
• Brownists A∣pol. p. 7. An. 1604.
• Discourse § 21 p. 43.
• Preface to 5 Disp. p. 6.
• Peace-Offer. ing, p. 12. See Mr. Bax∣ter's Defence of his Cure, Part 1. p. 64. and Part 2. p. 3. and Wadsworth in his Separation, yet no Schism, p. 60, 62. Mr. Throughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists, cap. 3. p. 106.
• Lecture 26. on John, p. 121.
• Continuat. Morning Ex∣ercise, Serm 4. p. 91.
• Throughton's Apol. p. 104.
• Peace-Offer∣ing. p. 17.
• Unreasona∣bleness of the Separation, p. 16.
• Grave and modest Con∣futat. p. 28.
• Unreasona∣bleness of Se∣paration, p. 27, 37.
• Apologet. Narration. p. 6.
• Cotton's Infant Baptism, p. 181.
• Jus Divi∣num Minist. Evang. p: 12, &c. Brinsly's Church-re∣medy, p 41, 42. Cawdry In∣depend. a great Schism, p. 60, 89, 172.
• |

  Theodulia, or just De∣fence, § 15, 16. Preface, &c. 9. § 3.
• Crofton's Reformation not Separati∣on, p. 10. and Bethshemesh clouded, p. 101, &c. Cawdrey's Independ. a great Schism, p. 132, &c. Church-Re∣formation, p. 42.
• †

  Mr. Bax∣ter's Plea for Peace, Epist. Serm. on Gal. 6. 10. p. 24. Defence, p. 21. par. 1. p. 36.
• |

  Mr. Corbet's Account of the Princi∣ples, &c. of several Non-Conformists, p. 26.
• Troughton's Apol. p. 103.
• Defence of his Cure, part 2. p. 178. V. Letter of Ministers of Old England to New, p. 49.
• Apol. c. 4. p. ••17.
• Defence of his Cure, part 2 p. 177.
• Way cleared, p. 8.
• His Letter, p. 3. printed 1641.
• Apologet. Narr. V. Hooker's Survey, Pref. and part 1. p. 47.
• On the Ephes. p. 477, 488, 489.
• Pag. 6.
• Ibid.
• Sion College visited.
• Unreasona∣bleness of the Separat. p. 97.
• Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divi∣sions, Dir. 56. p. 263.
• Sect. II.
• Papers for Ac∣commodati∣on, p. 47.
• Reasons for the Christian Relig. p. 464.
• V. Annotati∣ons on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17.
• Arraignment of Schism, p. 26.
• Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 289, 291.
• On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude, v. 19. Allen Vindi∣ciae Pietatis, second part, p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government, p. 130. Cotton on John, p. 156.
• Grave Con∣sut. p. 57. Cawdrey's In∣dependency further pro∣ved, p. 136.
• †

  Brinsly's Ar∣raigment, p. 15, 24, 44.
• |

  Baily's Dis∣swasive, c. 6. p. 104.
• Ames's Pu∣ritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross, part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence, p. 55.
• †

  Apologet. Nar. p. 6.
• |

  Sacril. de∣sert. p. 75.
• The Life of Mr. J. Allen, p. 111.
• †

  The Do∣ctrine of Schism, p. 64.
• |

  Reasonable Account, &c.
• Bonasus va∣pulans, p. 113.
• Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists, p. 26.
• †

  Discourse of the Religion, &c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case, p. 15.
• Non-con∣formists Plea for Lay-Com∣munion, p. 1.
• Non-confor∣mists Plea fo•• Peace, § 17••. p 240.
• Burrough's Irenic. p. 182.
• †

  Vindication of Presbyter. Governm. Brinsly's Ar∣raignm. p. 16, 32.
• Corbet's Plea for Lay-Com∣munion, &c. p. 2.
• Irenicum, by Discipulus de tempore, Ju∣nior, alias M. Newcomen, Epist. to the Reader. Friendly Try∣al, c. 7. p. 121.
• Hildersham Lect on John. R. Rogers's 7 Treatises, Tr. 7. c. 4. p. 224.
• Vindicat. of the Presbyt. Govern. p. 135.
• Jerubbaal, p. 28, 30.
• Throughton's Apol. p. 107.
• Mr. Nye's Case of great and present use, p. 4, and 5. Mr. Read's Case, p. 14.
• Burrough's Irenic. p. 183. Lawfulness of hearing the publick Mini∣sters of the Church of England. Nye's Case, p. 24, 25.
• Theodulia; Or, a just Defence of Hearing, &c. c. 10. § 15. p. 369. c. 9. § 8. p. 319.
• Treatise of the Lawfulness of Hearing, &c. p. ult.
• Theodulia. Answer to Preface, § 23. p. 47, 48.
• Aid. Blake's Vindiciae Foed. c. 31. p. 229, &c
• Arraignment of Schism, p. 50.
• Temple mea∣sured, p. 78.
• Evangelical Love, p. 76.
• Exposit. on 1 Epist. John, p. 156.
• Cure of Church Divi∣sions, Dir. 5. p. 40, &c.
• On the Sacra∣ment, p. 239.
• Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33.
• Irenicum, c. 23. p. 162, 163.
• Unreasona∣bleness of the Separation, p. 103.
• Jerubbaal, p. 12.
• Apol. p. 7.
• Exposit. on 1 Epist. John; p. 157.
• England's Remembrance Serm. 2. p. 38.
• Confession of Faith, Art. 36.
• Comment on Ju••e, v. 19.
• His Life, p. iii.
• England's Remembran∣cer, Serm. 4. p. 94, 95.
• Ball's Tryal, p. 132.
• †

  The Plat∣form of Disci∣pline in New-England, c. 14. § 8.
• |

  Lect. 35 on John, p. 165, 166.
• Dwelling with God, p. 294.
• Ibid.
• The un••eason∣ableness of Separat. p. 104.
• Non-confor∣mists no Schis∣maticks, p. 15.
• Independ. a great Schism, p. 195.
• England's Remembran∣cer, Serm. 4. p. 111.
• Discourse of Evangelical Love, c. 3. p. 81.
• Troughton's Apol. p. 110.
• Lect. 35 on John, p. 165, 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384.
• V. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God, p. 293.
• On the Sa∣cramen. p. 242. Crofton's hard way to Hea∣ven, p. 36. Noye's Tem∣ple measured, p. 79. Jenkin on Jude, v. 19. Davenport's Apol. reply, p. 281. Ball's Tryal, p. 159, &c.
• †

  Comment. on 1 Epist. John, p. 156.
• Godly Mans Ark, Epist. Ded.
• Godly Mans Portion, p. 122.
• V. Bains on the Ephes. c. 2. 15. p. 297. England's Rem••mbran∣cer, Serm. 16. p. 455.
• Continuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 16. p. 459.
• Unreas. of the Separa••. p. 103.
• Trial of the Grounds of Separat. c. 8. p. 137, 138.
• Sacri••eg defer. p. 95.
• Defence of his Cure, part 1. p. 47.
• Irenic. c. 23. p. 163.
• Godly Mans Portion. p. 127.
• Comment. on ••phes. c. 2. 15. p. 297.
• Morton's Me∣morial, p. 78, &c. Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure, part 2. p. 171.
• England's Remembran∣cer, Serm. 14. p. 371.
• Independ. a. Schism, p. 192.
• Vindiciae Foed. c. 31. p. 228.
• Platfo••m of Discipline in New-Eng∣land, c. 14. § 8.
• Temple mea∣sured, p. 78.
• Theodulia Answ. to Pref. § 25. p. 48.
• Confer. Savoy, p. 12, 13. Mr. Baxter's Defence of the Cure, p. 34, 35.
• Trial of the Grounds, &c. p. 308.
• Door of Truth opened, p. 7.
• Non-confor∣mists Plea, &c▪ p. 6.
• England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94.
• Lawfulness of Hea••ing, &c. p. 19, 23.
• Case of great and present Use, p. 16, 18. Cure, dir. 35. p 196, &c. Defence, p. 96.
• Letter of Mi∣nisters in Old-England, to the Brethren in New-England, p. 12, 13, 16.
• Cur••, p. 200.
• Christian Di∣••ect. p. 748
• Cure, p. 197. V. Jerubbaal justified, p 16, &c. 22, 34.
• Case of great and present use, p. 10.
• Of Scandal a Discours. p. 65.
• V. Crofton's Reformat. no Separat. p. 24.
• Confer. at the Savoy, p. 3, 12, 13.
• Separat. yet no Schism, p. 64.
• Def. of Cure part. 1. p. 78.
• Part 2. p. 176. and Cure, p. 265. q. 6.
• Defence of Sy∣nod. Pref. p. 4, 5. Def. of Cure, part 1. p. 78. n. 6. p. 96. n. 5.
• Letter of the the Minist. of Old-England to those in New-Engl. p. 14.
• Ball's Trial of the Grounds, p. 74.
• Trial of the Grounds, &c. c. 4. p. 78.
• Def. of Cure, p. 85.
• V. Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 86.
• Platform of Discipline, c. 13. § 5.
• Metherme∣nent. p. 71. On John 4. Lect. 58.
• Cure of Di••is. p. 359.
• Con••inuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 4 p. 95.
• Lect. 28. p 129. and Lect. 58.
• Comment on Jude, v. 19.
• ••nglan••'s Re••embran∣cer, Serm. 16. p. 456.
• Iren. c. 12. p. 85.
• Platform, c. 13. § 5.
• Continuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 4. p. 91.
• Irenic. c. 12. p. 85, 86.
• Defence, part 1. p. 85.
• Lect. 28. p. 129, 309.
• Irenic. c. 12. p. 84, 87.
• Of this V. Ball's Tryal, c. 4. p. 75, 76, 78
• Lect. 66.
• Arraignment of Schism, p. 48.
• Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 85.
• Platform Pref. p. 7. &c. 13. §▪ 1. Independ. a Schism, p. 50.
• Metherme∣neut. p. 72, 74.
• Irenic. c. 23. p. 163.
• Defence, part 1. p. 85.
• Lect. 54 p. 254, & Lect. 58.
• On the Sacra∣ment, p. 246.
• In his Farewel Sermon.
• Sermon at Pauls on Acts 9. 31.
• Lect. 54. p. 253.
• Lect. 58.
• Jus Divinum Minist. Evan∣gel. p. 11, 12.
• Metherme∣neut p. 72.
• Lect. 29. p. 131.
• Lect. 28 p. 129.
• Letter of the Minist. in Old-England to the Brethren in New-Eng∣land, p. 13.
• Case of great use, p. 3.
• Pag. 25.
• Theodulia, c. 9. § 8. p. 317.
• Seven Treati∣ses, Tract. 3. c. 4 p. 223.
• Defence, part 1. p. 57.
• Ibid. p. 12.
• Ibid. p. 11.
• Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 313.
• Defence. part 1. p. 11.
• Tract. 3. p. 223.
• Ibid.
• Cure, dir. 17. p. 114.
• Letter of Mi∣nisters in Old-England, to the Brethren in New-England p. 11.
• Tryal of the grounds, c. 13. p. 311. V. Tombs Theodulia, p. 17.
• Letter of the Minist. in Old-Engl. &c. p. 10.
• V. Ball's Trial, p. 310.
• Case of great and present use, p. 14.
• Dwelling with God, p. 313.
• England's Remembran∣cer, Serm. 4. p. 94.
• C••ristian Di∣rectory, p. 747. & Cure, p. 113, 114.
• Account given to the Parlia∣ment, p. 27.
• Letter of the Ministers, p. 11.
• Tract. 3. p. 223.
• Farewel Ser∣mons, Vol. 3. p. 22, 23.
• Case of great and present Use, p. 14.
• England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94.
• Bonasus Vapu∣lans, p. 133.
• Pastor's Lega∣cy, p. 125.
• Non-Confor∣mists Plea for Conformists, p. 12, & 23.
• On the Sacra∣ment, p. 235.
• Brinsley's Ar∣raignment, p. 37, 38. Jenk. on Jude, v. 19. Baily's Disswa∣sive, p. 22. Sacril desert. p. 97.
• (a)

  Caw••rey's Reformation promoted, p. 131.
• (b)

  Manton on Jude, p. 496.
• (c)

  Vines on Sacrament, p. 242, Platform, c. 14. § 8. V. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Mem∣bers, p. 2.
• (d)

  Gospel-Worship, Serm, 11. p. 242.
• On Sacrament p. 246. p. 31.
• Vindicat. of Presbyt. Go∣vern. p. 134. Brinsly's Ar∣raign. p. 47.
• V. Firmin's Separat. exa∣mined, p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Re∣format. p. 71.
• Theodulia, p. 74.
• Survey of Dis∣cipline, Pres. A. 3. Platform, c. 14. §. 9.
• Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53.
• On the Sacra∣ment, p. 242. & p. 31, 32.
• Gospel-Wor∣ship, Serm. 11. p. 236, 237.
• Tryal, c. 10. p. 191, 205.
• V. Jean's Dis∣course on the Lord's Supper. Rutherford's right of Pres∣byt.
• Grave confut. Part 3. p. 53, & 55. Ball's Tryal, p. 211. Platform, c 14. § 8. Blake Vindic. p. 235.
• Christian Di∣rectory, p. 747. V. Non-Con∣formists no Schismaticks, p. 16.
• Vines on the Sacrament, p. 244.
• Infant. Bap∣tism, p. 102. V. Bains on the Ephes. c. 1. v. 1. p. 5.
• In Proverb. Edward's Apol.
• 1 Cor. 5. 11.
• Defence, Part 2. p. 27. Cawdrey's Church-Re∣format. p. 126.
• Ball's Tryal, p. 200. Brinsley's Ar∣raignment, p. 45. Jenk on Jude, v. 19. Tomb's Theo¦dulia, p. 210.
• Grave Confut. Part 4. p. 57. Tomb's Theo∣dulia, p. 167. Cawdrey's Re∣format. p. 75. Cure Dir. 9. p. 81.
• On the Sacra∣ment, p. 246. Tomb's Theod. p. 128.
• Sect. 2.
• T. C's Letter to Harrison, a∣gainst Separa∣tion in the De∣fence of the Admonit. p. 98, 99.
• P. 106.
• Com. on the Ephes. p 487, 488.
• Vindiciae c. 31. p. 236, 238.
• V. Grave Con∣fut. Part 1. p. 18.
• On Sacram. c. 19. p. 226.
• V. Gillespie's Nihil respon∣des, p. 33.
• (a)

  Knutton's seven Queries. Brinsley's Ar∣raign. p. 48.
• (b)

  On Sacram. p. 219. Troughton's Apol. p. 65.
• Cure Dir. 47. p. 231.
• Evangel Lo••e, c 3. p. 77.
• (a)

  Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p 301. V. Grave Con∣fut. part 1. p. 17. ••ermin Sepa∣ration exami∣ned, p. 28.
• (b)

  Provocator provocatus, p. 151, & 154. V. Vines on Sacrament, c. 19. p. 233. Brinsley's Ar∣raign, p. 40. Cawdrey's Church Refor∣mat. p 122.
• (c)

  Brinsley's Arraign. p. 48. Jenk. on Jude v. 19. Blake's Vin∣diciae, c. 31. p. 236.
• England's Remembranc. Serm. 16. p. 454.
• 3. General.
• (a)

  Letter of the Mi••ist. of Old-Engl. p. 12, 13. Bryan's Dwel∣ling with God, p. 311. Troughton's A∣pol. c. 7 p. 68.
• (b)

  Owen's Peace-Offer. p. 17. Mischief of Impositions, Epist. Dedic.
• Tryal, c. 2. p. 36, &c. 8. p. 131.
• Sacril. desert. p. 98, 99. Cure of Ch. Divis▪ p 175. Tomb's Theod. p. 137.
• †

  Discourse of the Work of the Spirit in Prayer, p. 2••0, 235. V. Dissenting Brethren, in 32 Quest. p. 55.
• (a)

  Ball's Tryal c. 2. Rogers Tr. 223 Bryan's dwel∣ling with God, p. 307.
• (b)

  Grave Con∣fut. Epist. to Reader. Continuat. of Morn. Exer. p, 1006.
• (c)

  Prest. Serm. on Jo. 1. 16.
• (d)

  Clark's Liv. of 10 Divines, p. 255. Ball's Tryal, p. 11.
• (e)

  Discourse of Prayer, p. 231.
• (f)

  Pract. of Christianity, c. 11▪ p. 691. Edit 5.
• Life of Mr. W. Bradshaw, in Mr. Clark's Collect. in Fol. p. 67. Continuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 31. p. 1006.
• Collection of the Lives of 10 Divines, p. 255. Life of M Ca∣pel.
• Ibid:
• (a)

  Bradshaw's Life publish▪d by Mr. Clark, in Fol. p. 67.
• (b)

  His Doctr. of Fasting and Prayer, Anno 1633.
• (c)

  Collect. of 10 Lives, 40. p. 38.
• Tryal, Epist. to Reade••▪
• Tryal, c. 1. p. 5. c. 3. p. 23.
• Answ. to Apol∣lonius, c. 13.
• Discourse of Prayer, p. 222, & 235.
• (a)

  Tombs Theo∣dulia, p. 221. Baxt. Cure, p. 176. Balls Trial, p. 128, 129. Grave Confut. p. 12, 13.
• (b)

  Annot. on Ex. 12. 8.
• (c)

  Trial, p. 96, 106, 111, 138. & p. 80.
• (d)

  Tombs The∣odulia, p. 222.
• (e)

  Balls Trial, p. 108, &c. Rogers Trea∣tises, p. 224. Tombs Theod. p. 234.
• (f)

  Trial, p 96, 106, 120.
• (g)

  Trial, p. 121 129, 140, 156.
• (h)

  Resp. ad A∣pol. c. 13.
• Sacril. desert. p. 102. Defence, Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial, p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224.
• Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal, c. 5. p. 83.
• Ibid. p. 91.
• Rogers, Ibid.
• Disc. of Pray∣er, p, 222, 231, 232.
• Theodulia, p. 164, 238.
• Bryan's dwel∣ling with God, Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29, 59. Crofton Refor. no Separ. p. 25. T. D. Jerubba∣al, p 35.
• Le••ter of the Minist. in Old-Engl. p. 12.
• Second Plea for Peace, p. 101.
• Plea for Lay-Communion, p. 2. V. Ball's Tryal, c. 9. p. 58.
• Letter of the Minist. in Old-England, p. 13.
• Treat. 3. c. 4. p. 224l
• (a)

  Corbet. Plea. p. 3.
• (b)

  Gifford's plain Decla••a∣tion. Ball's Trial, c. 7. p. 121. Sacril. desert. p. 105.
• (c)

  Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure, p. 68.
• (d)

  Ball's Tryal, p. 121. c. 8. p. 155.
• (e)

  Let. of Mi∣nisters of Old-Engl. p. 14.
• (f)

  Mr. Mead's Case, p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp. 4. of Church-Gov. p. 364. Mr. S. Fair∣clough's Life, p. 157.
• Trial. c. 8. p. 152.
• P. 155. V. Letter of the Minist. in Old Engl. p. 14. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God, p. 309, 310. Mr. Baxter's Cure, p. 281.
• Theodulia, p. 102.
• Sect. 2.
• Christian Di∣rect. p. 616.
• V. Faldo's Dia∣logue betwixt a Minister and a Quaker. Noye's Temple measured, p. 81. Theod. p. 168.
• Christian Let∣ters, Let 24. p. 201. Direct. p. 616.
• Disswasive, c 2 p. 30. &c. 6. p. 121, 122. V. Johnson's Christian Plea, Treat. 3. c. 10. p. 285.
• Letters, Ibid.
• V. Baxt.—Christ. Direct. p. 616.
• Theodulia, p. 256, &c.
• V. T. D. Je∣rubbaal, p. 41. & Mr. Crofton's Answ. p. 28. V. Ames Fresh Suit, c. 4. § 4. p. 382. Perkins Cases.
• Evang. Harm. on Luk. 22. v. 14, &c. Second Reply, p. 262.
• Troughton's Apol. p. 90.
• On the Sacra∣ment, p. 102.
• Sacril. desert. p. 19.
• Christ. Direct. p. 858. Sacril. desert. p. 96.
• Ball's Tryal, Epistle to Reader.
• Defence, p. 17. 52.
• Brinsley's Healing of Israel's Breaches, p. 62.
• Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 313. 314.
• On the Ephes. c. 2. p. 297, 298.