Catholic Communion Defended against both Extremes: AND UNNECESSARY DIVISION Confuted, by Reasons against both the Active and Passive ways of SEPARATION: Occasioned by the Racks and Reproaches of One sort, and the Impatience and Censoriousness of the other; and the Erroneous, though Confident Writings of Both. And written in Compassion of a Distracted, Self-tearing People, though with little hope of any great success. In FIVE PARTS: 

I. The Dangerous Schismatic; on the Three Cases about Church-Communion.  
II. Animadversions on part of Mr. RAPHSON's Book.  
III. A Survey of the Unreasonable Defender of Dr. STILLINGFLEET, for Separation, pretending to oppose it.  
IV. Reasons of the Authors censured Communion with the Parish-Churches.  
V The Reasons why Dr. I. O's. Twelve Arguments change not his Judgement.   By RICHARD BAXTER, a Lover of Love and Peace; and by defending them, displeasing those that labour to destroy them.  Rom. 15. 7. 
Receive ye one another as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.  Rom. 12. 18. 
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.  Psal. 18. 26, 27. 
With the froward thou wilt show thyself froward (or wrestle): For thou wilt save the afflicted people, but wilt bring down high looks.  
LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel. 1684.   

TO THE READER.  
IT'S known that Christ suffered between Two Malefactors, reputed by his Persecutors the greatest of the Three: One of them was penitent, and justified Christ, and reproved the other, who reproached, even dying, him that should have been taken for his only Hope. Ignatius compared the Teeth of the Lions, to the Millstones, which must grind him to be Bread for his Father's use. The two Extremes have been at this unhappy Dividing-work, since the Christian Church began to prosper: Diotrephes, and the Jewish Imposers on the one side, and the Self-conceited separating Sects on the other, were used by Satan to fight against Saving Truth and Love. They were foretold by Paul, Acts 20. both that grievous Wolves should enter, and devour the Flocks; and that of their own selves should men arise, to speak perverse things, and draw away Disciples after them. But when Christian Power had lent one Party the Sword, or made it the Executioner of Clergy-wrath, the Church hath ever since between two Millstones, been ground to Meal. There hath indeed be●n much Differences in their dividing ways. The upper Millstone hath still been violently active: The nether Millstone thought itself innocent, because it was passive. Even before the Church-Tympanites, many score several Sects risen up, that had their several Societies, separating from the rest, on pretence of greater Orthodoxness and Piety. No two of the Contraries could be in the Right; much less all: Therefore all, or all save one, did separate for Error. But as Luther saith (De Conciliis) these Divisions were but a Play (as at Football) in comparison of the Strages, or bloody destructive Divisions which were made by Patriarches and Councils of advanced Prelates. If under Heathens, the Novations sprung up from a Strife, to have their Captain the great Bishop of Rome; and the Donanists from a Strife, to have their Captain the great Bishop of Carthage, and so many other Sects; What wonder, if the Strife of Patriarches, Metropolitans and Councils, when they were like great Secular Princes, did cut all the Churches into those Shreds or Schisms, which have continued its Diseases and Reproach these 1200, if not 1300. years, to this day, unhealed, and unlikely to be healed; four of these Patriarches condemning Rome, and the Roman Fifth condemning them: As it was said ●f Saul and David, The Under sects and Schisms have killed their thousands, and the Uppermost Patriarchal, Conciliary, Tyrannical Schisms, their ten thousands.  
Alas, to what a horrid degree of Pravity is Humane Nature fallen! What a scandalous Temptation give Men to the Bruitists, who prefer the Bruits, yea, the wildest before M●n? When even the Learned sort, who think themselves so fit to guide all the rest, that none is worthy to Preach Christ's Gospel, who descent from their prescribed Opinions and Ceremonies, are yet unable after 1200. years' experience of the Churches, to understand that the terms and ways which have hitherto distracted and torn them, and to this day made them the scorn of the Infidels, and like the Sherds of a broken Pot, are not the only ways and terms of Catholic Union and Communion; which, if any deny, he is unworthy to live in Christian Society. Lord! is there no hope, that the World, at least the Learned part, may be healed of this self-laceration and distraction. If there be no Love and Peace but in Heaven, and with the few that the World abhorreth, O cause us all that are fervent Lovers of Love and Peace, to be more weaned from this earthly Nest of Wasps, and to love and long for the World where Love and Peace are perfected.  
I have seen Canons which have ipso facto excommunicated Men (how wise, how holy, how useful, and how many soever) that do but affirm any things in their Church-Offices, Liturgies, Words and Ceremonies, to be at all repugnant to the Word of God; and at once oblige Men to subscribe to an Article, That not only they, but General Councils are fallible. So that I stand amazed to think what Spirit made such Canons, and what such Men thought of themselves, and of Humane Nature, and of the History of all former Ages of the Churches. If they must be acknowledged fallible, and yet all cut off from Christ or from the Church, who say they have any Error, so much as in the said Offices, Forms, Words or Ceremonies, sure they suppose that some miraculows Power so wonderfully overruled fallible Men, and therefore should show us miracles to convince us. For my part, I am far from believing, that I am so secured from Error; and therefore only say, Tho I be an unfit judge of my Superiors Acts, I would not for all the Riches on Earth, be charged at God's judgement with the guilt of making and justifying such Canons; much less, with all the Consequents of their Executions.  
And because I am unwilling to be guilty of any dividing-errors on the other side, I have here impartially confuted them; telling those that would not have the Authors, or their former Actions so much remembered and blamed as I have done, That God is against their carnal Policies; and that it neither hath prospered, nor will do: And that when Men justify Sin, or lay it upon God, he will with disdain cast it back upon them. As I thank God, who kept the main Body of the Religious Persons innocent, from the crimes of a few tumified Sectarian Soldiers, who by advantage subdued all the rest, (though Malignity would ruin them by a false Accusation of such a Gild), so I will not so much as by Silence, encourage that false Malignant Accusation, nor leave the sober godly People of the Land, under the intimated Suppositions, That they Consented to the Subversion of Civil or Ecclesiastical Order and Governmenment, when they were trod down, and suffered for their Dissent.  
But in all Ages and Nations, the Churches that were under the grinding Dividers, have laid more of the blame on the upper Millstone than on the lower; Action and Violence making their Part more notable; bearing more easily the censures and words of such as think Losers may have leave to talk, than the Stings, Swords and Flames of the elder Sons of Abaddon Apollyon. And indeed, in all Ages, the lower Party have been less averse to Peace and Reconciliation; but whoever have got uppermost into uncontrollable Clergy-Domination, have usually disdained and abhorred the Peacemakers. It was King James his wisdom to make Beati Pacifici, his Motto; and the Disposition and Counsels that are contrary to it, will prove pernicious folly at last. But we have a greater Doctor and Exemplar, even our Saviour and final judge, who (while some repraoch such, and talk and write to bring men from Love, to hate each other), hath said, what in despite of malice he will make good [Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God, Matth. 5.9].   


The Contents of the First Part.  
WHether the Resolver truly define the Church. Page 1.  
Whether there be not many particular Churches. 3.  
Whether these Churches must be Members of one another. 5.  
Whether the Universal Church and Particulars be not distinct, as Whole and Part. 6.  
Whether the Church hath all things Common, and this be essential to it. 6, 7.  
Whether God only Constitutes the Church, and no Humane Contract. 9, 10.  
Their Charge against the Independents Church-Covenant, examined. 11, 12.  
Whether Church-Communion consist in no particular Acts. 15.  
His Self-contradiction, p. 16.  
More of his Contradictions and Errors. 17.  
His first Case, Whether Communion with some Church be necessary? 18.  
His second Case of Occasional Communion, examined. 19  
His third Case, Whether we may Communicate with distinct and separate Churches? 20.  
His confused use of the words [Church-Union, Communion, Separation and Schism] opposed by a large Explication of Union, Communion and Separation, in which is fully showed what Separation is Schism, and what not, from p. 21, to p. 41.  
He seemeth to damn all Christians on Earth, as Schismatics. 41.  
His condemning the Church of England and many other, largely manifested. p. 42 to 53.  
What it is, for which he calleth Men Schismatics. 53.  
It is absurd to be Members of opposite Churches, because Christ hath but one Body. 55.  
Whether all are Shismaticks who are guilty of Schism? (or Traitors that break any Law): e. g. If the Church of England have any guilt of Schism, etc. 56.   

The Contents of the Second Part.  
WHether Mr. Ralphson prove, 1. That Kneeling at the Sacrament, and use of the Liturgy are unlawful, false Worship, or Idolatry, and the places are Idols Temples, and to join in them, is to join in Idolatry. p. 1.  
Whether the Argument prove it, because they are Worship not Instituted. 1.  
The word [Worship] explained, and Worship distinguished. 2, 3.  
Twenty unquestionable Instances of Lawful Acts in Worship, not particularly Instituted by God, which are Modes or Accidents of his own Instituted Worship, and may be called Worship in a subordinate sense. 4, etc.  
Whether the use of any such be a defection to Idolatry. 8, 9  
Of Kneeling before the Bread and Wine. 12, 13.  
Another Instance of a Lawful Accident of Man's appointment. 13.  
The Face of his Doctrine of Separation unmasked in twenty Particulars. 14, etc.   

The Contents of the Third Part. Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender tried.  
THe general Character of his Book. p. 1, etc.  
He placeth not Communion in any transient Acts, but a fixed permanent State. 4.  
Whether Communion and the Church be the same? 5.  
Have all the Churches the same Right and Obligation to Communicate with each other? 5.  
His Supposition of the World being one Family, etc. p. 7.  
His Accusation of Confusion, Mistaking, etc. examined. 8, 9  
Whether Union and Communion be all one, and this be in no transient Acts? 9, 10.  
To his Question, What makes the Church One? 10, 11, 12.  
Whether that which makes it a Church, make it not One? 13.  
His Philosophy opened (for his Pupils) p. 14. when he dare not confute the Boys common Notions of Physics, he stands wondering at them, p. 14. As that the Soul is principium motus to the Body. That Union is to Soul and Body, like the Copula in a Proposition. 15.  
Whether Christ cannot be to the Church a constitutive Form, as the Soul is to the Body, because he is its Head? and whether Scripture ascribe not to him such Soul-Relations, as well as to be Head? 15.  
His putid intimation that I writ for another Head of the Church, than Christ. 17.  
Whether the Organised Body be not the constitutive matter of Man, and matter be no part? 17.  
More of his fumbling about the term [Organised]. The Dr. cannot understand that forma Corporis and forma Hominis are two things. 18.  
A Story of a Leveller, showing how such Doctor's writings have success. 19  
How the Doctor's Tutor should in his Youth have taught him to understand what the Church's Union is, wherein it consisteth, and by what it's caused. 21, to 27.  
His professed incapacity of applying the similitude of a Copula, pitied. 27.  
His palpable untrue Accusation, in the dark. 28.  
His confused Communion. 30.  
His Schism plainly confuted, That Churches or Persons of separate and opposite Communion, cannot be united to Christ: By three distinctions, 1. Between Communion and Subjection. 2. Between mental and local Separation. 3. Between mental Separation from Essentials, and from mere Accidents or Integral parts. Instances of the famousest Fathers and Churches that have so far separated from each other. 32.  
His Whimsy of Two Universal Visible Churches. 33.  
What excommunicate persons are cut off from Christ. 35.  
Six begged Suppositions which these false Accusers of Schism must have. 36.  
His kind Concessions, That Rebels and Schismatics may have the power of Orders, and Officers rightly constituted, Sacraments, and all Essentials of a true Church, except Peace, and Unity, and Catholic Communion (as if Essentials united not). 36.  
What Schism is damning, briefly opened. 37.  
His Doctrine, ['thas those that believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and lead an holy life in all godliness and honesty— may yet be excluded from all the ordinary means of salvation, proved false, subverting the Gospel. 37, 38.  
His odd Doctrine, That the Divine Spirit is the Principle of Immortality in us, which first giveth life to our Souls, and will at last raise our Bodies; modestly examined, and Reasons given for the Immortality of all men's Souls, as well as those that have the Spirit; and that the rest are not annihilated, but have a future life; and that there is a Resurrection of the just and unjust, and an Hell. 39  
His Notion, That all Bishops are but one Bishop, because Episcopatus unus est. 42.  
Of Independency of Churches. 43.  
The word [Unus] equivocal. 44.  
Whether we may call all those Bishops, who causelessly break Unity, No Catholic Bishops. 44.  
More of Catholic Unity of Bishops. His Opinion of the Original of Arch-Bishops. 46.  
His charge of Knavery and blind Fury, managed by more and more confusion. 47.  
He denieth the Church to have any one constitutive Regent Head, when it is essential to Christ to be such, and the Church to have such. He confesseth that the Church is no Political Society, as headed by men. 48.  
Whether Civil and Church Policy be not the same in genere? 49.  
What Principles of Politics the Dr. should have learned in his Youth: Nine Points which he should have been taught. p. 51, 52. Dr. Parker's Doctrine.  
The Defenders dishonouring Dr. Stillingfleet, as if he denied Christ to be a constitutive Regent Head of the Church Visible as such. p. 53. How far Christ is such a Visible Head. 52.  
Whether all causeless Separation from any part of the Church, on account of Accidents, or by Opinions, cut off men from the whole Church (with more of his errors confuted) to p. 56.   

The Contents of the Fourth Part. The Reasons of my own Communion with Parish-Churches.  
QU. 1. Whether men should be compelled to Communion with any Church by corporal Penalties? plainly answered. p. 1, 2.  
Qu. 2. Whether they who consent to communicate with some Church, may choose their own Pastor or Company; or may by force be confined to their Parish-Priest and Church? 3.  
Qu. 3. For what Reasons I, and such others, do hear in, and communicate with the Parish-Churches? And whether so to do, be a sin or a duty, or a thing indifferent? 6.  
The true case and extent of my judgement herein. 8, 11.  
Twenty Four Reasons of my judgement and Practice, which have still seemed unresistible to my conscience. 12.  
The judgement both of the old Nonconformists and the old Separatists for it, in their own words. 18, 19  
Many Objections answered. 24.  
Why I yielded to men's importunity to publish these Reasons at this time. 26.   

The Contents of the Fifth Part; being an Account why the Twelve Arguments, said to be Dr. I. O's, do not change my Judgement.  
MY Position, and premised History of the matter of Fact. p. 1.  
Dr. O's Premises considered, p. 6. Many mistakes therein manifested. 11.  
His First Argument, from the want of Institution, examined. 12.  
His Second Argument. 18.  
His Third Argument, p. 30. And so to the Twelfth.  
Forty Errors proved in them at least.   
His laying the stress of his condemnation, not of ours only, but of all Liturgick Forms, on the ill effects of them, constrained me in faithfulness to the present endangered minds of Readers, and also to my own conscience, to say so much of the ill effects of Separation on the other side, as I know will be censured by many: But as I have oft done it before (in my Treatise of Baptism, my Gildas Salvianus, my Key for Catholics, Admonition to Mr. Bagshaw, etc.) I judge it made necessary on this occasion, to repeat so much as have done.   

THE PREFACE.  
DID not the Thoughts of a better promised World, afford me Comfort and Relief, the Thoughts of the Case of this so much forsaken Earth, would break my Heart, my Faith and Hope: To see so much of Earth yet Unchristian, and so few of the Christian Nations either in Knowledge, Love or Holiness, answering their Holy Profession, but damning one another, and more themselves: And to see how great a hand the Clergy of almost all Churches, have in this, by notorious, implacable Contention; and to see how little hope there is of a Remedy. If Princes and Patrons choose Wise, Holy, Peaceable Men in England, will they do so in France, Flanders, Spain, and other Popish Lands? And either there they will expect the same Royal Power; make the Pope and his Agents the Electors, which is worse. And with such, the Love of Money, Vainglory, and Self-opinion, Worldliness, Pride, and Ignorant Error, will keep up Envy, Strife and Persecution, Confusion, and every Evil Work.  
O how sad is the Case of the Laity, that must hear Men pretending to great Learning and Authority, with raging Confidence damning the Opinions and Persons of each others, and calling to Princes to destroy those that they cannot convince, and that will not take them for their Masters; pretending that subjection to them and all their ensnaring Laws, is necessary Communion. And with such Confidence do they Writ and Talk, that it must be very expert and settled Christians, that can tell who is in the Right; but the Crowd believe them that have most Interest in them, or that speak the last word, or that have greatest Power.  
There is but one way possible to cure all this (besides wise and godly Princes) which all Peacemakers have still agreed on, Even to Unite in the Divine Authority and Primitive Simplicity, of Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, and to bear with others in smaller Matters. (Supposing the Determination of such mutable Circumstances which belong to each Minister his Place). Christ hath promised Salvation to all that practically so agree. He hath commanded them all to Love one another, even as themselves; and to receive one another, as Christ received us. Baptism devoting us to the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, than made men Christians and Catholics. The Creed, the Lords Prayer, Ten Commandments, were thought a sufficient Test, as to the Orthodox Exposition of the Baptismal Covenant. Upon these Terms the Church Form into Pastors and Flocks, lived in Loving Communion, in the Lord's Supper, and in holy Doctrine, Prayers, Praises, and doing good to all they could. The Kingdom, (that is, the Church) of God, and Christ's Reign therein, consisteth not in Ceremonies and lesser things, but in Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the holy Ghost: The Unity necessary hereunto, was that described, Ephes. 4.3, 4, 5. One Body, One Spirit, One Hope, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of all: And the keeping of this Unity was in the Bond of Peace, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in Love, v. 2, 3.  
These Terms were made for our Love and Communion, by Christ, the Maker of the Church, the Author and Perfecter of our Faiih. These Terms are few, sure, plain, possible; as Christ's Yoke is easy, and his burden light, and his Commands not grievous: These Terms all Christians are actually agreed and united in. He knows not Mankind, that doth not know, That the ignorance, weakness, and badness of Man is such, as that it is impossible, that all good Christians should unite otherwise, upon things hard, dark, doubtful, and numerous. The Primitive Simplicity, Purity and Love, are the only Terms of Universal Concord in the Church on Earth.  
But now by Preachers with wordy confidence, these only healing terms are accused as the way of the most damning Schism. O the subtlety of the Serpent that beguiled Eve! O the folly of Men that will be thus drawn away from the simplicity of Christ, by takeng the only Remedy against Schism, to be the chiefest cause. They have made Associations and Confederacies of Men, to set up New Forms of Churches, Church-Government or Communion, by multitudes of Clergy-Laws or Canons of their own, to be necessary to Ministry and Communion, and consequently to avoid Schsm, and consequently to Salvation: By which Arrogancy, and Impositions, and Arbitrary Laws, and Censures thereupon, the Christian World is now almost all broken into Sects, condemning and censuring one another; into Greeks, Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Abassines, Maronites, Papists, Protestants, etc. And of all these, the Papists pretend to a Power of Government by Legislation and judgement over all the Christians on Earth; some placing it in the Pope as chief, some in a Council, or the College of Bishops, as chief; of which, the Pope is the prime Member; most in Pope and Council agreeing. This Sect unchurcheth all Christians, save themselves, and have made so many Canon-Laws, as none can understand and keep.  
Some that yet do not own the Pope, tell us, That yet the Church on Earth is one Political Body, not unified by its Relation to Christ, the Head and Form (He is not Visible enough, say the Papists, to Head a Church that may be called Visible): But it is unified by a certain Confederacy of Communion among themselves, which sometime they call an Universal Government, and say, they have power to make Universal Laws; and sometime say, It is not One Unifying Government, but One Communion, and yet make Laws which all must hold Communion with: They say and unsay, and know not what to say: They cannot tell us what are the necessary terms of that Communion, nor how to know with what Nations and Churches we must hold it: But this they agree in, That Christ, the Finisher of our Faith, hath left Faith, Worship and Government so unfinished, that Bishops of all the World, or many Nations (they know not who), must make us more Laws (and when they will have done, and completed Religion, no man knows): And that all that will be Christians, must on the Terms of these Canons, have Communion with them, and refuse not one thing that they command: And therefore must all be learned enough to know, that all that they command is lawful: And if any withdraw for an Oath, or Covenant, or Ceremony, though he mentally own them as true Churches; or if for descent he be excommunicated by them, he must worship God in no other Assembly, but live like an Atheist till he be convinced of the Lawfulness of their Impositions: else all that so worship God are damnable Schismatics, and so are all that communicate with them. So that I know but few on Earth that they damn not for breaking their Canons, though they would keep all the Laws of Christ: And every where they that have strength and possession, presume that it is they that must thus be the Standards and Rulers of all others about them. It is an utter Maze which they make the Terms of catholic communion, and consequently of Salvation, instead of the few plain, certain things which Christ made necessary. We can get but few of the vulgar to understand the sense of Baptism, the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Ten Commandments; And our churches are much made up of such, and our Parishes have too many Sadduces, Infidels and Hobbists; yet all must be supposed to know, 1. That all the Bishops and Priests are truly called and authorized (when few know what maketh them Pastors indeed). 2. And that all their words, ceremonies and impositions, are not repugnant to God's Word. 3. And that all are to be avoided whom their Canons and Lay-civilians excommunicate. 4. That it is a company of true Bishops and Churches in other Nations, whose communion they own. 5. That all are Schismatics that they so judge, and their churches no true churches of   

The English Schismatic, detected and confuted: Occasioned by a Resolver of Cases about Church Communion.  

CHAP. I. SAITH THE RESOLVER,  
§. 1. THE Church is a Body or society of men separated from the rest of the World, and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant.  
A. He saith this is the plainest description he can give: That is not the fault of his Auditors or Readers. 1. As to the Genus, a Community of equals without Rulers is a body: but I suppose he meaneth not such. 2. Is it enough that it be of Men? sure now they should be Christians? 3. Many are separated from the rest of the World, secundum quid, that are no Christians; some in one respect and some in another, and none in all respects. 4. United to God, is an ambiguous word, no Creature is United to him perfectly so as to be thereby what he is, God, in the created Nature. Only Christ is united to him Hypostatically in his created Nature. All are so far united to him in natural being, as that in him they live and move and have their being: And the Nature of man is one sort of his Image: All things are united to him as effects to their constant efficient. The Church should not be defined without any mention of Christ: The Church's Union with God is by Christ. 5. Christ himself as Head is an essential part of the Church, and should not be left out of a Definition, though the mere Body may in common speech be called the Church, as the People may be called a Kingdom. 6. Will any Divine Covenant serve? or must it not be only the Baptismal Covenant? 7. Is it called Divine only as made by God, or as commanded by God and made by Man, or as mutual? Certainly Gods Law and offered or Conditional Promise is most frequently called His Covenant in Scripture; and this uniteth not men to God, till they consent and Covenant with him. Their own Covenant Act is necessary hereto: And that is a Divine Covenant, only as commanded, and accepted and done by Gods assisting Grace. 8. The form of a Church is Relative, and the Terminus is essential to a Relation. It is no definition that hath not the End of the Association: Therefore this is none at all; and so the beginning tells us what to expect.  
This description hath nothing in it but what may agree to divers forms of Society, and so hath not the form of a Church: And if he intended not a Definition, but a lose description, I would a defining Doctor had had the Chair, during this controversy.  
Let us try this description upon a Mahometan Kingdom, Army, or Navy, or suppose them mere Deists.  
1. Such a Kingdom, Army, or Navy may be a Society. 2. Of Men. 3. Separated from the rest of the World secundum quid & ad hoc (and none are separated from it simpliciter & ad omnia: e. g. No man is separated from the common humanity; No Deist from any but Atheists, and no Christian in believing a God and the Law of Nature and Nations.) 4. They are United to God so far as owning a God and Worshipping him amounts to, besides the Union of the Creature with the Creator in whom he liveth, etc. And no unregenerate ungodly Christian is united to him savingly. 5. They are united among themselves. 6. This is by a Covenant: 7. And by a Covenant Divine, as to command, approbation and object. It is God that they Covenant to own and obey: The common Profession of the Mahometans, is, There is one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet. It is Divine in tantum as commanded. For God Commandeth all men to Own him; to believe that God is, and that he is the Rewarder of them that diligently seek him: And God so far approveth it: St. james saith, (Thou dost well) to him that believeth there is a God, much more that is professedly devoted to him.  
Let us by this examine the Jewish Church: jews now may be 1. A Body, 2. Of Men, 3. Separated from the rest of the World, even in Religion and Church pretensions. 4. United to God as Creatures, as Men, as the corporal seed of Abraham, and as professing Belief, Love and Obedience to God, as their God. 5. Strictly united among themselves: 6. By a Covenant, 7. Which God once commanded, and still approveth so far as they own God.  
Let us consider whether this description take not in, those in every Nation that fear God and work Righteousness, that never heard of Christ, (being thus combined.) And whether the Kingdom of God, be not larger than his Church: Join the Head and Tail of this man's book together, and by the Head (the description) for aught I see, jews, Mahometans, if not almost all Heathens, are the Church: But at the End, I think none on Earth is the Church: At least none that separate from a pair of Organs, or an ignorant Curate; Nor can any man know who.  
Page 2. §. 2. He explaineth his Word [Body] as opposed to a confused Multitude.  
A. But a Community of Equals, that have no Governors, may have order, and ●e no confused Multitude. And he himself after pleads over much for a necessity of Rulers.  
P. 3. §. 3. And in many places, his Confusion and grand error is repeated, that the Christian Church is but one: p. 7. We know no Church but what all Christians are members of by Baptsme, which is the Universal Church: p. 8. There is but one Church, of which all Christians are members, as there is but one Covenant; p. 19 If there be but one Church and one Communion, of which all true Christians are members, etc. p. 23. I am not otherwise a member of any particular Church, than I am of the Universal: p. 40. It's a schismatical Notion of membership that divides the Christian Church into distinct memberships, and therefore into the distinct Bodies: And p. 19 and often he saith, those Churches which are not members of each other, are separate Churches and Schismatics.  
A. I had hoped that no man but Mr. Cheny had talked at this rate.  
I. It's agreed on, that there is but one Universal Church: The contrary is a Contradiction. 2. It is agreed, that there is no lawful particular Church which is not a part of the Universal. 3. That whoever hath just Union and Communion with a true particular Church, hath Union and Communion with the Universal: 4. That all men in their Worship of God, should accordingly perform it (and do all that they do) as Men in that Relation to the Universal Church: None of this is controverted.  
II. But I had hoped never to have heard any but Seekers say, that there are not many lawful particular Churches, distinct from the whole and from one another, though not disjunct in the Common Essentials. For the proof of the contrary,  
1. I begin with that which I expect should be most powerful; The man's own after-Confessions, to which he is oft brought. Pag. 8. Distance of Place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline, has divided the Church into several parts and members, and Particular Churches, etc. So pag. 14. pag. 19 All Christian Churches ought to be members of one. More fully p. 20, 21. This is ad hominem, Yea and Nay is his Resolution.  
2. But I'll bring other Arguments that prevail more with me. The Sacred Scriptures oft tell us of many Churches, therefore there are many. Act. 9.31. The Churches had rest; and 15.4. Confirming the Churches; 16.5. So were the Churches established in the Faith; Rom. 16.4. All the Churches of the Gentiles: So ver. 16. 1 Cor. 7.17. So ordain I in all Churches; 11.16. Neither the Churches of God (have such Custom;) 14.33. As in all the Churches of the Saints; 34. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches. So 16.1.19. & 2 Cor. 8.1. The Grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia: 18. Whose Praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches. So 19.23, 24. and 11.8.28. The care of all the Churches; 12.13. Inferior to the other Churches. Gal. 1.2, 22. 1 Thes. 2.14. 2 Thes. 1.4. Rev. 1.4. To the seven Churches, ver. 11.20. Angels and Candlesticks of the seven Churches. And 2.7, 11, 17, 29. and 3.6, 13, 22, 23. and 22.16. His Concordance might have showed him all these in order, Phil. 4.15. No Church communicated with me (concerning giving and receiving) but ye only. The dispute now must be, whether the Apostles or this Resolver be to be believed: They say, there are many Churches, parts of One; he saith, There is but one, and it's Schismatical to divide it into distinct memberships or Bodies, etc. It's no Schism here to say, I am for Paul and the Holy Scripture: Let who will believe the contradictor.  
3. My next Argument is this: Where there are many Political Societies, consisting of Christian Pastors and People, professedly associated for the ordinary Exercise of those Relations as such, in holy Communion, in Christian Doctrine, Worship, Order and Conversation, for Edification in true Faith, Hope, Love and Obedience, and the Glorifying of God therein. There are many distinct true Churches, parts of the Church Universal; But on Earth there are many such Societyes, etc. Ergo, etc.  
Either the controversy is De re or de nomine (for we called Separatists use to separate these.) 1. If the re; Let the existence of the thing defined be tried by Scripture, Reason and common Experience: 2. If the nomine; Forma quae dat esse dat Nomen: Here is the true specific form which is found in many single Churches, ergo the Name of such single (or individual) Churches is due to them.  
4. Again ad hominem, from the consequences: 1. If there be not many single Churches in the Universal, then there are not many Patriarchal, National, Provincial, Metropolitical, Diocesan, or Parochial Churches: For non entium non datur numerus: Many nothings is a contradiction. Multae sunt ergo sunt; Abest tertij adjecti ad est secundi valet argumentum.  
But if there be not many, than 1. All the Parish Churches in England being but one, and not many, a Patron can have right to present to no one as a Church, more than to another. 2. Then the Parson, Vicar or Curate is no more the Parson of one Church than of another; nor bound to no more Care and Duty; for there is but one. 3. Then no one is bound to go to one Parish Church more than another; for there is but one. 4. Then the Temple and Tithes belong no more to one than another. 5. Then no Bishop is the proper Bishop of one Diocesan Church, more than of another. 6. Then all the revenues of the Bishop of London, are no more appropriate to one Church than to another. 7. Then you own no more Obedience to the Bishops of one Diocesan Church than another: 8. Then you make the King no more Head or Governor of the Church of England, than of another. 9 Then a Diocesan oweth no Reverence to a Metropolitan Church (if there be none such.) 10. Then many Churches cannot have Communion nor send Bishops to Councils; (if there be not many.) 11. And the charge of Separation from a Church that is no Church, is a contradiction.  
5. I add, from Parity of Reason, if many distinct subordinate Societies may make one Civil Body Politic, so they may one Universal Church: But the Antecedent is undoubted. If it be Learnedly said with Mr. Cheny, that one whole cannot be Part of another whole; One may attain the perfection by that time he hath worn the Breeches but a few years, to know that a whole Family may be part of a whole Village, and a whole Vicinage be part of a whole City, and a whole College be part of a whole University; and a whole City part of a whole Kingdom; and a whole Kingdom part of the whole Earth.  
And if it be objected, that the Names of the whole and parts are here divers; but a Church and a Church are the same Name. I Answer, at the same age one may learn that the same Name proveth not the sameness of the things Named; and that ex penuria nominum the Genus and Species, the Totum and Parts have oft equivocally the same Name, with the Addition of just Notes of distinction. Sometimes an Academy of many Schools is called Schola, and so are the single Schools therein: The City of London is a Society; and so are the Societies of Merchant-Taylors, Drapers, Mercers, etc. therein.  
§. 4. But these Churches must be members of one another, or they are Schismatics.  
A. 1. How can that be, if they be all but one. 2. This is also above or below the ferula age. They are no members of one another, but all members of the whole: Yet how oft have we this with the sting of Schism (as Damning as Murder or Adultery) in the Tail of it. The hand is not a member or part of the Foot, or the Foot of the Hand, or the Liver a member of the Lungs, etc. but each one of the Man: If ever I were a Schoolmaster again, I would persuade my Boys, that A is not a member of B, nor B of C, etc. but each of the Alphabet; And that one leaf of their Book is not a member of another, but both of the Book; And if they were ripe for the University, I would persuade them that Exeter College is not a member of Corpus Christi, nor that of Lincoln, etc. but all of the University of Oxford. And I think that Bristol is not a member of Exeter or Gloucester, etc. but all of England; and that the Company of Stationers are not part of the Society of Merchants or Drapers, etc. but all of London.  
What a Privilege is it, that a Man may believe this about any such thing without Schism and Damnation! And how dreadful to fall into such Church-mens hands that in their Case make it Schism, Separation and Damnation. But there is a Remedy.  
§. 5. But he hath reason for what he saith: p. 3, 4. [Indeed it is extremely absurd and unreasonable, to say, that the Christian Church, which is built on the same Foundation, etc. who enjoy all Privileges in Common, should be divided into as distinct and separate Bodies, though of the same kind and nature, as Peter, james and john are distinct Persons— It's absurd to say, That where every thing is common there is not one Community.  
Ans. Let us not swallow this without Chewing: 1. Whether all be extremely absurd and unreasonable which such Doctors call so; I am grown to doubt as much as whether all be Schism which Schismatics call so▪ Ipse dixit is no Proof.  
2. What the meaning of this great, Decantate Word [Separate] is, must anon be enquired: But, may not Churches be distinct and not culpably separate? He confesseth afterwards both local distinction and separation.  
3. How far are the Universal Church and Particular Churches distinct? As Whole and Parts? Must the World at last learn that Whole and Parts are not distinct? If you take it for absurd to distinguish a Man from a Body, or from a Liver, Hand or Foot, Dissenters do not; nor to distinguish a College from an University, a House from a Street, a Street from a City, etc.  
But how are the Particular Churches distinguished one from another? Reader, so constantly do such men fight with themselves, that it's meet to ask, whether they that thus say there are not many distinct Churches, do not assert a far wider difference between many, than those they descent from. We affirm that there are many, and that they differ not in specie, but numero, as Colleges, Cities do among themselves; but these men, after all this, hold not only a numerical, but a specific difference, even as Parochial, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchal, National; at least Presbyters and Diocesans differing Ordine vel Specie with them, the Church denominated from them must do so too.  
§ 6. But he confirms it. [Peter, James and John, though they partake of the same common nature, yet each of them have a distinct Essence and Subsistence of their own, and this makes them distinct Persons; but where the very Nature and Essence of a Body or Society consists in ●aving all things common, there can be but one Body.  
Ans. I hope it's no culpable Separation to distinguish things as differing specie & numero; and this is the Doctor's meaning, if his words are significant: and the common way of expressing it would have been, [Peter and John differ numerically but not in specie; but two Churches differ neither specie nor numero.]  
And 1. Reader,, whereas he said before, that the Church is not divided into distinct Bodies, as james and john, etc.] did you think till now, that james and john, and the Doctor, and the several Bishops had not been distinct parts of the Church in their distinct natural bodies?  
2. And why may there not be distinct Politic Bodies, or Compound in one whole as well as natural? certainly, all things corporeal save Atoms are Compounds: A Muscle, a Hand, a Foot, parts similar and dissimilar in man are all compounded of lesser Parts. If many Students may make one College, why may not many Colleges make one University? It's strange if a Doctor deny this.  
3. But let us consider of his Reason, and inquire 1. Whether the Church have all things Common. 2. Whether the very Essence of it consist in this.  
I. It is granted that the whole Essence of the Genus and Species is found in every individual of that Species, Natural or Politic; but did we ever hear, till Mr. Cheny and this Doctor said it, that Politic Bodies differ not numero as well as Natural? The Kingdom of England and of France are two; the Church of Rome and Constantinople long strove which should be uppermost, but who ever said that they were not two?  
II. Have they all things common? Dissenters would have excepted Wives and Husbands, (th● the Canons called Apostolical do not;) Why should the Essence of a Church lie in this, and not the Essence of a City or Kingdom? Tories in Ireland would have all common; Merchants and Tradesmen, Knights, Lords and Princes here would not. But it's no Schism here also to distinguish simpliciter & secundum quid, Propriety and the use of Propriety: There is no Community without Propriety: Men have first a Propriety in themselves, their members, their food, the acquests of their Labours, their Wives and Children, and Goods. And they consent to Community to preserve this Propriety, because every man loveth himself: And yet they must use their Propriety, (even of Life) for common good, because all are better than one: But if they had no Propriety they could not so use it for the Commonwealth.  
And I never conformed to the Doctrine that denyeth Propriety in Church Members and Particular Churches, and thought all simply common. I'll tell you what Particular Churches have to individuate them, not common to all.  
1. They consist of individual natural Persons, many of which as much differ from many other Persons, (those in England from those in Spain) as one man doth from another.  
2. Their Graces and gifts are numerically distinct (Faith, Hope, Love, etc.) from those of other Church's thó ejusdem speciei. 3. England and France, London and Oxford, have Churches of different place and Situation: 4. But the formal individuating difference is their nearest Relation to their several Pastors; as several Kingdoms, Cities, Schools are numerically distinct by their distinct Kings, Majors, Schoolmasters, so are several Churches ejusdem speciei. 1. Thess. 5.12, 13: Know those that are among you and over you in the Lord, and esteem them highly in love for their Works sake. As every man's Wife, Children and Servants must be used for the common good, and yet are not common, one man's Wife and Children are not another's; So the Bishop of London, of Oxford etc. must govern his Church for the good of the Universal; but he is not the Bishop of Gloucester, Norwich, Paris, Rome.  
These are differences enough to constitute a numerical difference of Churches: Paul distinguisheth the Bishops of Philippi, Ephesus, etc. from others.  
Do you yet see no Privileges that one hath Proper, and not common to all? none that make a difference in specie, but both numerical and gradual. 1. All Churches have not Bishop jewel, Bishop Andrews, Doctor Stillingfleet, Doctor Sherlock to be their Teachers: All Churches be not taught all that's in this Resolver. 2. All Churches have not men of the same soundness nor excellency of Parts: It was once taken for lawful to account them specially worthy of double honour who laboured in the Word and Doctrine, and to esteem men for their works sake. Paul saith of Timothy, I have no man like minded. If those that heard not a Sermon in many years differed not from your Congregation, why do you preach?  
I am reproached in Print for telling the world this notorious truth; That I lived till ten years old, where four men, four years hired successively were Readers and Schoolmasters; two Preached (as it was called) once a Month, the other two never: Two drank themselves to beggary. After I lived where many Parishes about us had no Preachers: The Parish that I lived in, had a Church with a Vicar that never preached, and a Chapel with a Parson eighty years old, that had two Live twenty Miles distant, and never preached: His Son a Reader and Stage-player was sometime his Curate: His Grandson, my Schoolmaster, his Curate next that, never preached in his life, but drunk himself to beggary. One year a Tailor read the Scripture, and the old man (the best of them all) said the Commmon-Prayer without book (for want of sight.) The next year a poor Thresher read the Scripture. After that a Neighbour's Son (my Master) was Curate, who never preached but once, and that when he was drunk, (in my hearing) on Mat. 25. Come ye Blessed, and go ye Cursed;] the saddest Sermon that ever I heard. These things were no rarities: Now my assertion is, That the Church that had such as Austin, chrysostom, jewel, Andrews, and such worthy men as London now hath many, had Privileges distinct from these, (and many the like) that I was in.  
If you say that every Bishop and Preacher is as much the Bishop and Preacher to all other single Churches, as to that which is his Title; then 1. He must be condemned for not teaching them all. 2. Then he may claim maintenance from them all. 3. Then he may intrude into any man's Charge▪ 4. Then no Church is unchurcht for want of a Bishop, for any one Bishop is Bishop to every Church in the World; and so ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia, signifieth but that Church and Bishop are on the same Earth; and Ecclesia est Plebs Episcopo adunata may be verified if there be but one in the World. 5. And so Mr. Dodwell and such are self-confuted before you are ware: Geneva, Holland, and all Presbyterians are true Churches, for they have all Bishops; e. g. The Bishop of London is Bishop to them all: For if one man be no more a Member of one single Church than of another, and so no more a Subject to one Bishop than to another, than one Bishop is no more Pastor of one Church than of another.  
7. And how can you magnify the Church of England for a Wise, Learned, Pious Clergy above other Churches, if all Privileges be common, and they have no proper Pastors of their own.  
8. Do you think that the Church, e. g. Of Hippo, that was in Augustine's days, was the same numerical single Church with that which is there now, (were there any) or with the Diocesan Church of London? if not, then at least distance of time, and change of Persons maketh divers Particular Churches; and it's no more against the unity of the Church Universal to have divers particular Churches in it in the same Age, than in divers Ages.  
In short, Diversity of matter and form maketh a numerical Diversity (as of Natural, so) of Politic Bodies of the same species: But the Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Philadelphia, etc. were of divers matter and form numerically; Ergo they were divers Political Churches.  
Sure God doth not commend Laodicea for Philadelphia's Church Virtues, nor condemn the Church of Philadelphia for the other Church's Sins.  
And if the Angels be Bishops, why are some Bishops praised as the Bishops of such Churches, and the Bishops of other Churches threatened.  
But I confess this is a ready way to end the Controversies between the Bishops of several Churches which shall be greatest, if they be all but one.  
But I hope that when the Bishop of Rome and his Church was corrupted, it is not true that every Bishop and Church fell with him, (or with any that hath turned to Mahumetanism.)  
To be no longer on this, (which I thought no Prelatist would ever have put me on) if these men speak not notoriously against Scripture, against the constant Language of Canons and Fathers, Historians and Lawyers, and all Antiquity, and all Christian Countries and Divines, (yea, even those that at Trent would have had only the Pope to be of immediate Divine Right) than I know not any thing by Reading. And if poor Nonconformists must be put to defend themselves against such singularities, and be Schismatics unless they will differ from all the Christian World of all Ages, there is no Remedy.  
§. 7. But p. 5, 6. he tells us, [that a Church is made by a Divine Covenant— God only can constitute a Church: Such Persons, if there be any so absurd, are not worth disputing with, who dare affirm the Church to be an humane Creature, or the invention of men.— And no Church can depend on humane Contracts; for then a Church would be a humane Creature and Constitution, whereas a Church can be founded only on a Divine Covenant—  
1. Who would think but this man were a Nonconformist, that talks so like them (e. g. Amesius in Medul. Theol.) against humane Church Forms? But what then will Bishop Bilson, and almost all other Bishops and Christians be thought of, who affirm Patriarchal and Metropolitical Churches (and many of the Diocesane) to be but humane Constitutions and Inventions. And if these be not worth the disputing with, it seems, that you differ from them more than Separatists do: and then were not all these Schismatics? and then, are not you a Schismatic if you communicate with them? yea, your Mr. Dodwel himself maketh Diocesan Churches to be a humane Creature; and A. Bishop Bromhall much pleadeth for man's power to make Patriarchal Churches; and so do such others.  
2. But is it true that humane Contracts make not a Church? Ans. No● alone: But I think that all Churches are made by mutual Contracts, and humane is one part of that which is mutual.  
I. As to the Universal Church, 1. God as Legislator and Donor, instituteth the species of Covenanting by Baptism, and therein he commandeth man's consent to his offered Covenant; and conditionally promiseth to be our God: But, Conditionale nihil ponit in esse: This much maketh no Christian, nor Church. To command a man to be a Christian, and conditionally to promise him life if he will be one, proveth him not to be one; else all were Christians that reject an offered Christ.  
2. But when man consenteth and covenanteth with God, than God's conditional gift becomes actual and efficacious, the man being a capable Recipient, and not before: and in this it is the Contract that is the Fundamentum Relationis; but a single Promise is not a mutual Covenant or Contract.  
So that it is no wiser Divinity to say, God's Covenant and not man's consent, Covenant or Contract with God, doth make Christians, and the universal Church; than it is sober Reason to say, That God's Institution of Marriage or Magistracy only doth make the Relation of Husband and Wife, without their covenanting consent, or doth make Commonwealths, without the consent or Covenant of Sovereign and Subjects. Did this Doctor think that Voluntariness is not as necessary to the Relation of Christianity as to the Relation of Prince and Subjects; yea, or of Husband and Wife? if he do, he is shamefully mistaken. Baptism delivereth men possession of Pardon, Grace and right to Glory; and can men have this against their wills? One would think by the Doctrine and course of some men, that they could force men to Pardon and Salvation! if I believed that their force could accomplish this, I would never call it Persecution. If they can force men to be true Christians, they may force them to be justified and saved; and then they are very uncharitable if they do not: Let them then cease preaching and disputing us to their Opinion, but bring us all to Heaven whether we will or not.  
Yea the self-contradictor, playing fast and lose, confesseth p. 6. That no man at age can be admitted to Baptism, till he profess his faith in Christ, and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow: And is not that humane Covenanting?  
Yea, he knoweth that the Liturgy maketh even Neighbours or Strangers, vow and covenant, both in the name of the Child and for the Child. And so necessary doth the Episcopal Church think humane Covenanting, that without this no Child must be Baptised publicly though the Parents would covenant, and that they can neither for Love nor Money (for many poor men hire Godfathers) get any one (much less three) who examined, will seriously purpose to perform the Covenant for the Childs holy Education which they make  
II. But is not humane Covenanting a cause of single Church Relation as well as of universal? I see no cause to doubt it; and I am sure that the Church for a thousand years (before and since Popery came in) have declared him no Bishop that comes in without consent of Clergy and People; which Consent is their covenanting act.  
To make a single Church, manifold consent goeth to the Fundamentum Relationis. 1. God commandeth single Church Officers, order and consent, and promiseth them his blessing where they are met: The Lord and his Angels are among them: No command is vain, and without a virtual Promise. 2. To this a threefold humane consent is needful, Ordinarily: 1. the Persons called. 2. The Ordainers (when it may be had.) 3. The People's. He that formerly, from the Apostles days, for a thousand years, should have said, that neither the covenanting, that is the consent of the Pastor, or People, or Ordainers, is necessary to the Fundamentum of a single Church Relation or Form, would have been taken for a wild-brained Schismatic at least.  
§. 8. But saith this Doctor (and another of them) [p. 6. But the Independent Church Covenant between Pastor and people, is of a very different nature from this: Unless any man will say, that the voluntary Contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their Members, and wherein they place a Church state, be part of the Baptismal vow; if it be not, than they found the Church upon a humane Covenant; for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism; if it be, than no man is a Christian but an Independent.  
Ans. Alas for the Church that is taught at this rate!  
1. I never saw what Independents do in this case; but I think none of them that are Sober own any other sort of Church but the universal, and single Churches as members of it, and therefore require no Contract but 1. To the Covenant of Baptism or Christianity. 2. To the Duties of their particular Church-relation.  
2. And nothing is here of necessity but manifested Consent (which is a real Contract) but a clearer or a darker, an explicit or implicit consent differ only ad meliús esse.  
3. Is not God the Author of Magistracy, Marriage, etc. And is it any violation of God's part, if Rulers and People, Husband and Wife be Covenanters by his command?  
4. Is it any renuntiation of Baptism to promise at Ordination to obey the Archbishop and Bishop, and to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience? Is it not still exacted? Are not the Takers of it obliged? are not Covenants imposed on all that will be Ministers in the act of Uniformity? are not multitudes kept out and cast out for not making these Covenants? Quo teneam nodo, etc. How should one deal with such slippery men? Good Mr. Zachary Cawdry that wrote to have all men to covenant Submission to Bishops and Parish Ministers, did not dream that it was any violation of Baptism.  
5. Do not men own duty to their Pastors which they own to no others? If not, put them not on it: Why are you angry with them for going from you? Why doth the Canon suspend those that receive them to Communion from another Parish that hath no Preacher? Why are we ruined for not covenanting as aforesaid? if yea, then is it against Baptism to promise to do our duty?  
6. But hath God commanded or instituted no Covenant but Baptism? Yes sure, the Matrimonial at least; and I think Ordination is covenanting for the Ministry: Did not the Apostle Acts 14.23. ordain Elders in every Church? if you would have [by Suffrage] left out of the Translation, no sober man can doubt but it was by the People's consent; and was it without their consent that Titus was to ordain Elders in every City? Can any then come otherwise in? Did not all Churches hold and practise this after, and was it none of God's Institution? If so, God requireth us not to take any of you for our Bishops or Pastors: Who then requireth it? What meaneth Paul when he saith, they gave up themselves to the Lord and to us, by the Will of God.  
7. Can the wit of man imagine how it is possible without consent, for a man to be made the Pastor of any Flock? Who ever ordained a man against his will? or for any man to have Title against his will, to the proper oversight and pastoral care of any one Pastor, or the privileges of any Church? If any think they may be crammed and drenched with the Sacrament, or that an unwilling man may have a sealed pardon and gift of Salvation delivered him, he will make a new Gospel. And how any particular Pastor is bound to give that man the Sacrament ordinarily, that consents not ordinarily to receive it of him, I know not. No man is a member of any City, or any Company of Freemen in the City, but by mutual consent; and the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King maketh not the Oath of a Citizen as such or of a Member of a Company as such, unlawful.  
8. Doth this Doctor think that he ever yet proved to sober men, that the Covenant aforesaid, of Godfathers and Godmothers, to make Christians, and members of the universal Church, is more (or so much) of God's Institution, than the Contract or Consent between Bishops or Pastors and People to make a single Political Church?  
9 If it follow not, that no man is the King's Subject that sweareth not to the City; It will not follow, that none is a Christian, but an Independent, or Church-consenter.  
10. How are your Parish or Diocesan Church members known to yourselves or any others? Are all that dwell in the Parish or Diocese your Church members? Then Atheists, Sadducees, Hobbists, and all vicious men and thousands that never communicate are such: Yea those that you call Separatists. If it be every transient Communicant, have you a proper Pastoral care of every Traveller's Soul that so communicates with you? You after plead that his very ordinary Communion maketh him not a member, if he be unwilling to be one. And is not his consent then necessary? Or if ordinary Communion be the test (how few then of great Parishes are of the Church) yet that is because such Communion signifieth their Consent to your oversight of them.  
§. 9 But it's much to be approved which p. 5. and oft he saith, that to be taken into Covenant with God, and to be received into the Church is the very same thing, as to the Universal Church. By which all his gross Schismatical Accusations afterwards are confuted. No man then is out of the Church that is not out of the Baptismal Covenant, either by not taking it, or by renouncing some Essential part of it? And when will he prove, that to take him, rather than Dr. Bates that was cast out, to be a Teacher or Pastor at Dunstan's, or to take this man and not another to be the Lawful Bishop or Priest, and to obey him in every Oath and Ceremony, is an Essential part of the Baptismal Covenant, or of Christianity? But such a rope of Sand, as Mr. Dodwell and this man tie together, to bind men to their Sect, will serve turn with some that know not who speaks Truth, by any surer way than prejudice.  
§. 10. His Doctrine of Separation and gathering Churches out of Churches is anon to be considered: But whereas he adds, p. 7. [These men convert Christians from common Christianity, and the Communion of the Universal Church to Independency.]  
Ans. My acquaintance with them is small, save by reading their Books: And there are few Men of any Common Denomination (Episcopal, or other) that are not in many things disagreed. But I must in Charity to them say, that as far as I can judge by their Writings or Speech, he palpably slandereth them; and that none that are grave and sober among them do separate their Churches from the common Christianity or the Universal Church, any more than the Company of Stationers, Ironmongers, etc. are separated from the City of London, or London from England, or Trinity College from the University of Cambridge or Oxford. I never met with man, and I am confident never shall do, that doth not take his Independent Church to be part of the Universal, and Dependent as a part on the whole. If belying others stopped at words, the wrong were small: But when it's made but the stairs to hatred and destroying, it's his way to cure Schism that is commonly painted with Horns and Cloven feet. If a man come from a Country Village and be made by Covenant a Citizen of London, how prove you that he renounceth King or Kingdom?  
But he saith, p. 9 Those who wilfully separate from the Corporation to which the Charter was granted, forfeit their Interest in the Charter.  
Ans. What Reader doth this man presume upon that will not ask him, how he proveth 1. That God's Law or Charter to his Church doth not require them to congregate in distinct single Churches (as London Charter doth to erect several Companies, and the Universities several Colleges?) 2. And that God hath not in his Word given order or command for such single Churches: But that the Apostles and Titus by fixing Elders to their several Churches and Cities, separated from the Universal Church? 3. And that their subordinate Churches have not need of distinct subordinate consent and duty: And that our Diocesan Churches all separate from the Universal? Did he think these things need no proof at all?  
It may be he will say that the Diocesan depend on the Universal, but the Presbyterian or Independent do not.  
I Answer, Dependence is either that of Subjects on Sovereign or Magistrates for Government, or that of a Community of Equals for Communion. In the former respect they depend on none but Christ as Universal Sovereign, Nor on any Foriegners for Governments: In the latter, they depend on all true Churches for Communion: And Doctor Hammond and most Diocesans hitherto have said that Diocesan Churches are thus far Independent or National at most.  
And if any be for a Foreign jurisdiction, in Charity before they persuade England to it, they should procure them a Dispensation from all the Oaths, that have sworn all this Kingdom against endeavouring any change of Government, and against a Foreign jurisdiction: For some fanatics now Dream that PER is the Mark of the Beast, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the number of his Name, is nominal as well as numeral, and refers to [CH-urch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and) STate] (For as for them that find a man's name in them, I abhor their Exposition more.)  
§. 11. P. 9 [God (saith he) hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva, France or England, etc.  
A. 1. God hath made one General Law, for Christian's congregating with their fixed Elders or Bishops in particular Churches all the World over: And his Command is not without Promise of being with them to the End of the World; and that Promise becometh a Promise to every Church so congregate. God hath not made distinct Laws or Promises to every Christian: But the Promise to Justify all Believers justifieth each single Person when he believeth. If the King should make one common Law to command all his Subjects that are Freeholders to live in Corporations or Hundreds, described with their privileges, those privileges would be all theirs that are so incorporated: As one Charter may Privilege every London Company, diversified by subordinate Agreements.  
2. And that God who will have them thus incorporated and distributed into several single Churches, doth Covenant (or Promise) according to their demerits to each. Do I need to recite the peculiar Promises and threats to the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. which are Covenants to them?  
§. 12. Next Pag. 10. He will tell us what Communion is, and in many words, it is to tell us that Communion is nothing but Union: I know that quoad notationem nominis, Communion may signify, Union with others: But they that writ Politics have hitherto distinguished Union and Communion, taking Communion for Actual Communication, or exercise of the duties of men in Union? But to speak cross to other Writers on the same Subjects and give no reason for it, and to confound Union and Communion, is one part of this edifying Resolution.  
§. 13. Pag. 11. [Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church, which we are made by Baptism,] (saith he.)  
Then the Baptised are still in Communion with the Church, till their baptism be nullified: And hath he proved us Apostates?  
§. 14. Pag. 12. Should any man who is no member of the Church, nor owns himself to be so, intrude into the Church and Communicate in all Holy Offices, it's no Act of Communion, etc.  
A. I thought communicating ordinarily in Holy Offices, had gone for an owning of Communion: If it do not, would you would tell us how to know who are of your Church.  
§. 15. P. 13. Saith he (Church-Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion, which can be performed among those who are present and Neighbours, but in membership: Now as a member is a member of the whole Body (not merely of any part of it, etc.) All the Subjects of England who never saw nor conversed with each other, are members of the same Kingdom.]  
A. 1. That word [merely] hath more Craft than Justice or Honesty: Merely signifieth Only I suppose; and if he would make his Reader think that they that are for single Church peculiar membership and consent, do take themselves to be [merely or only] members of those single Churches, and not of the Universal, it is shameless injury.  
2. Will he ever draw men to conformity by making them believe, that because they own Common Communion to all Christians, therefore we own no special duty to the Bishops, Priests, Churches or Neighbours where we are settled? Do the Men of one College, School, Corporation, own no more duty to that than to all others? Do the Freeholders' of Bedford-shire choose Knights for Middlesex; or the Citizens of Oxford choose Officers in London? These seem strange Resolutions to us.  
3. But doth he remember that [if Communion consist not in Acts of Communion to such, but in membership even with the distant,] then he that is baptised, and no Apostate, and performeth no other Acts of Communion to the Bishops, Parson or People where he liveth, than he is bound to perform to them a hundred or thousand miles off, is no Separatist. Methinks this favours Separation too much.  
§. 16. Pag. 14. When he denied any Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches distinguished from the Universal (as all National, Diocesan and Parochial are, as parts from the whole) he presently▪ confuteth all again, saying [The exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation (for we cannot actually join in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, etc. but with some particular Church.]  
A. Oportuit fuisse memorem,— 1. Reader, doth not this man here confess that there are particular Churches? 2. If these be not distinct from the whole, than each particular is the whole. 3. If the Exercise must be in particular Churches, must not men Consent to their Relations and Duties? Is it a sin to Promise Duty? 4. Sure it is not mere Place, but a mutual Relation of Pastors and People that distinguisheth these Churches. The Presbyterians preached once in the same Places that you do, and yet you take them not for the same Church Pastors. If one from York or Cornwall come into your Pulpit without consent, do People stand as much related to him as to you? Some men are of extraordinary sufficiency to resist and conquer the clearest evidence of Truth.  
But he adds [every Act of Communion though performed to some particular Church, is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church.]  
A. And who denyeth this? No sober Independent or Presbyterian that ever I met with. It's a weighty Truth.  
§. 17. P. 14. Saith he [Praying, and Hearing and Receiving the Lords Supper together doth not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church, though in the remotest part of the World.]  
A. I think that's not true: With the remotest parts you have only Catholic Communion with the Church Universal: In England and London you have that and more; even special subordinate Communion with your own King, Bishop and Flock.  
2. And hath not the Church of England such Communion in obedience to its own Laws; (as the Act of Uniformity,) Convocation and Canons, which you have not with all abroad? Do your Bishops in Convocation make Canon Laws for all the World? Do you Swear Canonical obedience as much to the Bishop of Paris, or Haffnia, etc. as to your Ordinary? Do the Canons of all Churches impose our Liturgy, or ipso facto excommunicate all that affirm any thing in it, or our Ceremonies or Church Government, to be against God's word? Sure this is a peculiar kind of Communion.  
3. If not, why are all the Nonconformists cast out that offer to officiate and Communicate on such terms as are common to all sound Churches?  
Pag. 15. Saith he [There is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church.]  
A. What, neither in these Acts nor any other! Then we are no more bound to hear you, or maintain you as our Pastor, than to hear and maintain the whole Christian Church.  
§. 18. P. 20. Saith he [There is no other Rule of Catholic Communion for private Christians, but to communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with Christians those with whom they live.  
A. 1. Elsewhere you added [sound and Orthodox:] Else they that live with Arians, Socinians, Papists (in Spain, France, Italy, etc.) are bound to communicate with them in all Religious Offices and obey them. 2. This concludeth, that where Presbytery or Independency is the way of the place where we live, all must thus communicate and obey. The King and Custom than may make any way to become our Duty. 3. If you tell us that it's only with the Sound and Orthodox, you were as good say nothing, unless you tell us who must judge that, whether the People themselves, or who for them. 4. But if this be the only rule for private Christians, what shall they do, e. g. in Aethiopa, Egypt, Syria, and many other Countries where the Churches are such as General Councils and other Churches judge Heretics or Schismatics? And what shall they do, when at Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. one party is uppermost (by the Judgement of Councils and Prince) one Year, and another contrary party the next. And what shall they do where the Prince equally tolerateth both, and it's hard to know which is the more numerous? as in Zeno's and Anastasius Reign, etc. And what shall they do when many Churches in one City are of divers Tongues, as well as Customs? Have the Greeks, French and Dutch in London no rule of Catholic Communion but communicating in all Offices with the English, and obeying all your Bishop's Courts?  
§. 19 P. 21. Saith he [Distinct and particular Churches which are in Communion with each other, must have their distinct bounds and limits, as every member has its natural and proper place, and Situation in the Body.]  
A. Why may not the Greeks, Dutch and French live in Communion with the Churches London though they live dispersedly among them! In Brandenburg, Hassia, and many free Cities, and Belgia, where Lutherans and Calvinists (as called) live together, and own each other as Brethren, why may not both be Churches of Christ?  
§. 20. P. 21, 22. A great deal more he hath of the like, making Schismatics at his Pleasure. [This is plain in the Case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles— They are Churches in a Church,— Nothing can justify the Distinction of Christians into several Churches, but only such a distance of place as makes it necessary, etc. p. 22. Distinct Churches in the same place can never be under the same Communion.  
A. These things are repeated so oft, and the word [separate] so deceitfully rolled over and over, that I will answer all together under his third Case at the End.  
§. 21. P. 27. See how openly he recanteth most aforesaid: There is a sense indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church considered as distinct from all other particular Churches: But that principally consists in Government and Discipline. Every Christian is a member of the Whole Christian Church, and in Communion with it, but he is under the immediate instruction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters, and is bound to personal Communion with them; and this constitutes a particular Church, in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the Direction and conduct of a particular Bishop.]  
A. Omitting that he seemeth to make the Parochial Churches no Churches, but parts of one, here he saith all that he seemed to write against, and that those that he reproacheth hold, allowing the difference of the extent of Churches. And is it Edifying to read such a discourse, that saith and unsaith by self-contradiction? And he adjoins 28. p. how by agreement Patriarchal and National Churches are made! And is not Agreement a humane Contract?   

CHAP. II. Of his first Case.  
§. 1. PAge 31. His first Case, Whether Communion with some Church or other be a necessary Duty incumbent on Christians:] And he thinks the Resolution of this is as plain, as whether it be necessary for every man to be a Christian: For every Christian is baptised into the Communion of the Church.  
A. In this I know no Christian adversary to him: But it being the Universal Church that he giveth his proof of necessary Communion with, it's odd to say, We must have Communion with some Church or other: As if there were more than one Universal Church. 2. But we grant more, that all that can well, should be also members of some single Church.  
§. 2. P. 32. He saith [External and Actual Communion is an Essential duty of a Church-member (meaning a Christian.)]  
A. 1. And yet before he denied that Communion lay essentially in this Exercise, but only in Union: Yea and Nay is his Custom. 2. Some few Christians (as those that live where such Communion cannot be had without sin, etc.) are not bound to it; therefore it is not true that it is Essential to Universal Church-membership. And I think sickness endeth not the essentials, that disableth men.  
3. Note Reader, that by this man's Doctrine we are all unchristened and damned if we do not gather into disallowed Churches, if we be unjustly cast out of the allowed one's: For all must be Church members that will be Christians, and an unjust Excommunication cannot disoblige us from Christianity, nor bind us to consent to be damned. Now read the 5th 6th 7th 8th, etc. Canons of the Church of England, which ipso facto Excommunicate all that affirm any thing in their Liturgy, Articles, Ceremonies or Government sinful, and answer Spalatensis arguments against Excommunicating ipso facto, and prove all this just, and you may prove what you will just. But you see where he layeth the Controversy: If any be Excommunicated without sufficient cause, or by Lay Civilians to whom God never gave that power, or by such Bishops or Pastors as have no just Authority for want of a true call or Consent; or if any unlawful thing be made necessary to Communion, all such persons must by his own confessions hold Church-communion whether these imposers will or not; for all Christians are bound to be of some Church.  
§. 3. p. 33, 34. He saith that [None but public Prayers are the Prayers of the Church properly, and acts of Communion, that is, such as are offered by the hands of men authorized and set apart for that purpose, etc.]  
Ans. Who would have thought that we are more for the Liturgy than he? I undertake to prove, that all the Responsal Prayers, and all the Litany Prayers, in which the Minister names but the matter to them, and the People make it a Prayer by speaking the petitioning parts, are all the public Prayers of the Church, and so are all the petitioning Psalms spoke or sung by the People, and not only that which is offered by the Priest: I do not think that he believeth what he carelessly saith here, himself.  
But the Independents are stiffer for his first Thesis (of the necessity of Church-communion) than he is, his unfit words I pass by.   

CHAP. III. Of his second Case.  
§. 1. THE next question of Occasional Communion as distinct from fixed, he turns out of doors, as if there could be no such thing, and it's very true as to the Church universal; but as to visible, actual Communion with this or that particular Church, it is not true.  
1. A Traveller of another Country, who on his journey communicateth with every Church where he passeth, is not a fixed Member of that Church: for, 1. The Pastor or Bishop hath not that peculiar Charge of him as of fixed members. 2. He is not bound where he passeth to take such notice of the lives of Communicants or Pastors, and to admonish the Offenders, and tell the Church, as fixed members are. 3. He hath not the right in chooseing Pastors or Deacons as the fixed Members have. 4. An itinerant Bishop in transitu is not their fixed Bishop; ergo an Iterant Layman is not a fixed Member.  
The same I may say of one that is a fixed member of another Church in the same City, and cometh to that only to signify universal Communion, or neighbourly; which, though he deny to be lawful, I shall further prove anon.  
And the same I may say of those that dwell where there is no fixed single Church at all, for want of a Pastor, but they congregate only when some strange Minister passeth through the Town.   

CHAP. IU. His third Case.  
§. 1. PAge 48, 49. He resolveth his third Case: [Whether it be lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches] negatively, and saith, [It is contrary to all the Principles of Church Communion, as any thing can possibly be; it is to be contrary to ourselves, it is Communicating with Schism: That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have made an actual separation from the Church of England he hath evidently proved;— and they are Schismatics, and to communicate with them is to partake in their Schism; and if Schism be a great sin, and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder, than it must needs be a dangerous thing to communicate with Schismatics. And p. 42. There cannot be two distinct Churches in one place, one for occasional, and another for constant Communion, without Schism.]  
Ans. To save those that are willing from the Poison of these Schismatical Doctrines, leapt up in confusion by men that abhor distinction, or understand not what they say; I will first lay down that truth that he fights against, with convincing evidence, and then show you the mischief of his false Doctrine and Application.  
§. 2. The confusion of these words [Church, Communion, Separation and Schism] which every one signify divers things, is the chief means to blind and deceive his Reader; whether it do so by himself I know not.  
I. The Word Church signifieth sometime the universal Church; sometime a single Organised Church as part of it, and sometime humane combinations of such single Churches; and that into Diocesan, Classical, Provincial, Patriarchal, National, and Papal.  
II. The Specification and Nomination of Churches is from the formal cause, and the proper Government is that form: And the Individuation is from matter and form, but principally from the form.  
III. The Union of Pastor and Flock in Relation makes that which is a form aptitudinal (as the Soul to the Body) to be the form in act (as the Union of Soul and Body) and Gods command and consent with the consent of the necessary relate and correlate cause that union.  
iv Union is in order to Communion, which is primary by the exercise of the formal powers on the matter, and secondary by the action of all the parts according to their several capacities and Offices.  
V The Union of the Church is of divers degrees. 1. The formal Union of the Head and Body, which maketh it essentially the [Christian Church.] 2. The Union of the parts among themselves as Christian, which maketh them a Body capable of Union with the Head. 3. The Union of the parts as unequal Organised, the Official with the rest, which maketh it an Organised Body, fit for its special use and welfare. 4. Union in integrity of parts, which maketh it an entire Body. 5. Union in due temperament and Qualities, which maketh it a healthful Body. 6. Unity in Common Accidents, which make it a Comely Beautiful Body joined with the rest. But, 7. Union in mutable Accidents is unnecessary and impossible.  
VI These several degrees of Union are found in Bodies natural and Politic. 1. The Union of Soul and Body makes a man, and an Embryo before it be organised. 2. The Union of the Body maketh it capable of the Souls further Operation. 3. The Union of the Organical, chief parts, (as Heart, Lungs, etc.) to the rest make it a true humane Body completed to the nutriment and action of Life▪ 4. That it have Hands and Fingers, Feet and Toes, and all integral parts, makes it an entire Body. 5. The due site, temperament and qualities of each part make it a sound Body. 6. Comely colour, hair, action, going, speech, etc. make it a comely Body. 7. To have all parts of equal quantity and office, would make it uncomely: And to have the same hair, colour, etc. is unnecessary at all.  
1. The Union of King and Subjects as such makes a Kingdom. 2. That the People be agreed; for one conjunct interest and Government maketh them a Community capable of Polity or Government. 3. That there be Judges, Majors and Justices, and subordinate Cities or Societies, maketh it an Organised Body, in which Kingly Government may be exercised to its end, the common good. 4. That no profitable part be wanting, (Judge, Justice, Sheriff, etc.) maketh it an entire Kingdom. 5. That all know their place, and be duly qualified with Wisdom, Love, Justice, Conscience, Obedience to God first, to the Sovereign Power next, to Officers next, etc. maketh it a sound and safe Kingdom. 6. That it be well situate, fertile, rich, eminent in Learning, Skill, etc. maketh it an adorned beautiful Kingdom. 7. That all be equal in Power and wealth is destructive; and that all be of one Age, complexion, calling, temper, degree of knowledge, etc. is impossible: And that all have the same language, clothing, utensils, etc. is needless at least.  
VII. Jesus Christ is the only Universal Sovereign of the Church, both of vital influence and Government; nor hath he set up any under him, either Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical, or mixed, Pope, Council, or diffused Clergy, that hath the Power of Legislation and Judgement as governing the whole Chorch; but only Officers that per parts govern it among them, each in his Province, as Justices do the Kingdom, and Kings and States the World; nor is any capable of more.  
VIII. To set up any universal Legislators and Judge, (Pope or Council) is to set up an Usurper of Christ's Prerogative, called by many a Vice-Christ or an Antichrist; and as bad as making one man or Senate the Sovereign of all the Earth; and to attempt the setting up of such or any foreign jurisdiction in this Land, is to endeavour to perjure the whole Kingdom that is sworn against it in the Oath of Supremacy, and sworn never to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State in the Corporation Oath, the Vestry Oath, the Militia Oath, the Oxford Oath, with the Uniformity Covenants: And if any should endeavour to introduce such a foreign Jurisdiction who themselves have had a hand in driving all the Kingdom to all these Oaths against it, I doubt whether all the Powers of Hell can devise a much greater crime against Clergy, Cities, and all the Land. Good reason therefore had Doctor Isaac Barrow to write against it as he hath done, and to confute Mr. Thorndike, and all such as of late go that pernicious way, by the pretence of Church Union and Communion. As if one universal Sovereign and Legislator and Judge, were not enough to unite Christ's Kingdom, or man could mend his universal Laws, and could not stay for his final judgement; and Churches and Kingdoms might not till then be ruled without one humane universal Sovereign by necessary and voluntary agreement among themselves.  
XI. To be a true Believer or Christian, (or the Infant seed of such) devoted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant, uniteth each Member first to Christ himself directly, and consequently to his Body or Church; and this coram Deo, as soon as it is done by heart consent; and coram Ecclesia, regularly, as soon as he is invested by Baptism; which Baptism, when it may be had so, is regularly to be administered by none but an authorized Minister or Deacon; but if through necessity or mistake it be done by a Layman, the Ancient Christians took it not for a nullity, much less if the Baptizer was taken for a Minister by mistake, being in his place; and if no Baptism can be had, open covenanting is vallid.  
X. The Papists (and their truckling Agents here) have here hampered themselves in a fatal contradiction: To make themselves masters of the World, they would persuade us, that Sacraments only regenerate and sanctify, and that God saveth none (by any known way and grant) but by his Covenant Sealed by the Sacraments; and that he authorizeth none to administer this Covenant but Prelates and their Priests, and none can validly have it from other hands: And so if you will but abate them the proof of many things that stand in the way, Heaven and Hell, Salvation and Damnation are at the will and mercy of such Prelates and Priests. But unhappily they cannot retrieve their old Opinion, but maintain that Laymen and Women may baptise in necessity validly, and that Baptism puts one into a State of Salvation.  
XI. As he that swears and keeps his Allegiance to the King is a Subject and Member of the Kingdom, though he be no Member of any Corporation; so, though he disown a thousand fellow Subjects; yea, though he deny the Authority of Constable, Justice, Judge; so he that is devoted to Christ truly in the Baptismal Covenant, is a Christian, and a Member of the Universal Church, though he were of no particular Church, or did disown a thousand Members, or any particular Officer of the Church.  
XII. All faults or crimes are not Treason: A man that breaketh any Law, is in that measure Culpable or punishable: but every breach of Law, or wrong to fellow Subjects or Justices, as it is not Treason, so it doth not prove a man no Subject; though some may be so great as to deserve death and make him intolerable: And so it is in the case of our Subjection in the Church to Christ.  
XIII. To own Christ's Instituted species of Church Officers is needful to the just Order, Safety and Edification of the Church (as to own the Courts of Judicature, Justices, etc. in the Kingdom) but to own this or that numerical Officer as truly commissioned, is needful only to the right administration of his own Province.  
XIV. As Christ did his own work of universal Legislation by himself and his Spirit eminently in the Apostles and Evangelists, who have recorded all in Scripture, so he settled Churches to continue to the end associated for Personal Communion in his holy Doctrine, Worship, Order and Conversation with authorized Ministers, subordinate to his administration in his Prophetical, Priestly, Kingly and Friendly Relations. And though these may not always or often meet in the same place, their neighbourhood maketh them capable of Personal presential Communion, as men that may know and admonish each other and meet by turns, and in presence manage their concerns; which differenceth single Churches of the lowest order from associated Churches of men, that have Communion only by others at distance.  
XV. As Logicians say of other Relations, the matter must be capable of the end, or it is not capable of the name and form; so is it here▪ e. g. It is no Ship that is made of mere Sponge or Paper, or that is no bigger than a Spoon; it is no Spoon that is as big as a Ship: One House is not a Village, nor one Village a City, nor a City a mere House. So twenty or an hundred or a thousand Parishes associate, cannot be a single Church of the first or lowest Order, being not capable of mutual Knowledge, Converse or personal present Communion: Nor are two or three Laymen capable to be such a Church, for want of due matter. But supposing them capable, though a full and rich Church have advantage for Honour and Strength, yet a small and poor one is ejusdem ordinis as truly a Church; and so is their Pastor, as Hierom saith of Rome and Eugubium; so Alexandria and Majuma, etc. Gregory Neocaesar was equally Bishop of nineteen at first, as after of all save nineteen in the City.  
XVI. If the Apostles have Successors in their care and Superiority over many Churches, it will prove that there should yet be men of eminent worth to take care of many Churches, and to instruct and admonish the younger Ministers: But it will neither prove 1. That they succeed the Apostles in the extraordinary parts of their Office. 2. Nor that they have any forcing power by the Sword. 3. Nor that one Church hath power over others by Divine right; for the Apostles fixed not their power to any particular Churches, but were general Visitors or Overseers of many: Yet if the same Man who is fixed in a particular Church, have also the visiting admonishing oversight of many as far as was an Ordinary part of the Apostles Office, and be called an Archbishop, I know no Reason to be against him.  
XVII. There be essential and Integral Acts of the Sacred Ministry instituted by Christ: These none may take the Power of from any Ministers, nor alter the species or integrity of the Office, by setting up any such Superious as shall deprive them of that which Christ hath instituted, or arrogating the like uncalled. But as in worship, so in Order and Church Government, there are undetermined accidents: As to choose the time and place of Synods, to preside and moderate and such like: And these the Churches by agreement, or the Magistrate may assign to some above the rest: And if the Magistrate affix Baronies, Honours, Revenues, or his own due Civil forcing Power, and make the same Men Magistrates and Ministers, whether we think it prudent and well done or not, we must honour and obey them.  
XVIII. Some call these humane Accidental Orders, forms of Church Government, and affirm (as Bishop Reignolds did, and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicon and many excellent men by him cited) that no form of Church Government is of Divine Command. Which is true of all this second sort of Government which is but Accidental and humane; but not at all of the first sort which is Divine and Essential to Christ himself first, and to Pastors as such by his appointment; so that the essential Government of the Universal Church, by Christ, and of each particular Church by Pastors specified by him (if not of Supervisors of many as succeeding Apostles and Evangelists in their Ordinary work) are of unalterable Divine right. But the humane forms are alterable: Such I account 1. The Presidency and Moderatorship and accidental Government of one Bishop in a single Church over the other Presbyters, Deacons, etc. 2. The accidental Government of a Diocesan as an Archbishop over these lowest Bishops and Churches. 3. And the Superiority of Metropolitans and Patriarches over them, so it be but in such Accidentals and within the same Empire, not imposing a foreign Jurisdiction. These tota specie differ from the Divine Offices.  
XIX. All these single Church being parts of the Universal are less noble than the whole, and are to do all that they do as members in Union with the Whole, and to do all as Acts of Communion with them.  
XX. The General precepts of doing all to Edification, Concord, Peace, Order, etc. oblige all the Churches to hold such correspondencies as are needful to these Ends: And Synods are one special means, which should be used as far and oft as the Ends require: And if National Metropolitans and Patriarches order such Synods, I am not one that will disobey them. But if on these pretences any would make Synods more necessary than they are, and use them as Governors, by Legislation and Judgement over the Particular Bishops by the use of the Church Keys, and will affix to them or Metropolitans, besides an Agreeing Power and the said Government in Accidentals, a proper Church Government by making and unmaking Ministers or Christians, excommunicating and absolving as Rulers by the said Keys, it may be a duty to disown such usurpations. As the King would disown an Assembly of Princes any where met that would claim a Proper Government of him and his Kingdom; Tho' it were much to be wished that all Christian Princes would hold such Assemblies for the Concord and Peace of Christendom.  
XXI. The Essentials of Faith, Hope and Loving Practise, essentiate the Church objectively: And these are all summarily contained in the Baptismal Covenant, explained in the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalouge; and all with much more, even Integrals and needful Accidentals in the Sacred Scriptures, which taking in the Law of Nature, are Gods Universal Law.  
XXII. There is no Church on Earth so sound and Orthodox as to want no Integral part of Christian Religion: Proved: There is no man on Earth, much less any multitude, so sound as to want no Integral part: But all Churches consist only of Men; And therefore if all the Men be so far defective, all the Churches are so.  
It is not their Objective Religion Generally and implicitly received that I mean, but their Subjective Religion, and their explicit reception of the Objective. The Scripture is our perfect Objective Religion in itself, and as an Object proposed, and in general and implicitly we all receive it. But as a man may say, I believe all that's in the Scripture, and yet be ignorant of the very Essentials in it; so a man may explicitly know and believe all the Essentials and more, and yet be ignorant of many Integrals.  
All things in Scripture proposed to our Faith, Hope and Practice, are the Integrals of our Religion: But no Christian understandeth all these proposals or words of Scripture: Therefore no Christian explicitly believeth them all, or practiceth all. To hold the contrary, is to hold that some Church is perfect in Understanding, Faith, Hope and Practice, without Ignorance, Error or Sin: that is, not to know what a man or a Christian on Earth is.  
XXIII. Much less do all Churches agree in unnecessary indifferent accidents, nor ever did, nor ever will or can do.  
XXIV. The measuring out Churches by limits of Ground, Parochial or Diocesan, is a mere humane ordering of a mutable accident, and no Divine Determination: And if all were taken for Church members-because they dwell in those precincts, it were wicked: But if it be but all in those precincts that are qualified Consenters, it is usually a convenient measure: But such as in many Cases must be broken.  
XXV. If a Church with Faithful Pastors be well settled in a place first where there are not more than should make up that one Church, it is not meet for any there to gather a distinct Church (though of the same Faith) without such weighty reason as will prove it necessary, or like to do more good than hurt: 1. Because Love inclineth to the greatest Union; 2. Because a Great Church is more strong and honourable than a small, if the number be not so great as to hinder the Ends. 3. And the Ancient Churches kept this Union.  
XXVI. If Magistrates make such Laws about Church Accidents as tend to further the Church's welfare, or are so pretended, and not against it, we must obey them. But if they will either invade Christ's Authority or cross it, by making Laws against his, or such as are proper to his Prerogative to make, or invade the Pastor's Office, and the Churches proper right given by Christ, or determine Accidents to the Destruction of the Substance (the Church, Doctrine, Worship or Ends) these bind the Consciences of none to Obedience; but Christ must be obeyed, and we must patiently suffer.  
XXVII. Self-interest, Self-Government and Family-Government are all antecedent to Public Government, which Ruleth them for the Common good, but hath no Authority to destroy them: No King or Prelate can bind a man to do that which would damn his Soul, nor to omit that which is needful to his Salvation: All power is for Edification: They are Gods Ministers for Good.  
XXVIII. As it belongs to self-government to choose our own Diet, and clothes, and Wives, and Physicians, (though we may be restrained from doing public hurt on such pretences;) And it belongs to Family Government to educate our own Children, and choose their Tutors, Callings, Wives, etc. so it more nearly belongs to self-government to choose the most safe and profitable means of our own Salvation, which no man may forbid us; and to avoid that which is pernicious or hurtful; and to Family-Government to do the like for our Children.  
XXIX. It is false Doctrine of those late Writers who tell us, that only Sacraments sanctify or give right to Salvation: The whole Tenor of the Gospel tells us that men are brought to Faith and Repentance, and to be Christians, and Godly men, and by Faith to be justified, by the Preaching of the Gospel: and that God's word is his appointed means of Salvation, which his Ministers must preach skilfully, instantly, in season and out of season, to that End: And if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.  
XXX. The Gospel saveth not like a Charm, by the bare sound or saying of the words; nor the Sacrament like an Amulet; But as a Moral means (specially blest by him that instituted it) to work on man as M●n, by informing his Mind, persuading his Will and exciting his Affections, as Men are wrought on in other Cases; (which methinks those called Arminians should least deny, who are said to lay more of the Spirits operation on Moral suasion than their Adversaries; yea and those that account it Fanaticism to expect any other gift of Prayer from the Spirit but what is given morally by use.) And the contrary Doctrine feigneth God to Work even constantly by Miracle: And as the Papists make every Mass-Priest a Miracle Worker in Transubstantiation, so do they that make the bare saying over the Words and doing the outward Acts in the Sacrament, to save us ex opere operato, and the Pastoral teaching and oversight of an ignorant drunken Lad or Reader to be (near) as great a help to Salvation, as the Ministry of a wise skilful, Holy and exemplary Pastor, and the clear affectionate Preaching of God's word: And that tell us (as Mr. Dodwell) how sufficient a man is to administer the Sacramental Covenant that understands what a Covenant is in matters of Common Conversation.  
XXXI. If a Wise and Skilful and Conscionable Ministry be as needless to Edification and Salvation as some Men pretend, it is as needless that they should study to be such, and vain to Glory that they are such, and that the Church of England hath such a Ministry, and vain to expect that men should pay them any more respect than I owed my Master that never preached but once, and that drunken; (and divers very like him.) Or that they should use this as an argument to draw men to hear them.  
XXXII. If the King or Law should settle a Physician of his (or a Patrons) choice in every Parish, it were well done if it be but to have help at hand for Volunteers: But if he command all to use them and to use no other before them or against them, where unskilful or untrusty men are placed, no man is bound to obey this command: No men's Law can dissolve the Law of Nature, nor disoblige a man from a due care of his Life, nor bind him to cast it away upon Obedience to ignorant or bad and treacherous Men. And a man's Soul is more precious than his Health or Life; and he is bound to greater care of it; and is no more to trust it on the will of his Superiors How vast is the difference between an ignorant rash Physician or Pastor, and one that is wise, experienced and trusty? They that scorn Men for going for greater edification from one to another, do not so if a man prefer a skilful Physician to one that kills more than he cures; or a skilful and careful Tutor for his Son, yea or a Farrier for his Horse.  
XXXIII. If one Preacher be not for Edification to be great●● preferred before another, than One Book is not: And so it's no matter what Book they read or value; and what a Student will this make? And what a Trade for the Booksellers? And why then should their own Books be so valued? And why then do they silence hundreds or thousands and forbidden them to preach on pain of ruin, (though no false Doctrine be proved against them) if they think not that the difference is very great.  
XXXIV. When Councils hereticated and condemned Thousands or Hundreds of Priests and Bishops, whom Christian Emperors and Princes owned as Orthodox, they did not then think every Patron, Prince or Prelate a competent Judge with what Pastor Men should trust the conduct of their Souls: Nor did they think so that forbade men hearing fornicators; Nor Cyprian that required the People to forsake Basilides and Martial (& Peccatorem Praepositum.)  
XXXV. So full was the proof given in the Book called, The first Plea for Peace, that the Church from the beginning denied Princes and Magistrates to be entrusted with the choice of Bishops, or Pastors to whom the Churches were bound to trust the conduct of their Souls, that he who denyeth it, is not worthy to be therein disputed with. And yet we doubt not but they may force Infidel Subjects and Catechumen to hear sound and settled Preachers and Catechists; And may dispose of the Tithes, Temples and many other Accidents of the Church; and may drive on Pastors and People to their Duty.  
XXXVI. It is false Doctrine that two distinct Churches may not be in the same Precincts or City; This being a mere Accident which abundance of Cases make unnecessary and unlawful: Which I shall prove.  
That which is not where commanded by God, is no duty: But that there shall be but one Church (or Bishop) in the same Precincts, is not commanded of God, Ergo, etc. (Divine of Gods making.)  
They own the Major in the case of Indifferent thing. If they deny the Minor let the affirmers prove any such command. We grant a command of Love and Concord, and a prohibition of all that is against them. But in many instances, to have several Churches in the same precincts, is not against them.  
If they fly to the Canons of foreign Councils, the reason of them we shall weigh and duly regard; But they were National, and had their Legislative Power only from their own Princes and their Counselling Power only from Christ: And we disown all foreign Jurisdiction.  
XXXVII. In all these Cases following (and more) two Churches may be in the same precincts (yea and a City.)  
1. In Case that several Bishops are called justly to dwell in the same City, or Diocese, and many of their Flock be with them, e. g. Many Bishops of England dwell long, yea mostly in London or in London Diocese: e. g. The Bishop of Eli dwells in the Parish of St. Andrews Holbourn: Qu. Whether there he be a Subject to Dr. Stillingfleet as his Pastor, and bound to obey him? or whether many out of his Diocese (thousands) may not as Lawfully dwell half the Year in London as he? And whether when he preacheth to them, he do it not as their Bishop (in London Diocese.) And so of many other Bishops that here reside.  
XXXVIII. 2. Either our Parish Churches are true Churches, or not. If not, the Separatists are so far in the right; And separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them. If yea, than many Churches are in the same City and Diocese. (Of their agreement and dependence on the same Bishop I shall speak anon.)  
XXXIX. 3. In case that in one City there be resident Stranges, that are sent on Embassies, or live for Merchandise, or flee from Miseries, and are the Subject of other Princes, whose Laws and Customs they are under, e. g. At Frankford, Hamburgh, Middleburgh, Dantzick, Constantinople, there have been English distinct lawful Churches: And in London there are Dutch and French Churches: And if the King allowed a Swedish Church, a Danish Church, a Saxon Church, etc. with their several Bishops, who is so weak as to need proof that this is lawful, and they true Churches?  
XL. 4. In case men of different Language are not capable of mutual converse by personal communion or help: As Dutch, French, Italian, Greeks, Germans, etc. Grotius and Dr. Hammond (oft in Dissert. and Annot.) do maintain that Peter at Rome had a Church of jews, and Paul a Church of Gentiles: And that the like distribution of Churches of jews and Gentiles, there was at Antioch, Alexandria and other places: And by this they Salve the Contradictions in Church History about the Succession of Linus, Cletus and Clemens: And the Apostles settled not a sinful Church way.  
XLI. 5. Yea Grotius maintaineth that the Apostles settled the Churches at first not like the Jewish Priesthood, but in the order of their Synagogues; (the Imper. sum. Patest. and in Annot.) And that as there were divers Synagogues in a great City with their Archisynagogus and Elders, so there were divers Churches in a City with Bishops and Presbyters.  
XLII. 6. When there are a greater number of Persons in one City or precinct than can have any just personal Knowledge and Communion, and more than any one Bishop with his Presbytery can perform the needful Pastoral oversight to, it is lawful and a duty, to gather another Church in that City or Precinct: But this is truly the Case of many great Cities, though worldly Wisdom have at Rome, and other places oft denied notorious evidence and experience. He that will gather up all the duties that Dr. Hammond saith were charged on the Bishops (in his Annotations on all the Texts that name Elders and Bishops) if he can believe that any Bishop can perform the tenth part of them to all in the Diocese of London, York, Lincoln, Norwich, etc. I will not dispute against him if he maintain a Bishop's Ubiquity, or that at once he can be in twenty places. But if they say, that what then was commanded them to do personally, they may do by others, I say, that if they may change the Work, they may change the Power, that specifieth the Office; and so it is not the same Office in specie instituted in Scripture: And then Laymen may have Power to preach and administer Sacraments, and do the Office of Priests, and yet be no Priest (as Civilians do of Bishops) which is a Contradiction. Certainly if there be more Scholars in the City than one Master can Teach and Rule, it is no Schism to set up more Schools and Schoolmasters, but a duty. And if the Lord Mayor on pretence of City Government should put down but as great a part of Family Government, as those Diocesans do of Parochial Church Government, who allow none under them to be truly Episcopi Gregis, and have the power of their Church Keys, I think that it were no Schism to restore Families so that the City might have more than one (entirely.)  
XLIII. 7. If the Sovereign Power upon Politic or Religious Reasons should determine, that e. g. Dr. A, and Dr. B, and Dr. C. shall all be Bishops in London, to such Volunteers of Clergy and Laity as shall choose each of them to be their Bishop, and this without altering their dwellings, no man can prove it sinful; And of his reasons the King is judge.  
XLIV. 8. If the Bishop or Clergy of a City, Diocese or Nation, do agree by Law or Canon to admit none to the Ministry or Communion that will not commit a known sin deliberately as the Condition of his Communion, it is a duty to congregate under other Pastors in those precincts. This is confessed: If they should not only hold any error, or practise sin, but require men to subscribe and approve it, and say it is no sin, no man ought to do this; nor yet to live like an Atheist, and forsake all Worship because men forbidden him, if it were but to subscribe one untruth: But alas, this is no rare Case: In one Emperors Reign all were Anathematised that subscribed not to the Council of Chalcedon, and quickly after all that did, or that would not renounce it: The same division and changes were made by the Councils against and for the Monothelites, de tribus Capitulis, Images, etc. And when all Men living have many Errors, and the Church of England disclaimeth her Infallibility, and yet will receive no Minister that will not subscribe that there is nothing in her Books contrary to the word of God, the Case is hard. But when all the things mentioned in the Plea for Peace are proved lawful, we shall be more yielding in this Case.  
XLV. 9 If true and sound Christians mistakingly think one or many things to be heinous sins, (as Perjury, Lying, Renouncing Obedience to God, and Repentance, etc.) which are things indifferent, but of so great difficulty that most Learned and Godly and Willing Men cannot discern the Lawfulness and agree, and yet are not necessary nor just conditions of Ministry or Communion, and so it is the Imposer that entangleth them by difficulty in their dissent, it is not lawful for these men therefore to forbear all Church Worship, but must use it as they can.  
XLVI. 10. If any Church unjustly excommunicate such men; or others, they must not forbear all Church order and worship because men so excommunicate them. No man must Sin to escape Excommunication; and every man in the World is a sinner; And therefore all the World must be excommunicated, if all Sinners must be so. As I before said, the times oft were when almost all the Bishops in the Empire were excommunicated by one another: Councils and Popes have oft excommunicated some for trifles and some for Truth end Duty. And such must not therefore renounce all Church Worship and Communion.  
The Church of England do by their standing Law ipso facto excommunicate all (as aforesaid) that affirm any thing to be repugnant to God's Word or sinful, in their whole Church Government, Articles, Liturgy and Ceremonies, and so to stand till they Publicly revoke this as a wicked Error. Now many Lords and Commoners in Parliaments, have spoken against some of these particulars; and some out of Parliament: Many Ministers have done the like when the King Commissioned them to treat for Alterations; And many when the Accusations or demands of others have called them to give a Reason of their Actions. Some have maintained that it is repugnant to God's word that Lay Civilians should have the decretive Power of the Keys, and that the Parish Minister must cast out of Communnion all that the Lay Doctors or Chancellors excommunicate, and all that dare not receive kneeling, and that they should deny Christendom to all that scruple the English sort of Godfathers' Covenants, and the transient Symbolical Image of the Cross, with abundance such things: Now all these are ipso sacto excommunicate. And though they be not bound to avoid the Church till this be applicatorily declared, yet actually excommunicate they are, and that by a higher authority th●n the Bishops; and they know the Church's decree; and the Priests are sworn to Canonical Obedience; And he that will not tempt them to be forsworn, nor come into a Church that hath excommunicated him, seems therein excusable: But must he therefore renounce the Church of God?  
XLVII. 11. If the People are so set against one Bishop for another, as that half being for one and half for the other, and both Orthodox, they cannot be persuaded to unite in one. A Council at Rome determined in the Case of Paulinus and Flavian at Antioch, that both of them should hold their distinct Churches, and so live in love and peace. And though one or both parties in this were mistaken Sinners, so are all moral men, who yet must not live like Atheists.  
XLVIII. 12. An undetermined accident must be so determined as most serveth to do the greatest good and avoid the greatest Evil: But whether divers Churches shall promiscuously live in the same City or Diocese or Parish, is an Accident not determined by God, and either way may be for the greatest good, as circumstances vary. e. g. When in a Church half cannot consent to condemn the words of Theodoret, Theodore Mopsuest, and Ibas, and half will condemn them with the Council; if these can serve God quietly in Love and Peace in different Congregations, but cannot endure one another in the same, it is most for the Church's Peace that they be permitted to join with those of their own Mind.  
When one Pope declared that it's sound Doctrine to say [One of the Trinity was Crucified,] when another had declared that it is not sound Doctrine, they that held with one Pope, and they that held with the other might both be true Churches in different Assemblies: When justinian raised the bloody controversy between the Corrupticolae and the Phantasiastae, wise men thought both sides were true Churches: Yea and so did many wise men think of the Orthodox and Nestorians and many Eutychians.  
XLIX. 13. It's a common case under Turks and Heathens, that they give liberty of Conscience for Christians of all parties: Now suppose that in A●●ppo, in Constantinople or elsewhere, there be (partly for Country sake, and partly for Language, but most for different Judgements) one Church of Armenians, one of Greeks, one of Englishmen, etc. what Law of God makes only one of these to be a true Church, and which is it?  
L. 14. Suppose that the settled Church e. g. in Holland, Sweden, Saxony, is for Presbytery, or for an Episcopacy that arose from Presbyters ordination, or that had none or a short Liturgy, and the Prince would tolerate English men (as Frankford did) to set up a Church of the English Form and Liturgy, I think few Prelatists would deny it to be lawful.  
LI. I omit other instances, and come to the matter of Separation, which word serveth this man and such other in so general and undistinguished a sense, as would make one think he were of Mr. Dodwell's mind, That words in dispute have but one signification, which all are bound to know that use them. Even a Bell by the same sound sometime signifieth a call to Church, and sometime a Funeral, and sometime Joy; but [Separate, Separate] is rung over and over with these men, as if it signified but one thing.  
1. He that heareth half the Sermon and Service, and goeth out of Church, doth Separate at that time from the rest.  
When a Protestant Heretic was doing Penitence with his Faggot at St. Mary's in Oxford, and the Friar was Preaching, a mistaken Voice in the street made them think the Heretics had set the Church on fire, and they separated from the Preacher, one Friar stuck by the belly that was going out at the window; the door being wedged with the crowd, a Boy that saw it open above their heads, got up on their shoulders, and went on till he slipped into a Monk's Cowl, and there lay still till the Monk was got out, and felt something on his back, and thinking it was an heretical Devil, began to conjure him in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to tell him what he was, and the Boy cried, O good Master I am the Baker's boy, etc. Quaere, Whether this was Schismatics separation.  
At Walsall in Stafford-shire, Mr. Lapthorne (known to me in his lusty age) who had been a Nonconformist, but thought it an honour to be converted by a King, and gloried that King james in conference changed him; but being as rustic a thunderer as Father Latimer and more, he was wont to let fly without much fear; one Mr. Martin in the Parish accounted the greatest enemy to Puritans, when he heard what he liked not, would go out of Church; one day (in a path way where Mr. Lane had road a little before) pelting Crabs with a pole, the ground opened and swallowed him and his pole, that they could never be found (being a Cole-mine long on fire:) ever after that, when any one would go out of Church at a blustering passage, Mr. Lapthorne would call to him, Remember Martin; Quere, Whether all these were separating Schismatics?  
But this is too far off: In Dunstan's West, where Dr. Sherlock Preacheth, when I was licenced twenty years ago, at Christmas, as I was Preaching, some Lime or Stone fell down in the Steeple with the crowd, the Church being old and under suspicion, they all thought it was falling, and most ran out in tumult, and some cast themselves headlong from the Gallery for haste; when they were quieted and came in again, the Boys in the Chancel broke a Wainscot Skreen with climbing on it, and the noise made them run out again; one old woman going out, cried, It's just with God because I took not the first warning, Lord forgive me, and I'll never come again: Quere, Whether these, or at least this resolving Woman was a Schismatic, and separated from the Catholic Church?  
If not, there is some separation that is not so bad as Murder; and methinks the Doctor should forgive it for the success; for the Parish hereupon resolved to pull down the Church and build it new, a far better Fabric where the Dr. now Preacheth; and it drove me away that I preached there no more; Whether this new Church built where the old one had possession before, be not a Schismatical Separatist, I leave to him.  
LII. 2. Local Separation without Mental can make no culpable Schism; for Nil nisi Voluntarium est morale; if a man be imprisoned or be sick and cannot come to the Church, it is innocent Separation; I have been at no Church this half year, much against my will, O that God would heal me of this Separation!  
LIII. 3. If it must be mental Separation that must be culpable, than it is diversified according to the mental degree and kind; and no man separateth from the universal Church who separateth not from somewhat essential to it; to separate from its Integrals or Accidents may be culpable, but it's no Separation from the Church, no more than every breach of the Law is a Separation from the Kingdom.  
LIV. 4. Some separate as to place, locally and not mentally, some mentally and not locally, and some both: He that daily observeth the outward Communion of the Church, and yet taketh it for no Church, or denyeth its Faith, Hope or essential Duty, separateth indeed. All those men that live unbelievingly, atheistically, wickedly, that in their converse prate against the Scripture and immortality of the Soul, and that hate and persecute serious Godliness, are damnably separated from Christ, and therefore from the Catholic Church, and are so to be esteemed so far as this is known, though when it is unknown, the Church can take no notice of it.  
LV. 5. It being only Humane Laws and Circumstantial Conveniences that make it unmeet to have divers Churches and Bishops living promiscuously in the same Parishes, Cities, Dioceses or Nations; where Laws and circumstances allow it, it is no unlawful separation.  
LVI. 6. He that liveth in foreign Lands (Christian, Mahometan or Heathen) where various Churches live promiscuously (Greeks, Armenians, Protestants, Papists, etc.) is no Schismatic, if he choose which he thinks best, and be absent locally from the rest, condemning them no further than they deserve.  
LVII. 7. He that removeth into another Diocese or Parish for his worldly interest, separateth without fault from the Church he was in.  
LVIII. 8. It is a lawful separation to remove one's dwelling, because the Minister is ignorant, unskilful, or otherwise bad, and this for the better edification of his Soul, and the use and help of a more able faithful Minister, even Law and Custom and reason do allow it.  
LIX. 9 Tho' the Canon 57 and 28. forbidden Ministers oft to give the Sacrament to Strangers that come out of other Parishes, even where no Preaching is, yet those many sober People that use this in London, are not taken to be Schismatics, as bad as Murderers: Many that are esteemed the most sober religious Conformists do ordinarily go from their own Parish Churches, some (in Martin's and St. Giles' Parish, etc.) for want of room, and some for more Edification, to Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Burnet, Dr. Fowler, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Durham, Mr. Horneck and such others, and communicate with them; and thó these are called by the late Catholics by the Name of Dangerous Trimmers, I think even Dr. Sherlock will think it more pardonable than Murder, if they come to him.  
LX. 10. If the King and Law should restore the ancient order that every City, that is, every great incorporate Town in England should have a Bishop, (yea or every great Parish) and that the Diocesans should be their Arch-Bishops, and our new Catholics should tell the King and Parliament that they are hereby unchristened Schismatics, as dangerous as Adulterers or Murderers, for gathering Churches within a Church, I would not believe them.  
LXI. 11. If (e. g. at Frankford, Zurick, Lubeck, Hamburgh, etc.) a Church is settled in the Lutheran way, and another in the Bohemian way, described by Lasitius and Commenius, (which is a conjunction of Episcopacy, Presbytery and Independency) or a Church that had no Liturgy, or none but that which the French Protestants and Dutch have, would it be damning Schism, for such as Cox and Horn at Frankford to set up an Episcopal Church in the English mode, and with their Liturgy, and so far to separate from the rest?  
LXII. 12. If it be true that john Mayor, Fordon, and others say that Presbytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland before Episcopacy was brought in, was the introduction of Episcopacy by Palladius a damning Schism by separating from the former, or a Reformation; is just Reformation Schism?  
LXIII. 13. When the Church first set up Patriarches, Metropolitans, General Councils, Monasteries, Parish Churches distinct from Cathedrals, Organs, New Liturgies, and multitudes of Ceremonies, this was a departing or separating from the contrary Church way which was there before, was it therefore Schism?  
LXIV. 14. When Socrates tells us of some Countries that had Bishops in the Country Villages (like our Parishes) was it a damning Schism to separate from this custom, by decreeing that even small Cities should have no Bishops, Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi? or when the Chorepiscopi were put down, where they had been?  
LXV. 15. If a man separate not from any thing essential to the Church of England, he separateth not from that Church, though he refuse that which is its Accidents, or some Integral parts: We are charged with separating from the Church of England, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute, and scorned for denying it, even by them that will not tell us what they mean by the Church of England, or by Separation. By the Church of England we mean the Christian Kingdom of England, or all the Christians in England, as living in one land, under one Christian King who Governeth them by the Sword, which includeth their Concord among themselves in true Christianity; we are Christians, we profess agreement in Christianity with all Christians we are under the same King as they are, and profess subjection, and take; the same Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; yea, we are not charged with differing in any thing called Doctrinal from their Thirty Nine Articles; but we disown certain late Covenants and Oaths which are not Twenty three Years old, and the Subscription to one Canon about the Innocency of all in their Liturgy; now either these new Oaths, Covenants and Canon, Liturgy and Ceremonies are essential to the Church of England, or not; If yea, then, 1. It's a poor humane Church, made by them that made these Oaths, Liturgy and Ceremonies. 2. And then it's a new upstart Church, and no man can answer the Papists where it was before Luther, or before Henry 8. yea, if its essentials were made by this King and Parliament, 1662. then the present Church is no older: But if these things be indifferent, or not essential to the Church, then to separate only from these, is not to separate from the Church.  
If it be said, That for the sake of these we separate from the Church itself, and therefore from its essence; we abhor the accusation, and challenge them to prove it: If we separate from the Church essentially, it is either Locally or Mentally; not Locally, for we are yet in England, nor is Local distance only a sin; not Mentally, for we own it for a true Christian Kingdom, called a National Church, bound to serve Christ in Love and Concord to their Power: We deny not the King to be the Governor, nor Christians to be Christians, no nor the particular Churches and Ministers to be true (though culpable) Churches and Ministers, nor their Sacraments to be true Sacraments; we profess to hold with them one Catholic Body, one Spirit, one God, one Christ, one Faith, one Baptism (in the essentials) and one Hope, and are ready to promise to live in Concord with them in all other things, as far as will stand with our Obedience to God; so that we separate not from the Church of England as such, but from some of its Accidents, which we dare not be guilty of.  
LXVI. 16. The same I say of a Parish Church; he that locally removeth, e. g. from a Church that hath Organs, to one that hath none, separateth from a pair of Organs, but not Mentally from the Church, unless the Organs be its essence.  
LXVII. 17. They that are for the true ancient Episcopacy, (e. g. as much as Archbishop usher's Reduction which we offered did contain) but dislike the Lay Civilians power of the Keys, and Officials, Surrogates, Arch-deacons Government, etc. do not separate from the Church as Episcopal, but from the humane Novelties which they disown.  
LXVIII. 18. If a Parishioner fall out with his Priest, and they go to Law about Tithes, Glebes, Words, etc. and the Suit be long, and the man dare not Communicate with him believing that he hateth him, though the animosity should be culpable, being but personal, his going from him to another Church is not separating from Christ; (for I hope that even Mr. Dodwell himself will not say that every Priest is Christ)  
LXIX. 19 Ex quovis ligno non fit Mercurius, surely there is some qualification essential to the Ministry; if a man want that qualification, it is a Duty to separate from him as no Minister, e. g. When I came to Kederminster, (after my subjection to six or seven worse) I found the Vicar, one reputed ignorant of the Fundamentals, (he was brought in by Sir Henry Blunt a Papist) who Preached but once a quarter, which most thought he might better have forborn, and his Curate Mr. Turner at Mitton Preached once a day, whom I found ignorant of the Catechism Principles by Conference, and he confessed he had but one Book, Musculus common places in English, and he said some of that to the People, and they took it for a Sermon; he lived by unlawful Marrying, infamous for Drinking and Quarrelling; he that had taken these for no Ministers, and separated from them, had not thereby separated from Christ or his Church Catholic.  
LXX. 20. If it prove as hard to know who is the true Pastor in a competition of Pretenders, as it was to know which was the true Pope, when there were two or three, (above twenty times) or whether, e. g. Optandus was true Bishop of Geneva that knew not Letters, or whether Duke Heriberts' Son consecrated in Infancy was Archbishop of Rheims, or any other Infant consecrated be a Bishop, (officiating per alios, Surrogates, Chancellors, Officials, etc.) it is not here a Separation from Christ to separate from either of the Pretenders: He that mistaketh not, is not liable to the Charge, he that mistakes, doth not err in an Article of Faith, but in a difficult point of humane title, and the qualification and right of a single man; and my Opinion is, that if such a title were tried before our Judges or King, and they should mistake and give Judgement against him that had right, this were no separating from Christ, nor proof that they are Infidels.  
LXXI. 21. If the Case of two contending Bishops or Presbyters come before a General or Provincial Council, and they mistake and give it to the wrong, and so separate from the right, I do not think that thereby they separate from Christ or the Church Catholic, e. g. The Constantinopolitan Council first gave the Church of Constantinople to Nazianzene, and after judged him out as having no right; if by this they separated from Christ, they that take them for the Catholic Church representative, must say that the Catholic Church separated from Christ and itself.  
When another Council wrongfully deposed chrysostom, and separated from him, and Cyril Alexandr. persuaded the continuance of it, did the universal Church separate from itself and Christ? If a General Council which should be wisest, be excusable from damning Schism, whenever it misjudgeth and separateth from a rightful Bishop, sure every Layman and woman that doth the same, doth not separate from Christ.  
If it prove that a General Council deposed Nestorius as unjustly as David Derodon thought, or Dioscorus as unjustly as others thought, or Flavian as unjustly as the Orthodox think, this proveth them Guilty of some Schism, but not of separating from the universal Church.  
When Menna of Constantinople, and the Pope excommunicated each other, when a Synod in Italy renounced Vigilius, and all his Successors were an hundred years deposed from their Primacy, and a Patriarch at Aquileia set up in his stead for a great part of Italy, because Vigilius subscribed to a General Council, de tribus Capitulis, this was Schism (somewhere) but not separating from Christ.  
LXXII. 22. If a man in England should think that all the old Councils were obligatory, which decree that he shall be taken for no Bishop that comes in by the choice (yea or Mediation) of Courtiers, Princes or great men, or any that have not the true Consent of Clergy and People, and thereupon should conclude that Bishops, Deans, prebend's, etc. so chosen and imposed are Laymen and no true Bishops and Pastors, this were a separating from those Persons, but not from Christ and the Universal Church, when as Mr. Thorndike saith, that till the right of Electing Bishops by the Clergy and People be restored, we need look no further for the reason of the Contempt of Episcopacy here.  
So if a man think that God never trusted every Ignorant Wicked man that can but get Money and buy an Advowson, to choose those Pastors to whose conduct all the People are bound to trust their Souls, (and the Bishop to admit them for fear of a Quare impedit, if they have but a Certificate and can speak Latin) This is not damning Separation.  
LXXIII. 23. If a Bishop set up a seeming Convert, really a Papist (e. g. Mr. Hutchinson alias Berry, or one of them that lately Confessed themselves Papists,) the People that find by experience what the man is, are not damned Schismatics for not taking him for their Pastor, or for going from him.  
If Godfrey Goodman Bishop of Gloucester was a Papist, did he separate from Christ that separated from the Diocesan Church of Gloucester, while he was an Essential part? Or that did not implicitly trust all the Priests that he ordained?  
LXXIV. 24. If in a Cathedral Church one withdraw from their Service, because of their difference in singing, Ceremonies, etc. from the Parish Churches, though it be the Bishop's Church that he separateth from, it is not as a Church, nor from any thing essential to it, e. g. Miles Smyth Bishop of Gloucester (the famous Hebrician, and chief in our Bible's Translation) declared and performed i●, that he would never come more to his Cathedral, because the Dean (in Laud time) kept up the Altar. Qu. Whether he separated from himself or his Church? Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia: Who were the Separatists? They that followed the Bishop, or they that separated from him and kept to the Cathedral? The same I ●ay of William's Bishop of Lincoln that wrote against Altars.  
LXXV. 25. If faithful Pastors and People are settled in concord, and the higher Powers make a Law to depose and eject them without just cause (as Multitudes were in many Emperor's days, and Multitudes by the Interim in Germany in Charles the fifth's time; and Multitudes in the Palatinate by Ludovicus, and in too many other Countries) those that leave the Temples and Tithes to the Magistrate, but cleave to their old Pastors in forbidden meetings (called Conventicles) supposing the Pastoral Relation not dissolved (as the joannites clavae to Chrysostom) do not thereby separate from the Catholic Church: Had the Power been lawful that set up another way, when Dr. Gunning kept up his Meetings at Exeter House, it had not been a Separation from Christ that he then made.  
LXXVI. 26. If the Law command all to take one man for his Pastor, and a Parent command his Child, or a Husband his Wife to take another and not that, and the Child or Wife know not which should be obeyed, and whether the choice belong more to the Domestic, or the Public Government, it is not a separating from Christ, which way ever such an one shall go.  
LXXVII. 27. Yea if I should think that self-Interest and self-Government bind me rather to choose a Pastor for myself, than to stand to such a choice by Prince, Patron or Prelate, which I think intolerable, as well as (against their will) I may choose a Wife, or a Physician, or a Tutor, or a Book, or my daily food, this is not separating from the Universal Church.  
LXXVIII. 28. If owning the same Diocesan make them of one Church who differ more than Nonconformists and Conformists do, then owning the same Christ, Faith, Scripture, etc. maketh them of one Catholic Church who differ less. But, etc. jesuites, Dominicans, jansenists, and all the Sects of Papists are taken for one Church, because they own the Pope and Councils. In England the Diocesan Conformists are taken for one Church, though some of them are as much for a Foreign Jurisdiction, as Archbishop Laud, Archbishop Bromhall, Bishop gunning's Chaplain, Dr. Saywell, Mr. Thorndike, Dr. Heylin, and many more, have manifested in their words and writings. And some that subscribe the Articles of General Councils erring in Faith and against Heathens Salvation, and against free will, and for Justification by Faith only, etc. do show that they differ in the Doctrines of Religion, (unless the sound or syllables be its Religion) while one and another take the words in contrary senses. Some are for Diocesans being a distinct Order from Presbyters, some (as Usher and many such) deny it: Some hold them to be of Divine Right, and some but of humane; some think the King must choose them, some rather the Clergy and People; some hold them Independent, others rather subject to the Archbishops and Convocation; some think all that bear Office in their Church Government are lawful, others think Lay-Civilians Government by the Keys unlawful (and so are ipso facto excommunicate by their own Canons;) some that promise Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary, take the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts for their Ordinaries; and others only the Bishops; some think they are sworn to obey their Ordinaries, if they rule according to the Canons (and so to pronounce all Excommunicate that the Canon excommunicates, if commanded;) Others think otherwise, that they are judges themselves whether the Canon's command licita & honesta; some take the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Church of Rome no true Church; others think otherwise. Many more (Armmian and other) such differences there are, and yet all of one Church, both Catholic, National, Diocesan and Parochial (oft:) Much more are those Nonconformists that differ from the Church in nothing but what the Imposers call Indifferent.  
LXXIX. 29. If one that prayeth in the Litany against false Doctrine and Schism, and readeth the Conformists telling him of the danger of it, should verily think that Dr. S. printeth and preacheth false Doctrine, and such as plainly tendeth to serve Satan against Christian Love and Peace, and to the most Schismatical dividing and damning of Christians, should hereupon separate from him for fear of Schism and false Doctrine, and go to a safer Pastor, I think it were not to separate from Christ.  
LXXX. 30. If a Bishop in any Diocese in London should openly write or plead for a Foreign Jurisdiction, and we are told that none are true Ministers that depend not obediently on the Bishop, he that for fear of the Law, or of Personal or common perjury, should separate from that Bishop and his numerical Diocesan Church, doth thereby neither separate from the Catholic Church, nor from the Church of England. As if the King's Army should have a Colonel that declared himself an obliged Subject to the King of France and bound to obey him, the Regiment may forsake that Colonel. Yea if the General of the King's Army should give up himself in subjection to the Enemy or a Foreign Power, and say, I will take a Commission from the Turk, and my Officers shall only obey me, and the Soldiers obey them, were not this an Army of Traitors or Rebels, though none but the General took a Commission from the Enemy? So if the Bishops should all take Commissions from the Pope, or declare themselves Subjects to a Foreign Jurisdiction, it were no separating from Christ, to separate from them all, in Loyalty to Christ, and to avoid National perjury and Schism.  
LXXXI. 31. If a man think that he is bound to use all Christ's instituted means of Salvation, and live in a Church that wilfully omitteth any one of them, e. g. either Infant baptism, or singing Psalms, or Praying, or Preaching, or the Lord's Supper, or all Personal care, and discipline to exclude the grossly intolerable, to resolve the doubting, etc. He that in Obedience to Christ goeth to a Church and Pastor (in the same Diocese or City) that omitteth none of these, is no damned Schismatic.  
LXXXII. 32. He that is unjustly cast out of the Church, and by its very Laws excommunicated ipso facto, is no damned or Sinful Schismatic for Worshipping God in a Church that will receive him: Nor any one that is denied Communion unless he will sin; Much more if they should prove half as many and great Sins as the Nonconformists have said they fear (in the first Plea for Peace, etc.)  
LXXXIII. 33. If a Foreigner that doth but half understand our language, withdraw to a Church and Pastor whose tongue he understands, obeying God and Nature is no damning Schism.  
LXXXIV. 34. If one that is erroneously conceited of the obligation of General Councils, should think it a sin to kneel at the Sacrament on any Lord's day in the year, or any Week day between Easter and Whitsuntide, because Tradition and the twentieth Canon of the first Council, and that at Trull, etc. do forbidden then to adore kneeling, this separating on that account to another Congregation is not damning.  
If it be said, that Mr. Thorndike and others tell us that it is not necessary that we do the same things which the Supreme Catholic Power commanded, but that we subject ourselves to the same Power which may change their own Laws. I answer, 1. The asserting of that Universal Sovereignty is the greatest Crime and Heresy of all. 2. By this it seems that our Religion is very mutable, and very uncertain, and a man hath need to take heed of obeying any old Canons, till he know the mind of the present Church; (and who those be▪ and how to know it.) 3. But what if the same man read Dr. Heylin (of Sab.) telling him that this custom against Adoration-kneeling continued a thousand years, and was never revoked by any true General Council, but changed by little and little by men's practice: And what if he question who those Changers were, and whether their practice was Rebellion at first, and whether they had power to repeal the Canons of the greatest Councils without a Council. Sure they that are for such Councils universal sovereignty, when they have cast men into these snares, should scarce tell them that they are damnable Schismatics, for joining with such Churches as obey these Councils, rather than with those that ruin men for not disobeying them.  
LXXXIV. And now Reader if thou art one that thinkest of these things with Christian Sobriety and impartiality, I appeal to thee whether if I should be of the mind of Mr. Dodwell, and such self-conceited resolver's, I should not write my own Condemnation, and be one of the grossest Schismatics that any History hath mentioned, unless ever there were any man so mad as to hold himself to be all the Church: Yea, when he no more distinguisheth of Separation and Schism, but involves almost all Christians in his Condemnation, and tells us that Schism will damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder, is it not obvious for all men to infer that we are as odious as Adulterers and Murderers? and doth he not Preach Christians into the hatred of each other? and can any wonder if Rulers should think the Punishment of Murderers is not worse than we deserve? It is not Newgate only, but Tyburn that these healing men do seem to assign us; it would be too tedious to look over all these again, and show you how great the number is that these men damn, and how few on Earth in any Age they excuse from being so far like Murderers.  
LXXXV. 1. It seems to me that he virtually damneth all Christians on Earth as such Schismatics; for it is most certain that all men have sin, and culpable imperfection in Knowledge, Will and Practice; and if any say, That he hath no sin, he is a Liar, saith St. john; and it is certain that all two persons on Earth have many errors, and many differences from one another; it is certain that the Love and Duty of Christians towards each other is culpably defective in all men: It is certain that no man living is so perfect in knowledge as to know all the indifferent things in the world, which may be imposed, to be Indifferent! And long and sad experience hath told the Church, that both gross errors and sins, and things called Truths or indifferent, which few can be sure of, may be imposed. What follows from all this, but that all men on Earth may easily fall under the imputation of disobedience to Prelates, and so be Excommunicate, and then they have their choice (when no man is perfect, and they cannot change their minds) 1. Whether they will be damned as Excommunicate and practical Atheists that give over all Church Worship; 2. Or as damnable Schismatics, for worshipping God in Churches when they are excommunicate; 3. Or as perfidious Liars, that will make false Confessions, Profession and promises, to get off an Excommunication. When Mr. Dodwel numbers those with Schismatics that [suffer themselves to be excommunicate,] if they have no other means in their Power to hinder it, it seems these great Enemies to absolute reprobation, do think all Christians being unavoidably born to imperfection of Knowledge, are as unavoidably born to damnation whenever Prelates or Priests please thus to precipitate them.  
LXXXVI. 2. Particularly, 1. The first and second Canon's ipso facto excommunicate all that say [that any manner of Obedience and Subjection within his Majesty's Realms and Dominions is due to any usurped and foreign Power:] By this all Papists and all pretended Protestants (such as Dr. Barrow confuteth) who hold any manner of Obedience and Subjection due to Pope or Foreign Councils, are Excommunicate.  
2. Those that say that the Book of Common Prayer containeth any thing in it repugnant to the Scriptures, are ipso facto excommunicate. Which now by the new Laws are interpreted of the present Books.  
3. In this all are excommunicate who say, the Mis-translations (in Psalms, Epistles or Gospels, of which many instances have been given) to be any thing repugnant in the Scripture.  
4. And all that say, It is against the Scripture to deny Christendom to all Infants that have not such Vowers in their Names and for their Education as we call Godfathers, and Godmothers, though the Parent (who is forbidden it) offer his Child by Sponsion.  
5. And all that say it is against Scripture to deny Christendom to all that refuse the Covenanting transient Images of a Cross.  
6. And all that say that it is against Scripture for all Ministers to profess [that it's certain by God's Word that baptised Infants (without exception) so dying are undoubtedly saved] when no word of God is cited that saith it, and adding to God's word is dreadfully threatened, and when it's certain that all Ministers are not certain of any such thing (and I think no one.)  
7. All are ipso facto excommunicate that say, It is against God's Word to deny Church Communion in the Sacrament to all that dare not take it kneeling, for fear (though mistaken) of breaking the second Commandment by Symbolising with Idolaters, that are seeking to reduce the Nation to their Sin, and that live round about us.  
8. All are excommunicate that say it is against Scripture to pronounce all saved that are buried, except the unbaptized, self-murderers and the excommunicate, while thousands of Sadducees, Hobbists, Infidels, Papists, Perjured, Adulterers, Drunkards, etc. dwell among us.  
9 By the fifth Canon all are ipso facto excommunicate that say, [Any of the Articles are in any part erroneous, or such as they (perhaps as doubters) may not with a good Conscience subscribe to,] and consequently all the aforesaid Conformists that think the sense erroneous while they subscribe those words and shall affirm, e. g. that Canons are made necessary to Salvation; though the matter cannot be proved by Scripture, contrary to Art. 6.  
Those that contrary to Art. 8. say, any thing in Athanasius Creed may not be subscribed.  
Such as Bishop Taylour that against Art. 9 deny Original Sin.  
Those that say contrary to Art. 10. that the Word [no Power] excludeth Common natural Power, or maketh Nature to be Grace.  
Those that writ against our being accounted righteous, only for Christ's merits, and say that another subordinate Righteousness is named many hundred times in Scripture, contrary to Art. 11.  
Those that contrary to Art. 13. say, that works done before the Inspiration of the Spirit may make men meet to receive Grace.  
Those that with Dr. Hammond write for works that are not commanded but counselled, and Free-will-offerings, contrary to Art. 14.  
All they that take Infants and new baptised Persons to have no sin, contrary to Art. 15.  
All that say, that after we have received the H. Ghost, we cannot departed from Grace given, contrary to Art. 16.  
Those that deny the Doctrine of Election, in Art. 17.  
Those that say, any on Earth may be saved by diligent living according to the light of Nature, without knowing the name of Christ, contrary to Art. 18.  
Those that contrary to Art. 19 reject that Description of a visible Church, which reacheth to such as our Resolver damneth.  
All that contrary to Art. 20. say, that the Church [may not enforce any thing to be believed for necessity to Salvation, besides the Scripture] even those that say, it's necessary to Salvation, by avoiding Schism to believe that all imposed Tyths, Covenants Practices, and Ceremonies are not sin.  
All that contrary to Art. 21. say, that General or other Councils may be gathered without the command and will of Princes, and deny they may err, and things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they are taken out of Holy Scripture.  
Those that deny Art. 23. that those are lawfully called and sent into the Ministry, who have public Authority given them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard, are chosen and called hereto, (for want of Canonical Succession.)  
Those that contrary to Art. 24. would have God's Worship performed to them that understand not the language, to avoid the Schism of having many Churches in a City.  
Those that take Confirmation or Penance, or the other three for Sacraments of the Gospel contrary to Art 25.  
Those that contrary to Art. 26. would not have it believed to be the People's duty, who know the Offences of Bad Ministers, to accuse them.  
All that contrary to Art. 27. are against Infant Baptism, as agreeable to Christ's Institution.  
All that contrary to Art. 28. say, the Body of Christ is given and taken and eaten in the Sacrament otherwise than in a Spiritual manner by Faith.  
All that say, that in some wise the wicked are Partakers of Christ in the Sacrament, contrary to Art. 29.  
All that contrary to Art. 30. say, There is other satisfaction for Sin besides Christ's Blood.  
All that say, that Men justly Excommunicate may be reconciled and received by the multitude without open penance (which is ordinary) contrary to Art. 33.  
All that contrary to Art. 34. think that a General Council may ordain such Traditions or Ceremonies as shall in all places be one or the like: and that every Particular or National Church may not abolish those Ceremonies or Rites which the General Council or College ordained.  
Many things in the Book of Homilies [especially against peril of Idolatry] are blamed by many Conformists, contrary to Art. 35.  
All that contrary to Art. 36. say, that the Book of Ordination wants some things necessary.  
All that contrary to Art. 37. think that Pope or foreign Bishops have any Jurisdiction by right in this Land: And all that (by mistake) say, the King hath not chief Power in all his Dominions, meaning in France, of which he professeth to be King, and we so call him even in our Prayers to God.  
All that say, contrary to Art. 38. that it is not their Duty liberally to give Alms, according to their ability.  
All that contrary to Art. 39 think men in conforming may swear upon trust of their Superiors words, without judgement, and true understanding of Justice and Truth.  
A●l these are already ipso facto Excommunicated by this one Canon, and if they elsewhere worship God, are called Separatists and Schismatics, in danger of Damnation, as Adulterers and Murderers are: And how great a number are these?  
10. All are ipso facto Excommunicate by the sixth Canon, who affirm, that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, by Law established, are superstitious, or such as (now commanded) men who are zealously and godly affected, may not with a good Conscience APPROVE, use and subscribe as occasion requireth. That is, all that thus mistake kneeling at the Sacrament, on the reasons aforenamed, to be against the second Commandment, or that judge so of the Surplice, or that think the Cross, as described by the Canon and Liturgy, hath all the Essentials of a humane unlawful Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace. And all that are against the Rites of Godfathers that never owned the Child as theirs, to be the only Sponsors in its Name, and to Vow its Christian Education (when I never knew one living that so much as made the Parents believe that he intended it:) And all that think the words of the Liturgy (making Imposition of hands an assuring sign of God's Gracious acceptance) make Confirmation a humane unlawful Sacrament, and say so. All these are cut off.  
11. By Canon seventh all are ipso facto excommunicate that affirm, that the Government of the Church of England, under his Majesty, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE in the same, is repugnant to God's word; that is, all Bishops, Ministers, Noblemen, Gentlemen or People, that say that it is against God's word for Lay Civilians or Chancellors to govern by the Church Keys, excommunicate or absolve: And all that think it unlawful for Surrogates that are not Bishops but Presbyters, either as a Crier pro forma to pronounce all excommunicate or absolved who are so decreed by the Lay Chancellor, or else for them (or a Priest-Chancellour) to govern a Diocese by the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution being no Bishops; and all that think it sinful for Archdeacon's, Commissaries, Officials, etc. who are no Bishops, to exercise the same Government by the Keys over so many Pastors or Churches, or for a Bishop to do his Office by others that are no Bishops, any more than a Priest by those that are no Priests; or for a Diocesan with his Lay Court, to Govern many score or hundred Churches under him, without any subordinate Bishop in those Churches, that is, to set up the Name and show, and make Christ's Discipline impossible: Or for Lay Chancellors or Surrogates to publish Excommunications in the Bishop's Name, which he never knew of, nor tried the cause: Or for such Chancellors to oblige all Parish Ministers to publish all their Excommunications which are agreeable to these Canons. What quality and number they are of that call any of this sinful, I pretend not to know: But they are all now excommunicate men.  
12. The eight Canon ipso facto excommunicateth all that affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons hath any thing repugnant to God's Word, &c:] That is, all those that hold Bishops and Presbyters to be the same Order (contrary to the words of that Book.) Which yet even the Church of England while Papists declared in King Aelfriks' Canons (see Spelman:) And all such as Thorndike, who say the People and Clergy should choose their Bishops; or that say the People's consent is necessary to the Pastoral Relation to them, and that the old Canons for this are in force.  
13. The ninth Canon ipso facto excommunicateth the Separatists.  
14. The tenth Canon excommunicateth all that affirm [that Ministers that refuse to subscribe to the Liturgy, etc. and their Adherents may truly take to themselves the Name of another Church, not established, by Law and dare publish that this their pretended Church hath long groaned under the burden of imposed grievances, by the Church of England, and the Orders and Constitutions therein by Law established.] (Ipso facto is not here.) This reacheth to all that confine not God's Church in England to the Party that subscribe and their Adherents: If any say, that if such as Blondel, Rivet, Amesius, or any other the most Learned, holy, peaceable men that dare not subscribe as aforesaid, should with any Christians worship God together, and that these are a true Church (though he judge them faulty) and that these Canons are grievances, such are to be excommunicated: (Though it be gross Schism in others to confine not only the Purity but the Verity of a Church to their own Party:) For such to feel and groan loud here is Excommunication.  
15. The eleventh Canon much to the same purpose requireth the Excommunication of all that affirm that any Subjects in England may rightly challenge the Name of true and lawful Churches besides those allowed by Law, though the King should Licence them.  
16. The twelfth Canon ipso facto excommunicateth all, that make Rules and Orders in Causes Ecclesiastical without the King's Authority, and submit to them, e. g. All that without the King's authority agree to turn the Table Altarwise, to require People to kneel at the Rails, or to bow toward the Altar or East, or to set up Organs, etc. All these are now excommunicate by an Authority above the Bishops, which no Bishop or Priest can dispense with (but only forbear to publish and execute it, but not nullify it) no nor absolve any that publicly repent not of it as a wicked Error.  
16. By Canon fourteenth if any Minister shall diminish any part of the Orders, Rites, Ceremonies, Prayers, etc. in regard of Preaching or ANY OTHER RESPECT, or shall add any thing in matter or form, (e. g. If he let the Parent express the dedication of his Child to God, or lay any charge on any Parent) he breaketh the Church Law, and so far separateth from it.  
17. By Canon fifteenth when twenty or thirty thousand are commanded to come to a Church that cannot receive six thousand, and the Alleys and Pewes are wedged so that they cannot all kneel, yet all that kneel not at the Prayers, and all that say not audibly the Confession, Lord's Prayer, Creed and Responses, disobey the Laws of the Church, and so far separate from it.  
18. When twenty thousand Persons are commanded to come in more than can, if ten thousand of them (or any number) should come to the Churchyard or Porch, to show that they are not presentable, but would get in if they could, the nineteenth Canon commands to drive them away.  
19 The Liturgy and Canon 22. etc. bind all under the penalty of the Law to receive the Sacrament thrice every year: If a secret Infidel, Sadducee, Hobbist, Socinian, or any Heretic say, I am not able to change my judgement, which is inconsistent with the Sacrament, or if one whose Conscience tells him of the guilt of Adultery, and that he is not resolved to confess and forsake it yet; or one that by Melancholy causelessly feareth unworthy receiving to damnation; I say, if any of these will avoid the charge of Schism, they must run upon worse, till grace recover them, which is not at their command. And yet all notorious Offenders are prohibited it Canon 26. and particularly the Perjured: And if the tenth part so many be perjured in England in City and Country, as many fear, it's a very great number that are uncapable of Communion with the Church.  
20. By Canon twenty seventh on pain of Suspension no Minister must wittingly administer the Communion to any but such as Kneel, or to any that refuse to be present at public Prayers, etc. So that all that Kneel not in receiving are rejected, and if they worship God elsewhere, must be taken for Schismatics, as dangerous as adulterers or murderers.  
21. The twenty eighth Canon forbids admitting strangers to Communion, and commands sending them home to their Parish Churches: It's disobedience to violate this.  
22. The twenty ninth Canon forbids urging Parents to be Present when their Children are baptised, and admitting them to Answer as Godfathers for their own Children; and any Godfather to make any other Answer or speech than the prescribed.  
23. The thirtieth Canon describeth the Cross as a Sacrament, as seemeth to us.  
34. By the thirty sixth Canon no man must be a Minister that subscribeth not that the Book of Common Prayer and Ordination contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that he himself will use no other form in public Prayer and administration of the Sacraments: By which all that refuse this, or that use the forms made and imposed by the Bishops on occasions of public Fasts and Thanksgivings, seem all to be under disobedience to the Church.  
35. By Canon forty ninth no Person not Licenced as a Preacher, may in his Cure or elsewhere, expound any Scripture, or Matter or Doctrine, but only shall study to read plainly the Homilies: So that all Ministers before Licence to preach, all Schoolmasters, all Parents, or Masters, that do expound to their Scholars, Children or Servants, the meaning of Baptism, or of any Article of the Creed, any Petition of the Lords Prayer, any one of the Ten Commandments (to fit them for Confirmation, or Salvation) otherwise than by plain reading the Homilies or Church Catechism, doth disobey the Law of the Church: And so do all Tutors in the Universities that expound any Scripture, matter or Doctrine to their Pupils, before they are examined or approved by the Bishop; or any Judge on the Bench or Justice that presumeth to do it to the hearers, or any Friend or Neighbour in discourse: For it is [No Person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocese.] How few in England separate not from the Church as far as this disobedience amounts to? If by [no Persons] be meant only [no Ministers] it's hard enough, that Ministers may not be allowed out of the Church what Laymen are allowed.  
36. All those that deny not the validity of Baptism or the Lord's Supper when they are done by an unpreaching Minister, but yet think that a man utterly unable to Teach otherwise than by Reading, may not lawfully be encouraged in so high a function, (any more than a man in Physic or School-teaching that hath not necessary skill, or is utterly illiterate,) and thinks it a sin to consent to take such an Ignorant fellow for the Pastor of his Soul if he can have better; If this man, I say, go to the next Parish Church for Sacraments, he is to be suspended first and next excommunicate: Specially if he should judge that Ignorant Reader, no true Minister for want of necessary capacity.  
37. Surplices, Hoods and Tippets are made the matter of Obedience, Canon fifty eighth.  
38. By Canon thirty eighth no Minister must refuse or delay to christian any Child (without exception) according to the form of the Common Prayer, that's brought to Church to him on Sundays or Holidays, though the Parents be both jews or Heathens or Atheists or saducees: The Minister must be suspended that refuseth it.  
39 The seventy first Canon suspendeth all Ministers that Preach in any private house (except to the sick or impotent in time of necessity.) By which had Paul here preached publicly and from house to house, or Timothy in season and out of season as dreadfully adjured, or Christ preached as he oft did, they must be suspended: And every Minister that preacheth to his Family: And no doubt, repeating his Sermon, is preaching the same again.  
40. All Ministers must be suspended and then excommunicate, that without the Bishop's Licence appoint or keep any solemn Fasts publicly or in private houses, other than by Law appointed, or be wittingly present at any: Though it were in time of Plague, or when divers of his Neighbours are sick or troubled in Conscience, or in preparation to a Sacrament, or on some great occasion in Nobleman's Houses and Chapels: He is not to be trusted to fast and pray with his own Flock or Friends, or come among them, lest being excommunicate he be a damned Schismatic.  
The same prohibition is for holding meetings for Sermons called Exercises: Which Archbishop Grindall was zealous to set up, (Q. Was he than a Schismatic? or is the damning dangerous Engine made since?)  
41. By Canon seventy third if any Ministers meet in any private house (as many did by consent in 1660. and 1661.) to do any thing that any way tends to impeach the Common 〈◊〉 or any part of the Government and Discipline (e. g. to Petition King or Parliament for the least Reformation of it) he is excommunicate ipso facto.  
42. Canon seventy fourth brings all Minister's apparel under Church Laws, for the Shape.  
43. Canon seventy sixth Excommunicateth all that voluntarily relinquish their Ministry, and use themselves as a Laymen. And man having free will, that is done voluntarily, which is done in Obedience to men's command: And yet we are ruined in the World, if we will not leave our Ministry, at their Command.  
44. It's tedious to go over all the rest: I end at the end of them. Canon 139. excommunicateth all them that affirm that the Synod is not the true Church of England by Representation: that is, 1. All that take it for the Church real and not Representative, lest they make the diffused Church (People and all) to be Chief Church-governors', while Convocations govern but as their Representatives. 2. All that say, that it is only the Bishops and not the Presbyters in Convocation that are the Governing Canon-making Church. 3. All that say that the Clergy represent not King, Nobles, Parliaments, Laiety, and that these are true parts of the Church of England. All these are ipso facto excommunicate.  
45. The 140. Canon Excommunicateth them that deny the Canon's obligation of absent Dissenters, which yet even many Papists deny of Councils Canons.  
46. The last Canon Excommunicateth all that contemn these Canons, as taking them to be the work of a Company of Persons that conspired against Religious Godly men. All this huge Catalogue are here excommunicate.  
47. If any part of all this be Schism, Mr. Dodwell and this man seem to teach Separation from the Church of England: Or if the late silencing, hunting and ruining of two thousand Ministers were Schism, and as bad as Bishop Taylor in Dust. Dubit. Mr. Hales of Eton, Chillingworth, etc. say of the like, than these men make all the Church of England to be in as damnable a State as Adulterers and Murderers. Yea they make all damnable Schismatics that hold Communion with the Church of England; for that is their Sentence on them that communicate with Schismatics; viz. that they are guilty of their Schism.  
48. They unchurch and damn the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Laodicea, Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. in the Apostles days: For the Scripture tells us of many guilty of Schism in all these, and yet the rest communicated with them; for the Scripture speaks more of Schism in a Church, than of Schism or Separation from a Church, Rom. 16.17. 1 Cor. 1.10. & 3.3. & 11.18. Mat. 12, 25. Luke 12. 52, 53. 1 Cor. 12.25. jam. 3.15, 16. And yet no one was commanded to separate from those Churches; no not from those that had Heresies among them, such as denied the Resurrection, and taught Fornication, and eating things offered to Idols, that were drunk at the Sacrament or Love-Feasts, nor those that had Jewish Schismatics, who talked like ours, Act. 15. Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, ye cannot be saved: The Churches were not all unchurcht and damned that communicated with such. Yea Peter was guilty of encouraging them in Schism, that would not eat with the Christian Gentiles, but he was not unchristened by this.  
49. They separate from or unchurch almost all the Ancient Churches in the days of the most famous Emperors and Councils: For I have manifested past doubt that they almost all did Hereticate or separate from one another. It was Schism either in Victor to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops, or in them to deserve it and be excommunicate. The owning or disowning several Councils, specially that of Chalcedon and that at Const. de tribus Capitulis, etc. was the Schism of almost all the Imperial Churches; one part condemning the other. And if either were in the Right, it salves not the Case with them: For most of the same men that went that way called the Right in one Prince's Reign, went contrary in the next, and so condemned each other round; especially about Images adoration.  
50. Hereby they cut off that Succession of that sort of Ordination, which they say must be uninterrupted, while it came down from Churches excommunicated by one another, or make the Proof of it impossible.  
51. They separate from all the Greek Church at this day, as guilty of Schism, both in their Succession from Schismatical Bishops, at Constant Alexand. Antioch, jerusalem, etc. and in their excommunicating not only the Church of Rome for a wrong cause (the filioque) but other Churches, and for divers Acts of Schism.  
52. They must by their Principles Separate from the Abassines, Egyptians, Syrians, and all the Eastern and Southern Churches that are called jacobites, and N●storians: For Councils and other Churches condemn them: And they condemn the Councils of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and all since: And they must separate from and condemn the Churches of Armenia, Georgia, Circassia, etc. because they separate from others, and are separated from.  
53. Their Principles utterly unchurch the Church of Rome, 1. Especially because it is guilty of the greatest Schism on earth, by setting up a false Church form and head: 2. And because they Schismatically condemn and Unchurch three parts of the Church on earth, even all save their Sect: 3. And for their many other Schismatical Doctrines and Practices. 4. And as being condemned by the Greek Protestants and most Churches, and separated from by the Church of England which they own.  
54. They separate in Principles from all or near all General Councils (save the first) as having separated from other Councils and condemned them, and being again condemned by them.  
55. Some of them condemn and separate from all the Protestant Churches that have Bishops, in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Transylvania, etc. because they had not their Ordination Successively from Bishops but Presbyters at the Reformation: And because they have been guilty of Schism against others.  
56. The Principles of Mr. Dodwel and his Associates condemn the Church of England as Schismatical, 1. Those that claim Succession from Rome, whose own Succession hath been oft and long interrupted, by incapacities and Schisms. 2. For holding Communion with those Protestant Churches which these men call Schismatics.  
57 They condemn and separate from all the Churches called Presbyterian in France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland formerly, and those in Helvetia that have no Bishops; Tho' some would threat kindness on them by saying that they would have them and cannot? And why cannot they?  
58. Their Principles make the Bishop of Oxford, Bristol, etc. Schismatics: For their Dioceses are Churches taken out of Churches, being lately parts of other Dioceses.  
59 And they condemn all the Parish Churches in England as Churches distinct from Cathedrals: For they are all Churches gathered out of Churches: At first the Cathedrals were the only single Churches: Next Monasteries were gathered; and next our Parish Churches. And the Parish Church of Covent-garden, is a Church taken out of a Church.  
60. Their Principles damn St. Martin that separated to the death from all the Bishop's Synods and them that were near him (save one Man) because they persuaded Maximus to use the Sword against Priscillian Gnostics, and brought men of strict Religion under Suspicion of Priscillianism: And sure the ruined persecuted Protestants here, are more Orthodox than the Priscillians. And they damn Gildas that told the English Clergy, that he was not eximius Christianus, that would call them Ministers; (Do they not disgrace the many Churches dedicated to the Memory of St. Martin, if he be a damned man?) I doubt they damn Paul and Barnabas for local angry separating from each other: Whatever they do by Peter and Barnabas for the Separation blamed Gal. 2.  
61. If all are Schismatics that here conform not, all those called Conformists are such, that conform to the words in a false sense.  
62. They separate from all that obey the twentieth Canon of the Nicene Council: And from all that obey the Councils that forbidden communicating with a Fornicating Priest: And from all that obey the Councils which nullify the Episcopacy of such as are obtruded by Magistrates, or not consented to by the Clergy and People. And many more such.  
Abundance more instances of their Separation, and Damnation, I might add: In a word, I think their Principles are, as I first said, for damning and separating from all men living; for all men living are gulity of some sort and degree of Schism, that is, of Errors, Principles or Practices in which they culpably Violate that Union and Concord that should be among Christians and Churches: Every defect of Christian Love, and every sinful Error, is some degree of such a violation. All Christians differ in as great matters as things indifferent: And no man living knoweth all things Indifferent to be such: And these men distinguish not of Schism, nor will take notice of the necessary distinctions given (in the third Part of the Treatise of Church Concord,) And solutio continui causeth pain: nor do they at all make us understand what sort of Separation it is that they fasten on, but talk of Separation in general, as aforesaid.  
LXXXVII. They seem to be themselves deceived by the Papists in exposition of Cyprians words de Vnit. Eccles. Vnus est Episcopatus, etc. But they themselves seem to separate from Cyprian as a Schismatic, and consequently from all the Church that hath professed Communion with him, and with all the Councils and Churches that joined with him: For Cyprian and his Council erred by going too far from the Schism and Heresy of others, nullifying all their Baptisms, Ordinations and Communions: And for this error they declared against the Judgement of the Bishop of Rome and other Churches; and they were for it condemned as Schismatics by the said Bishop: And here is a far wider Separation than we can be charged with. 2. And Cyprians words came from the Mind that was possessed with these opinions, and are expressive of his Inclination. 3. Yet they are true and good, understood as he himself oft expounds them; the Bishop of Oxford citeth some instances, many more are obvious, in which he opposeth the Bishop of Rome, saying, that none of them pretendeth to be a Bishop of Bishops; and limiting every man to his own Province, and saying that they were to give account to none but God, with much the like.  
But in what sense is Episcopacy one? 1. Undoubtedly not as numerically in the personal Subjectum Relationis: One Bishop is not another; if you should say Paternity is One, none believe that one man's Relation of Paternity is another's. The Relation is an accident of its own Subject, as well as Quantity, Quality, etc. 2. Nor doth any man believe that many Bishops go to make up one Bishop in Naturals. 3. Nor did ever Cyprian hold or say that all Bishops go to make up one Politic Governing Aristocracy, as many go to make one Senate or Parliament, that hath a power of Legislation and Judgement by Vote as one Persona politica. He never owned such a humane Sovereignty.  
But Episcopatus unus est, 1. In specie, all Bishops have one Office; 2. Objectiuè: As the Catholic Church is one, whose welfare all Bishops ought to seek: 3. And so finaliter as to the remote End; and are bound to endeavour Concord. 4. And as effects, all are from one efficient institutor. As it may be said that all official Magistracy in England is one: 1. As from one King or summa potestas: 2. As described by one Law, and as Justices of one Species: 3. As all their Cities and Counties and Hundreds are but part of one Kingdom, whose welfare all are for: 4. And as they are all bound to keep as much common Concord as they can; if any mean more, they should tell us what: If any mean that all Bishops make one numerical Universal Government, they are heinous Schismatics, and the Kingdom is Sworn against their Judgement: And these Men damn them in damning Schismatics.  
The truth is, Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae (leaving out the Papists additions) is a good Book, and worthy to be read of all; and take Cyprian's Description of the Episcopacy of the Church which we must unite with, and the nature of that Union, and we would rejoice in such. But if Cyprian had lived to see either Arians or Donatists the greater number, or any Sect after call themselves the Church because that Princes set them up, and had seen them depose chrysostom and such other, doubtless he would never have pleaded the Unity of Episcopacy for this, but have judged as he did in the Case of Martial and Basilides; nor did he ever plead for an universal humane Sovereignty.  
LXXXVIII. If we are damned Schismatics, I can imagine no pretended manner of Separation in which our Schism consists, but first, either Local as such. 2. Or Mental, as such. 3. Or Local, caused by Mental.  
If Local, as such be it: All Christians are Schismatics, for being locally separated from others, and absent from all Churches and places save one.  
If Mental Separation be it, either all Mental Division is such, or but some only; if all, than all mortal men are Schismatics, as differing in a multitude of things from others; If it be not all, what is it? is it all difference in the Essentials of Christianity? we grant it; and we are charged with no such thing. Is it all difference in the Integrals or Accidents? so do all differ that are not perfect. Is it all want of Love, or all uncharitableness to one another? all on earth have some degree of it; and those are likest to have most, that do as the Bishops did against the Priscillianists, bring godly people under reproach, on pretence of opposing Heresy; or that seek the Silencing, Imprisonment, Banishment or Ruin of men as faithful as themselves: For our parts, we profess it our great Duty, to love all men as men, all Christians as Christians, all godly men as godly, all Magistrates as Magistrates, etc. Is it for our separating in mind from any Principles in specie necessary to Communion in the Church Universal, or single Churches? let it be opened what those Principles be: We own all Christianity, and all Ministry of God's Institution, and all his Church Ordinances: We own Bishops over their Flocks, let them be never so large, so they be capable of the Work and End, and altar not the true species; and we submit to any that shall by the Word admonish Pastors of many Churches of their Duty, or Sin, or seek their good. Nor do we refuse Obedience to any humane Officers set up by Princes, to do nothing against Christ's Laws, nor nothing but what is in Prince's power in the Accidents circa Sacra.  
Is it because we disown any Numerical Rulers? we own the King and his Magistrates; we own all that we can understand to be true Pastors; and if we are in doubt of their Calling, we resist them not, unless obeying Christ before them be resistance: But our Accusers loudly profess, that Usurpers are not to be owned; and if they go on the ground, that he hath right that the Prince is for, we would know, whether that hold in Turkey, in Italy, Spain, France, or only in England, or where? If it be where Princes are Orthodox, do they make all the People Judges of their Prince's Orthodoxness? And we would know, whether EVERY BISHOPS and PRIESTS right, 〈◊〉 a true Minister, called of God, and set over us, be necessary to Salvation, to be believed or known by all the People? if it be, woe to us, that ever such men were set over us, whose right we cannot know: What abundance of things go to make a Bishops or Priests right known! 1. That he hath capable sufficiency. 2. That he is a just Bishop, that's chosen by the King, the Dean and Chapter obediently consenting, & that the Clergies and People's consent is unnecessary. 3. That the Diocesan species (over multitudes of Churches without any subordinate Bishop) is of Christ, or lawful. 4. That their work, according to the Canon, is lawful. 5. That all our Patrons have right to choose Pastors for all the People. 6. That they are true Pastors over them that consent not. 7. That if they prove worse far than Martial and Basilides, and be owned by the Bishops as they were, the people may not forsake them (pl●bs obsequens divinis pr●ceptis,) which saith Cyprian have most power to choose or refuse.  
Is every Christian bound on pain of Damnation to know all these, and then to examine and judge Bishops and Priests accordingly? or if they mistake one or more men's Commission, do they therefore separate from the Catholic Church? If so, what a case was the East in by the difference between chrysostom and his Competitors? Photius and Ignatius and hundreds others? and France, about the Archbishops of Rheims, when he was put out that deposed Ludovicus 4. and when an Infant was put in, and oft besides?  
What if the Alexandrians, when Athanasius was banished by Constantine himself, were half for him, and half against him? Or Basil at Caesarea was put down, and hundreds more; or when Theodosius first and second and Martian, and Valentinian, and Zeno, and Anastasius and abundance more, set up and pulled down, and set up again against each other? What, I say, if the People now mistook who had the best Title? Is this separating from the Catholic Church? When the Interim cast out hundreds in Germany; When Ludovicus cast out Multitudes in the Palatinate, and half the People stuck to the ejected, persecuted Pastor, and the rest to the Magistrates choice, which of them separated from the Universal Church? Is every Priest the Universal Church, or an essential part of it? then it dyeth when he dyeth, and Apostatizeth when he doth. How many Ages in above 23 Duplicates or Schisms, was the World uncertain which was the true Pope? suppose, e. g. Arthur jackson, Edmund Calamy, and many such were placed in their Incumbency, by the Bishops, Patrons and Parish consent, according to the Law of Christ and the Land, and by a new Act of Uniformity they be all turned out, the Flock not consenting, nor any Bishop accusing, trying or deposing them (save in Legislation,) and some of the Parish think this dissolveth not their Relation to him, and they cleave to him as before, without any change save of Place and Tithes, and others forsake such a one, and follow the Magistrates choice, may not both these be still of the Catholic Church? If not, I know where the old Canons laid the charge and danger. It's wonderful selfishness in those men, that if they can but get into the Seat, take it for granted, that all must own their right on pain of Damnation.  
And what if in any such Land, the Prince change his mind, or the next differ, and put down all these same men, and set up such as differ from them more than we do, is it damning Schism for any of their People still to adhere to them?  
LXXXIX. Do you find that Mr. Dodwel, Dr. Saywel, Dr. Sherlock, or any of these men, do, in Pulpit and Press, ingenuously tell the People the truth of the Case, when they liken men as Schismatics to Murderers for danger? Did you ever hear them say, [The Canon, which is the Church's Voice and Law, doth Excommunicate you all that do own your Opinions against Conformity, and commandeth us not to admit you to the Sacrament, and yet to pronounce your Excommunication for not taking it: We confess they have been holy and Learned Men that have thought many things imposed unlawful; and therefore we wonder not if it be not in your power to change your judgement, no more than to be perfect in knowledge; and we confess if you are unjustly Excommunicated, or any of the things made necessary to Communion be against God's Word, than it is the Church that is guilty of Schism, but because this is not so, we accuse you of Schism, even of separating from the Universal Church, and from Salvation.  
XC. I do admire, that never any one of them would be prevailed with to prove the Canon's Excommunications ipso facto lawful, when even Papists have scorned all such do; and when the learnedst of all their own admired men, that were for comprimising matters with Rome, even Mar. Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis de Rep. Eccl. hath so confidently, copiously and strenuously damned it: Christ would have none Excommunicate, whatever the Crime be, without Impenitency after due admonition for Repentance, but these Canons ipso facto Condemn and Excommunicate Godly men, without ever admonishing them, or calling them to repent, or hearing or seeing them: Nothing is necessary but the proof of the fact, and then the Law is instead of a Judge; and to oblige the People to avoid them, it must be published.  
If this and all things named in the first Plea for Peace, be sinless, studying and disputing is not the way to know what is sinful.  
XCI. But, saith the Resolver, [Christ hath but one Body, and to be a Member of two separate and Opposite Churches, is to be contrary to ourselves.]  
Ans. But I had hoped your Catechised Boys had known, 1. That one Body hath many parts. 2. That particular Churches are parts of this Body, as Corporations are of the Kingdom. 3. That all the parts are imperfect, and made up of none but sinners. 4. That every good man is partly bad, and so contrary to himself. 5. That Churches may be so far separate as to be distinct, and yet not so far as to be contrary or opposite. 6. That they may be opposite in Accidents and Integrals, that are one in specie in Essentials. 7. That a man may own several Churches, and Communicate with them for that which they agree in, and yet not own both, (or either perhaps) in that which they are opposite in. 8. That there being somewhat opposite in all men and Churches on Earth, you damn yourselves for Communicating with them. 9 That a man may have more Communion with the Church which he Locally separateth from, even for sin, than with that which he is present with.  
E. g. A Congregation or Nation of men of eminent Sanctity and Order, ●ound Doctrine and Worship, may, by humane frailty take some one falsehood or uncertain thing to be necessary to Ministry or Communion (as they say some Churches unhappily of late reject all that own not the Antiquity of the Hebrew Points) I cannot have local Communion with that Church, for they will not receive me, unless I subscribe either a falsehood, (or that which I judge false;) but yet I highly honour and love them, and have mental Catholic Communion with them, when perhaps necessity may make me Locally join with a Church of far worse men and Order, that will impose no sin on me. 10. And I would advise these men, did they not despise my advice, for the Church of England's sake, and their own, to retract their Errors, and not lay such a Snare before the People. Should you say in the Pulpit, [If the Church be guilty of any Schism by her Impositions, (oft-named) Excommunications and silencing of Christ's Ministers, and afflicting good people without just Cause, than I, and all that communicate with it and me, communicate in the guilt of Schism, and are all in as much danger of Damnation by it as Adulterers and Murderers] tell not your hearers this, for if you do, some will think you bid them separate or be damned, and only make a doubt whether most men have Noses or not.  
XCII. Qu. But is not the Inference true?  
Ans. No, it's false: There are twenty cases in which 1. One may be guilty of Schism and not be a Schismatic, as denominated from what predominateth: 2. And as many in which he is not at all guilty that communicateth with the guilty.  
And let the world (that is sober and awake) judge now whether these men or we be the greater Schismatics, and which more condemneth or separateth from the Church of England. We say that all Churches have some degree of Schism, and so hath the Church of England, as it hath imperfection, Error and Sin; but that it is not therefore no Church, nor is it unlawful to communicate with it; All Christians and Churches must not be separated from that are guilty of some degree of Schism.  
If any will turn these Serious matters into Jest, and say, as Dr. Say●●ll, that they will receive Greeks, Lutherans, etc. that come to their Communion, his Serious Readers will tell him, that so will most Sects receive those that approve of their Communion and come to them: Joining with you signifieth that they are of your way therein; But will you go to their Churches and Communicate with them? You will receive the damned Schismatics if they come to you, when yet you make it damnable to join in their meetings with them. This quibbling beseems not grave men in great matters.  
To conclude, Reader, God having allowed more Legislative Power to men in things Secular than in Religion, I may say this case is like ours in debate.  
I. Some Judges and Lawyers say, that the Oath of Allegiance makes a Subject in this Kingdom; that the Renouncing or Violating it by Treason, or Rebellion, or deserting the Kingdom, overthrows the Relation. But that other particular faults or quarrels against Neighbours, Justices, Judges, yea the King himself, are punishable according to the Laws, but are not all Rebellion, nor dissolve Subjection, nor oblige the Subjects to renounce civil converse with each other; though some contempt and obstinacy may outlaw them. Such is our Judgement of Church Relation and Communion, which I need not rehearse.  
II. Suppose a sect of Lawyers and Judges arise, that say, no men are the King's Subjects, but are Rebels, that break any of his Laws, that Shoot not in long Bows, that Bury not their dead in Woollen, that swear profanely, that eat flesh in Lent unlicensed, that have any unjust Lawsuit, that wrong any Neighbour, that oppress any Poor man, all these are Rebels; yea all that plead opposite Causes at the Bar, and all Judges that judge contrary to one another, and all that misunderstand any point of Law and Practice accordingly, and all that besides the Oath of Allegiance do constitute Marriages, Families, Schools, Societyes by any other Covenants of their own, and all that are of different Cities and Companies, parts of the Kingdom, or all whose Justices, Mayors, Sheriffs, etc. differ from one another in any point of Law and practice: Or all that obey not every Constable and Justice; or that go to divers Justices in the same Precincts, or that go from one Justice to another to avoid unrighteous Judgement, or that go from the Physician of the Place for Health, and from the Schoolmaster of the Town for greater edification, or that Travel beyond Sea for Knowledge, yea all that understand not every word in the Law, that may concern them: If any say, none of these are the King's Subjects, but Rebels, opposite to him and one another, and deserve to be all hanged as Murderers, and so are all that have Communion with them; Quaere, 1. Whether these men are for the Unity of England? 2. And are Friends to the King that deprive him of all his Subjects; as much as those that would have him have no Subjects, that be not of the same Age, Stature, Complexion and Wit. 3. And whether they are Friends to Mankind? 4. And whether they condemn not themselves if they live not as Anchorets, out of humane Society. 5. And whether that Nation be not by infatuation prepared for Destruction that would believe them, and would hate, scorn and ruin them that are of the first mentioned opinion, according to the saying, Quos perdere vult jupiter, hos dementat.  
As to the more dangerous Doctrine now threatening this Land, that would subject England to a Foreign Jurisdiction, on pretence of a Necessity of either an Universal Church Monarch, or Church-Parliament Senate or Council, or of all the Church on Earth represented by Patriarches or Metropolitans, or that plead for Subjection to them, under the Name of Communion, they require a distinct Answer. But Dr. Is. Barrow, and Mr. Beverley's Catholic Catechism, have effectually done it.   
FINIS.   

THE SECOND PART AGAINST SCHISM: BEING ANIMADVERSIONS On a Book famed to be Mr. Raphson's.  
LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel. 1684.   

TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
WHEN I had Written the first of these Discourses, I came after to know more of the Author's judgement, by another Book against me; which I also Answered, but it lieth by unprinted. I also wrote, for the use of some private Friends, my Reasons for Communion with those Parish-Churches who have Capable Ministers, which many Importuned me to Print; but that also is yet undone: But a Book famed to be Mr. Raphsons' coming out, I thought it my duty to Animadvert on that, and to bear my Testimony against Schism on both Extremes, lest I be guilty of Partiality, and of the Sin and suffering of many that may be deceived by them. If these Two be not overmuch discouraged, the other Two against both the Extremes may come hereafter.   

THE SECOND PART AGAINST SCHISM, etc.  
The Reasons of Mr. Raphson, and such others, against going to the Parish-Churches, considered.  
THE Matter of his Book, as against Persecution, is very considerable; the Style is very close and pungent: His Doctrine against Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgy, is that which I examine.  
The sum of it is, 1. That kneeling at the reception of the Sacrament, and the use of the Liturgy, are unlawful.  
2. That they are false Worship, and Idolatry.  
3. That the places where they are used, are Idol-Temples.  
4. That to join there in them, is to partake in Idolatry.  
5. The proof of all this is by this Argument; Worship not institute, is not lawful; but kneeling in receipt of Bread and Wine, is Worship not instituted by Christ: therefore not lawful; therefore not pleasing, p. 160, 161. To which, by way of Motive, he addeth, p. 275. How many once in the separation, are returned back to the Vomit they once cast up, and wallow in the mire of a worldly worship? etc. Is compliance in Idol-Temples, going to Dan and Bethel, bowing to Baal, sitting, or drinking with the superstitious in acts of religious adoration, a witness for, or against defection? Are you turned as silly sheep (that once were called shepherds), to bleat after other shepherds, that Christ never sent, nor bid you go after them, etc. Looks it not like a declining of the Camp of Christ, the work of the Gospel, and setting your face towards Babel, & c.? Is scandal of no weight with you, & c.? How dare you venture your souls to sit under Means that he says shall not profit you; and which is worse, lies under his curse? jer. 23.32. Mal. 1.14. with more such. Either this Writer knoweth how ill he dealeth with his Reader, or not: If he do, it's a double fault: if not (which I think), it's a doleful case, that every well-meaning man, that can but be confident in his ignorance and error, and father it on God, should become such a snare to them that cannot see through his Pretences, and should himself suffer for sinning, and call it the Cause of God, and condemn all that sin not as confidently as he; and hereby harden his afflicters, by showing them his weakness, and impenitently justifying his sin.  
If he would not have ensnared his Reader, he should first have opened the meaning of the words of his Question, that they might know how much of the Dispute is material, and how much only about words. 2. And then he should have so proved his assertion and accusation, as might satisfy a good Conscience in a matter wherein God, the Church, and Souls, are so much concerned; and not have poured out Accusations by way of Motives, upon unproved and false suppositions.  
I find but one Argument, which I shall now answer plainly:  
His Major is, [Worship not instituted, is not lawful]. Ans. 1. The word [Worship] in general, signifieth, 1. Any thing done in honour to another; and so all our obedience to God is Worship: It is to his glory that we must do all. I suppose that this he meaneth not. 2. Any immediate act or expression of the honour and reverence of the heart. If this be not it that he meaneth by Worship, I know not what he meaneth.  
This Worship, as within, is the secret act of the soul; as expressed, it is the act of the body.  
Of such Worship there are two sorts: One sort is made necessary, statedly, by God's commanding it in particular. To this no man must add the like, or from it diminish any thing so commanded, either pretending God's authority, or his own. The other sort is but the subordinate ordering of the former, and is but the manner of doing it. This God doth not institute in particular, but only give man a general Rule, how to choose it himself; which is, That all be done in love, and to edification, decently and in order.  
Either this latter sort is to be called Worship, or not: If it be, than it falls under his opposition: If not, then, 1. He must give us a definition of Worship, which shall exclude it; and so Worship must be somewhat else than the direct or immediate acting or expressing honour to God: And than who knows what he meaneth by it? 2. And then when we plead for men's making none but this, he should to avoid deceit, confess that the Controversy is only of the Name (whether Modes and Circumstances of God's instituted Worship, may be called Worship), and not at all of the Thing (whether it be lawful or not): This had been like a Christian Teacher.  
Now I answer, 1. to his first Proposition: 1. Worship which is neither instituted particularly, nor in the general, appointing man how to choose it, is unlawful. 2. And to invent worship without God's allowance, contrary, or of the same kind, as if he had not done his part, is unlawful. 3. But for man to choose and use such worship as is but the right ordering of God's Institutions, is commanded by him, and a Duty; and therefore not unlawful.  
2. As to his Minor, or Second Proposition, I answer, Kneeling at the Sacrament, and communicating with Parish Churches that have tolerable Ministers, are not instituted of God in particular, but the Genus of them is instituted, and we commanded to choose ourselves, according to God's general Rules, to the best of our understanding: and so they are our Duty, and not unlawful.  
I give the Instances of these two sorts of worship:  
First, God hath Instituted, that our Minds Worship him, in believing, and receiving all his Gospel Revelations, and trusting them; and in desiring all things Petitioned in the Lord's Prayer, and in consenting to all commanded in the Scriptures; and in Dedicating ourselves to him cordially in Baptism, and renewing it in the Lord's Supper, in commemoration of Christ's Death, till he comes. He hath Instituted the Corporal Expresions of all these; That we confess Christ in all the necessary Articles of Faith; That we ask the Petitions of the Lords Prayer; That we perform the Commands of the Decalogue towards God, and all others in the Scripture. These are the Instituted Worship which none must alter.  
Secondly, The Manner and Ordering, which is the Second sort (which I leave every one to call Worship, or not, when they have defined Worship) which man may, and must choose himself, without any Particular Institution of God, contain such Acts as these.  
1. Undetermined gestures of Reverence and Honour in time of Public Worship. As to be uncovered, or put off the Hat at Prayer, or the Lord's Supper. This we do directly in honour and reverence to God, whom we there Worship; and therefore it is itself a subordinate act of Worship.  
So to stand, or kneel at Prayer, and not to sit. Though in Scripture we read of sitting, standing, kneeling, and prostration: yet no one of these is made necessary by Institution: yet are they subordinate Acts of Worship, expressing our inward Worship of God: And the reason why being uncovered, or kneeling, are now chosen, is not a particular Institution, but because the Custom of the Country hath made them the most congruous Expression of our inward Worship: when as Paul tells us, That then and there it was a shame for a man to be covered: and the whole Church for many hundred years forbade all kneeling, in Adoration, on the Lord's Days. And more,  
To these I add, the gesture of the Adult in Baptism, whether they shall be Baptised kneeling, to signify Humble Reception, or not, is left to choice.  
So is the Gesture in singing Psalms: If any think, that speaking to God by prayer, praise, or thanksgiving in Psalms, should in honour to God be done Standing, or Kneeling, rather than Sitting, it is no addition to God's Institution. And that we commonly use sitting in Psalmody, and not when we Pray in Prose, is merely because Custom maketh one more offensive than the other.  
The same I say of the Gesture of Preaching, which some do sitting with their Hats on, and others stand to avoid a seeming dishonour of God's Name and Service. Also, some holy Nonconformists I have known, that would rarely name God but with their Hats put off, or bowing their Heads; or with Hands and Eyes lift up towards Heaven. (Old Mr. Atkins at Tipton near Dudley, did thus use to show such Reverence, when he named God, that would strike Reverence into those that saw and heard him: and hath oft Affected me more than a Sermon.) This was External Worship, not Instituted in the particulars, but in general of Reverence to God.  
2. Another instance is in Vows to God, which are acts of Worship: But for the Matter of them, several things may be Vowed which are not particularly commanded, but only in the General. And for the Form or Words, I do not think that Mr. Raphson can show me all that Vow called the Covenant, in any particular Institution; and yet I conjecture, that he taketh it not to be Idolatry, nor Unlawful.  
3. Another Instance is, in things devoted and offered to God The Scripture in general saith, Honour God with thy substance, and with the first Fruits of thy increase. And that Christians at first sold all, and laid at the Apostles Feet; which yet Peter tells Ananias he might have chosen not to do. And for many hundred years after, they brought their Weekly Donations for the Ministers, Sacraments, and Poor, to the Altar, and Offered it first to God: And so Paul would have the Corinthians give their Collections as to God, for the Saints. But no Institution told them how much they should give, but the General Rule.  
4. Another Instance is, the length or degree of outward Worship: If I pray two hours rather than one, it is an act of Honour or Worship, not particularly commanded.  
So whether men shall in Public read one Chapter, or two; sing one Psalms or two, or more, is undetermined by God  
5. Another is about set Days and Hours for Worship; as to keep a yearly Thanksgiving for Deliverance from the Powder Plot; the Spanish Invasion; for the Reformation, etc. So also Fasts, and what days Lectures shall be kept, and what hour: And what day and hour the Lord's Supper shall be Administered; which are Circumstantial Acts of Worship.  
6. Another Instance is in the choice of Psalms and Hymns: the use of Davids are Lawful, and so are others: but no Institution tieth us to One, but leaveth us to choose.  
7. Another Instance is in the Tunes and Metre of Psalms, which we use as Subordinate Acts of Worship. It is but lately that the Churches used Metre and Melody of Tune; but Prose read with a loud Voice: yet I hope we are not Idolaters for our Metre and Melody: which I may say also of Church Music, which David used, and we may do, where it's Edifying; but it's no Institution now. Yea, when Paul directs the Church to use Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs; which is for singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, and therefore it is Worship, which some men must indite and make.  
8. Another Instance is, in the versions of the Psalms of David; where among many we may choose which seems best.  
9 Another Instance is, in the public and private Reading of the Scriptures Translated: where every word is the work of man: God wrote it not in English, but in Hebrew and Greek; but man Translates it, some well, and some defectively; yet I hope, an English Bible is not an Idol.  
10. So also the dividing the Scriptures into Chapters, and Verses, which are the Works of man, is no Idolatry.  
11. And another Instance is, the Method and Words of Sermons and Prayers: whether a Minister shall Preach by way of Doctrine, Reason, and Use; or otherwise: and Expound by way of Paraphrase, or otherwise; what words he shall use, God hath not instituted in particular; but men's invention maketh these, some suddenly, and some beforehand.  
12. Another Instance is, the use of helps, or written Words; Whether one shall use Notes in Preaching, and read them, or not? Whether the words of a Prayer shall be written, and read, or not; God hath not determined. And so Books of Catechism, Public Confessions, Prayers, Meditations as form, are all the works of man, and no Idolatry. And if Parents impose words of Prayer on their Children, it is no Sin; as Deut. 6. and 11. show.  
13. Another Instance is in the form of Ordination, when the Words and many Circumstances are undetermined. Imposition of Hands is a lawful Sign: and so is doing it by a Writing, or by mere Words, without that Imposition; some receive it Kneeling, some Standing; some by one Form of Words, some by another, etc. some from one Ordainer, some from many, etc. And none of these determined by Institution.  
14. The same is true of Discipline; The Form of Words for Admonition, for Absolution, for Excommunication, for the Penitents Confession and Request, are left to Humane Wisdom, so the matter and manner be regulated by the general Law. And they that say, that God hath Instituted, that the Church shall be Governed Necessarily by fixed Classes, with Appeals to National Synods, and that here a Major Vote hath Governing Power over the lesser part; yea, and that these must be made up of Two sorts of Elders, of which one sort are un-ordained, or are not Authorised to Administer the Word and Sacraments, do but add to the Word of God, if they say these National Assemblies are the Supreme Church-Power; what Law of God did ever Institute, That a Minister, or Classis, e. g. in Geneva, Breme, Scotland, is not as much subject to the Decrees of a larger Council of many Nations; and that the Synod at Dort had not as much Power as a lesser at Hague: or a Synod of many Nations as much as one in Scotland? But if (as by parity of Reason they must) they say, that General or large Councils are the Governors of National Assemblies, as they are of Classis and Presbyteries: then they bring us under a Foreign Jurisdiction, which the Kingdom is sworn against; and I think they are Papists, but of the French sort, who make General Councils Superior Governors of the Universal Church.  
And if they determine the bounds of Church-Power, by the Magistrates Laws, and yet damn Erastians', they seem in ignorance to deal too hardly with themselves.  
15. Another Instance is, in the Place of Public Worship: God hath not determined where the Assembly shall meet: where the Pulpit, Font, Table, etc. shall stand. And if great and lofty Structures, called Temples, be Built, purely to show how we honour God, and Religion: as Constantine, and others after him, did at Constantinople, Alexandria, jerusalem, over the Grave of Christ, and all over the Empire: this Actual Expression of Honour to God, is Cultus modalis & secundarius, a subservient sort of Worship, and no Idolatry, but Lawful.  
16. The same I say of Church Utensils: If for the Honour of God and Religion, the Pulpits, and Tables have Ornaments of Silk, Cups, and Trenchers, and Flagons of Silver; the Font and Seats have some special Neatness, etc. this is left to Man's Determination, without any particular Institution, and is no Idolatry.  
17. And if as Judges and Lawyers have distinguishing Habits▪ the Ministers have so, (officiating, and at other times) to no worse end (or manner) than the said Utensils are put; I know no Institution that is crossed by it, nor that forbids it.  
18. Another Instance may be of Speaking in the Assembly, whether it shall be One Minister, or Two, or Three. Whether Laymen may not be Interlocutors by Questions, yea, and sometime Preach and Pray, etc. God hath not particularly determined, but left to Human Choice.  
19 Many good Christians knowing the Lord's Day to be an Instituted Day of Thanksgiving for the greatest Mercies, do as an Act of Honour wear their best clothes, and Feast themselves and the Poor accordingly that day: This is Lawful, by the General Law; but not particularly Instituted by God.  
20. Professing Signs in our Covenanting with God, and Confessing of our Religion, are left to be chosen only by the General Laws of Edification, and Order. When a Nation, or Church, or Person renew their Covenant with God, and their Confession of Faith, it may be done (when the Ruler demandeth their consent) either by word, or by subscribing▪ or by lifting up the hand, or by standing up, or by bowing the Head; for these are all, or most found in Scripture instances; yea, sometimes they fell by Prostration to the Ground: yea, and so they oft did in receiving a Charge or Message from God, by his Ministers.  
I will add no more Instances; These are enough. If yet it be said, That none of these be acts of Worship: I again Answer, 1. Then do not by Slander call them so, and say still, that Man's inventing or using these, is using false Worship. If they be no Worship, they are no false Worship. Confess then, that it's but a bare name that you charged with Idolatry: for its only such things as these that we would add. 2. But de nomine, If an Action done directly to honour God be to be called Worship; some of these at least may be called Secondary subordinate Worship: But if you appropriate the Name to Gods stated Ordinances, these must not be called Worship; but the manner, order, circumstances, or accidents of Worship. But call them what you will, they are but what God alloweth, and the General of them he commandeth.  
I need not say much to his Applicatory Words. 1. To return from Separation, to Love and Union, is as fitly called, a Returning to their Vomit, as returning from Drunkenness and Fornication, to Sobriety and Chastity may be so called. Repentance is casting up our Sin.  
2. The Names of bowing to Baal, Dan and Bethel, Babylon, Idols, etc. are as easily used by Quakers, Ranters, Familists▪ etc. against all God's Church and Worship: And they were worn so threadbare by the railing Separatists (then called Brownists), against the Old Learned Godly Nonconformists, that they turned to the Speakers reproach. And I suppose he knoweth that the Scots were called as bad, and worse, by the Army that conquered them in 1650, etc.  
3. That sitting or drinking with the superstitious in acts of religious adoration, is a sign of defection. This would make all Backsliders who so sit and drink with him, and such as he, who is so superstitious, as to turn sin into duty, and duty into sin, and falsely father Laws on God: Yea, that is worse than superstitious, as is after manifested. 2. Superstition is an offering somewhat as pleasing to God, which is not pleasing to him. All Christians have some degree of this in Matter or Manner; for we know but in part, and prophesy in part, etc. And so no Christians must join with others. But must they not give over all Religious Duty themselves, seeing their own defects more defile them than other men's? 3. Christ doth not disown all imperfect worship that hath some Superstition: And we must receive one another as Christ receiveth us. 4. It was Superstitious persons that Paul commandeth Christians to receive to Communion, Rom. 14. 5. Thus he condemneth the Apostles, and the Churches then, and the Scripture itself. 6. It is dreadful revolting to choose rather forbearance of all Church Communion, than to Communicate with our Parish Churches, when better cannot be had, and men are not forced to any sin themselves. And he that will communicate with none that sin in Preaching, Prayer, Sacraments, shall communicate with none 7. It is a gross Service of Satan and Popery, to fight against Love and Unity, and bring all the Public Assemblies under disgrace, as unlawful, that Popery may take possession unresisted.  
4. His words of [silly Sheep bleating after any Shepherd, etc.] are but a Net to catch silly Souls. It's the common Trap of the Papists, to put ignorant people to prove the Calling of the Ministers, or forsake them. They that preach the Gospel, and do the Office (though faultily), and are in possession, have a Calling sufficient to justify the Hearers, when it may not be enough to justify themselves: A better Call than the High Priests that Christ did send men to.  
5. As to the Argument of Scandal; It is of dreadful weight to deter a tender Conscience (as from conforming to sin, so) from his groundless Separation, and war against Unity and Love.  
6. That God saith such Means shall not profit; yea, curseth it, is a slander against God and Scripture, and all the Church on Earth that's known; by perverting and misapplying the Text.  
I shall now better prove the lawfulness of using such things as these, than he hath proved it unlawful.  
1. That which no Law of God, or valid Law of Man, forbids, is not unlawful: but the use of the things forementioned, no Law of God, or valid Law of Man forbids: Therefore the use of the things forementioned, is not unlawful.  
He that will say that there is any such Law, must show that Law, and prove his Affirmative: But let him take heed of adding to God's Law: A false Prophet that fathered a false Message from God, was an heinous sinner. Is it not worse falsely to father a Law on him?  
Perhaps they will say, that God forbids adding or diminishing: I answer, He doth so: Therefore let them take heed of it, who say his Law forbids that which it never forbade, but in general commandeth. If we must not add to the Laws of the Land, yet the Bookbinder that covereth them, and the Lawyers and Judges that expound them, do not add thereby to the Law. When the Hearers bowed, and prostrated themselves in reverence to God, they did not by this add to the Law; nor yet when they made a Vow uncommanded, or a freewill Offering: And I think it was no sinful addition to the Law, for the Publican to smite his Breast, and look downward; and when jeremy said, No man smiteth on his thigh, and saith, what evil have I done? The meaning is not, No man idolatrously giveth God false worship. And I think, that they that rend their clothes to express their repentance, did not add to God's Word, nor yet do it as necessary worship, though joel says, Rend your hearts, and not your garments.  
Some Object, That Christ's sitting at the Sacramental Supper, is a Law to us, forbidding any other gesture. But this Author professeth, that all the actions of Christ, or his Apostles, are not Laws binding us to do the like: If they be, we break many such Laws; as when we do not eat a full Meal before the Sacrament, when we do it not without women, only to a Family, or to Twelve, only to Teachers, in an upper Reom, in an Inn, or Private House, and that we do not lie along, leaning, as they did; especially when we take it not at Suppertime, and turn the Lord's Supper to a Breakfast or Dinner. The Apostles broke no Law when they differed from any of these, which were but occasional Circumstances.  
It's said by some, That Christ's Example binds us to a Table-gesture: But 1. That may be convenient, and yet not necessary: The bare Example binds us not to it. 2. If it did, that were but like the general Law; Let all be done to edification, and in order; and binds to no one sort of gesture at all: For then when they eat standing, it would bind us to stand; and if they eat kneeling (as Labourers oft do at Harvest-work in the Fields), it would bind us to kneel; if they eat lying, as the jews did, it would bind us to that: and so this would but tie us to the Custom of the Country. But in feasting with God, we may sometimes do it more lowly than in a common Table-gesture, and break no Law. When Mary was, it's like, on her knees, washing Christ's feet with her Tears, if he had offered her Bread or Wine, it's like it had been no Idolatry so to take it.  
But the grand Objection is, that we worship Bread and Wine; which can be no better than a slander, when the very Liturgy and Doctrine of the Church, not only renounce Transubstantiation, but the very real Presence of Christ's Body, which yet many thousand Protestants believe.  
Object. But you kneel before the Bread and Wine, and make it a mediate Object of adoration, contrary to the Second Commandment.  
Answ. 1. We neither make any Image, nor invent this Medium, nor yet symbolise with Idolaters, while we renounce the very Object (Transubstantiate Bread) which they adore, and therefore break not the Second Commandment, no more than we do in kneeling in lawful Prayer, because they kneel in praying before Images, or to Angels.  
2. An Object of worship is either a mere motive exciting Object, or else a terminative mediate worshipped Object. The first is more than lawful: For we should be moved and stirred up by the works of God, even by our Meat and Drink, by Sun and Moon, and all that we see, to worship God: And this is properly but the Object of our thoughts, and the motive of our outward acts: And the Sacrament is no more. But if we did direct our worship terminatively to the Bread and Wine, as a mediate Object, by which it should pass to God, this were to break the Second Commandment, like Image-worship.  
There are many Instances in Scripture, of people that have bowed to God before the Prophet, moved by his word and presence, who yet break not the Second Commandment, nor idolised the Words or Prophets: So joshua fell down to the Angel, josh. 4. We give thanks for the Meat that stands before us on the Table, as a Motive-Object; and we may do it on our knees: Is this an idolatrous worshipping of our Meat? I have many a time seen a miserable Beggar, when one hath given him Money or Meat, fall down on his knees, and take it, saying, I thank God and you; Did this make the giver his Idol? How sad is the case of ignorant young Christians, whose Consciences must be racked or cheated by such Sophistry, because their wits be not ripe enough to find out the deceit?  
II. Another Argument: That is not unlawful which God commandeth us in general to choose and do, and so alloweth in the Particulars: But such are the Twenty Things before mentioned, etc.  
God commandeth us to do all things in Love, and Concord, and Order, to edification. This must needs reach to the undetermined circumstances. We cannot worship God publicly at all, but it must be in some words, in some gestures, in some time, in some place; nor profess our Faith, and Covenant-consent, but by some sign: and so of the rest. If you choose no one, when God hath tied us to none, but bid us choose to edification, we break his General Law. If you can prove that we choose amiss, the Fault will be, not that we choose, but that we choose not better.  
III. That is not unlawful which Christ and his Apostles did before us without blame, and belongeth also unto us. But such is the use of such Modes and Circumstances of God's instituted worship, which are left variable, and free to occasional choice, etc.  
What Christ did, I shall speak more anon. Paul hath his [Not the Lord, but I]; signifying, that the thing was not determined by a Law, Rom. 14. He judgeth circumstantial differences such as should not break communion, when yet they that kept days, or kept them not; and they that did eat, or not eat, did it as to the Lord. And did he bid them not judge each other for idolatry? or say, Rom. 14.17, 18. That Idolaters were acceptable to God, or approved of men? or Rom. 15. or bid them receive Idolaters, as Christ received us? He regulateth their Church-Meetings, How many shall speak at a Meeting, and by what course and order; and that women shall be vailed, and not men; and that they salute each other with an holy Kiss, etc. not by a Law that settleth the Particulars, but by the General Law of doing all in order, and to edification; and pleadeth not Institution, but the Custom of the Churches, which is alterable, as the signification of such acts are. And St. james will have the Elders anoint the sick with Oil for recovery, which yet bindeth not us. The Papists use this as an Institution, as they do imposition of hands in Confirmation: They say in Ordination, Receive the Holy Ghost, and breathe on the Person: They wash the feet of one another in imitation of Christ: And yet these men condemn them in this, as superstitious, for imitating Christ and his Apostles, and Scripture-Examples, and cry down Popery, and at the same time call us Idolaters, for going beyond Scripture-institution. The same I say of their keeping Lent, in imitation of Christ's forty days fast, etc. Is it Idolatry both to follow, and not to follow Scripture-Examples?  
To all the rest I add one Instance more: Swearing by appeal to God, is a most solemn act of worship: but the sign of taking an Oath, is left free to convenient choice. Abraham's Servant did it by putting his hand under his thigh: Was this a common Law, or Institution? Others did it otherwise: We do it by laying our hand on the Book, and kissing it. These are neither sinful additions, or Idolatry. The Memorial of God's Works, and men's Covenants, were kept, sometime by pitching Stones, sometime by Pillars, sometime by set days (as the Feast of Purim), sometime by laying up the Ensigns (as Goliah's Sword, etc.) And all these lawful, and no Ido●latry.  
IU. Lastly, I will unveil these men's Doctrine of Separation, and then judge whether it be the Doctrine of Christ, which is a Law of Love, and Union, and Peace▪ or the Wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, etc.  
1. ●t is false, that all such Secondary Medal Worship, is unlawful, which is not instituted by a fixing Law.  
2. It is deceit not to distinguish these different things.  
3. The charge of [false Worship] unexplained, is mere deceit: 1. Worship is so far [false], as it is contrary to the Rule. Every Sermon, Prayer or Sacrament which we administer, hath faultiness and sin, and is so far [false Worship]. 2. But Worship offered God on pretence that he instituted it when he did not, or that Man hath authority to command the like, is yet worse false Worship. 3. And the worship of false Gods or Idols, is yet worse than that, and abhorred of God.  
4. His making all faulty circumstances, such as he nameth, to be Idolatry, because false, as he calls it, is yet more sinful, and of mischievous importance.  
5. So is it to make the Church's Idols Temples, where they do kneel at the Sacrament, and use the Liturgy.  
6. So is it to feign falsely, that God calleth men to come out from such, and be separate, because he calleth them out of Babylon; falsely adding to the Laws of God.  
7. By his Doctrine he maketh Christ an Idolater (which I mention with horror): For he 1. used Circumstances not instituted before, or by himself: He preached on a Mountain, in a Ship, etc. not commanded: He commended Mary for anointing him, washing his Feet with Tears, wiping them with her Hair, not instituted in particular: He commended the Publican for smiting on his breast, standing far off, not looking to Heaven, without particular command: His Custom was to go to the Synagogue-worship: He from his childhood performed Temple-Duties and Service: He commanded the Lepers cleansed to go to the Priests, and offer their due, and his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees in Moses Chair, etc. And yet 1. The High Priests were not of Aaron's line, according to Institution. 2. They bought the Office of Heathen Romans. 3. They had it not for life, according to institution. 4. Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Manners, were heinously corrupted, so that the Hearers were to beware of the Leaven of their Doctrine, and not to imitate their lives. 4. They were bitter enemies of Christ, and Persecutors: yet Christ never bid his Disciples to separate from any thing but their errors; but saith, They shall cast you out of the synagogues. And doubtless Christ committed no sin; nor can we be so holy as he.  
8. He condemneth Abraham, and all the jewish Church of old, that used such things that were not instituted in Worship, as is before mentioned in swearing, etc.  
9 He maketh the Apostles Idolatrous that used the like.  
10. He maketh the Primitive Churches Idolatrous, and the Scriptures to approve it. For they used such uninstituted things: yea, the Romans were guilty of differences in God's Service, and despising and judging each other for them; The Corinthians were Carnal in making Parties and Divisions, they defrauded each other, and went to Law before Heathens. They had Fornicators, Judaizing envious Slanderers of Paul, Heretical deniers of the Resurrection; such as eat in Idols Temples, or of their Sacrifices: Were drunk at, or before the Sacrament. The Galatians are yet sharplier charged: Almost all the Seven Churches Rom. 2. and 3. had Nicholaitans, or jezabels' Doctrine, which God hated: and no Christian is called to separate from the Communion of any one of all these; but commanded to amend, and live in Unity, without division.  
11. He condemneth as Idolaters all the Churches on Earth, for Six Hundred, if not One Thousand Years after the Apostles; not One Church Christian, or Heretic (as far as any History tells us that I have found) did ever deny such things, as he calls False Worship, or Idolatry. They all went further than our Parish Churches do. At Baptism they used the White Garment, tasting Milk and Honey, Chrism or anointing the Forehead, Crossing; they adored only Standing, and not Kneeling, every Lord's Day, all as significant Ceremonies: No one Church or Person is said to scruple these; I think they did not well: but God rejected not their Worship.  
12. He maketh all, or near all the Churches on Earth, Idolaters, at this day: All on Earth, save the Protestants, are far grosser in their Liturgies and Ceremonies than the English: Of the 〈◊〉▪ Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, and all the Lutherans, have Liturgies, Crossing, Ceremonies, Church-Images, Consubstantiation. The Helvetians are such as are called Erastians', making the Magistrate the only Ruler, and Sacraments common. Geneva, and France, yea, and H●lland, have their Liturgies, and some Rites.  
13. He condemneth Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and all Dissenters that are here called Protestants. For they have all many of the foresaid uninstituted things: They put off the Hat in Church at Prayer. They stand up at the Blessing; they use uncommanded gestures at Sacrament; they use Psalm-versions, Metres, Tunes, Scripture-Translations, Divisions into Chapter and Verse, never instituted particularly. The Scots used a Government by Classes, National Assemblies of various Elders, ruling by Vote, instead of mere consulting for Concord, uncommanded.  
14. I humbly propose it to consideration, Whether by consequence (which he seethe not, nor owneth) he do not deny Christ, and all the Gospel, and work of man's redemption: I challenge him to name me one Church on Earth for many hundred years after the Apostles, that had not that which he calls false Worship and Idolatry: Suppose this were but in a few Ages, as the second, third, or fourth Century: Then a Temple of Idols, and Company of Idolaters, is no true Church: And if at any time there was no Church there was no Head of the Church: No Kingdom, no King: No Wife, no Husband, that is no Christ. How much more, if he make all, or near all the Church Idolaters to this day, and himself with the rest?  
15. If it be a heinious sin to bear false Witness against a Neighbour, or to slander one man, what is it to slander and backbite all the Church on Earth, and Christ himself?  
16. Is it not a work of Satan to destroy Love, and to render almost all Christians odious? And doth not he do so, that calleth them Idolaters? Is not this Preaching men into the hatred of each other? Do we own no Love to any Christians, but such as is due to Idolaters? Is not the fruit of the Spirit otherwise described?  
17. Doth he not deny that Communion of the Saints, which is an Article of the Creed? and tempt weak Christians into sinful Separations, Divisions, Slanders, Judge, Murmur, Envies, which are the fruits of the flesh?  
18. Doth not this directly destroy the Church by Dissolution? When there is none to be owned or joined with, that hath not somewhat which he calleth false worship. And is not separating the Materials, destroying the house?  
19 Doth he not directly rush into the Sin which he condemneth adding to God's Laws, and saying he forbids what he forbids not? yea, fathering on him Laws more rigorous than the Jewish, as disowning Christ's Church as Idolators and false Worshippers?  
20. I add, such woefully harden men in that which they themselves suffer by, and which they call enmity and persecution, and make more Conformists while they deny it, than R. B. whom he frivolously talketh of, ever did (except it be a Conformity to Truth and Goodness.) For when men read and hear others confidently rage against Truth and Duty, by rash presumptuous ignorance, they judge of all our dissent by this: And while many run into this Gild, it seems to justify their Afflicters: And it tempteth weak Persons to suffer for sinful separation as evil do●rs▪ thinking it is for Truth. Oh with what grief will understanding men see Christians together, as in a state of enmity by mistakes. To see some at once require from others, things good and necessary, things Lawful but unnecessary, things necessary in their Genus, but not this more than that, and some things sinful, as if they were all almost alike. To see those whose Senses are not exercised to discern things that differ, misled by the words and reverence of men, to swallow some Sins as excellent Duties, and fly from things Lawful; yea, oft from great Duties, as odious Sins, and suffer rejoicingly for sinning against God, and condemning all that sin not as they do; yea, even all, or almost all the Churches on Earth; yea, and calling them Idolaters for being wiser and better than they, who alas, do in all things show themselves to be ignorant Babes, and who speak evil of that which they understand not. And then to see others revile, and hate, and ruin these mistaking Christians by a far more dangerous mistake; as if Religious fear of Sin, were an unsufferable thing, and such were intolerable Hypocrites, and Conscience were a disgraceful thing; and as if themselves and all Mankind were not liable to worse Errors, than to take some lawful things for Sin, when they see unlawful things stand near them, or among them.  
But of all this, I have oft spoken, and now only say again, That i● those justly called Separatists, and who think Parish Communion under honest Ministers to be Idolatry, or unlawful, will but without prejudice, read what is written to prove it lawful by the old Godly, Judicious Non-Conformists, especially john Ball's Trial of Separation, Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Ames, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Gifford, Mr. john Paget, Mr. Brightman, Mr. R●thband, etc. they will need no more to save them from this scandalous Schism: But if Peter withdraw or separate from the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jewish Christians, and Barnabas be led away with the Dissimulation, Paul must oppose it to their Faces: And I that have seen what the Spirit of Division hath done, and read that God never blest unnecessary separation, will imitate Paul. And if this World be uncurable, the Lord prepare me for that World where Love and Unity have no Enemies.  
FINIS.   

A Survey of the Reply to Mr. Humphrey, and myself; called A Vindication, etc. of Dr. Stillingfleet.  
§ 1. HAving lately read six or seven Casuists, that persuaded Men to Communion with the Parish Churches; I found in them many sober discourses, worthy to be read by those that are inclined to a faulty alienation; and I persuaded some such to read them, as being obliged to hear what both sides can say, if they will escape partiality and error. Though I find very few such Writers that seem to be acquainted with the true case of Non-Conformists, but much strangers to it, while they dissuade men from it. But some of them I found are not content to persuade men to Communion with their Party, to which they find it advantageous to appropriate the name of The Church of England, (unjustly) unless they also persuade them from Communion with all others in the land that be not of their Mind and Party. And they conclude,  
1. If it be lawful to hear and Communicate with us once, it is lawful to do it constantly.  
2. And if it be lawful to Communicate with us, it is unlawful to Communicate with the Non-conformists.  
§ 2. One would think, this task should signify gross Schism in these men, as well as in other Sects, that say, We are the only true Church, and it's unlawful to Communicate with any but us: So did the Donatists, and most Sects of old; and every Sect usually that got uppermost by the Emperor's countenance, called themselves the Catholic Church, and their Communion the Catholic and only lawful Communion: So did the Arians, and so did the Acacians, and Semi-arians; and so did the Nestorians a little while, and the Eutychians long; and so did the Monothelites, and the Phantasiasts, and the Image-adorers, and such like. And so do the Papists; and some say, That some Anabaptists have come to that; but I have not met with them.  
§ 3. But though little Sects for this use some appearance of Scripture-reason (as the Anabaptists, that say, The unbaptised are no Church-Members: but you are all unbaptized, etc.) yet there are few big Sects, but worldly advantage, and cheating Words and Names, are the strength of their Cause, by which they do more than by any sober show of reason. The assumed names [of the Church, and Catholics, and Ancient] and the Names of Heretics, and Schismatics, and Lutherans, and Calvinists, and Novelists, falsely imposed on their Adversaries, next to the Sword and Flames, are the Engines of the Popish Sect, by which they defend their Separation from all other Christians in the World. And such use the gross Schismatical parts do make of the names of [The Church of En●land, and Catholic Communion] appropriated to themselves, and the names of Separatists and Schismatics imposed arbitrarily on others: Next to the Sword, this is their chief proof, That men are Separatists, if they will not separate from all save them, and such as they.  
§ 3. Among all the Casuists, I found none abound with this sort of Logic, so much as the Resolver of three Cases about Church-Communion] which when I had read, I am so much against Separation, that I thought meet to join with the rest of the Casuists, who unite against Schism, so far as to dissuade Men from this Man's (and Mr. Dodwells) extraordnary Schismatical Doctrine.  
§ 4. But when I had written a just Confutation of him, hearing by fame who he is, I thought it my duty before I published it, to see the Book which he wrote against Mr. Humphrey, and Me; because he may perhaps be there more intelligible; (for I had never before seen it, and would not seek it, because I would not tempt myself to a work which I have so little pleasure in, as is the confutation of such men). But when I had read it, I found the Author a great deal sounder in his opinions than in his words, and than he was represented to me to be: There is a great deal that's good and worthy the reading in his Book, when he doth but keep off from his Schismatical cause. He handsomely openeth some Doctrinals, and so fairly alloweth forbearance of others in Doctrinal differences, that were he as Catholic and equal in his opinion about Government, and that which he calleth Catholic Communion, he would be against Schism a Catholic indeed. He doth fairly disclaim even Archbishop Bramhall's concession to the Papists: And he handsomely confuteth Mr. Dodwell, and maintaineth the validity of Sacraments, and the duty of our Communion with the foreign Churches that have no Bishops, and justifieth the Church of England that hath still owned Communion with them: He hath proved the no necessity of continued Successive ordination by Bishops: He hath defended the Independency of Diocesan Churches in point of Government; and that one Church hath not proper Governing Power over another, but only an obligation to Communion, of which more anon.  
§ 5. But I must say, That though he hath a smooth and handsome Style for an Orator; either He, or I, (which of us I am no fit Judge) is so woefully defective in Logic, and Politics, that of these Subjects one of us is utterly unfit for a strict dispute, not knowing the usual Sense of ordinary terms, nor explaining them aright, nor seeming to know what a true Definition is; nor proceeding in any Scholarlike method: But that little explication of Terms which he giveth, is usually near the end of the ●ook, when a confused dispute before, hath tended but to seduce: which ever of us it is, that is in the fault, it's a great wrong to the Reader: And if it be he, I find no likelihood that any should cure him but himself, or some one that he hath a very high opinion of: For when his mistakes are discovered, the substance of his Answer, is a haughty ignorant scorn at the discovery. Had he happily learned to Explain, Define, and Distinguish, and Methodise, when he was young enough to submit to his Tutor, it had been well for him: But it being now to be learned, when he is a Doctor, and such a Doctor, Scorning and ignorant Wrangling will take the place of necessary Learning.  
§ 6. This I must tell the Reader, That the Man speaketh so much worse than he seemeth (by after Contradictions) to think, and hath so little Skill in exact expressing the matter, or his mind, that I can scarce ever pretend with any confidence to know his meaning: For when he hath said worst, and is confuted, he comes over it again, and scorneth us for misunderstanding him, and tells us, that he meant as we do: So that it is his Words that I only undertake to confute, and not his meaning, till I am better able to say, that I know it. Nor would I think it a work beseeming me, to write a Book to tell the World, how unskilful this man is in speaking intelligibly and aptly, if I did not find that others are seduced, by receiving his words in the usual sense of such, not knowing that he meaneth not as he speaketh: So far as he meaneth well, I think I am his Friend, in persuading people to be of his mind, and to believe what he thinks, and not what he saith. And if he hold on his way, and fall not out with the Truth for my sake, I am in hope that the effect also of this Survey will be, that in the next he will renounce all his Errors, save the terms, and will say, that he meant as I did: And then, if he do rail and scorn at me only as misunderstanding him, I can bear it.  
§ 7. Nor should I think it a Duty (in my condition), to save Readers from his real errors, were it not that they notoriously tend to persuade the Land to think of Thousands of the faithfullest Christians that I know, as damnable intolerable Schismatics, guilty of the sin that will damn them, as soon as Adultery and Murder; and consequently to call Men to hate them as such, and to proceed in silencing, ruining and imprisoning them; which is to tell all them that do so, that they do well; which if it should prove otherwise, who can express the greatness of his sin against the Souls of one party, and the Lives, Estate, and Ministry of the other?  
§ 8. His scorn, p. 11, 12. for my purpose to have meddled with such Men in the Cause of Conformity no more, seems some invitation to me to prevent the like. But the foresaid Motives are far greater.  
P. 35, 36. While he over and over repeated the confused words of [One Communion], which must excuse us from Schism, as dangerous as Murder; and we that live among Men that use to distinguish Union from Communion; and know that Communion, yea, and Union too, hath a Multitude of degrees, and our desire was, that he would but explain in what he fixed it, that we might understand his accusation; he tells us, that he did not place this Communion in any transient Acts, but in a fixed permanent state.  
Ans. But 1. Taking the Bishops for true authorised Pastors, and the Church for a true Church, are transient acts. Believing in Christ, and repenting of sin, are transient acts, quoad objectum, though immanent quoad subjectum & effectum. Baptism, and Profession of Christianity, and of love and obedience to others, are transient, both quoad objectum & effectum. Coming to Church, communicating, obeying Bishops, and departing from Schismatics, are transient in both respects. You see, that by [Catholic Communion] the Doctor meaneth none of all these.  
2. What meaneth he then [a fixed permanent state]? But 1. Which Predicament can you conjecture that word [state] is in? It's commonly applied to Relation, Quality▪ and Scite and Place. These latter I am confident he meaneth not. If he mean Quality, it is Disposition or Habit sure: But those come by Acts; and he tells us not what he meaneth, nor is it probable that this is it. Relation is most likely to be that [fixed state] which is indeed the true form of a Church and a Church-Member (and, saith Durandus, is meant by Baptism's indelible Character).  
Supposing this his meaning, 2. Are not transient acts the fundamentum of this Relation, as verily as of Paternity, Marriage-Relation? etc. Is any Man a Church-Member, or Christian, but by the transient acts of Baptism, Profession, Covenanting, & c.? And do you define a Relation without the Fundamentum?  
3. But if Relation be all, wherein lieth our damning Schism? We profess Catholic Communion then somewhat more than you do: For as we profess the same Relation that you do to Jesus Christ, so we profess our Relation of Fellow-Members to all his Body, even to those that in such Matters depart from each others; and if I can understand you, to the greatest part of Christ's Church on Earth, which you damn as Rebels. This is our professed Relation: If you can disprove it, 〈◊〉  
§ 9 He adds, [I conclude, it's sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian-Communion, which in a large Notion signifies the Christian Church or Society, which is called Communion, from Communication, which all the Members of it had with each other. The plain and obvious sense is, All the Churches of the World are but one Church or Society, and have the same right, and the same obligation on them to communicate with each other; for the sake of which, Christian Churches are instituted, as the members of a particular Church are].  
Ans. 1. Such large Notions may be sufficient to you, but they signify little more than noise to me. Here we are told, that by [Communion] he meaneth [the Church]: And so when we read of [Communion with the Church], it meaneth [the Church with the Church]; and [Church-Communion] are Two Synonimal words, and signify [Church, Church]. And in the Creed (the Catholic Church and Communion of Saints] is a Tautology.  
2. But the Church is called [Communion] from [Communication]: And is Communication no transient act, but a fixed state?  
3. If the plain sense be, That all Churches in the World are one Church (as parts in the whole), who differs from you in that? We are all then of one Catholic Communion, and shall believe that all true Christians are of one Church, till the Excommunicators better disprove it.  
4. But have [all the same right and obligation to communicate with each other]? 1. All do actually communicate with each other, 1. In their Union with, and Relation to our Saviour and Head. 2. And in having one holy Spirit. 3. Being the adopted children of one God. 4. Being of that one body formally related to Christ. 5. Believing in the same God and Father, Saviour and holy Spirit. And 6. Consenting to the same Baptismal Covenant. 7. Having the same hope of everlasting life. These are the Instances of Christian Union and Communion, in Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. And 8. They have also Communion in the same common benefits, Pardon and Justification, and right to life. 9 And besides all this, when they may be had, they have Communion in the same species of necessary worship; the use of the same Gospel, and Sacred Scriptures, and Creed, of the same sort of Eucharistical Sacrament, and Prayer, and Praise and Thanksgiving, in all parts of absolute necessity, and holy Assemblies to that end, consisting of several Pastors with their Flocks. 10. Yea, and all true Christians love one another as such, and live in sincere (though imperfect) obedience to the same holy Laws of Christ. In all this all Christians have Communion.  
2. And all have right to such measures of Local Communion, where they come, as they are in a more immediate capacity of.  
3. And all are obliged to exercise so much Mental and Local Communion as is necessary to edification, and to the exercise of Christian love and peace, besides what is forementioned.  
But yet, 1. All Churches on Earth are separate by distance, as to Local Communion.  
2. No Two Churches▪ or Men on Earth, are perfectly united as to Mental Communion. There are Multitudes of degrees of differences in this.  
3. There are very many just causes of diversifying Local Communion in the same City, Diocese or other Precincts; and of diversifying individual Pastoral Relation, and single (proper) Church-Communion. Diversity of Languages is a cause that no man can deny. The excessive Magnitude of a Church (that is, the Multitude of Persons) is another. Suppose that I were first and alone made Pastor of a Church in Mexico or Quinsay, and I am not able to do the work of a Pastor for a Thousand Souls; I get the help of Three or Four Presbyters and Deacons; and we all are utterly unable to do the Pastoral work for Four Thousand; may Four Thousand, or Forty Thousand more claim of me the performance of the Pastoral Office? Am I bound to undertake Tenfold more than I am able to perform? Then Men may not only enslave me, but damn me at their pleasure, and pretend their right to Communion with me. If you say I am bound to multiply Presbyters in the same Church to sufficiency: I answer, 1. What if I can neither have Men nor Maintenance? 2. What if I think that when the Multitude is so great that I cannot know them, nor they ever speak with me, or know one another any more than Men of several Countries, that I ought not to undertake a personal oversight of them, but persuade them to associate in Churches capable of such oversight? It's no breach of Charity for one Schoolmaster or Physician to refuse a personal Relation, as Schoolmaster to Five Hundred Schools, or Physician to all the City, or Five Hundred Hospitals (though he have Apothecaries or others under him). No Man hath right to more of my labour than I am able to perform. If I be a Bishop, and bound to hear and try the Causes of all that aught to come under Church Censure in a whole Diocese, and am certain that I am unable to do this to One of an Hundred, who can claim a right to that or more?  
4. But out of this his Doctrine, I gather, That if all the Christian World have rig●● to communicate with me upon occasion, 1. Sure there is some difference between occasional and fixed Local Communion. 2. And surely if I refuse any that would communicate on common necessary terms, because they will not break the Custom of their several Countries, and communicate with me in doubted unnecessary things, I wrong all the Christian World, and am to them a Schismatic: Much more if I presume to Excommunicate every Stranger that cometh into my Precincts, and herein differs from me, as you do us: and most of all if I impose many sinful terms of Communion on him.  
All Christians are bound to hold Communion in Christianity, and in all things necessary to the common Communion of them all; and to extend this also to as many Integrals as they can reach: But there are Multitudes of things in which they are not bound to have Communion; much less as necessary to salvation.  
§ 10. p. 36. We have all explained by an odd supposition, viz. Suppose the whole World were one Family, or one Kingdom, in which every man, according to his rank and station, enjoys equal Privileges, the necessity of Affairs would require that Men should live in distinct Houses and Countries— But yet if every Man enjoyed the same Liberty and Privileges wherever he went, as he now does in his own House and Country, the whole World would be but one great Family, or universal Kingdom.  
Ans. 1. The whole World is one great Kingdom of God, as verily as the Church is the Church of Christ: And yet we Non-Conformists think that every Man in it (no, nor every Saint) hath not right to be King of England, nor a Judge in our Courts, nor Lord Mayor of London, nor so much as a Freeman in any City. And we think that the Church hath no more one subordinate universal Sovereign, than the World. And that therefore the case, in point of universal privilege, is not by this similitude well explained.  
2. Your odd supposition of the World being one Family, either supposeth one Husband to all the Wives in the World, and one Father to all the Children in the World; or else that all distinct Husbands, Wives, Children and Servants, are in this one Family. In the first supposition I may suppose that you take him to be more than a Man that can be an Husband to all the Women, and a Father to all the Children on Earth: And therefore if his Wisdom be equal to such a greatness, he must be no Fool. And if so, whi●e Men are his Family, he will order and govern them as Men; and then they will be distributed into subordinate Families, Cities and Kingdoms, as now they are. But if you suppose many Husbands and Fathers, our Opinion is, that Husbands and Wives should not be common, nor Parents and Children. Nay, which way ever you take, that children's Food, Raiment and Portions should not be common: Nor could any come from India, and claim a Lordship or Lands in England, as a Member of the Family. Fathers distribute unequally, as their Will and Wisdom, and their children's fitness, are diversifying Causes. Even in a College one cannot claim another's Chamber, Books, clothes or Food. One would think by your scourge for Non-Conformists, that you were no Leveller, nor against fatherly justice, and inequality of right and distribution. Even they that come to your Church, cannot so much as claim equal right in Seats.  
And verily if all the World that will come to you, may claim equal Pastoral oversight from you, or any Bishop, your equality must be like his to the Beggars, that gave nothing to any, that he might serve them all alike.  
§ 11. P. 38, 39, etc. he saith, [He can hardly be so charitable to me, as not to believe that I wilfully mistook him, it being impossible for any man of common sense who ever read him,— to mistake his Catholic Communion for some transient acts].  
Ans. Reader, it's hard terms that these Men hold us to. I was loath to judge him so void of common Sense, or use of Words, as to talk of Catholic Communion which was in no transient acts: But for the future, rather than forfeit common sense, or be wilful, I will believe him, that by Catholic Communion he meaneth Union, and that he meaneth neither Baptism, nor profession of Christianity, nor owning any Article of Faith, nor owning Bishops, nor any Church-order or Worship of God. But do not unsay all this again, and call us all to nought for believing you.  
§ 12. But he saith, [Upon a stricter examination he finds me blundered and confounded about the Notion of Unity— This Unity I term Union.  
Ans. The Doctor will grow over-critical if he hold on, if he mean this as part of my blundering and confusion: But it is but Grammar that I am ignorant of: I confess my ignorance: I thought that [Unio] had Two significations; one active, for that act of uniting which maketh One of Two; and that also Twofold: 1. To unite efficiently: 2. To unite constitutively: And the other as signifying the same with Unity caused. And I thought that Unitas had ordinarily signified by a more abstract word, the same Oneness as Unio, in the latter sense; and sometimes abusively, active Union. But I am ready to learn better.  
§ 13. But saith he, [He understands it of our Union to Christ, not of the Unity or Oneness of the Christian Church.  
Ans. The best is, he saveth me from unmannerly telling you that he speaketh falsely, by confessing the falsehood in the very terms of accusation: For if he dare say, that it is no Church-Union to be all United to one Christ in our common Christianity, he is a very fal●e Teacher.  
§ 14. P. 39 Repeating my words, he tells you, I misconstrue both terms: But you are best take it on his word. And he feigneth, that I do, or must infer [ergo, the Unity of the Catholic Church doth n●t consist in being one Body, and Society, and Communion of Christians: Whereas I infer the clear contrary, That it doth consist in one such body, it's Union with Christ making it such an one.  
Yet here he addeth, [If this be to write controversies, we may as well lay wagers, and cast lots for major, minor, and conclusion: Which words truly tell you what the Doctor's Logical strength is; like the Woman that told the Doctor, that she could make her hungry Pig cry with better Logic than all the Doctors in the University did dispute. And could not a Quaker say as much?  
§ 15. P. 41, 42. He seemeth serious in ask me, How the Catholic Church is united in one Body, so as to be one Church? And when I tell him, how many sorts of Union there are; he saith, he cares not how many sorts there are, so I will tell him what the Unity of the Catholic Church is.]  
Ans. He maketh me think of the Man's Answer to the Pharisee, John 9 I have told you, and you heard not. Would you hear it again? If you would know what Unity is, in uno, which is affectio entis, I must again send you to Schibler, or Suarez, or some such Tutor; for I am not meet to tutor you. If you would know in what this Unity consisteth, I have told you before, and oft.  
§ 16. But though this Doctor use it not, we use first to inquire whether the Controversy be de nomine, or de re: And 1. If I satisfy him what maketh the Church to be One, will he grant, that if we agree in that Union, we are in Catholic Communion? If he will, we shall soon be Friends, and no Schismatics, at least with any that knows what Unity is. If he will not, doth he not all this while abuse his Reader, when he so hotly damneth us for want of Catholic Communion, and tells us, that he meaneth Unity, and chargeth me with wilfulness or nonsense, if I think that he meaneth any transient act.  
But 1. De nomine, I will once more tell him why I distinguish Unity and Communion, and think he should have done so too.  
Words in Dispute are to be used in the sense that Men of the Profession which the Subject most belongs to, use them, unless otherwise explained. But Men that writ of Logic, Metaphysics, Physics and Politics, use to distinguish Unity from Communion so far, as that usually Communion pres●pposeth Unity, secundum quid, and ever includeth some transient Acts, when Unity is but the denomination of Eus qua U●um.  
I hope I may take the Language of our Creed to be so tolerable, as that it is not necessary to salvation to condemn it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is by the Church of England [which I hope is no damned Schismatical Sect] translated [the Communion of Saints]. That by [Communion] they mean some transient Acts, and not mere Union, all Expositors that ever I read among them show, (as do all the Fathers, and all Foreign Interpreters that I have read) At least, methinks he should not disdain to learn his Grammar again of Dr. Hammond and Dr. Heylin.  
I remember not that ever I read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Communion. Indeed Eph. 4.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expresseth Communion in transient acts; but bare Unity doth not: But Communion must maintain it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the bond of peace. King james so liked Bishop Usher's Sermon on that Text, that a Knight then near him, told me▪ that when by his winking posture, the Courtiers thought he had been asleep, at the end of the Sermon he spoke aloud, This is the Religion that I will live and die in (or to that sense). The regardful reading of consenting learned Commentators on Eph. 3.4, 5, 6, 7. Verses, might have quenched this firebrand.  
Indeed I believe with Beza, that they who translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mere participation, say too little: For it is not all participation which is the Communion which many Texts express; but such a participation as connoteth an Union in quibusdam: For Union absolute and simple, is uncapable of Communion, except with some other thing, having no parts.  
1 john 1.6, 7. we are said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with God and with Christ, (or one another). I find no Expositor that taketh this for mere Union: Some call it Partnership, some Society, some Friendship, others Communion; but all take it to include transient acts. Dr. Hammond▪ goeth so far from this Doctor, that he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 almost every where in the New Testament to signify Communication by transient acts: Yea, he goeth so far from his Friend Grotius, who placeth it in the exercise of Friendship, that he saith, [It is appliable to Friendship or Society, no otherwise than to knowledge, or anything else]. So he expoundeth Rom. 15.26. 2 Cor. 8.4. 2 Cor. 9.13. Phil. 1.5. Heb. 13.16. Phil. 6. and the Creed. Tho for my part, I doubt not but the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 1.9. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phil. 2.1. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 10.16, etc. do signify such a participation of that which is common to them all, as implieth and connoteth that Unity which is the thing signified in this Communion, though it includes transient acts.  
II. I should now again answer his question de re: What makes all these Churches one? But he stops me with a profession that he will not be to me intelligible, and complaineth that I am unintelligible to him: So that we seem Barbarians, or Men of strange Languages in disputing with one another: And it would be no edifying work for any to hear, e. g. a Dutchman and a Spaniard dispute in their several Tongues, not understanding one another.  
When I distinguished of [unifying the Church, and uniting a single Member to it], he tells me, That he [supposeth the particular Churches form, and particular Christians united to them, and only enquireth how they are one Church], and saith, my distinction is to prevent understanding (which his confusion promoteth). And when I distinguish between Union in essential parts, and in integral parts, and in accidents (without which distinction, no true satisfaction can be given to the Querist), he saith, [He perceiveth that we shall never come to the business: for he did not inquire wherein the Essence of a Church consists, or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its being,— but how a thousand Churches become one Church?  
Ans. Which words are to me as unintelligible as any Nonsense. Doth any thing make it One Church but that which maketh it A Church? Doth not that which maketh it eus existens, make it Unum? Doth not the word [Church] name its Essence? If he ask me, how the parts of Man come to make One Man? Who would think but he meant either One Man essential, or else improperly, One entire Man? And what Answer would any give but this? If your [how] mean what was the efficient cause, it's God and the Generators: If you mean, [what are the constitutive causes]? They are Soul and Body united, that make a Man in Essence; and the integrating parts united, that make him an entire Man.  
O! but saith our Doctor, I ask not wherein the Essence of the Church consists? Ans. Then you ask not what maketh it One in constitution: What then do you mean, unless it be the efficient cause, which no Man would think you meant that read the rest of your Book? For my part, I despair of knowing what you mean, till you have better learned to speak.  
But this seemeth to imply, that we are agreed of the constitutive Causes of the One Catholic Church; and our disagreement were of the Efficient. If that be it, I'll tell you what maketh the Church One efficiently: 1. God maketh Man to be Man, and so capable matter. 2. God gave Christ to be the Mediator and Head. 3. God made (by Christ) the Covenant of Grace, by which, as by a Law and Gift, he determineth of the Conditions of Church-Relation and Benefits, and commandeth Man's belief and consent, and professeth his own acceptance of such consenters. 4. His Ministers and Word persuade Men to believe and consent. 5. His Spirit efficiently causeth Men to believe and consent. 6. At that time God's conditional grant becometh actual, and giveth them actually a right and relation to Christ and his Benefits. 7. Thereupon Christ's Ministers solemnize this Covenant, declaring God's acceptance; and by Baptism, investing the person in the visible possession of his relation to Christ and all his Members, the person professing his believing, which maketh it a mutual Covenant (the Parent doing it for Infants).  
These Seven Acts go to make up the total efficient Cause of the Church's Essence and Unity, and each Members Union therein. And if you exclude any one of them, you will be a false Teacher. Is there any room here for a Controversy among Christians? The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Covenant and Law, the Consenter, the Minister and Baptism, all make up the efficient Cause of the Church's Essence. And that which maketh it a Church, maketh it One Church: As that which maketh it an House, a Ship, a Family, a School, a Kingdom, maketh it thereby One House, One Ship, One Family, etc. for eus & unun convertuntur.  
§ 17. But though his Question [How] (that ambiguous Syllable), inquire not of the Church's Essence (and of what, who knows?) yet p. 43. he ventures to inquire of it, upon my words, [it is only essential to the Church, that there be an organised Body of Pastors and People united to Christ, the Head], saith he, [Here I agree with Mr. B. if he would add One Body; for that is the thing in dispute, Whether Christ have one or a thousand bodies].  
Ans. I pray you remember this happy agreement, that we agree of the Church's Essence. But is not [A Body] the Singular Number? If I say, that a man is corpus organicum, and a rational soul united, do I need to put in [One Body, or One Soul], while unum is entis inseparabilis affectio? Good Doctor, why must not Verum and Bonum be named with every eus in a definition, as well as Unum? Can it be a Body, and not One Body? O! what a Jest will Schoolboys make of us for such disputing?  
3. But the pretended disagreement is much worse asserted. Is that the Controversy, Whether Christ have One Body, or a Thousand? Would you make men believe that we deny the Unity of the Universal Church? If you would, prove it, or blush. 2. Do you yourself deny the being of Thousands of particular Churches, which are parts of the Universal? When you have seemed long to do it, you come again and confess such Churches, and condemn us as separating from them. 3. Is the Controversy whether these single Churches, de nomine, may be called so many Bodies of Christ? 1. Name the men that so call them, and prove it, or confess yourself a false Accuser. 2. If they did, an unfit Name is not an error, de re. I never heard man so speak. We say, that the word [Church] used for the [Universal] and the [Particular], is not univocally used, but analogically, expenuriâ nominum. As oft the whole and part have one Name. We say, that as an hundred Cities and Counties may make one Kingdom, and were they all equivocally called Republics, or Kingdoms, it would be no change in the Doctrine: All the Christian World call the universal and the particulars by the name of [Church]. And yet, if to help us out of the Equivocation, you will invent a better Name, and get men to consent to it (not reprehending the Scripture-use), we will hearken to you. But as One Kingdom is individuate by One King, and yet subordinate Societies may have subordinate individuating Heads; so is it here. And it's grossly unfit to say Christ hath many Bodies, though he have many Churches in one; as the King hath many Cities, but one Kingdom here.  
But he adds, [If but One, how do all the Christians in the World make up that one Body]?  
[How] must not be explained: If by [how] he meant [by what efficiency], I have told you: If it mean by what constitutive Causes, it is [by Form and Matter united]: If it be any Mode that you mean, vouchsafe to tell us what.  
§ 18. P. 43. he goes on thus (reciting some of my words), [In this definition Christ only is the supreme constitutive summa potestas, or regent part. The organised body of Pastors and People, is the pars subdita: and the Union of Christ and that body, maketh it a Church]. (And saith he) This is very well: But the main doubt still remains untouched; What is it that makes all the Christian Pastors and People in the World to be but One Church]?  
Ans. Contra negantem principia non est disputandum. This intimateth, that eus & unum non convertuntur: And that besides that which maketh it a Church, somewhat else must go to make it one.  
Whether your obstinate equivocation in the word [make], shall be by you expounded of the efficient or constitutive causes, in this it's all one: That which maketh it a Church, doth thereby, without any more causality, make it one Church.  
This is as if he said, We are agreed what maketh a Man, an House, a City, a Book, etc. but we agree not what maketh him One Man; and so of the rest: Nothing but that which maketh him a Man, and causeth the existing Essence: Matter and Form united constitutively: And efficiently, all that which causeth Matter, and its Disposition (which Aristotle calls Privations, and Form, and their Union.  
But, Reader, it's so hard to understand such a Speaker, that we must ●ift every doubtful word, lest he come again and say we wilfully mistake him. Who knows but the Doctor hath a C●t●urnus in the word [but], and the question be, What maketh this the only Church? or that God hath no other but one? As if the question were, What made Adam at first the only man in the World? or the Israelites the only peculiar Nation? I answer, Nothing in Adam, nothing in Israel; and so nothing in the Church can be the cause of Nothing: No Man, no Nation, no Church speak Nothing: Not to make another, is nothing; but the words are a mere Negation: And Nothing hath no Cause. What is the Cause that there is not another Sun? Why, Nothing hath no Cause: But if we must give any other Answer, it must be only by calling the Negation of a Cause by the Name of a Cause, and saying, that the Cause why there is but one Sun (that we know of), and one Church Universal, is because God made no more.  
§ 19 The Doctor proceeds, [Nor does his similitude help him out, which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application, that I cannot let it pass: His words are these, [As in the constitution of man, 1. The rational soul is the real form, which is principium motus; The organised body is the constitutive matter. That there be Heart, Liver, Stomach, is but the body's organization: That these parts be duly placed and united, is forma corporis (non hominis), and make the body but materia disposita. 3. The union of soul and body is that nexus (like the copula in a proposition) which may be called the relative form, or that which maketh the soul become forma in actu].  
Reader, Dost thou know, as a Philosopher, what a man is? and dost thou doubt of ever a word of this? If this Doctor be ignorant of it, had he not been a Doctor, and overgrown Humility and Learning, I might have expected either thanks or silence from him: But what saith the Man to it?  
Had this Philosophy been known in St. Paul's days, I should not much have wondered that he warns men against vain Philosophy, (was not Aristotle known in Paul 's days?) Aures erigite. The Confutation will come anon.) I shall avoid disputing with Mr. B. as much as I can (too late Sir) and therefore will not quarrel with him for saying, The Soul is Principium motus— to the Body, though it may be some Cartesians will not like it, (Hitherto we are quiet: The Doctor is so modest that he will not deny that F●rma is Principium Motus.] And it is but a May be, whether a Cartesian will: I have met lately with University-men, that cried up Cartesius as if they had been quite above Aristotle and Plato; and when I tried them, I found that they knew not what Aristotle or Plato said (nor what Cartesius neither.)  
[Nor (saith he) for affirming, that the Union of Soul and Body is but like the Copula in a proposition, which is but a spick and spang n●w Notion.] Ans. The man is pugnacious enough, but somewhat restrains him: Is Novelty here the fault? More than this was N●w to him within these twenty years; and much is yet. The terms of a Proposition are no Propositon till the Copula make them one by making the Predication. And a Soul and a Body are no Man, but as United; which maketh the Soul to be Forma in actu. Hath the man confuted this?  
‛ But (saith he) I shall only consider how he applies this to the Church.) Ans. How Sir! do you accuse the Philosophy, and now will you only question the application of it?  
Christ it seems th●n is the Soul, and Christians the Body, though in Scripture he is represented as the Head of the Body, and the Divine Spirit as the Soul, which enlivens and animateth it: And if Christ be not the Head of the Body (which I think the Soul was never affirmed yet) the Church must be without a Head, or have another Head than Christ, which I suppose is the reason why he talks so much of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church.]  
Ans. It's easy to suppose, that the cause of these Words was a want of somewhat both in your Head and Heart, that should have been there. 1. Is this any Confutation of my Philosophy? Can not a Quaker have talked against it at as reasonable Rates as these? 2. Do you not think, that every understanding Reader doth know, that both the term [Head and Soul] here are Metaphors, as spoken of Christ? Both of them signify the form of the Society, because the Head is the seat of the Soul in its Rational Regent Acts; the King is called the Head of his Kingdom, that is, He is forma Regni (for the Politic forms of Society is their forms of Government.) And so as the Church is a Politic Society, Christ is the form of it: But it is nobler than all mere humane Policies, and his Headship is Essentiated by the three parts of his Office in One, as he is Prophet, Priest, and King; and as the principle of Knowledge, Love, and Practice; and his Church is together, Dominion, Kingdom, and a Society of Friendship, or Family. And the Head, which is the seat of the Soul, as operative by Intellection, Sense, and Motion, most aptly representeth all this in Christ.  
But while the Head-part of the Body is this Seat, the Soul is in it the operator: And Christ as Man is part of the Church, in and by whom his Divine nature performeth the operations: And as the Soul is the form of the Man, Christ is the form of his Church, quae dat esse & nomen. And that the Holy Ghost illuminateth, and quickeneth, and comforteth, is so far from being against this, that it is the chief proof of it. For the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and is the Spirit of Christ, sent by him; and what he doth herein, Christ doth by him: Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa. Who would have thought that a Christian durst deny Christ to be forma Ecclesiae, as the Soul is of a Man, and the King of a Kingdom?— Doth the Man give you the least proof, but his vain word, that Christ cannot be both as a Head, and a Soul (that is, forma informans) to his Church,— or that Christ is not the Soul, because the Holy Ghost is?— But I think neither is called by the name of a Soul in the Scriptures. But I pray you tell us what these Texts import.— Rom. 8.10. If Christ be in you,— the spirit is life.— John 17.23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.— 5.26. He hath given the Son to have life in himself.— 21. He quickeneth whom he will.— 6.51, 57 I am the living bread,— he that eateth me, shall live by me.— 1 Cor. 6.15. Your bodies are the members of Christ.— 17. He that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.— 8.6. Our Lord jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.— 12. As the body is One, and hath many members, and all the members of that One body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 27. Ye are the body of Christ. 2 Cor. 3.17. The Lord is that Spirit.— 18. We are changed into the same Image from glory to glory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 1.4. In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.— 2 Cor. 13.5. jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates. Gal. 2.20. Not I, but Christ liveth in me.— Gal. 3.19. Till Christ be form in you.— Eph. 1.22, 23. Head over all things to his Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Eph. 3.15, 17. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named— that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.— 4.15, 16. May grow up into him in all things, who is the Head Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,— maketh increase of the body.— Eph. 5.30. We are the members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Col. 1.18, 19 He is the head of the body, the Church— In him all fullness dwells.— 2.3. In whom are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 9 In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 17.19. The body is of Christ the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.— 3.3, 4. Your Life is hid with Christ in God, when Christ our Life shall appear.— 11. Christ is all and in all.— 1 John 1.2. The Life was manifested, and we have seen it.— 4.9. We live through him.— 5.11, 12. This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this Life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath Life and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. We are in him that is true, in his Son jesus Christ.  
These and many other signify, that Christ is fitly likened both to a Head and to a Soul, to his Church; and is not a dead Head, but a living; and that the word Head includeth the Soul operating in the Head, for the Sense, Reason, and Guidance, and increase of the body.  
And that he doth operate by the Holy Ghost, who is one God with the Father and Himself, confirmeth it. Even as Christ is said to be quickened by the Spirit, and by the Spirit to offer himself to God, and to justify us, etc. which is far from proving, that he did it not himself. chrysostom, and Basil, and Ambrose, need not to have been at so great care to prove that it is Christ himself that is called [The Spirit] and [the Lord the Spirit] 2 Cor. 3.17, 18. against the Arians: It will prove him God, that as he the word in making the World, moved on the Waters by the Spirit, which is one with him, so he doth by his Spirit, which is one with his own Godhead, sanctify Souls. I hope you are not against the [Filioque] Briefly [He that giveth to his Church, and every true Member of it, Spiritual Life, Light, and Love; illumination, Sanctification, Strength, increase and Consolation, as appointed by the Father, to do all this by himself, and by his Spirit, is the form Essentiating the Church, as much and more than the Soul is to the Man: But such is Christ: Ergo—  
If I were of their mind that anathematised the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites as damned Heretics, for their unskilful words, I should much more Hereticate a Doctor in our Age, that will say, That if Christ be the Head of the Church, he cannot be to it as a Soul, a forma informans & denominans. But I am not of that mind.  
3. But when this Doctor added [If Christ be not the Head of the Body, the Church must be without a Head, or have some other Head than Christ, which I suppose is the Reason why he talks so much of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church.]  
Reader, Can you tell what he means by [which is the Reason?] Which of the two meaneth he [that I suppose the Church without a Head?] When I so oft and largely prove Christ to be the Head.— Or is it that [I hold some other Head?] When my Book is to disprove it. Which ever it be, I do not think refusing such a Pastor as makes no more of the Ninth Commandment, is a damning Schism. The Sin of Church tyranny goes not alone.  
§ 20. P. 45 He proceeds [But the organised Body is the constitutive matter of the man: though other Philosophers used to call the Body a constitutive part: but to let that pass.]  
Ans. You had not the Wit to let it pass: Durst I have accused you of what you bewray and accuse yourself? Reader, Is not the Matter a Part? And is not the Form a Part (of the man)? And doth that man speak plainer, that barely calleth either of them [a Part], and tells you not [which Part it is], Matter or Form? If one of his Pupils should say, Sir, you should not call the Soul the Form, but [a Part], nor the Body the Matter, but a Part; what would the Boys say to him?  
§ 21. He goes on, [Thus an Organical Church is the constitutive Matter: Of what? Of Christ? or of his Church? or of some third compounded?  
Ans. 1. Did I say, [An Organical Church, or an Organical Body]? When Aristotle saith, [the soul is entelechia corporis physici organici], doth he say, [Hominis physici Organici]? But you are an enemy to vain Philosophy and distinction.  
2. What if I had said an Organical Church (as I sometimes do an Organised) who knows not that ex penuria nominum, the words Church, Kingdom▪ City, Family, School, etc. are ordinarily used equivocally; sometimes properly, for the whole Church, Kingdom, City, etc. as a Governed Society including Matter and form united: And sometimes improperly for the Material part alone; the Kingdom, as distinguished from the King; the Church, as distinct from Christ, and from the Bishops; and so of all the rest. And when I so oft told you, that the Organical Body of Christians is the Matter of the Church, and Christ the fo●m, (as far as these terms fit Bodies Politic) could you not find in such words, [Of what it is the Matter?] of the Church of Christ.  
§ 22. He adds [But that these parts be duly placed and united, is forma Corporis, non Hominis; which what it means, I cannot tell, unless that a man would be a man, though the several parts of his Body did not stand in their right places, nor were united to one another, so they were all united to the Soul.]  
Ans. Do you not understand what it means? What if I had so accused you? Whether it be long of your Tutor, or You, I know not; But 1. If you know not the difference between forma Corporis, and forma Hominis, some body is too blame. Forma dat esse & nomen: The Soul giveth Being and Name to a Man: He is no Man without it. Do you think it gives Being and Name to the Body? What if Lazarus his Body in the Grave were without its Soul; is it not Corpus a Body? What if such a Body as M●ns had only the Soul of a Brute, were it no Body? What if Dr●●elius made his Engines move constantly by the Sun, or Fire? Is it not an Engine materially organised, before the Sun or Fire move it? Hath not a Wind ●●ll, or Water mill its mechanical form? which is but the Organization o● d●e matter, when Wind or Water, move it not. But to what purpose is it to talk to one that tells us, he cannot understand it?  
2. But the addition is shameful misunderstanding; Doth he that saith, Organization is forma Corporis, say, that one may be a m●n without it? This is below puerility? Did I not maintain, that (as Aristotle ha●h his three principles, Matter, Privation, and Form, and by Privation meaneth the Dispositio receptiva of the matter; so) Politic Bodies by similitude to natural, have: And that Organization is that Dispositio receptiva sine qua Materia non recipit formam: And now this famous Doctor cannot understand me when I assert its Necessity to humanity, unless I mean that one may be a man without it.  
I would not exagitate this ignorance, were it not in a Man that is damning (and encouraging the silencing and ruining of) so many Servants of Christ, for their supposed Ignorance of the Lawfulness of all their Oaths, Promises, and Impositions.  
But Reader, my Heart grieveth to think, that so great a number should be carried by such men as this, to the same Love-killing opinions, and practices. I'll put a case to you.  
A Leveller that would have got down the Universities, undertook that his Parrot should Learn Philosophy, as well as Scholars, and should dispute with any of them all. He taught the Parrot only two words before Noon every day [It's true, Sir,] and [I understand you,] and to say two more every day afternoon, viz. [You lie Sir,] and [away you Rogue.] When he had learned them perfectly, he inviteth a Tutor to read Philosophy to his Parrot. He reads in the morning a Lecture of the Principles of Man, and the Parrot oft saith, [I understand you,] and [it's true, Sir,] The Hearers admiring it, are invited to dispute with the Parrot in the Afternoon: Multitudes come, and the Respondent maintained that Man hath a Reasonable Soul, and next, that Parrots have none such: The Parrot oft answered [You lie Sir,] and at last [Away you Rogue:] If the Company gave the Parrot the better, and concluded for Brutes against Humanity, did they more deserve pity or indignation?  
Once more: God made Adam's Body before he breathed into it the Breath of Life: If this Body had not its form, it was not a Body; nor a humane Body, without the proper form of such: That which hath no form, is no being. If the form of that Body was forma Hominis, than Adam's Body was a Man without his Soul: And then the Soul is not forma hominis. But saith the Doctor, I know not what it meaneth, unless it be, that Adam may be a man without the Corporeal form or Organization.  
But lest the Doctor when he understands me, should think, that I have hereby served his Notion of Communion; I must add that it is not either the placing or the being of all the parts of a humane Body, that is this form●l Organization, but only of the Essential parts: It may be a humane Body without a Finger, or Hand, or Foot, or Arm, or Leg; and what great diversity of parts are found within men, and diversity of place, and shape, you may see in Skenkius his Observation, as well as in Paraeus, Hildanus, Hollerius, and multitudes more that afforded him his instances. But without a Heart, a Brain, a Stomach, a Liver, Lungs, etc. it cannot be a humane Body organised. And without a Gospel Ministry to guide the Flocks, it is not a complete organised Body of Christ, though in fieri, it was an Embryo before.  
But I must again warn the Reader, not to argue too far from Similitudes. In a natural Body God hath fixed all the parts by a constant Law of generation, except in Monsters. But in political Bodies, the difference is much: Civil politics quoad formas specificas, are humane Creatures; and men may alter them. The Church is a Divine polity; God hath fixed its essentials: But he hath left many of its Accidents to the choice of Man, who may alter them as Edification requireth. And again, I say, that Catholic Union in the Essentials only, is necessary to the Being of the Church; and in the Integrals, to its Integrity; and in the needful common Accidents, to its Comeliness; and in other Accidents its unnecessary and impossible. God makes the Man, but the Tailor makes his clothes; and the Country, and Usage, and Parents, may diversify Colour and Complexions. Metropolitans and Patriarches, and Diocesian Churches, as containing multitudes of Churches, without Bishops, and their Chancellors, Officials, Commissaries, Arch-Deacons, etc. are humane Creatures, as the Episcopal Protestants usually confess: And Liturgies are various, as Languages; and Ceremonies are like our Periwigs: Some think it lawful to wear women's Hair, and some think it unlawful, though the fashion: But I remember none yet, that have taken all for Rebels, or Outlaws, that wear not Periwigs, or are not of the same Habit, Language, or Complexion; nor any that for these send men to Prison, nor that think it a wise way to unity.  
§ 23. p. 46. He comes after with an [If I mean] to conjecture what I mean and think; it fits his present case well; why then doth he quarrel with it? But what is his case, [Than the Church cannot be united to Christ in one Body without union with itself, and the unity of the Catholic Church cannot consist merely in the Union of all particular Churches in and to Christ, without any Union among themselves.]  
Ans. Who did he ever Read, or hear say, that the Churches have no Union, or no other than their Union in Christ, among themselves? He may see before § 9 I named ten points of their Union. On Condition that he will not take the clothes, or the Periwig, or the House, or the Horse, or Coach, no nor his Wealth, or Office, for the man; I'll once more tell him, (for the Readers sake, and not his) wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth, and also in what all have Communion.  
Politic Bodies are not like Natural, where all the Members must have a continuity of contract: Men that touch not and see not one another, may be Members of one Kingdom. Houses that touch not one another, may make one City.  
1. The Church is considered in its mere Essence. 2. It's Organised complete state, needful to its Edification. 3. In its gradual growth or perfection. 4. In its mutable accidents.  
I. Christ and Christians United, are all that is Essential to it as a Church.  
II. Christ and Christians, Sub-Churches, or Societies of Pastors and Flocks, are all that is necessary to make it an Organised Church completed in the parts necessary to its Edification. These Pastors at first were extraordinary, Apostles, and Prophets, for the first settling of universal Laws, and order; And after Ordinary Pastors, to Teach and Guide the Flocks.  
III. This Body hath integral parts of various degrees, differing in Knowledge, Orthodoxness, Piety, Peace, Power of Preaching, and Purity and order of Worship and Government. Some in it Preach Christ not sincerely, but in strife, and contention, to add affliction to sincere suffering Preachers: and some, as Diotrephes, receive not the Brethren, but cast them out of the Church, and forbid others to receive them, and judge or despise each other for things that God would have left free; and receive not those that Christ receiveth.  
IU. All of them differ in multitudes of accidents. They are not bound to agree in the same Forms, Liturgies, or unnecessary Circumstances: Nor in humane additional Modes, called forms of Government in Accidents; as in Patriarches, Metropolitans, extended Diocess', etc. Nor are they bound to take account of the Ordinations, Presentation, Titles, and Rights of all the foreign Churches of other Kingdoms with whom they are to hold Communion; nor to be Tryers or Judges between contending Parties, which is the true Pastor: (Though in the same Kingdom, and under the same Laws, order may require this oft times.) Possession and Profession may satisfy them.  
V Though the Churches had all the degrees of Union besides, yet nothing maketh them One Church in the proper political Sense, as it signifieth One Governed Society, but their Union with Christ. But their own Capacity is necessary to the reception of this Unity with Christ.  
All Politics difference a mere Community from a public Body. A hundred or a thousand persons agreed together to manage their affairs by a common Stock and Converse, are a Community; but not Civitas or Respublica: No, though they purpose to set up a Government: But when they are form into a Body, under one supreme Government, they are a  
XII. They are all obliged to use Pastors, Church-Assemblies, Word, Prayer, Praise and Sacraments, that are the same, of Christ's institution.  
Now Reader, judge whether all this be no Union and Communion among ourselves? And whether his Cant of [Catholic Communion] undistinguished, be intelligible?  
Qu. But wherein lieth your difference then?  
Ans. Let him that maketh it, and accuseth us, tell: For my part, either his confused head cannot tell what he would have, or my dull head cannot understand him. But I can tell you what it is that I deny.  
I. Tho we are all sanctified by one Spirit, and have one faith and hope, there is great difference among us in the degrees of these.  
II. Tho we are all under one Universal Law of Love, Peace, Concord and Obedience, every man breaketh this Law in some degree: but every breach doth not outlaw us, or prove us Rebels against God. Whoever so far breaks the Law of Christian Love, Peace and Concord, as will prove that he hath not the sincere Love of God and his Brethren, it is as truly damning (in its degree) as Murder or Adultery, specially if it be notorious in silencings, revile of godly men, and persecution, to the hindrance of the Gospel, and the encouraging of profane unconscionable men. But whoever breaks the Laws of Christian Love, Peace and Concord, only so far as may proceed from mere imperfection of Knowledge, Love and Obedience, in a sincere heart where Love is predominant, God pardoneth him, though he may correct him; and it doth not Unchurch him.  
III. He that despiseth the Ministry out of predominant pride, or profaneness, or unbelief, doth it damnably: But so doth not he that in uprightness of heart, for fear of guilt, flieth further from an ignorant, false or malignant Teacher, than he ought.  
iv If Heretics, or other uncapable men, get uppermost and in possession, that binds not all Christians, or any, to own them.  
V If Power impose men without fitness, and without the Flocks consent, to be all the People's Pastors, so that they are Usurpers, or such as wise men cannot safely trust their souls with as Pastors, it is no sin (much less damnable) to choose better Pastors, if they may be had without more hurt than benefit. It hath ever been Satan's way against Christ, to thrust his Servants into the Sacred Office, to butcher the Flocks, and then cry out against all as Schismatics that would save their souls, and others, from them.  
VI The Laws of Rulers that set up Patriarches, Metropolitans, and other Humane Orders in the Church, if they be but to do what man can empower them to do, must be as far obeyed as other Humane Laws (not being against God's Laws): But the breach of them unchristens not, nor is punishable, but as the breach of other Humane Laws (which some Casuists say, bind only in case of scandal, if we break them; others only if they be for common good: but I say, if they be not against it, and be things which belong to their Office to determine)▪  
VII. In the Roman Empire the Christian Pastors at first had no such way to preserve the people from Heresy, as by keeping close Concord among themselves, and agreeing that all should disown those that were regularly rejected by their own Pastors, which in case of Controversy, Councils were to try: And Christian Emperors added their civil sanction to this power of Councils, and banished such as the Councils condemned as Heresiarks: And this combination they called [the Catholic Church] (in the Empire), to distinguish it from all the Heresies that broke from them. And (Emperor's not using the Sword to compel any to Communion, nor enabling the Bishops to do it) this course was needful, and did great Service to the Church, as long as the Majority of the Clergy kept sound: But when worldly Baits drew worldly men into the Bishop's seats, this turned clean the other way; and Arians, and every Sect that by power could get uppermost, called themselves the Catholic Church, and persecuted the rest as Schismatics. In this case the Orthodox durst not plead Majority: but 1. They fled to the Scriptures to try which was the sound part. 2. And they appealed to the Nicene and first Councils when the Church was sound: But the Second Council (at Const.) began a breach; the Third (at Ephesus) made it wider, and was rejected by a great party: The Fourth (at Ephesus) made it yet wider, and was utterly disowned by the soundest part: The Fifth (at Chalcedon, called the Fourth) made it yet wider, and rend the Church almost into equal parts: And the following Councils went on till they set up Images and Popery, and tore all to pieces.  
Therefore I conclude, that uniting on the Decrees of General Councils, as such, is no necessary nor sure way of Catholic Communion. But while godly Pastors use Synods really for Love and Peace, and the Church's welfare, it is the duty of all the People finis gratia, and in obedience to their proper agreeing Pastors, to keep such bonds of Peace. But a failing therein is not an unchurching crime, though a fault.  
VIII. If Councils of Bishops will arrogate a Legislative power over all the Church, or over those that are not of their Flocks, it is part of our duty to Christ, and means of Concord, to disown their Usurpation.  
IX. If a company of uncalled usurping obtruded Pastors, keep Councils, their Pastoral Authority bindeth not.  
X. If lawful Bishops will make Agreements for needless or noxious things, on pretence of Concord or Ornament, and lay on them such necessity, that none shall communicate without them, and make them dividing Snares and Engines, particular Bishops ought to disown this; and their authority binds none to obey such Canons, whatever the end (the Church's peace) may do.  
XI. Bishops and Pastors in the same Kingdom may well be used to try what Pastors are fit for their Communion: But (as I said before) were we bound to disown the Communion of all Foreign Pastors, the validity of whose right to their places we have not just notice of, our Task would be impossible, or our Communion narrow.  
And if foreign Bishops will become so pragmatical, as to make themselves Judges of other Kingdoms, which party of Competitors are the truly called Pastors, when they cannot try them, or will take the words of one party against the other, because they are uppermost, it is just to disregard their Judgement, though they do it on pretence of Communion.  
XII. If men will turn a voluntary consultation for concord, into the Nature of a Law, though they call it but Communion, the Church should not own their Usurpation: As the Princes of Europe are bound to do the best they can to promote by their concord the interest of Christ, and may well hold Diets or Meetings for that end; yet no man calls that Diet a Kingdom, nor hath the Major Vote a power to bind the Minor to consent, when the reason of the thing doth not bind them. So is it in the concord of foreign Churches: All are bound to agree in what Christ commandeth: But in circumstantial determinations, no man is bound further than the End and Reason of the thing requireth: Communion here is not Subjection.  
XIII. There is an Excommunication which is a governing act: This no Church or Bishop can use over others: And there is a mere renunciation of Communion which equals may use.  
XIV If any Bishops or Councils (Usurpers or not) excommunicate men unjustly, or forbidden them Communion, unless they will sin, such prohibited men must obey Christ, and not forbear Church-Worship and Communion where they can have it, specially if they are many: Schismatical imposing Church tearers must not be encouraged by sinful obedience to them: Whomever they call Schismatics, God will judge them as Schismatics themselves, and their revile and persecutions are self-condemnation.  
I doubt I weary the Reader with oft repeating the same thing, to make them plain against perverters.  
§ 24. Let us follow him further: p. 47. he saith, [But how to apply the Copula in a Proposition either to the union of Soul or Body, or of Christ and his Church, I cannot tell; and shall never be able to learn, till I meet with some new Baxterian Logic, as well as Grammar and Metaphysics.  
Ans. And yet you will think yourself wise enough to stir up men against us for our ignorance, while you are raging confident. Are you resolved to read no Logic that's already written? One would have thought it should have pleased one that pleads for Unity: As it is no Proposition, but made so by the Copula, uniting the terms as Subject and Predicate, and the Union maketh one the Predicate; so it is no Man and no Church by the bare existence of Soul and Body, or of Christ and Believers, without the uniting of both together, that so the Soul may become in actu, the forma hominis, and Christ the forma Ecclesiae. Homo & Animal rationale, are no Proposition without a Uniting est. Is not this plain?  
§ 25. P. 47, 48. Granting that there is no Universal Government but Christ, he's again at it, that there is somewhat more than Organization, and all the Essentials of Christianity and Union with Christ, to make the Church One: and thereupon feigneth me to say, [That which maketh this Body to become a Church, is no union among themselves]; and leaveth out the rest of the Sentence, [but their common union with Christ:] As if their common Union with Christ were not an Union among themselves. If I have not made this plain enough, That 1. the Church hath the Unity of the parts to make it a capable Body or Matter. 2. That it hath a consequent Union and Communion after it is a Church. 3. But that it is only the Union of adapted Matter and Form, that makes it essentially the Church of Christ in the proper political sense, than I despair of making it intelligible, that forma dat esse & nomen: And if that which maketh it [the Church] do not thereby make it hoc unum, then eus & unum non convertuntur, and unum must have a distinct cause from eus.  
§ 26. He adds, [I should rather think that the Unity of several Churches makes them one Church, and does not only prepare and dispose them to be one].  
Ans. Their Unity in Christ doth make them one formally: And this is the informing Unity among themselves: But all other Unity is but preparatory or consequential to the formal unity. I told you out of Dr. Barrow, and may see in Rod. Goclenius, Martinius, and many more, beside Metaphysics, in what abundance of lose senses things may be called One: We deny no such Unity, no not in an heap of Sand. But of formal political Unity, why would you never tell us what it is but Union with one King, that makes many Cities one Kingdom? Do you rather think they are One Kingdom by any other Union among themselves? Yes, if you take [Kingdom] materially and equivocasly, but not else. Dare you say, That they are the Church of Christ, without their Union with him as the Form? Or dare you say, That all Christians united to Christ as their Head and Form, are not eo nomine, one Polity or Church?  
And what's the reason that all this while you will not name that thing else, that makes the Church one? Do it if you can.  
§ 27. P. 49. Falsely saying, that I have not told him what Union of the Churches among themselves is necessary, he feigns an Union in Christ the Centre, consistent with as great distance as the two Poles..  
Ans. What base thoughts hath this man of Christianity? Is it a contemptible Union to have all one Faith, one Hope, one Baptismal Covenant, and so one God, one Lord, one Spirit, and one body of such, and all the Twelve parts of Union and Communion before named? 2. Were it not worth the labour for this man to tell us what the more near and excellent Union is which he hath a mind to set up? Paul saith, I tell you of a more excellent way, when he speaks of the Union of Love, even Love to God and our Saviour first, and to all his Members as united in him. Out of all this man's books I cannot find what his nearer Union is, unless it be to unite in such as he; that is, in obedience to their Wills; and so Subjection to them be this high Communion: He saith over and over the general word, Catholic Communion; but what he placeth it in, let him find that can.  
§ 28. He saith, [This is a pretty easy way of determining Controversies, to outface all the authority of Scripture and Antiquity by a dogmatical assertion, without offering the least Reason, or shadow of Reason to confirm it.  
Ans. Reader, find one word of Scripture or true Antiquity that I contradict, or that ever he shown that I contradict; and judge who giveth Reason, and take not his word or mine.  
§ 29. Saith he, [I had at large proved the necessity of one Catholic Communion to make one Catholic Church, and instead of answering the proef, he asserts the contrary upon his own naked authority, and that must pass for confutation.  
Ans. Can a man have spoken more untruly that had studied it? 1. While he tells us, that by Communion he means Union; did I ever deny it? No, nor ever met with a Christian that denied it. 2. Yea, I said more than he, That besides Union, some Communion in transient acts is necessary, which he placeth not his Communion in. Is not this an hardened Disputer? Who can doubt but Union and Communion is necessary to one Church? But the doubt is, wherein it doth consist? whether in Essentials, Integrals or Accidents? and what these be? We are far more for Catholic Union and Communion than you. We are for Communion with all true Christians, even those that you represent odious, and excommunicate and ruin; and you are for Communion with a Sect that will honour you and obey your will. We know that to have one God, and Christ, and Holy Spirit, one Faith and Hope of Heaven, one Baptism, and a true Love to one another, and to be all under one Law and Covenant of Christ, and in our several Assemblies to read the same Scripture, use the same Sacraments, and the same Rule of Prayer (the Lord's Prayer) and Praise; this is a most excellent Catholic Communion. We believe that true Christian Unity is the Unity of the Spirit; that is, mental in Faith, Hope and Love; but that it must be held, exercised and preserved in the bond of peace, Eph. 4 3. And therefore if any Christian take it for a sin to join with us in the circumstances of Worship, if we can, we'll alter them to satisfy them: If we cannot, we will gladly allow them to worship God together in their own circumstances, and there we will love and pray for one another: We will not cut men off from Christ or the Catholic Church, and damn them for not swearing or saying, that they will obey us, and that there is nothing sinful in any of our Government, Liturgies, Forms or Ceremonies. Our Union is in greater matters common to all Christians, and not in wearing the same fashions, and reading the same forms, and obeying the usurpers of the power of the Keys that are Laymen, etc.  
And as for having obligation and right to Communion with all other Churches (which is all that I can gather he placeth it in, save obeying the same Bishops and Canons), we make no doubt of such right to be used in due order: And therefore we condemn all Church Tyrants that deny men their right: And we do not believe that our right is in the power of Prelates to take from us, unless we forfeit it, and cast it away: And we grant obligation to due Communion, as well as right; and therefore will be no such Separatists as you are, that refuse Communion with Dissenters in their Churches; yea, condemn all that do but call them Churches: And seeing no man is obliged to sin, we disown their crime that will not let men preach nor communicate, unless they will make a solemn Covenant to sin.  
The Catholic Communion that he seems to aim at, is to receive and reject the same persons in every Church that are received in or rejected by any one. We are for as much of this as is needful to the purity and peace of the Church: But we do not believe that all the Christian World is bound to take all the godly persons for excommunicate, who shall be excommunicated here according to the 5 th', 6 th', 7 th', 8 th', etc. Canons of the Church of England; nor to silence all Ministers that you silence. When we were newly silenced, 1662. some great men were employed to affirm, That if we would go and preach to the Americans it was an excellent work, and they would bear our charges: I told them, that our lives would be spent ere we could learn their Languages, as fit to preach to them. But it seems if we had gone, Catholic Communion would have silenced us there too, and have obliged the Americans, if we converted them, to reject us.  
What if Bishop's excommunicate men for not paying the Civilians their Fees, or for not repenting of a truth, or silence us for not assenting and consenting to all in their book? must all the World reject us in conformity to them? It's an heinous crime for any one man to draw a Nation to sin with him; but much more to engage all the Christian World to sin with him; yea, and that on pretence of Catholic Communion. Christ saith (by his Spirit in his Apostle), Him that is weak in the faith receive, and receive one another as Christ received us. If Bishop's silence and excommunicate even them that eaten strong in the Faith, must all the World disobey Christ to obey them?  
If you grant that, clavae errante, they bind not, must we take their bare words, that claves non errand? or must we become Tryers and Judges of all the World that they will judge?  
And how shall all Churches receive the same that some receive, when you know not whom you receive yourselves? Are all the score thousands that are in some of your great Parishes, in your Church? Must all the World take all the Sadduces, Hobbists, Infidels and Damners that dwell in your Parishes into their Communion? No, nor all that come to the Altar, when the Priest knows not who they be, and never saw them before? Do you use to write Testimonial Letters for every one of your Communicants, when he traveleth into other Parishes or Dioceses? Any man (save a Nonconformist) that had rather take the Sacrament than lie in Goal, is admitted (unless some rare Minister stop a notorious scandalous man, till the Court absolve him). If you make a Prison of your Church, and say to all men, [Choose this or Newgate, etc.] must all the World receive such, because they choose the Church-Prison rather than the other?  
And if we cannot possibly know which of our Neighbours be of your Church, and which not, in the same Parish (e. g. martin's, Giles, etc.) how shall we know who hath right to Communion all the World over? You must needs cast us on believing the Bishop's words, when as, 1. They use not to give the World such notice. 2. If they did, we know not foreign Bishop's credibility (in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Germany, etc.) they most separate from one another.  
§ 30. P. 50. He proceeds, [He takes that for granted which I can never grant him, That the Churches which are divided from one another by separate and opposite Communions, may yet be all united to Christ; for Christ hath but one Body, one Spouse, one Flock, one Church; and if we be not Members of this one Church (as no Schismatics are), we are not united to Christ].  
Ans. 1. The Lord have mercy then on this miserable Priest, and save him from his heinous Schism, that out of his own month he may not be condemned as no Member of Christ.  
2. Reader, while the Piper, Harper, or Trumpeter, giveth no distinction in the sound, (1 Cor. 7.7, 8.) but thinks that crying [Communion, Communion] should charm men into the same Disease of Confusion and Schism, which he is sick of; If thou be awake, I invite thee still but to use thy Reason in these three distinctions 1. Between Subjection and Communion. 2. Between local Separation and mental. 3. Between mental Separation in and from mere circumstances, accidents, or integrals, and in and from essentials necessary to Christianity and Christian Communion; And than if thou canst not Answer this Doctor, and escape Schism, which he tempts thee to, without any further Confutation, I despair of curing thee.  
1. None are of Christ's Church that separate from any thing Essential to it.  
2. All Congregations are locally divided and separated from one another.  
3. All Churches and Persons that differ in a Translation, a Form, a Word, a Ceremony in their Communion, by opposite Opinions or Practices are so far mentally opposite in their Communion. E. g. They that were for observing Meals and Days, Rom. 14. and they that were not: Peter and Barnabas that separated from the Gentile Christians while the Jews were there, and Paul that reproved them for it: Yea, those that for small Mental difference separate locally: A Prelatist that scruples taking one Parish Priest, or Bishop for his Pastor, suppossing him insufficient or a false Teacher, separateth by removing his dwelling to another Diocese, or Parish: These Schismatics have not yet dared to say, that this man separateth from Christ. The Convocation caused Godfrey Goodman to be imprisoned 1640: His Diocese and the next were Separate in their Separate Heads. Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches. Here were opposite Churches and Communion; the Greeks and Romans, the Abassine, Syrian, Assyrian, Armenian, Georgian, etc. Church's censure and Separate from others in their Communions to this day; so do some Lutherans from other Protestants hold Communions opposite in point of Consubstantiation and Images. So do such as Mr. Dodwell, condemn all Communion that hath not uninterrupted Episcopal Succession: You writ against him, and Archbishop Bramhall: so far are your Communions opposite. Doctor Gunning in the time of Usurpation, was against the Parish-Communion then practised, and separated from it: Archbishop Usher, Bishop Browning, and multitudes of Episcopal men did not. Did all these separate from Christ.  
Was Cyprian and all the African and Numidian Bishops separate from Christ, or the Pope— in Augustin's days, when there was so long opposition between three Popes and Aurelius, Augustine, and the rest of the Africans, which party was unchristened?  
Was it (Miracle-working) St. Martin, that was unchristened, or the Synods of Bishops whose Communion he renounced to the Death?  
Epiphanius giveth so high a character of Audius, that wise men think his Separation from the Bishops that abhorred his reproof, unchristened him not.  
Socrates and S●zomen, tells us of great diversity and opposition in the Communions of many Countries, about Easter, and other things, that yet unchristened them not.  
When the Scots and Britain's would not communicate with Gregory's Austin, nor eat in the same House with the Romans, which party was cut off from Christ?  
Was it Chrysostom's joannites, or the Council that deposed him, and the Cyrillians, that were cut off from Christ?  
Was it the Party of Meletius, Paulinus, or Flavian at Antioch, that were not united to Christ?  
Not only Socrates and Sozomen, but Atticus and Procluus, and other men, freer from Schism and Ignorance than our Dr. thought the Novatians were united to Christ.  
Was Lucifer Calaritanus cut off from Christ for gathering a Church separate from the Bishops that he thought too hastily received the returning Arians?  
Was it Zachary and Boniface that were cut off from Christ, or the Two Presbyters that they excommunicated for holding Antipodes, & c?  
Was it the Church of Canstantinople, or of Rome, that was unchurched when Vigilius and Menna, and other Patriarches excommunicated one another?  
If David Derodon have proved, that Nestorius spoke Orthodoxly, and Cirilas was an Eutichian; or if I have undeniably proved, that they meant the same thing; or job Ludolphus, that the Eutychians were sound in the faith, which of the parties that these 1300. years have condemned each other, are cut off from Christ?  
When the Italians set up a Patriarch at Aquileia, an hundred years against Rome, which side was unchurched?  
When the Pope (Alexander 3. Innocent 4. etc.) interdicted whole Kingdoms (France, England, etc.) and part of the Churches obeyed the Pope, and part the King; and when in the Wars with Frederick, Henr. 4 th' and 5 th', O●h●. etc. part of the Bishops were for the Emperor, and condemned the rest, and the other part condemned them as Henrician Heretics, which side was unchurched?  
When all the Truths that Philastrius calls Heresies (in palpable ignorance) had parties condemned for holding them (as Heretics), was it the feigned Heretics, or the condemners, that were unchurched?  
But if this man's words be true, and Priests can so easily damn men, it's time to think what those men do that have made such damning Canons as ours beforementioned; and that damn all that differ, and obey them not in every word and ceremony which they will command on those damning terms: And (were this true) whether it were not wisdom for all men to pack up, and leave the Land to the Priests themselves, and those that are ductile and sequacious enough to follow them to the last?  
For my part, I believe not, that he that goeth from one Church to another, as separating from a pair of Organs, or Cathedral singing, or Copes, or from a sorry Priest for a better, or from an undisciplined Church, to one that useth true Discipline; not judging the Church that he goeth from, worse than it is doth any thing inconsistent with his Christianity, nor is separated from Christ: What the seed of Cain do, that hate and persecute their brethren; and whether they separate from Christ when they fight against Love, I leave to others.  
● 31. Page 64, 65. But the man, hard put to it, hath a new notable subterfuge: He that hath said all this for One Church, hath found Two Universal Visible Churches in the World, besides the Invisible: [One consists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ, observe his Laws and Institutions, and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other]: This he owns.  
Ans. So do we, with these Suppositions, 1. That no man observeth all Christ's Laws and Institutions, without sin; but true Christians profess and practise the observation of them sincerely, so far as they know them.  
2. Those that you damn and persecute, profess to do this to the best of their understanding, and say, it is for doing it that you revile and ruin them.  
3. We suppose, that when Christ's Laws and Man's interfere, Christ's are to be obeyed against Man's.  
4. And we take not the Church of England to be cut off from Christ's Church; if it should be proved, that they [observe not all the Laws and Institutions of Christ]: In this you preach Separation too blindly. There are some Laws and Institutions of so low a Nature, that Error and Offence against them, cuts not Men off from the Church.  
But what is his other Notion of [a Christian Church]? Why, It's that which contains the Conventicles of Heretics and Schismatics, which are a middle thing between the true Catholic Church and the World of Infidels, as Rebels in a Kingdom.  
Ans. This is the effect of Confusion: When such men are got into a Labyrinth, they go the further the worse. The Truth of the case is this. The Church is usually likened to a Corn Field, that hath, 1. Corn: 2. the Straw and Chaff that feeds and covers it: 3. Stricken Ears, in whole or in part: 4. Weeds: All is but one Corn Field, so denominated from the Corn: But the Straw and unsound Ears are Integral Parts and Accidents: But the Weeds are no part at all, but noxious Adjuncts.  
So, 1. True Believers and Heart-Covenanters, are the Christians in famosiore & propriâ significatione analogati, to whom the denomination of the Church is ordinarily given in the New-Testament.  
2. Verbal profession and covenanting, is common to the sound and unsound, as the Straw and Chaff to the Grain and Ears. It constituteth the Church as visible matter, as it is supposed to serve and contain the Grain  
3. The Ears totally and visibly smitten, are but equivocally parts; that is, the persons whose profession or notorious practice containeth a renunciation of their Baptismal Covenant or Christianity, are but equivocally called Christians and Church-Members.  
4. Those that deny some Article of Faith consequentially, nororiously and ignorantly thinking their Opinion consistent with all the Essentials which they practically profess, are not thereby cut off from the Church; but they having made their Title litigious, may be suspended from some Communion till it be tried.  
5. All good Christians are sinners, and have errors; and if any judge them Heretics and Schismatics, for such, they are still in the Church of Christ. The word [Heretic and Schismatic] are now become what the speaker please. He is a true Heretic that separateth from something essential to (Faith, Love, or Obedience to Christ), and from the Church for that, or thereby. Persecutors separate from Christian Love and Communion.  
So that here is but one Catholic Church; and some called by men Heretics and Schismatics, are true Members: but all that notoriously renounce any Essentials, are no Members of it.  
Rebels is a word that may signify such as cast off the Sovereign: By which, renouncing subjection, they renounce being Members of the Kingdom, and are as an Army of invading Enemies, who are in the Land, but not of the Kingdom. But if any will call those Rebels that do but break a penal local Law, or that are disobedient to a Constable, a Justice, or a Master; this proveth them not to be no part of the Kingdom.  
But he numbereth the excommunicate with those that are cut off from Christ.  
Ans. Yes, upon these Suppositions following: 1. That they be excommunicate not only for sin, but for such sin by which they first cut off themselves from Christ, the Excommunicator only declaring it by his Sentence: else Excommunicators will be worse than Devils, if they damn men, or cut them off from Christ, who do not first cut off and damn themselves.  
2. That it be not only proved an heinous sin in itself, but that they are proved after due instruction and patiented warning, to be so impenitent in it, by wilful ignorance, or obstinacy against Knowledge, as will not stand with sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ.  
3. That it's no cutting off a man's self from Christ, to say, that there is somewhat sinful in your Church Government, Liturgy or Ceremonies, or to be afraid to assent and consent to all imposed, or to take an Oath never to endeavour any reforming-alteration of Church Government; nor will it prove a renouncing Christ, to separate from a Usurper, or a false Teacher, or run out of Dunstan's Church (as they did) for fear it should fall on their heads. If therefore any will cut men off from Christ for any such thing, or for observing the 20 th' Canon of the Council of Nice, or for the fashion of his Cloak, or for not paying the Court his Fees, they either condemn themselves instead of others, or do much worse than the Devil, that can damn none such.  
It's Two to One but this Doctor that here damns the excommunicate without distinction, will next say, he meant well, though he said ill, and that he supposed the Excommunication just. The best is, it's no great matter what he meaneth, while he is none of our Judge, except as to himself and the seduced.  
1. And I add, That we will suppose the Excommunicator to be no Usurper, but a justly called Pastor, and not a proud ignorant Obtruder, nor a Stranger that cannot try the Cause, nor is called to try it. Much less a Lay-Civilian, usurping the power of the Keys.  
These men have so many things to say, before they can accomplish their work, as bespeaks such Auditors whom darkness and interest hath made monstrously credulous.  
As 1. We are your lawful Pastor's. 2. The Patron's had power to choose, and the 〈…〉 us so, whether you 〈…〉. 3. No 〈◊〉 are your lawful 〈◊〉 bu● we. 4. We have power to command things indifferent; and if we command a Su●●lice, or a pair of Organs, or ●●ru●ue you are cut off from Christ if you 〈◊〉 us, or at least, if we excommunicate you for it. 5. If y●u think any of our Oa●hs, or other Imp●sitions, to be sins that would damn you; yet if you refuse them, and we excommunicate y●u f●r it, you are cut off from Christ, and in a state of damnation. 6. If one Chancellor or Priest cut you off, all the Church on Earth must judge you accordingly.  
Reader, when so small a part of Christians in a thousand years have escaped Excommunication from one or other, what have these men done in the World? Is it any wonder if Kings and Kingdoms were subjected by Excommunication, and to say, [St. Peter will be angry else] frighted the Nations into obedience? Did not Christ and Paul speak gently, when they called such grievous Wolves in Sheep's clothing, devouring the Flocks?  
§ 32. Yet p. 69, 70. his cause leads him to say, that this Church, which is wider than the Catholic, taking in Rebels, yea, those Rebels themselves, and Heretics, and Schismatics, [May have the power of Orders (or else I know what would follow), and Officers rightly constituted, Christian Sacraments, and all the Essentials of a true Church, except Christian Peace, and Unity, and Catholic Communinion.  
Ans. Reader, pretend not to understand him, but answer him dilemmatically; either by [Peace and Union] you mean inclusive Union with Christ, and the Unity of the Spirit, one Faith, one hope, and Union of Christian Love; and by Communion, a Communion in things necessary to salvation; or you do not. If you do, than this is the true Paraphrase of your words, [They may have all the Essentials of a true Church, except all the Essentials]; for those they have not. If you do not include these, than this is the Paraphrase, [They may be true Believers, and penitent, and love God and Man sincerely, and be Members of Christ, and have his Spirit, and one Baptism, and one true hope of Heaven, and the pardon of sin, and yet be Rebels, and damned for want of somewhat ease, which I call Unity, Peace, and Catholic Communion]. I think you mean subjection to such as you, in all your Canonical Impositions.  
In short, the plain truth of this Case I before opened, viz. When disobedience to true Church-●astors, proveth t● be as Adultery and Murder, sins signifying such Predominance of the Flesh, and absence of Divine Faith and Love, as is inconsistent with 〈◊〉, than it is damning, as other gr●ss and reigning sin is: But else it ●uts not off from Christ; and if the Prelates pretend to cut off such, they are liker to cut off themselves.  
§ 33 His rare distinction he fullier openeth, which is, [Between the Visible Church, and the one true Catholic Visible Church: The Visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians, Heretics, Idolaters, or whatever they be: T●e one true Catholic Church 〈◊〉 not].  
Ans. I have answered this before. It's well the distinction is not commonly observed (as the coiner saith); for it would be a common abuse. Hitherto we have known but one Universal Church, considered as Mystical (in Believers) or Visible (in Prosessors of the same, and not another Faith). Professed Idolaters, or Heretics, that deny the Essential, are no Members of it, as Visible. But this Doctor hath forged an One true Catholic Church, less than the Visible, and yet Visible▪ Can he have spoken sense, he would but have said, [The Universal Visible Church hath some Members that are sound, orderly and peaceable, and some that are erroneous, disorderly and unruly, even as it hath some holy, and some Adulterers, Thiefs and Persecutors. In a great house are some Vessels of Earth to dishonour.  
§ 34. I fear if I should survey but half the confused passages of this book, I should tyre the Reader as well as myself. I will be briefer with the rest  
P. 94, 95, etc. He giveth us an allay against the tenor of his Excommunications and Damnation's, to show, that he is not so uncharitable as he seems to be, and that his Canon that maketh so great a noise, hath but Powder without Bullet. I look he should say, I misunderstand him; and therefore I will not tell you his meaning, but the sum of his words, viz. p. 87. to show us why [Those that believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and lead an holy life in all godliness and honesty— may yet be excluded from all the ordinary means of salvation]: He first blames them that in these days have thought Holiness so sufficient; and would cheat his Reader, by citing Austin, as of that mind, who hath no mention in the words which he citys of Faith, Holiness, Love to God, or to his Saints, or Service, but only a Catalogue of such Virtues as Heathens or infidel's plead for, viz. Chastity, Continence, not cove●●us, not serving Idols, not contentious, patiented, quiet, emulating and envying none, sober, frugal]. But yet an Heretic (who is without the Christian Faith and Love), so far is he from including these in his Description. But no doubt he will have some Readers that will swallow all such Hooks as these.  
Then supposing men have no Love that communicate not on his terms, nor love the Peace and Unity of the Church, unless they join in such Principles as his, that would destroy it; he tells us truly, that Heaven is only the Gift of Christ, as merited by him; and therefore can be had only on his terms; and that is, only in Communion with his Church, and by his Sacraments.  
Ans. And what Christ's Terms are, he hath told us, Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. John 3.16. Whoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life, etc. The Whole Gospel is a Charter of salvation to all that have true Faith, Hope, Love, and Holiness. And all such are in the Church of Christ.  
2. And as ordinarily doth the Scripture tell us, that the preaching of the Gospel is the means of faith and holiness, by which God saveth them that believe; and that by the hearing of faith preached, the spirit is given, Gal. 3.2, etc. Rom. 10.14, 17. John 5.24. Acts 18.8. Acts 10.44. The holy ghost fell on all them that heard the word, before they were baptised, even the miraculous gift of the Spirit, Matth. 13.18. Mark 4.20. Luke 8.13, 21. and 11.28. Christ himself preached, but did not baptise: He sent forth his Disciples to convert men by preaching, Matth. 10.7. and 11.1. Mark 1.38. and 3.14. Luke 4.18, 19, 43. and 9.2, 60. Acts 5.42. and 10.42. and 8.5, 25, 35, 40. and 9.20. 1 Tim. 3.16. 1 Cor. 1.17. Paul saith, he was not sent to baptise, but to preach the Gospel. John 15.3. Ye are clean through the word, etc. John 6.63. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. John 17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 6.68. and 8.30. 2 Cor. 5.19, 20. 1 Tim. 5.17. and 1.2. John 4.2. It is able to save souls. James 1.21. 1 Pet. 2.2. John 8.31. Heb. 4.12. It is able to make us wise to salvation: It is by the word of God that men are born again as an incorruptible seed. 1 Pet. 1.23. It is that abiding in us that is our continued life, 1 john 2.14.  
There is no mention in Scripture of any one that was converted and made a Believer by Baptism or the Lord's Supper. The Adult were all to repent and believe, before they were baptised; and God promised them forgiveness thereupon: He never bid men baptise Infidels, nor graceless men. Baptism was but the public solemnising of the Covenant, which they consented to before, and the solemn investing them in that relation to which they were before entered: And entering them by Baptism, stated them in the Universal Church, before ever they were settled under any particular Pastor in a particular Church, as the case of the Eunuch, Acts 8. shows.  
But that which I call his Alloy, is, that he copiously tells us, that [Heaven is a supernatural state of happiness, and not the natural reward of an eartly creature, p. 92, 93. It is but an earthly happiness that Nature was made for, and was promised to Adam in Paradise; an immortal life on Earth. An immortal life after death cannot be the natural Reward. Innocent flesh is flesh: Were it not for Heaven, man were not bound to lay any restraint on himself, nor suppress sensual inclinations, nor deny them proper and natural satisfactions. As far as we know, to live always in this world and body, was the Original state of mankind, without any expectations of a more divine and spiritual life, p. 98. Briefly, p. 272. The Divine Spirit is the principle of Immortality in us, which first giveth life to our souls, and will at last raise our bodies.  
Ans. His Opinion in this, is not without the consent of some very learned and good men: And if he had held only, that immortality is proper to the spiritual, so far as it is immortal blessedness, who would contradict him? But seeing it is the undistinguished immortality of the Soul that he speaketh of, I shall in this, with submission, declare my Dissent and Reasons.  
§ 35.1. I confess that, as I said, it is an Alloy to his damning Sentence of thousands of God's faithful Servants: For it seems by [Damnation] he meaneth but Death, and the loss of Heaven, in which the Soul is dead as well as the Body; and so he judgeth us not to any other Hell. But then all the Infidels, Atheists, Murderers, Perjured, Adulterers and Drunkards, find the like kindness from him (if it will prove such). It seems all their Souls are mortal, and die as Beasts: And so the fear of Hell, or any pain after Death, is dismissed by him to all the World.  
2. I believe not this, because God is the righteous Governor of the World, and ruleth by means suited to the end: And we find, that the fear of a future positive punishment, is so natural to the Conscience of man, that the World is mostly governed by it: And God ruleth not man by mere deceit.  
3. We see that even the fear of Hell is not sufficient to restrain (no, not professed Christians and Preachers) from Perjury, Persecution, Sensuality, Worldliness and Wickedness: What a case then would the World be in, were they delivered from those fears? Men would be worse than Toads, Adders, or mad Dogs to one another.  
4. The Philosophers, yea, most (and almost all) the Infidel and Pagan World to this day, were convinced of the Immortality of the Soul: So that even the Lord Herbert, de verit. numbereth it with the Notices of 〈◊〉.  
5. I have in divers books given, I think, satisfactory proof of the Souls immortality, not now to be repeated, both Natural, and from Revelation: And if he preach the contrary, I crave his patience with those that scruple taking him for their Pastor.  
6. But (as La●iantius and Arnobius plead against the Platonists for the Souls Mortality by Nature) I do confess that there is nothing in Nature that will prove that God cannot annihilate it, as he can do any Angel; nor that it is immortal without depend●nce on God, nor that will prove infallibly that God will annihilare no Soul: But all that we pretend to prove by Nature is, 1. That there is nothing in the Nature of the Soul that hath a tendency to annihilation or dissolution of it. 2. That God, who maketh all things suitable to their use, seemeth to intimate, that he will not dissolve or annihilate it, by making it of such a durable Nature. 3. And his Government affords us yet stronger moral Arguments.  
7. As God made Adam's Soul of an immortal Nature, so sin changed not his Essence, but his Quality and Relation. And though it made him mortal in the dissolution of his humanity or composition, and liable to pain, it did not turn him into an Animal of another species, nor acquit him from all future suffering. God having made his Soul naturally durable or immortal, man's merits were but to determine whether it should be immortal happiness or immortal misery. God was not bound to change man's Essence to shorten his suffering, because man vitiated it.  
8. If one should preach, that Christ came to make Humane Souls immortal that were all naturally mortal, it would make Faith so hard a Work, as would greatly hinder the conversion of the Infidels. It would be an hard thing to believe that Christ maketh Saints of another species from all other men, as men are from Brutes: And if one's Soul be naturally mortal, and others, by the Spirit, immortal, it would seem a specific difference: And Philosophers and Mahometans, who can say so much for the immortality of the Soul, would despise Christians as less Orthodox than they.  
9 I have elsewhere proved, that the jews held the Souls immortality, except the Sadduces: He that said, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit ●t●rnal life? spoke but their common Opinion; as did all they that believed that any rose from the dead.  
10. It seems by the History of Henoch and Elias, that if man had not sinned, he should have been so translated: For God had said, Increase and multiply; and the Earth would not have held all Humane Generations.  
11. Christ expressly saith, There shall be a Resurrection to condemnation, John 5. and that the wicked shall go to everlasting punishment, Matth. 25. and that their worm never dieth, nor their fire is quenched, etc. But if the Soul be not immortal, there can be no Resurrection: It will not be the same man, but another new made: And shall a new soul suffer for another's sin? Luke 16. in the case of Dives and Lazarus, tells us Christ's mind of this.  
12. Yet I confess that the Resurrection of the Body was not promised before the Fall, nor yet plainly threatened, but seemeth to be the common effect of Redemption in its first instance, as it was for all Mankind; viz. That man being filius mortis, Christ would first, as a common Saviour, restore his Nature, and then set him in the way of Trial for its happiness or misery; as God at first made his Nature, and then tried him accordingly. But it seems had there been no Saviour, the body should have continued dead (being but the mere instrument of the sinning soul), and the immortal soul be immortally unhappy.  
13. Therefore in this, if the Doctor mean not better than he speaks, but thinks indeed that the Spirit only is the Principle of the Souls immortality, I differ from him, but not with contempt, acknowledging that these things are weighty, and of difficulty: But I am loath to be less Orthodox than Heathens and Infidels, or than the vain conceited Rabbins, who as Buxtorfe and others tell us, do hold that good Israelites go to Heaven, and bad Israelites to Hell, and all others die like Beasts. Did he so hold of good and bad Christians, it were too gross (or of those that are called by the Gospel, and some believe and some refuse). The Papists most commonly hold, That unbaptized Infants are in some such neutral state, shut out of Heaven, but under no positive pain. But if the Doctor preach so of the Adult and all, though he seem to abate of his severity to the Dissenters, he will do no service to the Church.  
14. The Terms Reedeeming, Restauration, and other such in Scripture, intimate, that Christ did restore Man to the state he fell from▪ adding more mercy to it: And therefore that his Soul was immortal, and he in via, and not in patria.  
And I believe not what he adds of man's being not obliged to deny Sensuality, were it not for Heaven: 1. He thinks Adam was made but for Earth: And yet God bond him Not to eat of that Fruit which his eye, appetite and fancy led him to desire. Doth he not here directly condemn God's Law, and justify Adam's Sin? 2. Were there no Heaven for us, man were bound to rule his Appetite and Sense by Reason: And the bonum publicum, and his own, would oblige him by Reason to restrain Sensuality, as to Women, Wine, Meat, desire of our Neighbour's Estate, Anger that would kill others in revenge. 3. And I think God doth not bind us now to take the forbearance of such comforts as further us in Holiness, Thankfulness, and other Duties, to be any necessary way to Heaven.  
§ 36. Page 122, 123. To prove his sort of Catholic Unity, he is not content with Episcopatus Unus est; but he asserteth, That all the Bishops of the Church are but one Bishop, invested with the same Power, etc.  
Ans. 1. Episcopacy may be said to be One, as it is One in specie, and for one remote End and Object; as Justiceship in England may be called One: But that all Bishops should be but one Bishop, is strange (Tho by impropriety of speech, almost any thing may be said). No doubt but the Name [Bishop] signifieth in common speech, the Subject related]: Either he meaneth, that the Subjects are one, or the Relation. While he abhorreth the distinguishing of the equivocal [Unity], we must take him to speak in sinsu famosiore & usitato: 1. They that have divers numerical constitutive parts of men (matter and form), are divers Bishops, as Subjects of the Relation: But so have e. g. the Bishop of Canterbury, and York, and London: They have divers Souls and Bodies.  
They that may depose and curse each other, are not the same Bishop: But so did chrysostom and his Adversaries, and hundreds more. If they are One subjectively, the Virtues and Vices of one's are another's, and the Creditor may take one man to Prison for another's Debt.  
2. They cannot be One numerically in the Relation of Bishop: For the Relation is Accidens quod sequitur subjectum: The same numerical Accident cannot possibly be in two distinct Subjects: For it perisheth if it cease to be in its Subject. One man's Colour, Virtue, Learning, &c. cannot numerically be the Accident of another: So that all Bishops being one Bishop, is just like the rest of this man's Doctrine. I believe one may be good and another bad, one saved and another damned.  
What can the man mean by it, if he could speak his mind? Sure nothing but that their Office is of the same species, and they bound to use it in their several places, as from one Christ, under one Law of his, with the greatest Love and Concord they can, and for the common good of one Universal Church: Can he mean more, without gross Error? And who denieth any of this, as to the Episcopacy of Christ's institution?  
§ 37. [They are bound to govern where it can be had, by mutual advice and consent].  
Ans. So far as the end requireth, The common good: So say the Independents: And is that the Unity so much talked of?  
§ 38. [' No Bishops are absolutely independent, but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy— Those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government, as all must have that have independent Governors or Bishops; and independent Churches can never make one Body, and one Catholic Communion, because they are not Members of each other.  
Ans. 1. No Two Churches on Earth of the same species (Diocesan, or Parochial, etc.) are members of each other, but all of the Universal or National, of which they are parts; no more than your fingers or eyes are members of each other.  
2. Reader, pardon me, that in the beginning I commended him, as being for Diocesan Independency in Power. These words make me again uncertain what he's for. Plain English would distinguish dependence of Subjects on Rulers in a Polity, and dependence of Equals by Concord in a Community: These are plain words. He after saith, that Diocesans have no proper Governors Ecclesiastic over them, or to that sense: But here he saith, they are not independent in Power and Government: Yet the man saith so little in any determinate sense, that I know not whether by [dependence in Government], he mean [a political dependence on superior Governors], or [a political Union of many persons to make one superior governing power (like a Senate), or a mere voluntary concord of many Governors that are Equals, like that of many Schoolmasters or Princes, whose Concord maketh them not One Polity, but One Community. The former sense some words of his do favour; but elsewhere he so much denieth them, that I hope it is but the last that he meaneth.  
3. But if this be his sense, What independent (whom he so much damneth) doth not acknowledge a dependence in Community, on all true Christians (and in Polity on Christ)? Doth not every Christian confess, that all true Churches and Christians depend on the Whole, as Parts, and on each other, as Fellow-Members, obliged to live on the same Christ, in the same Love and Communion in Essentials, and in as many Integrals of Religion as they can reach to? I never met with the Christian that denied this: Therefore what to make of this man's words, I know not.  
§ 38. P. 126. he saith, [He who causelessly breaketh this Unity, can be no Catholic Bishop].  
Ans. Is it come to that? Alas! how few Catholic Bishops then do we hear of in the World? Tho no good man breaks it in the Essentials, who breaks it not in Degrees or Integrals. They were guilty of Schism that said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas. Peter broke it in some degree, Gal. 2. And much more those, Phil. 1. that preached Christ in strife, to add to Paul's affliction. How shall we know then what all his talk for Communion signifieth as to practice? With what Bishops in the World must we hold Communion? And how shall we know them? If any prove that any English Bishop causelessly breaketh this Union in any degree, must we separate from him? I know no evasion for him here, unless he will yet distinguish of Unum● Martinius saith, Unus is, 1. Indivisus. 2. Sic indivisus, ut etiam indivisibi●●s. 3. Sic indivisas, ut divisibilis. 4. Sic indivisus ut divisus, se● distinctus ab aliis. 5. Unicus solus. 6. Unus cum aliquo, seu idem, aut numero, aut gen●re, aut specie, aut analogia: item Essentia, Persona, Voluntate, aut actu]. But this is Gibberish, I suppose, to the Doctor: Bare Unity is more intelligible, though no one know wherein it must be.  
§ 39 He adds, [To preserut the Peace and Unity of Episcopacy, it's necessary that every Bishop do not only observe the same Rule of Faith, but especially in matter of weight and consequence, the same Customs and Usages, and the same Laws of Discipline and Government— and when any difficult case happens, for which they have no standing Rule to consult.  
Ans. The longer the worse! If I ask him whether he mean such Customs and Usages as are part of God's Word materially, commanded or commended in Scripture, I know not what he will say; but I strongly conjecture he will say, No: It is Tradition and Church-Customs not there mentioned.  
If I ask, how these come, [espcially to be mentioned as matter of weight and consequence], he confesseth, that God, and not Man, made the Church: And is not God's Law sufficient to be its Universal Rule? If man make these matters of weight, man may unmake them.  
2. But is it not Universal Church-Communion that he is speaking of? I provoke him to tell me, if he can, who on Earth hath power (beside God and our Saviour) to make Laws (the same) of Discipline and Government to the Universal Church? Is not Legislation the prime part of Government? Have not you oft denied any Humane Supreme Government under Christ over all the Church? Do you not here say the contrary? Know you not the difference between the Contracts of a Community, and the Laws of a Polity? It's no true Law if it be not the act and instrument of a Rector to govern his Subjects. If Twenty Kings meet (or Schoolmasters, Physicians, etc.) and agree on certain Points of Government, this maketh them not One Polity, Kingdom (or School): Their Contracts are neither Laws to each other, nor to their common Subjects; but every King may make them a Law to his own Subjects.  
4. If you should mean only National Laws of Discipline and Government, how come all the Churches in the World to be obliged to [observe the same Laws], e, g. our Canons? This, as to Traditions, is expressly contrary to our Articles of Religion which you subscribe. And when the Church-Laws of all Countries differ so much, which must all be reduced to?  
If you say, They must all agree to those called the Codex Ecclesiae Universalis, or the Four or Six first approved Councils, etc. I answer, 1. It's gratis dictum: And how prove you those universally obligatory, and no other? And how will you satisfy Conscience, which are the obligatory Laws indeed?  
2. Why do you then cast all from Communion that observe the 20 th' Canon of the Council of Nice?  
3. What power have dead Bishops over us, and all Christ's Church? They were Canons for one Empire which is dissolved, and of which we are no part.  
4. Is Christ so insufficient a Lawgiver, even for Laws necessary to the Unity of his Church, as that we must have more Laws of Government and Discipline which the Catholic Church must unite in, or be no Church: And shall that man plead for such Laws that yet saith, There is no universal Governor? I never said, you are a Cassandrian, or a Papist: But it was such ignorant Doctors that saddled the Horse, and held the Stirrup while the Pope got up.  
§ 40. [This (saith he) makes it highly reasonable for Neighbour-Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with ease and convenience, as the Bishops of the same Province or Nation, to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy, to meet in Synods— to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship— There may be a primacy of order granted to some Bishops and their Chair, by general consent, and under the regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons, for the preservation of Catholic Unity.  
Ans. You make this Catholic Unity essential to the Church: And yet doth it lie in Humane Canons and Ass●ciations? Did Christ leave things so essential to Humane Invention? And is concord in your Canons necessary to salvation? And yet the proof of all this, is but this, and such Doctor's Assertion, that [it's highly reasonable]. And so Unity and Salvation must lie on all that such will think highly reasonable.  
2. If Subjects may thus make their own Laws, no doubt they will make them suitable to their Natures and Inclinations (And it's confessed, that oft the most, even of Bishops, are bad and worldly men), and suitable to their Ends and Interests: How many would be glad if Sovereign's would thus let Subjects make their own Laws?  
3. But how were the Canons, or Laws of a National Church to be a Rule to all the Church on Earth, and necessary to its Unity?  
4. And how comes this man that made it damnable in the Independents to make a Church-Covenant, as if they renounced Baptism, now to make Church-Associations and Confederacies to be so necessary to Catholic Unity? Truly I know no answer for the man, but the same that Binnius giveth us, when Pope john and Hormisda gave a contrary determination, de fide, on the question, Whether it may be said, that One of the Trinity was crucified? One said, Yea; But the N●storians taking hold of it, the other said, Nay: Ita mutatis hostibus, saith B●●nius, arma necessario mutanda sunt: That's true when it's for themselves, which is false when it's for others.  
5. But it was modestly done to confine these Confederacies to the greatest distance that the thing is practicable with ease and convenience: And so he fairly denieth General Councils (and after more plainly). But when the Armenians, Syrians, Abassines, Greeks, &c. cannot with ease and convenience, go above Five or Six Hundred miles (at most); and so each Country hath different Customs, Laws and Canons: Can the Catholic Church obey them all?  
§ 41. P. 127. This (saith he) seems to be the true Original of Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical Churches.  
Ans. If so, I will not believe that they are necessary too Catholic Unity and Salvation, till I know who invented them, and whether they had as good a Commission as the Apostles  
2. If Bishops made the first Achbishops (and Parish-Bishops, say others the first Diocesans, and Presbyters the first Parish-Bishops), then, 1. Inferiors may make Superiors, and give the power which they never had. 2. Why then may they not ordain Equals, and propagate their species. 3. Then Presbyters or Bishops are of God, and Archbishops of Men.  
§ 42. Page 128. Saith he, [Every Bishop is the proper Governor of his own Diocese, and cannot be regularly imposed on against his consent.]  
Ans. Yet even now [He that causelessly breaks this Union is no Catholic Bishop. It seems than it goeth not by Vote; but a Dissenter may be a free Catholic: I pray you then impose not on others against their con●ent.  
[The whole Authority (saith he) of any Bishop or Council over other Bishops, is founded on the Laws of Catholic Communion— Therefore they have no proper Authority, but only in such matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy, or the Peace and Communion of the Catholic Church. If a Bishop be convicted of Heresy or Schism, or some great wickedness or impiety, they may depose him, and forbidden his people to communicate with him, and ordain another in his stead, because he subverts the Unity of the Faith, or divides the Unity of the Church, or is himself unfit for Communion.  
Ans. 1. Either these are meant as acts of Government, or not: If yea, then why do you so oft disclaim it, and call it only Advice and Communion Than you place this governing Power in Foreigners, when they are no further off than with ease and convenience we may confederate with them: And whither this will lead, I'll not inquire. If nay, than it seems men may depose Bishops, and set up or ordain others in their stead, without any governing Power over them. If so, then by Authority you must mean Authoritatem Doctoris, vel Nimcii (and so, I confess, Pastors may in Christ's Name, require other Churches to do their duty), and not Authoritatem Regentis: And if so, it's as true, that when there is just cause, a few may depose many, as many depose a few. But men use not to call it deposing and ordaining in his place, when men do but charge others in Christ's Name to do their duty: I find not tha● St. Martin excommunicated the Bishops and Synods in Ithacius and Idacius time; but I find that he renounced Communion with them, and so may Equals do.  
§ 43. P. 140. he saith, [The senseless imputation of Cassandrianism, and French Popery, is managed so knavishly by Mr. Job, and with such blind fury by Mr. Baxter, with so much confusion, etc.]  
Ans. The Terms I wonder not at; but whatever we are for Knavery, or blind Fury, if this man help us against Confusion, it's strange.  
§ 44. P. 173. he grants that the Bishops are not the Governors of the Church, as united in one common regent Head over the whole Church; but as every Bishop governeth his own share]: And this (of true Bishops) who denieth him?  
P. 183. It is but a voluntary combination, and stricter associasion for preserving Unity by advice, etc. All this is good (though damned by him in the Independents) if they would combine to rule according to the Laws of Christ, and not make any of their own without authority, nor so as to accuse Christ's Laws of insufficiency, nor make dividing noxious snares.  
§ 45. Saith he, p. 189. [That this Church is Universal, is founded on the Laws of Catholic Communion].  
Ans. No Humane Laws make the Church Universal. Men may make their own Subjects or Confederates unite in accidents (either just, as in one Translation of Scripture, one time and place and meeting, etc. or unjust, when it's hurtful, vain, or belongs not to them); but it is only he that maketh the Church a Church, who thereby maketh it One Church in Essentials: And in Integrals, he that maketh it entire (by institution or efficiency).  
2. This Union is founded in men's Unity in Christianity, Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6.  
§ 46. P. 192. He saith, [The Association and Confederacy of Neighbour-Churches is founded on the Law of Catholic Communion, and the Catholic Communion cannot be maintained without it.  
Ans. Not without Baptismal Confederacy in the necessary Duties commanded by Christ: But as to your Confederacies in Humane new Church-Forms, Patriarchal, Metropolitan, etc. was not the Church One without them, before they were invented? Here he maketh voluntary Confederacies to make new Church-Canons, or Laws of Discipline, necessary to Unity, and that Unity necessary to Salvation, all being cut off from Christ that break it: As if Christ had not made Laws enough necessary to salvation, and he that only kept his Laws, and not men's Canons, could not be saved. Can he tell us then where to fix our Religion? On what Bishops, and on what Canons? I am certain that his Religion will not stand with certainty of salvation, when no man can be certain what is necessary to salvation, nor what the novo will by Bishops be made necessary the next year, nor who those Bishops must be.  
2. See here again: When he made it a renouncing our Christianity, to confederate and associate to do men's duty in a particular Church, he yet maketh it necessary to Unity (and so to salvation) by confederacy to make new Humane Church Forms. All this is to bring all men's salvation (opinionatively) into the power of those that can get uppermost; as if men could as easily damn others as themselves.  
§ 47. P. 200, 201. saith he [If the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head, than the Church is not a Political Society; for it neither has nor can have any such— on Earth over the whole].  
Ans. We thank you for that much. But the Church is a Political Society; and to deny it, is to deny an Article of the Creed, and to unchurch it, quoad ipsam formam: And Christ is its constitutive regent Head: The whole Family in Heaven and Earth is named by him; from whom the whole compacted body is increased and edified: And it's dangerous false Doctrine (worse than breaking one of your Canons) to hold, that the Church cannot be a Political Society, unless it have an Head on Earth.  
§ 48. He adds (when I shown that all Episcopal Writers, as Hooker, Spalatensis, etc. of Church Polity, take the Church for one Body Politic) [But what is this to the purposo? Does Hooker set up one Regent Head?]  
Ans. 1. Yes, Christ. 2. Was it not directly to my purpose, to prove it a Polity, which was that which I alleged it for?  
But (saith he) do any of them prove, That Civil and Ecclesiastic Polity is the same thing?  
Ans. Yes, in genere. Do they use the word equivocally? Is not Polity or Government in Civils and ecclesiastics [Polity in genere]? How can these else be distinct species of it? Was this ever denied by Conformist before?  
Saith he, [' Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastic Commonwealth differ as much as the Church and the State?  
Ans. And do not Church and State differ in specie, as being both Politic Bodies, sub uno genere?  
He adds, [Therefore he must still prove, That as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom, so it is to the Unity of the Church, which will be a fair advance towards Popery.  
Ans. 1. Every Christian holds, That Christ is the Head over all things to his Church: But every Christian says not, That this is an advance to Popery. Is Christianity Popery?  
2. Is one State and Kingdom all the World? All that I have to prove is, That as all the Earth is one Divine Kingdom, God being the absolute Sovereign, and each particular Kingdom is part of it, a Political Body subordinate, informed by its One Humane Sovereign; even so the Universal Church is one Body Politic, informed by Christ, the Divine-Humane Head; and particular Churches are subordinate Bodies Politic, parts of it; as such (but not as Christian) constitutively informed by their proper Pastors; which all those Episcopal men believed, that used the old description, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata. This is all plain to other men.  
§ 49. P. 201, 202. He finds [nothing like proof but my Assertion, That the Regent part is the Informing part; and if it have not one Regent part, it is not one Society, as Political: If it have none, it is no Polity: If it have many, it is many].  
Ans. Reader, his own words are, What a Drudgery it is to dispute with such: If he had talked of these things at School, he would not have challenged his Master to prove the signification of the words in his Dictionary; but now he is a Disputer, there is no end with him: If he challenge me to prove, that Rex signifieth a King, and Subditus a Subject, and so of the rest, he will get the better by tiring me: I can only refer him to books, and use, and men of that profession: And so I do here: If Politia do not signify the Government, and Governed Societies informed by Government, all the Politics, and Dictionaries, and use of Politick-Professors, have deceived me. I know Politria is sometime used Tropically for any cause of life, any rules of living, yea, for good works, by chrysostom, etc. But I said enough to make him know that I spoke of it in the usual proper sense of Politicians: And so it is taken, 1. For the stated Form of government in Civiiate. 2. For the administration of that Government: 3. For the Ius Civitatis, or Burgesship in a governed City: 4. For the ●nver●ation of men in such a governed Society. What is Politica but civilis scientia? What is Politicus but civilis respublicae gerendae peritus, or ●ui rempublicam gerit? Tho it be called Respublica a fine, from the public ●●od, yet men of that profession have appropriated the Names of Respubl●ca, Civitas, and Politia, to governed Societies only, and analogum per se p●situm stat pro famosi●re analogato.  
Saith he, [' This I grant is true of such Societies as are One by one supreme 〈◊〉 power; but not of such a Society as is One, not by one supreme power over the whole, but by one Communion: And such a Society the Church is.  
Ans. This is downright Heresy: But he meaneth not as he speaks: For he often confesseth, that Christ is the Sovereign Head of the Church: And to confess that, and yet say, [That though Christ be the Regent Head and Sovereign], yet this doth not inform it, or unifie it, is gross contradiction, as if the F●rm did not give the specifying and unifying esse & nemen: We may next come to deny, that Master and Scholars are a School, or King and Subjects a Kingdom, or Soul and body united, a Man, or that Two and Two are Four.  
2. He here plainly makes the Church to be but a Community, which is false.  
3. And yet he will have it a Political Society: For he saith, That [for a Political S●ciety to be informed by the One Regent part, is not true of the Church]: which plainly includeth, That the Church is a Political Society, and yet hath not One Regent Head, which is a contradiction. He saith, (The Church must be excepted from Mr. B 's Rules and Definitions of 〈◊〉).  
Ans. You see to what a pass these men would bring us: As we must have New Rules and Laws of salvation, if we will be of their Church-state; so we must have New Politics, and New Dictionaries: The Church cannot be a species of a Politic Society without New Definitions of Polity. Next say, God's Laws are no Laws, unless you make a New Definition of Laws in genere; and Christians are no Men, without a New definition of a Man.  
I will not pretend to teach this Doctor; but if he will go to School again, I may hope he may meet with a Tutor that will teach him these Things following:  
I. That a mere Community is not a proper Body Politic, Civitas vel Respublica, but an ungoverned Society of Equals (in hoc), associated for common good: So are a company of men that venture all their Goods and Lives in one Ship, as Equals, agreeing on some means of common safety; or any combined Body without Government.  
2. That no Community can make a true Law in proper sense, but mere contracts; though the Names of Laws may be abusively so used: For a Law is only the signification of a Rector's Will, making the Subjects duty with due reward or punishment: And it is the first part of the Administration in Government: Legislation is the Prerogative of Rulers, and never belongs to Equals in Community.  
III. That a proper Political Body is only a Society consisting of Governor and Subjects, united relatively.  
iv That if Twenty Governors, Kings or States, that are each supreme in their Republic, confederate, so as to set up one in rule over all the rest, or the Major Vote of themselves to be Governor of the rest, they make a new Kingdom or Republic by it: But if they only confederate for the strictest Concord, Offensive and Defensive, this makes no new Polity nor Law, but mere Contract of Equals; though all are Kings, each one may make Laws for his own Kingdom, according to those Contracts; but they are Laws only by the Authority of their proper Sovereign.  
V That Cities are Bodies Politic, and in a Kingdom are subordinate parts, headed per modum formae, by their proper chief Governor; but supposing the superior Headship of the Kingdom, and that Kingdoms are informed by Union with their Sovereigns (specified as the Sovereigns are, Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical, or mixed), and unified by them; But no man's Sovereignty is unlimited, independent or absolute, God being only such over all, and Earthly Sovereign's more dependent under him than Mayors and Justices under the King  
VI That even so it is in the Church, which is one Political Body under Christ, containing particular Churches subordinately informed by their proper Pastors.  
VII. That a Confederacy of these Pastors is very useful, for agreement to observe the Laws of Christ, and to make such Local By-Laws as Corporations may do by Charter, to determine their own Circumstances which the Law of the Land determines not, each Church hath power, which many may agree to use, allowing necessary variety: And the Magistrate may determine that which is not proper to the Pastor's Office for many. But the concord of these Associated Confederates, can make no Law, but contract; nor any proper new Church-form, save as improperly called a Church from Accidents. If the Saxon Heptarchs' had agreed to govern all their Kingdoms by strict consent, this had not made another Kingdom or Law; they had not been made One Kingdom by such a Confederacy, but many Kingdoms agreeing as one Community of Equals.  
VIII. The Relation that all Pastors have to the Universal Church, will enable any of them, more or fewer, confederate or not, ex authoritate Ministri & Nuncii, to tell any other Bishops or Churches of heinous scandalous sin, and admonish them, and renounce Communion with the impenitent, and exhort people to forsake Heretic Bishops, etc. But all this as Equals, and not as the fixed Overseers of other Churches, nor as Rulers of other Pastors: And so one Martin may do by a Synod of Bishops.  
IX. King's are as truly (and I think as much) obliged to do their work in Concord and Communion, 
The contrary dreadful Doctrine of Dr. Parker, for setting up an Universal Council of Princes to govern all the Kings on earth, is to be confuted elsewhere, as also his subjecting Christ to Kings, which implieth, that they may command, reward, and punish him.  as Bishops; And Kingship is as truly One as Episcopacy: That is, 1. It is of the same species: 2. Under the same Universal King: 3. Governed by the same Universal Laws: 4. Bound to regard the Good of all the Church and World above that of their own Kingdoms: 5. And bound to contribute the utmost of their Wit, Interest and Power for the said common good of Church and World. And because all the Kings in Europe may do more to this common good of all, than Bishops without them can do, I may say, That they are bound hereto rather more than less than the Bishops: As a rich man is bound to liberality more than a poor man, and one that hath the Tutorage of Princes and Nobles Sons, or a Physician that hath an Hundred such Patients, is bound to more care, and more bound to care than another. And all Kingdoms are as truly parts of God's Kingdom over men, as all Churches are parts of the Universal Church.  
If Justices or Mayors will of themselves make a New Body Politic by Confederacy and Association, and say, We claim no Superiority, but an Authority, in order to Communion to make Laws of Government for the Kingdom, or many Counties, and should say, It is One Kingdom, as Unified by this Communion, and these Laws of ours, and not by their Relation to one King, I should doubt whether to call them Sots, or Rebels, or Traitors.  
§ 5●. P. 206, 207. he boldly repeateth, [How oft have I told him what it is that makes the Catholic Church One Catholic Church, which is the constitutive Form he inquires after; viz. Not one superior power over the whole Church, but one Communion] (and this Communion is in Humane Forms and Canons).  
Ans. How oft doth he tell us that, which if a Dissenter had asserted, I should have thought the Name of an Heretic too gentle for him, as coming so near the denying both of the Church and Christ. See here the Church is not made One (and so not made the Church) by its unitive Relation to Christ the Head: He is not the constitutive Regent Form, but a Voluntary Agreement to make Laws of Government, etc. is the constitutive Form: And yet he saith before, It is not made by Man, but God.  
§ 51. But p. 220. he disgraceth the Dean by these words, [Mr. B. indeed says, That the Universal Church is headed by Christ himself: But as the Dean adds, this doth not remove the difficulty: For the question is about the Visible Church, whereof the particular Churches are parts; and they being visible parts, do require a visible constitutive Regent Head, as essential to them: Therefore the whole Visible Church must likewise have a visible constitutive Regent Head.  
Ans. Dangerously false, and the Fundamental Principle of Popery: When they know how frequently the Papists are answered to this by Protestants; and I told them how fully I had answered it to johnson, and oft; why have we no Reply, but say over and over the same things? Viz.  
1. No Kingdom, nor thing is Visible simpliciter, but secundum quid. Our King is not visible in Ireland, nor but to ●ew in England: His soul is visible to none; nor his body, save the outward Accidents. If he were seen by none but Courtiers, it were a Visible Kingdom.  
2. In all these Respects the Church is Visible: 1. The Bodies of the Subjests are Visible: 2. Their Oath of Allegiance, Baptism and Profession, are Visible: 3. Christ lived Visibly on Earth: 4. He is Visible in Heaven to his Courtiers: 5. He hath one Visible Law and Covenant to govern all his Church: 6. He hath Visible Officers: 7. He hath Visible administrations of Mercy and Justice by himself and his Officers: 8. And he is coming to Judgement Visibly, and all Eyes shall see him.  
Now the Controversy is either de re, or de nomine: De re none but a false Teacher will deny any one of these, that I say not a gross Heretic. 2. De nomine, either this much may warrant the Name of a Visible Church, or not. If not, we must go the old way of some former Protestants, and say, That the Chatholick Church is not Visible. And for aught I see, we must say, That the Kingdom of Ireland, if not of England, is Invisible, because few see the King, and no man ever saw the Soul of King or Subjects, or their Bodies, save the skin. If all this warrant not the Name of Visible Church, the Confederacy of an unknown Company of Bishops will not. But remember that the Controversy is but de nomine; and we say more by far to prove it Visible than you do, while you deny Popery.  
§. 52. P. 2●5. I Argued, That if a Regent Supreme be the informing part of a Diocesan, Metropolical, etc. Church, so must it he of the Catholic, if the word Church, be used univocally. Hence he inferreth that I thus argue [If there be not a Supreme Head over the whole Church, there is no such over any part]: So little doth he understand an Argument. When as I argued only from the parity of Reason, That if the summa potestas be not the Form of the Catholic Church, than it is not of Diocesan Churches: But it is of Diocesan Churches, as is confessed; Ergo, This supposeth that they confess Christ to be the summa potestas. Therefore I say, He must be the Constitutive Form. The man blushed not here to say, That I infer [A Bishop cannot govern his own Church, unless one Bishop or a College govern the whole]. How little Belief is due to such a Man?  
§. 53. P. 844. He saith, I think it as certain, That those Churches cannot be Members of the Catholic Church, whose Communion is unlawful.  
Answ. Seeing it is plain, That he meaneth not only mental Communion in Essentials (of which its true) but local Communion in outward Acts, I take him to be one of the grossest Schismatics that ever I had to do with; and one of the greatest Enemies to Christian Catholic Love. If any could prove it unlawful to have Ministerial Communion in England, where he cannot have it, without declaring Assent and Consent to all thingt in their three Books, that would not prove the Church of England no part of the Catholic Church. If a Layman could prove it unlawful to trust other men with his Child in Baptismal Covenanting, as far as the Church here doth, or sinful to join in avoiding the Communion of all such godly men as the Canons or a Lay-Civilian may Excommunicate; This will not prove the Church of England no part of the Catholic Church.  
If any Church will deny men Communion, unless they subscribe to some one small Untruth (as the Liturgies false Rule to find out Easter-day, or a mistranslation; or the denial, that Christ died for all, etc.) this doth not unchurch them all. But men have made so many snares by their numerous invented sinful forms of Communion, that by such schsmatical Censures as this, one scarce knows what Church on Earth is ●ot unchurched.  
§. 54. He saith, [Where there is 〈◊〉 b●●ach of Communion, no declared 〈…〉 act of communion between 〈…〉 be in communion with each 〈…〉. You may say of them what you will; But all these Negatives speak no positive Act: And is Communion nothing but Negations? All this I may say of those that never heard of each others being. 2. There may be an express disowning of each, as the Romans did the Asians about Easter, and the Africans about rebaptising, and the Britain's disowned Augustine, and as some disown a Pair of Organs, or neglect of Discipline, etc. And yet both be parts of the Catholic Church.  
§. 55. P. 326. He is so Catholic in Doctrinals, as to say that [We may safely communicate with any Church, how different soever our Opinion in other Matters may be, when we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Essentials of Worship] Answ. What could one wish more? Is this the same Man? May you not then admit those that so far agree with you? Are all your humane Associations and Confedearcies, and all the Laws for Church-Discipline and Government (made by men that have no Legislative Power) Essentials of Worship, or Fundamental Doctrines of Faith? Are all that your foresaid Canons Excommunicate Men for such Essentials? If this much be enough in the Church, notwithstanding all other Sins and Errors, why not in those that you should receive. But it seems by this, that Matters of Divine Faith and Worship, besides bare Essentials, are small things to him in comparison of Bishop's Rules and Canons.  
§. 56. Pag. 395. He saith, [To separate causelessly from any true and sound part of the Catholic Church, cuts such Separatists off from the Church. [If they will justify their Separation, they must prove that what is Enjoined, is Sinful].  
Answ. 1. Have you answered what they have said, and said again towards a Proof? Remember that you call them to it, and justify their Separation, if they prove it.  
2. But your Conclusion is false and odious, leaving it doubtful, what part of the Christian World you damn not. If I could prove that you separate causelessly from the Nonconformists, doth that certainly cut you from all the Church? I doubt there are too few Christians on earth, who do not in some degree separate causelessly from others? Grotius joined with no Church locally in Worship, long before he died. Most of the Church in East, West, South and North, is damned falsely by this Rule. He that doth but causelessly separate pro tempore from a Preacher, by Passion or Mistake (as Mr. Martin aforesaid from Mr. Lapth●rne) separate causelessly from a true and sound part of the Christian Church.  
His words make me think so sadly of the Case of the Church, that must be tempted and distracted by such men, as puts me far from a sporting frame: But as Dr. Twisse, and some of the Gravest Writers, sometime divert their Readers with a sad Story that hath somewhat in it ridiculous, why may I not put him another such Case?  
At Bridgenoth, before 1639. One Parson Cross, a thorough Conformist, Preached a Sermon: In which, inveighing against Marriage, he said, [If you marry a Widow,— She will be like a Banbury Cheese; when all the Paring is cut off, there's little left: So when all Portions and Legacies are paid▪ & ●. Whoever, Maid or Widow, if you will hope for a Wife, and virtuous Woman, you must be like a Man that will find out one Eel in a Barrel of Snakes: It's a hundred to one you miss her. But if you light on her, you have but a wet Snig by the Tail; a slippery handful.  
Now the Women were angry with the Preacher; he was an Orthodox Licenced Man: They separate from him. Quere, Whether they separated from the Catholic Church?  
Reader, I am tired with following this Writer, and Mr. Crosse's Sermon, makes me think of his Book. By that time all the wordy mistakes are pared off, the good matter is like his pared Banbury Cheese: And if you fish for them at a venture, it's great odds but you meet with some scurvy words or matter instead of them: Or if you light of that which is better, his Sense is so uncertain in undistinguished words, that you have but Mr. Crosse's wet Snig by the Tail.  
But not to seem more incredulous and indifferent from him than I am, I subscribe to his words to Mr. Humphrey, pag. 226. [Ignorance and Insensibility is as great a security to some Men against Shame, as Impudence is to others]. And to his words to Mr. Lob, pag. 388. [What a blessed thing is Ignorance, which helps Men to confute Books without Fear or Wit]. And I do acknowledge, That this ●r hath helped me more sensibly to understand St. Paul, 1 Tim. 3.6. [Not a Novice, lest being lifted up with Pride, he fall into the condemnation of the Devil.  
FINIS.   

UNNECESSARY SEPARATING, disowned; in the Reasons of the Authors Censured Practice.  
§ 1. WHEN I see, 1. How many suffer for refusing Communion with the Parish Churches. 2. And how many are offended with Me, and such others for Communicating with them; censuring Us as mistaking compliers with Sin: The Cause and some good People's request, invite me to answer these following Questions. I. Whether Men should be compelled to Communicate with any Church, by Corporal Penalties?  
II. Whether they who consent to Communicate with some Church, may choose their own Pastor and Company, or may by force be confined to their Parish Priest, and Church?  
III. For what Reasons I, and such others, Hear in, and Communicate with the Parish Churches? And whether so to do, be a Sin, or a Duty, or a thing Indifferent.  
§ 2. I. To the first case I answer, 1. It were happy, if the Sword could compel Unbelievers to Believe; but it cannot, nor is a way which Nature or Scripture ever allowed Man to use for such an end.  
2. To force an Unbeliever to Lie, by saying he Believeth, is a Sin.  
3. An Infidel must not be Baptised till he profess with seeming Seriousness, and Willingness that he Believeth in God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and will Vow and Devote himself to Him: Therefore to force the unwilling to be Baptised, is a Sacrilegious Profanation of Baptism.  
4. To be Baptised, is to be solemnly invested in a visible State of Regeneration, Pardon, Adoption, and Right to Christ and Life Eternal, by a Ministerial Delivery of such Right as in the Name of Christ. But no unwilling Person hath any Right to these unvaluable Gifts: Therefore no unwilling Person should be forced to receive the said Investiture.  
5. Christ's Trial and Description of the Willing, is, Whether they resolve to accept of his Grace, forsaking all worldly interest that stands against it: Luke 14.26, 27, to the end. Therefore to Baptise all that are forced to it by the Sword, and had rather be Baptised, and say they Believe, than lose all they have, and lie in Gaol, is to Preach another Gospel in part  
6. Persons Baptised in infancy, have no right to Communion in the Lord's Supper, till they profess their personal Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant: And the Unbaptized are not to be forced to Communicate: The Lord's Supper redelivering all the same great unvaluable Gifts to the Receivers which were delivered in Baptism; the Unwilling are no more capable of one, than the other. And to force them to say they are Willing, and to receive that which they have no right to, is Sacrilegious profaning Holy things.  
7. The ancient Churches for many hundred years, were so far from forcing any to Baptism or Church-Communion, or thinking that they should be forced, that they admitted none that did not earnestly desire it: And if the Baptised by Impenitency, or Apostasy, or ●long withdrawing from Communion, did show themselves again uncapable by unwillingness, they Declaratively cast them out.  
8. And that the Excommunicate, as such, should be laid up in Prison, and undone, to force them again to be Willing to be Christians, or to Communicate, hath the same Reasons against it, as against doing it at the first; and to take them for Willing and Capable of Absolution, and Salvation, who had rather say, they Repent and Consent, than lie in Gaol, is to pervert Christ's Gospel and Sacraments, and confound the Church: And the ancient Churches would have abhorred the motion of such a thing.  
9 But it is just and meet, that Princes make a difference between Christian and Infidel Subjects; and between those that live Willingly in Communion of the Church, and those that refuse it: And that a Christian Kingdom should give those Powers and Immunities to willing Christians, which they give not to Infidels, and the justly Excommunicate; especially in matters relating to Government, Legislative and Judiciary, and especially about Religion, and the Church. And if any to obtain such Immunities or Powers, do Hypocritically profess Christianity and consent, themselves only are guilty of the Profanation, no wrong means was used, and the Church is no searcher of the Heart.  
10. But Christianity being necessary to our Salvation; and it being the Christian Magistrates Duty to do his best for the Salvation of all his Subjects, and Knowledge being the means of Consent, and Teaching and Learning the means of Knowledge; it is the Duty of such Magistrates to provide sufficient Teachers for Number and Quality for all the Subjects; and to compel men to Hear, Con●er, and Learn, as Catechumen: The ancient Churches had their previous Instructions for such, who were yet dismissed before the Communion Exercises, proper to the faithful.  
§ 3. II. To the second case I Answer; 1. There is nothing in this World that Man can do without all inconveniencies, or which may not be turned to some occasion of Evil. On one side, 1. It is most desirable that all Kingdoms were wholly Christians, and the Princes be Defenders and Promoters of Religion, and the Church and Kingdom be materially the same; and the Civil Government used Holily, according to God's Laws, to holy ends. 2. And it is desirable accordingly, that the Kingdom being all Christian, be divided into fit parts for Christian Conversation and Communion, such as our Parishes are, and that all be of the Church who are of the Parish, and the Civil State sanctified, and the Ecclesiastic, grow up as Body and Soul into one. And that all in the Parish be of one mind, and of one Church; and that there be no just cause given for any to separate from the rest; nor any do it without cause. 3. And it is desirable that all these Parish-Churches in a Kingdom living under one civil Government, do by the means of Signior Pastors and Synods, hold such Correspondence as is necessary to their common Concord and Strength.  
These things being Desirable, it is no wonder if good Governors Endeavour them; and that ignorant men Plead for all such Concomitants, Subordinates' and Consequents, as do suppose them. When as in Fact the case being quite otherwise, to administer matters on a false supposition of the matter of Fact; as if that were, which is not; is but like the Men of Gothams striving and fight which way they should drive their Sheep, and where they should pasture them, when they had none.  
1. No Kingdom is so wholly Christian as not to have many (alas, how many!) uncapable of Church-Communion. 2. Yet it is a matter of order to be endeavoured, that the Country be divided into Parishes; and that they have an Ecclesiastic as well as a Civil Relation: That is, That each of these Parishes have a stated Teacher (or many) for the Catechumen, who are uncapable of Communion: And that the same Men be the Pastors of all in that Parish who consent; and have the Temples and Tithes by the Magistrate's Countenance and Consent: And this great advantage of Public Countenance and Maintenance, will no doubt prevail with the main Body of Christians in that Parish, if the men be desirable or tolerable, to choose them rather than others, to avoid discountenance, and the maintaining of others: As all in the Hospital will be for the established Physician, who dare trust him with their Lives.  
But if this should be carried further, to bind all persons to an absolute acceptance of such Parish Priests to be their only Pastors (under the Bishops) who are put upon them, the mischiefs would be intolerable.  
For 1. Then all must accept of Papists Priests only in France, Spain, Italy, Bavaria, Austria, &c and of bare Readers in Mu●covy. 2. Or else all Subjects are made Judges of the qualification of their Kings, whether they are Orthoodox enough to choose them Pastors, while they are not allowed to judge what Pastor to trust. 3. And then every ignorant, malignant, or profane Man, who by inheritance or purchase hath got Advowsons' or Presentations, hath got an advantage greatly to hinder the Salvation of all the Parish: And if Money may buy Souls for so much probability of Damnation, no wonder if the god of this World employ many rich Merchants to purchase Advowsons'. For how ordinarily God worketh according to the suitableness of means, Scripture and full Experience prove. If the Blind lead the Blind, both fall into the Ditch. 4. And this is quite contrary to the Ordination and bounty of our Lord, who gave men gifts for the Edification of his Church; and our Salvation, if we may not use the public Pastoral help of any, better than many Patrons will choose. I would fly from that Kingdom as from a Bondage where I may use no Physician, no Tutor, no Food, but what is chosen for me by any one that can purchase such a chusing-power. And my Soul is more to me than my Body, and less in the Power of Man. And it is not the talk of a Magisterial Ranter that shall persuade me to be indifferent what Teacher I use, as if God would work by all alike.  
§ 4. 2. On the other side, 1. It is of absolute necessity that every man consent before another man can do the work of a Pastor for his Soul: And God in Nature and Scripture hath ordained, that he who must be saved or damned according to the Ministers success, should be the chooser or refuser of that which so unspeakably concerneth him; and not have his salvation more in another's power than his own, if he be at Age, and in his Wits.  
2. And yet this may be run into Extremes; and these are not easily avoided. 1. Infants (that is, all short of an Understanding, choosing Age) and Idiots and Madmen, are half Brutes in act, and to be governed accordingly by force, so far as they are uncapable of Reason. But these are not capable of the Church-Communion of the Adult. Yea, not only Children, but all Subjects who are not Communicants, may be forced to hear and learn as Catechumen, as is said: And they must not pretend a power to choose their Teachers, to excuse them from all Learning: But if they say, that they can learn better of another than the Parish-Minister; if they are able, they may remove to another Parish: If not, they must give proof that they live as Learners under some Teacher who is capable to instruct them, approved or tolerated by Authority, where Rulers own the Truth.  
3. And if Communicants will be at the charge of maintaining a Pastor whom they can better trust their Souls with, than him whom the Patron chooseth for them, the Orthodox or tolerating Magistrate must see that he be not an Heretic, that doth more hurt than good; and must keep them under the Laws of Loyalty and Peace, and see that they sow not Sedition, and revile not others under pretence of worshipping God.  
4. And no men should, without necessity, lose the advantages of a public Ministry which the most consent to, and which hath the Magistrate's countenance and maintenance; because gathering singular Churches within Parish-bounds, seems some accusation of the Parish-Minister or Church; and such Churches are oft tempted to Envy and Censoriousness, and are usually envied and censured by others: And Unity is much of our strength and beauty. But in case of necessity it may be done.  
§ 5. In short: 1. A good Ruler choosing a worthy Teacher for the Parish, will thereby do much to draw all the sober to consent to him as their Pastor.  
2. Bad Rulers and Patrons choosing ignorant, unskilful, furious, malicious or scandalous Teachers, will drive those that love their souls, to choose better for themselves, whatever it cost them.  
3. Where the Ministry and Churches are so vitiated in public, that their Communion is unlawful, there God's worship must be kept up only in other voluntary Churches.  
4. Where public Ministers or Worship are not utterly intolerable, but greatly insufficient for the preservation of Religion and good of Souls, by Disability, or unsound Doctrine, or Vice; there the chief preservation of Religion must be in Voluntary Churches; but so, that the Parochial be no further disowned than there is cause.  
5. Where the public Ministry and Worship are sound, but impose some unnecessary doubtful things, as conditions of Communion, in justice they bind themselves thereby to allow Voluntary Churches to such as take these terms to be sin.  
6. When the Ministry, and Church-Worship, and State, are sound, and the conditions lawful, and weakness maketh conscionable Christians think otherwise, there private Churches must be tolerated, but as Hospitals for the sick, under the care of the Magistrate, keeping peace.  
The strife in England at this day, is chief about the choice of Pastors, in which good people will never be indifferent: And few that I have known, refuse audience and honour to able, godly, profitable Preachers that differ from them. We are not at all of different Rel●gions, though some say so, to the dishonour of the National Church, as if their Forms, their Cross and Surplice, and their New Oaths and Subscriptions, were their Religion, and so their Religion were Ceremony or Novelty.  
§ 6. III. As to the Third Case, [For what Reasons I, and such other join in Worship and Communion with Parish-Churches? And whether our practice be a sin or a duty, or a thing indifferent?] For answer, I. I shall show what I am not pleading for. II. What it is that I hold and plead for, or defend. III. What are the Reasons of my practice. iv Why it is that I now give out my Reasons.  
§ 7. I. For the First, 1. I am far from persuading any one to commit the least sin on pretence of Concord or Communion with any Church on earth. Their damnation is just, who say, Let us do evil that good may come. Sin may seem to serve us for a Job, but it will be bitter in the latter end.  
2. I would not have any to stretch their Consciences for Worldly Interest, to believe that Sin is no Sin, or that they may do it because it is a little one. It is no little one to him that does it wilfully for Worldly Ends.  
3. If an honest Christian mistake an indifferent thing to be a Sin, I would have him do his best to get a truer apprehension: But if he cannot, I would not have him do the thing: For he that can do that which he thinks a sin, though by mistake, can as easily commit a real sin: And it is a real sin to him: for St. Paul saith, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatever is not of faith, is sin.  
Qu. But is such a man a martyr, or rewardable, who suffereth for his error?  
Ans. He is rewardable as he suffereth for fearing to disobey God, and for that which is formally obedience, though materially it was a mistaken thing. If you had a Servant who mistook your command, but died in the performance of that mistake, you would commend his fidelity: And if another that mistook you, did what you bid him by that mistake, but treacherously for hire, crossed what he thought you meant, you would take him for a perfidious knave.  
Qu. But must a man then do all that he taketh to be a duty, or avoid all which he taketh for a sin?  
Ans. A culpable erring judgement entangleth a man in sin, whether he follow it or not: And there is no possibility of avoiding the sin, but by using God's helps till his judgement be set right. For Conscience is not the Maker of the Law, but the Discerner of it: And the Lawmaker changeth not his Law, because men change their thoughts of it. But while men are under a self-made necessity of sinning, the lesser sin and the greater may be distinguished, e. g. If you misjudg it unlawful to keep a Saints day holy, to eat Flesh on Fridays, to use a Cross as a sign of Christianity, it is a greater sin to do these, than to omit them: But if you judge it unlawful to pray, or hear God's Word, or worship him, or to feed yourself or children, your error is the aggravation, and no extenuation of the sin. And if you think it a duty to keep a Fast once a week, to wear a course garment, or to do any indifferent thing, it's a greater sin to omit them, than to do them: But if you take it to be a duty to lie, slander, steal, be drunk, murder, persecute, it aggravateth the sin, that both mind and practice are defiled with it.  
4. I persuade no one to own the Ministry of an uncapable Person; viz. one utterly Insufficient, Heretical, or Malignant, who doth more harm than good. The Conformists own this Rule, while they silence so many, and tell men, that those that have not Ordination by Diocesans, are not to be communicated with, or owned as Ministers. Both sides than confess, that uncapable persons are not to be owned.  
5. I persuade none to be indifferent in the matters which concern their souls, as whom they hear or choose to be their Pastor, nor in what manner they worship God, nor to prefer any person or mode, which (all things considered) is worse before better; nor to deny themselves the great help of a learned, skilful, godly, faithful Pastor, to teach them publicly, and counsel them privately, when they may have such, merely because it is forbidden them by men, and the Patron hath chosen them another, who hath no such qualifications.  
6. I am persuading none that are under the government of their Parents or Masters, to disobey them in the choice of the Pastor whom they shall ordinarily attend, as long as they persuade them to a safer choice than the Patron hath made for them.  
7. I persuade none by Profession or Subscription, to justify as true or good, the least untruth or evil in the Doctrine, or Worship, or Discipline of any Church, or in any extemporate performance of the Minister.  
8. I persuade no Minister to conform to the Act of Uniformity, and all the Canons.  
9 I persuade none to make light of any Church-corruptions, nor to forbear endeavouring by lawful means, in their place and calling, to reform them; much less to swear or promise it, were that any where required, or to renounce any Oath as not obliging them to any thing which God had made their duty.  
10. I persuade none to the sinful fear of man, or to abate Christian fortitude, constancy and patience in a good Cause, nor to be overtender of the Flesh, or make too great a matter of their suffering. Alas! what are Worms, that in the way to the Grave they should be feared more than God? Poverty and Prisons may be as safe and near a way to Heaven, as Wealth and Liberty. None of all these are the things that I am for.  
§ 8. II. That you may know the Reasons of my own practice, I shall next tell you, what it is that my judgement is for: which leads me to it.  
And 1. I think all persons are visible Christians who are Baptised, and profess their continued consent to the Baptismal Covenant, and are not proved to have renounced or forsaken it by Word or Deed.  
2. I think, that the Pastor is by Office made the Church-Judge, whether the persons Profession be understanding, serious, and credible, or not: and whether he be proved to forsake it. And if the man dissemble, or the Pastor judge falsely, it's their Sin and not mine, if I contribute not to it by omitting any Monitory duty of my own; nor is it lawful for me to usurp the Pastors judging power: Nor am I bound to know (my self) the Case and Lives of all in the Church that I join with; much less, where I occasionally or seldom come.  
3. I think, that a tolerable man, though unduly chosen, yet after received and consented to by the Parish Communicants, is a true Pastor, supposing his own Consent: And that he and they are a true Church.  
4. I hold that Christ commanded his Apostles to endeavour [to Disciple to him all Nations, and Baptise, and Teach them,] Mat. 28.19, 20. And that we should pray and endeavour that the Kingdoms of the World may become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ. And that all Christian Kings are bound to do their best, to make all their Subjects the Subjects of Christ, more than the Jewish Kings were bound to promote the jews Religion: And that Christian Kingdoms are much more honourable and desirable than Christian Churches in an Heathen Kingdom: And that the Civil State and Interest should be sanctified and made religious, and more than a Shell or Body to the Religious State, as the Kernel or the Soul: And so they should be as far coherent and commensurable, as can be procured: Yet not so as to corrupt the religious state on that pretence, by crookening it to any carnal interest. The Body formeth not the Soul, nor is it to be cut meet to the clothes, nor the Foot fitted to the Shooe. I entreat those that be not sensible of the great importance of National Christianity, to read a little Book, called, The whole Duty of Nations (written by a Conforming Minister, who is much more Honourable by his Extraordinary Worth, than his Great Estate and Birth), which will bear down descent by a stream of Evidence.  
5. In order to the promoting of this National Concord in Religion, I have still resolved to conform to all the National Laws and Orders about Religion, which corrupt it not, nor command any sinful thing.  
6. Tho I renounce all Foreign Jurisdiction, Monarchical or Aristocratical, and usurpation of an Universal Government over all the Christian World (which hath no civil or religious Universal Lawgiver or Judge but Christ, neither Monarch nor Senate being capable of it), yet I much more value the concord of the Universal Church, than of one Nation: And do more abhor doing any thing which is a sinful separation, or discord from the Church Universal: And I take the unchurching of the Universal Church to be a denying or deposing Christ.  
7. All Christians must be known to be Christ's Disciples by loving one another as themselves: And love judgeth no evil till constrained.  
8. Therefore I will separate from no Christian or Church without necessity, no further than they separate from Christ.  
9 I do not separate from a Church merely because I meet not with them: else I should separate from all the World, save the place where I am present: But I avoid these several degrees of sinful separation.  
1. Accounting true Churches and Ministers to be none such (as the Papists do by all that have not an uninterrupted succession of Diocesan Ordination).  
2. Accounting the Ministry, and Worship, and Government so bad, as makes Communion with the Church unlawful, if it be not so.  
3. Doing that needlessly which hath the scandalous appearing signification of such a judgement.  
10. I know many of the Parish-Ministers to be men of very laudable abilities and conversations, and to have the consent of the most of the Communicants of the Parish.  
11. I am past doubt, that so much of the Liturgy as is used every Lord's Day, as the common Worship, is so far sound as to the matter of it, that it hath no more material faultiness than is too often in extemporate Church-praying: And that the disorder and faultiness in the Manner, is no greater than is used also by many in free prayer, with whom we all think it lawful to join. And that prejudice maketh it seem to many much more faulty than it is: The greatest dislike is of the Responses by the People, and the shortness of the Prayers, both which were used in the Ancient Churches, when no sound Christians scrupled it, much less separated for it. Christ approved of the short Prayer of the Publican, [God be merciful to me a sinner]. Repetitions, and the People's Acclamations and Responses, were used in the jewish Church, as is evident in Ezra, and in many Psalms, etc. We all allow the People's speaking, even as much as the Minister in singing Psalms: And the Congregation would murmur if the People should be but Hearers while the Minister singeth alone. Of old their singing was like our saying, and not in Rhythms, like ours. Will any pretend to prove that it's lawful for the People to sing God's Praise, and not to say it? But they that dislike it, may be silent.  
As to the Objection, that it's unlawful to use imposed forms; I have answered it so fully in my Cu●e of Church-Divisions, and in my Christian Directory, that I will here say no more, but that, 1. Every Minister's Prayer is a Form to the People, and imposed on them to join in putting it up to God. 2. And that its lawful for a Child to use a Form imposed by Parents; therefore not simply evil. 3. And that we all allow imposed Forms of Catechising, and of singing Prayers and Praise to God: And that he that said, Speak to one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, never meant that they must not be premeditated. 4. And many men sin by needless impositions, when the use of the thing imposed is no sin, but a duty.  
And I am satitsfied, that the Number of the Christian Churches on Earth▪ which worship God without a Form, far worse than ours, is so small, as that the soundness of ours is almost singular. The supposed great 〈◊〉 in the By-Offices about Godfathers', Crossing, the form of Burial, and such other, the Hearers of the common Lords-day-Service have no business with. For my part, I profess I take the ordinary Liturgy so▪ ●he best part of the public Service in half the Churches in England; and had rather have it without the Sermon, than the Sermon without it, in those Churches.  
12. I therefore take it to be my duty, as a private Hearer, 1. When I am where there is a tolerable Minister, and no other Church but the Parochial, to join in Worship and Communion with them constantly. 2. As a Minister on whom the Conditions in the Laws are put, to refuse some of those Conditions. 3. As an Hearer where the Minister is utterly intolerable, to do nothing which seemeth an owning him as a Minister. 4. In a place where the Parochial Ministry is the best, but a private Minister and Church is peaceable and sound, I will go ordinarily to the Parish-Church, but sometime to the weaker, if my forbearance would seem a disowning of their Communion; yea, though it were to one that is against Infant-Baptism by mistake. 5. In a place where the privater Minister and Worship is most spiritual, powerful and profitable, I would go ordinarily thither, if I may: But sometimes to a tolerable Parish-Minister and Communion, in case my not going seem to signify that I separate from their Communion, as utterly unlawful. And if I be a Preacher in a privater Church, I will sometimes get another to supply my place, and go to the Parish-Church, if else my forbearance would seem to signify that I judge it unlawful. 6. I therefore take the same thing here to be lawful to one, and a fault in another, and a duty to another. Those that have far better Helps and Communion (all things considered), should not ordinarily prefer worse: And when the case differs not much, the Will of a Parent, an Husband, a Master or a Magistrate, should sway much: And where it is a duty to noted persons to go to the Parish-Church sometime, because else it will signify that they think it unlawful, an hundred Children, Servants, Wives, poor people, who are not noted or missed, and their absence is no scandal, are not bound to go at all, while they have much better Helps and Communion elsewhere.  
Having told you my Judgement, of which in my Two forementioned Books I have given a fuller account: I shall next add the reason of my Practice, both to satisfy those that censure me, and those that crave my help for their information; but not making myself a Judge of them that differ.  

The Reasons of my Practice in Parochial-Communion.  
§ 4. III. But here I am in the same straight as when I gave an account of my Nonconformity: When upon many years' urgency I did but tell men what the sins were which I thought I should commit if I conformed, some said, that I made the Conformists a Faction of unconscionable perjured Villains: And if I now tell the Reasons why I join in the Parish-Churches, some will say, that these Reasons accuse them that do not, of the guilt of Schism and sinful suffering. But he that will perform no duty which none will be offended at, shall scarce do any in the World. My Reasons then are these:  
I. I do it much for my own Edification: And who can prove my Edification unlawful? There is so sound judicious preaching in my Parish-Church where I now go, that I take it to be my considerable loss when sickness keepeth me away. And who can bind me to my loss? If a stranger give now and then a peevish ignorant flirt at such as differ from him (as those called Arminians, and some others use to do), I am not so thin-skined as thereby to smart; nor so foolish as to raise a stir by talking against it, which by taking no notice, will go out like a Squib, which the City-Engines need not be fetched to quench. Ignorant Preachers must have some forbearance in their Self-conceitedness and petulant Temerity, of what Sect or Faction soever they be, Conformists or Nonconformists.  
II. I do it much to go as far in National Concord in Religion, as possibly I can, and for the avoiding all that makes against it. The foresaid Book, [The whole Duty of Nations] will convince any impartial capable Reader, of what great Duty and Advantage National Countenance and Concord is to the interest of Religion. And though it bring in multitudes of Hypocrites, God makes some use for the Church of such: I would ask the Dissenters but two Questions; 1. Would you not wish the prosperity of the Church yourselves; and that all Power and Laws promoted Godliness and true Reformation? No doubt you wish it: And would not that bring in multitudes of Hypocrites? They are like Vermin and Flies, who swarm most in the warmest Seasons.  
2. If all the Hypocrites in the World should renounce Christianity, and leave none to profess it but the sincere, would not those few be left as a wonder, and a prey? O what a blow would it be to Religion in the World! Will you root out not only the Tares, but the Straw and Chaff, on pretence to save the Corn?  
III. I do it to keep up Brotherly Love amongst us, which certainly censorious accusations of one another doth destroy: When you fly from them, you seem to accuse them as men uncapable of your Christian Communion; and this seemeth hatred or contempt. And as sure as Fire causeth Fire, and Water quencheth it; Love causeth Love, and Hatred destroyeth it, and causeth hatred. And Christian Love is no small Duty.  
iv I do it very much to avoid the scandal of seeming to judge Parish Communion an unlawful thing, and seeming to separate from them on that account. That they err who judge it so unlawful, I am satisfied: And that scandal is a great Sin, the second Commandment, and Christ's dreadful threatening of the scandalous, and Paul's abhorrence of it, satisfies me. The second Commandment forbids Corporal Scandalous seeming to be Idolaters (what ever the Heart be:) And I must not seem to unchurch ot sinfully censure, what ever be in my Thoughts. I know it is no such Scandal, that I go not here to the Greek Church, to the French Church, or the Dutch Church. For no man hath any reason to interpret it to signify, that I separate from their Communion as unlawful: But there is great reason to interpret my total avoiding the Parish Churches, to signify that I judge it unlawful to Communicate with them, as is evident in these Particulars.  
1. There are divers Nonconforming Separatists, who have lately written to prove it unlawful.  
2. Multitudes suffer much upon the public accusations because they will not Communicate with them; who tell the people, that they take it to be Sin.  
3. I, and Others, are censured by such, as Sinners for doing it.  
4. Parochial Churches, are the settled National order.  
5. The Laws command our joining with them.  
6. The Magistrates accuse and prosecute the refusers.  
7. The Parish Ministers are offended at our refusal, and accuse it as sinful separation, and so interpret it.  
All this set together, maketh, it passed all denial, that after all this, to avoid all Parish Communion, is by our Actions to say, that we judge it unlawful, whatever is in our Hearts: Had we all these calls to go sometimes to the French and Dutch Church (supposing that we understood them) and would not go, it were a scandalous signification, that we judge it sinful. And one may Lie by Deeds as well as by Words.  
V I take it to be a great Sin to bear false Witness against my Neighbour, and wrongfully accuse a single person: But much greater so to accuse a Church, and much more nine thousand Churches: But to say by my action that their worship of God is so sinful, that it is unlawful to join with them; is, as I think, so to accuse them. I dare not say so of an Anabaptists Church.  
VI I much more dread to separate from almost all Christ's Church on Earth. For if Christ have no Church, he is no Head, King, or Saviour of it. And to say, that he accepteth not of their Worship, is to say, that he presenteth it not to God, as their intercessor. The Article of our Believing the Holy Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints, is a practical Article. If there be no such Body, I can be no Member of it. And this seemeth a renouncing of my part in the Prayers of almost all the Church, when I take them to be intolerably sinful, and not accepted by God: Whereas I take it to be my great Duty, to put up no one Prayer to God, but in mental Communion with all the Church on Earth: that is, As a Member of that Society. And I would not take all the Riches of the World for my part in the Love, Prayers and Communion of the universal Church. If I cut off myself from the Body, I cut off myself from the Head, and am a withered Branch: to be united and baptised into Christ, and to the Church, are two effects of one action; and so would it be to separate.  
And I take it for such a Crime against Christ to say, that almost all his Church is not His, but Satan's; as it would be against the King to say, that almost all his Kingdoms are none of his but his Enemies. I may say, that the Irish, the Highlanders, or Orcadeses, are the most ignorant barbarous part of his Dominions; but not that they are none. And a slander of almost all the Christian World, is a very great one.  
But to separate from our Parish Churches upon a Cause that is Common to almost all the Christian World, is Virtually and Interpretatively to separate from almost all. And to separate because of the faultiness of the Liturgy, the Ministry (in many) or the people, is to separate on a cause common to almost all.  
1. The recorded Liturgies of the several Sects of Christians in the World (in the Biblioth. Patrum, and elsewhere) show it evidently, that they are all far faultier than ours. All the Abassines, Coptics, jacobites, Nestorians, Melchites, Maronites, the Armenians, Georgians, Circassians, Meugrelians, the Greeks, and Muscovites, have Liturgies far worse than ours: Let them that doubt of it, go to the Greek-Church in Sohoe-Fields. The Nestorian Liturgy is one of the soundest and best that I find recorded (which intimateth that they are not so bad as some make them.) The Papists Mass, I think we are agreed is far worse. And the Lutheran Protestant's Images, Ceremonies, Consubstantiation, show that theirs is no better than ours.  
2. And that their Ministers and People in all these Sects are worse than our Parishes, alas we must confess with grief.  
Qu. But would you Communicate with all these?  
Ans. I separate from none of them further than they separate from Christ. I mentally separate from the Sin that is in their Worship, and as far as I can in my own: And I locally separate from the Papists, and all such as e●ther impose on me any Sin as the Condition, or that so corrupt their worship as to destroy it, and make it such as Christ accepteth not. And I prefer not worse before better in any. But further I separate not.  
VII. I am afraid of tempting men to Infidelity and Apostasy from Christ. I know his Flock is little. But if you persuade men, that there are none on Earth whom he owneth as his Church, or accepteth their Worship, or that may be joined with, who are as faulty as our Parish-Churches; it will reduce them all to so small a Compass, as being next to none; people will easily go one step further, and deny all. To say, that the King was only King of Windsor, or Brentford, would be but a little from saying, that he is no King. Men will hardly believe, that really the Son of God did all the Wonders mentioned in the Gospel, to gather an accepted Church no bigger than the few that are better than all that Worship him according to our Liturgy. I doubt this is laying a stumbling block.  
VIII. I take myself bound to disown that principle of many, who think their presence maketh them guilty of all that is faulty in the public Worship and Ministration: For this dissolveth all Worshipping Churches on Earth without exception. We are sure there is none that offer God a blameless Service. We must then join with none at all: Specially with those who Worship without a Liturgick Form: For we never know beforehand, but that they may say somewhat that is amiss. But in general we foreknow, that imperfect men will do all things imperfectly and faultily. And by this we must give over Praying or Worshipping in private also, being all sure to do it with sinful imperfections. But to omit it will be greater Sin.  
IX. I am afraid of deceiving the Servants of Christ, and tempting them into Error, and into disaffection toward their Brethren, by making them believe, that it is unlawful to Hear, or Communicate in the Parish-Churches. If we constantly refuse such Communion when we are called to it so importunately, the people can think no less, than that we judge it to be a Sin. And so we shall be the Authors of their Error; I find already that it is so: Though many Ministers who go not to the Parish-Churches tell them, [We take it not for a thing unlawful, but are kept away ourselves by our constant preaching, as the Conformists are kept from hearing one another:] Yet this is not understood by many, but by their constant avoiding it, they judge them to think otherwise: And it is my Office to save them from Error and Deceit, and not to deceive them.  
X. I find it necessary by practice, as well as by words, to confute those who would make the World believe, that the Non-Conformists affright men from the Parish-Churches, by making them believe that to be there is sinful; lest they should lose them from their dependence on themselves: Farneze be it from us to have any such design as to keep up any interest of our own, against the interest of the Church, and of men's Souls, and by Selfishness and Deceit to draw the people into Error and Uncharitableness: It's Christ and not ourselves that we Preach.  
XI. I am not willing to be guilty of the people's suffering as Recusants. I would encourage them to patiented suffering for their Duty; but not draw them into a sinful Omission of Duty to their penal suffering. I said before, that a Man may be accepted of God for a Well-meant Action, when the Matter of it is culpable by mistake. But I that dare not Cheat or Rob men of their Money, or entice them unjustly into suretyship; dare not use the name of God and Religion knowingly, to entice many hundred honest Christians to suffer for the Omission of a Duty to God and Man.  
XII. I am resolved, that I will not wilfully be guilty of hardening any in Persecution, or in sinful afflicting conscionable Christians on pretence of Laws, or Concord. And I am sure, that when they see that sufferers are deceived, and suffer for omitting a public Duty; it is the likest way in the World, to quiet their Consciences, who afflict them, when they can say, We punish them for their faults; they that understand not the difference of faults, are like to justify themselves as doing well. Yea, if any shall persecute Godly Men for doing their Duty, or refusing to Sin; if they find them guilty but of one Fault or Error, it will make them think, that the rest is like it; and that shall serve to justify their persecuting Truth and Duty. And if it be so terrible to cause the stumbling of one little one, shall we cause the stumbling of any into so damning a Sin as Persecution?  
Obj. You are like to encourage men to persecution, when by your practice you intimate, that it is their duty to come to the Parish-Church, and so that they suffer for their sin.  
Ans. 1. I have showed, that the same thing may be one man's duty which is not another's: It is a Frenchman's duty here to go to the French-Church, but it is not mine.  
2. What will you make of the Magistrates then? Do you think, that they take any Subject to be without Sin? Or, that they are so inhuman and worse than Heathens, as to think, that all that have any Sin, should be silenced, or forbidden to Worship God, or punished if they forbear not? It's a Sin to sleep at Church, or to give nothing, or too little there at Collections for the Poor; and an hundred such. And are they so severe as to send Men to Gaol, or fine them for it? They make profane Swearers pay but twelve pence an Oath (if any thing) and few suffer for wishing God to Damn them, or for being drunk, even at the time of Worship: And do you think, they will be so palpably partial, as to ruin honest Christians for praying without book?  
3. And do you consider, what your Objection implieth? Must I forbear that which my Conscience calleth my Duty, if another suffer for accounting it a Sin? What if some take baptising Infants, or sanctifying the Lords day rather than the seventh, etc. for a Sin, must I forbear these, lest I occasion their suffering?  
4. I have tried these twenty years, and though I went to the Parish-Church, none ever suffered the more by it: Yea, I have suffered more than most here, that were of the other mind. This therefore is but a Fiction.  
5. Did Mr. Tombs forbear Writing for Parish-Communion, lest his party the Anabaptists suffer? Or did Mr. Philip Nye forbear writing for Hearing the Parish Ministers, lest the refusers suffer? Or did they not both write for the Oath of Supremacy, though many Scots suffered for refusing it? Yea, and therefore wrote all this that their followers might not suffer by mistake?  
XIII. I know that the main Cause of Church-Divisions, is seeking a Union on false and sinful terms: And I know that the opinion, That Parish-Communion is unlawful, is an Error; and therefore unfit to be the Condition of our Union: And I see many would make it such a Condition. And false terms of Concord, are the great and certain means of Discord; for the wisest Christians will refuse them: And some Impose them by Doctrine and Censures, as others do by Laws and Sword. And I will not countenance dividing terms.  
Obj. That is the chief fault of your Doctrine and Practice, That it will cause Divisions among us; when some will do as you do, and others cannot; and so our Congr●gations are divided.  
Ans. 1. Can I cause that which is caused already? is not so much Division known still to be among us?  
2. As I said, Do not some write against the Lawfulness of Parish-Communion? And some against Infant Baptism, and the Lords Day? And do not they divide by Writing against them? And did Mr. Tombs and Mr. Nye forbear, as aforesaid, for fear of Division? If we are already divided in Judgement and Practice, sure giving each other an account of our reasons, is rather the way to heal us.  
3. But I confess this Objection seemeth so sad and ugly to me, that it h●th no small hand in urging me to what they object against. Alas, what are such come to? They that separate because of the Liturgy, Ministry, or People, do virtually separate, as I said, from almost all the church on Earth. For it is on a cause common to almost all. Yea, not only all the Churches in the Eastern, Southern and Northern parts, and all in the West, save themselves, have Liturgies, or separate not from them. But even of the Non-conformists in England, those that of old, or of late have pleaded their Cause have taken the Liturgy for no sufficient cause of separation: Nay, even the old Separatists, called Brownists, denied not the lawfulness of forms of Prayer, nor refused to join with the Parish-Churches in our Liturgy sometimes; only they thought, that when Crossing, or such Ceremonies were used, they were bound to disown them. And shall men that separate from the Communion of almost all the Churches on Earth as unlawful, pretend that their way is the way of Unity; and that the contrary doth divide? Is our shunning Division from the Christian World, a dividing Practice? In Holland, Mr. Smith thought no man capable of Baptising him, and so Baptised himself; and some others have done so since, thinking none fit for Communion, but the few that are their Flocks. Yet these that divided from all the World, cried down Dividing from themselves. But were all dividers, that were against them? This is the saddest of all Objections.  
XIV. Yea, I am loath to do that which condemneth groundlessly the Reformers, the Martyrs, the Godly Conformists, the old Non-Conformists, the later, and the Brownists themselves, as being all for unlawful Communion.  
1. If it be simply unlawful to have Communion in the Liturgy and Parish-Churches, than it was unlawful to have Communicated in their way of Worship, with Luther, Zuinglius, Melanchton, Bucer, Pet. Martyr, and the like Reformers: And also with the English Martyrs in Queen Mar●●s days, or in King Edward 6. And also with such Holy and Excellent Conformists, as Grindall, Pilkington, Downame, B●●ton, Sibbs, Preston, 〈◊〉, and abundance more such.  
2. And it's well known, that the old Non-Conformists wrote and practised against the Brownists in this case. The Books of Hildersham; Brightman, Bradshaw, Ball, Paget, Gifford, etc. are yet visible. Mr. Hildersham in his Lectures chides them that will not come to the beginning of the Common-Prayer. The old Non-Conformists begin the reasons of their Nonconformity in refusing Subscription, in these Words, [We protest before Almighty God, that we acknowledge the Churches of England, as they be established by public Authority, to be 〈◊〉 visible Churches of Christ▪ That we desire the continuance of our Ministry to them above all Earthly things; as that without which our Lives will he bitter and wearisome to us; That we dislike not a set-form of Prayer to be used in the Churches: And finally, that whatsoever followeth here, is not set down of any evil Mind, or of purpose to deprave the Books of Common-Prayer, Ordination, or ●●milies; but only to show some reasons why we cannot subscribe to all things in the same contained.  
3. I before told you, Mr. Tombs the Anabaptist hath written at large for the Lawfulness of Parish-Church Communion: And Mr. Nye for hearing the Parish-Ministers.  
4. The late Non-conformists that treated with the Bishops in 1660, and 1667. have left their Judgements fully on Record, many of them being yet alive.  
5. The old Separating Brownists have these Words; [Confession and Protestation of Faith: Touching the true visible Political Churches which we acknowledge are in England; we profess and declare,— that each company of true visible Christians associated together in one place, viz. a Parish, and Professing to serve God according to his Will, in Faith, and Order, so far as they know (such as there are many in England) the same is a true visible political Church in some respects. And therefore we communicate also with them on occasion— while in such communicating we countenance no evil thing in them, which in many places, and many times we need not do.]— Lastly, it being no evil, nor any appearance of evil in us, to join to the Parish Congregation and Ministry in such respect, and so far forth only as aforesaid; we ought (as we believe) sometimes on weighty occasion so to join; and we sin if we do not: Luke 17.32. Heb. 10.25. 1 Cor. 10.32.— We believe concerning Prayer, That though every form of prayer prescribed by Men, be not absolutely and simply a Sin, neither (as we judge) are Idols, nor an Invention of Man, nor a trangression of the second Commandment; yet a prescribed Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer by Commandment, forced on a whole Church rightly constituted, to be used still in the same Words, whenever they assemble (in comparison of other praying) is not so profitable and— we judge that it is best and most agreeable to the last Apostolic practice, that even where many Pastors in one Church are, yet that One have, during Life, a precedency and priority in order and place (not in power) before the rest.]  
I will not be more for separation than the Separatists themselves.  
XV. If joining with the Parish Ministry be simply unlawful, most, or almost all England comparatively, must cease all public Worship of God. The Nonconformists were but about two thousand, 1662. Most of them, I think, by this time are Dead, and not so many sprung up in their stead▪ Those that are remaining, for the most part are either in a few places quieter than the rest, or hindered from any numerous Assemblies. In 1636. I do not think there were many more than we have Counties, and those few in Privileged Chapels. And shall all the rest, even of the Religious people of the Land, give over Worshipping God in public? I think not.  
XVI. Those that blame me, do more than justify me: They scruple not communicating with those who hear Common-Prayer, and receive the Sacrament in the Parish Churches, in order to be Aldermen, Sheriffs, Common Councilmen, jurors, etc. nor pass any public Censure on them. Yea, they communicate with such as take the Corporation Declaration, and Oath. And the said Declaration is a Profession, that [I do hold that there lies no Obligation on me, or any other person, from the Oath commonly called the solemn League and Covenant.] Here the Person justifieth all the Persons wh●m he never knew, in three Kingdoms, from being obliged by an Oath and Vow against Popery, Schism and Profaneness, and to repent of Sin, and to defend the King. This which constituteth all our Cities and Corporations in England, is a little more than that which constituteth our authorized Ministry and Vestries, which is but that [there is no Obligation to endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church,] etc. even of Lay-Chancellors governing by the Church Keys.) Therefore they that pretend that they cannot join with the Ministry, because they think they enter by Perjury, confute themselves, while they scruple not Communion with them that do more than the Ministry or the Vestry do. And if any shall pretend, that it is unlawful to join with them, because of the Common-Prayer, and at the same time freely join with them that take the Corporation Declaration; I do not blame them for the latter, but I must say, that they strain so partially at a gnat, as maketh me set a great deal the less by the Objections of such men. If I were never so sure that the Church and Corporations were all thus Perjured, I would greatly lament it; but it being done in ignorance (though by men that should know) and by men that have not heard what is said against it; I would not separate from such a guilty Kingdom, no more than the faithful did for some great common Jewish corruptions. I will keep my own Soul as clear as I can: And I confess that I was ever of the mind of those Judges in Scotland, that say, that if Oaths may be taken in a Sense of our own, contrary to the usual Sense of the words; unless the Lawmakers give another, the Government will have no security by Oaths. But when I think of several Universals, ●such as [no Obligation] [not endeavour any Alteration.] [Assent and Consent to all things contained in, and prescribed by] [on any pretence whatsoever, as against any Commissioned,] etc. And when I remember that to this day, I never heard a Conformist own his taking these Universals, without Limitation, universally; but in a particular Sense, and with more Limitations than the Earl of Argyle did; it doth not so much glad me, that I never took them, as it grieveth me for the English Clergy, who take these with such Limitations, that it falls out so unhappily, that less should be Death in Scotland, than they thought had been no Sin, but a Duty in England. But if the slur change not their Judgements, I hope it will make them pardon us, who were neither willing of the stretching Exposition or Punishment.  
I dare not think that that Parliament were such men as would rather have silenced the whole Ministry, and shut up all the Churches, than have spoken a limited Sense in limited Words, or have expounded their Universals, if they meant not universally, if the Body of the Clergy had but let them know that it was needful: But their Obedience was such, as told the World that Alterations and Explications were to them unnecessary.  
XVII. I would not drive the Comformists from us, by departing too far from them! By such reasons as you plead for separating from them, you will teach them to justify separating from us: Tho our faults be not the same, we are all faulty: And so we shall run away from each others, to the increase of our too great distance. Yea, experience of the contrary course encourageth me: In both the places where my Ministry was first exercised, is an honest Conformist, and a Nonconformist, (since the writing of this, one is dead, and the other expelled,) who live in as great Love and Peace, as if there were little difference between them; the Nonconformists hearing and loving the public Minister. If you think not this better than Church-wars, I do: And I am sure Religion there prospereth much more, than it would do by mutual avoidance.  
XVIII. And truly, I am so tender of the honour of the Nonconformists, that I will do my part to keep them from reproach: And as I said before, too many are apt to judge of all their cause, by any one weakness or mistake. It was the reason why, in 1660. and 1661. when we attempted a Concord with the Bishops in vain, we never said a word against a Form of Prayer, n●r the most of the Liturgy, nor holidays, nor Kneeling at the Sacrament, (but only against Excommunicating the faithful that scruple it) nor the Surplice, nor the Ring in Marriage, nor laying the Hand o● a Book in Swearing, and other such; because, at least, much may be said for them; and if we laid our stress on doubtful things, many would think the rest were no other. And if we should be so weak as for the Liturgy, etc. to avoid all Communion with the Parish Churches as unlawful, we might flatter one another, as all Sects do, but standers by would hence judge of all the rest, and deride or pity us, as scruplous fanatics, that judge not by evidence, but by prejdice and self conceit.  
XIX. When great sufferings come upon men, partiality and prejudice usually yieldeth so much to necessity, as maketh them willing to take nothing for sin which is not sin; and then they will yield; and their change will turn to their reproach, as if it were merely in worldly temporising: Therefore I will at first do what is lawful.  
XX. Tho I think the Covenant bindeth me to nothing but what God bond me to before▪ yet to that I think it doth, as a secondary bond, by my voluntary self obligation. And it binds me against Profaneness and Schism, and all that 〈◊〉 against 〈…〉 Doctrine and Godliness. And I cannot see but it were some degree of 〈◊〉, yea, and furthering profaneness, if I took all the Parish-Communion for unlawful, and would have all England that have no Nonconformists, nor can have, to forsake the Parochial, and so all Church-worship.  
XXI. I fear the guilt of Unthankfulness to God, who hath given England yet a sounder Doctrine, Worship and Churches, than most of the world.  
XXII. I am not willing of that way which would injure, if not destroy the National Christianity and Reformation; and further, if not bring in, Infidelity or Popery. That Religion hath the advantage for extension to Numbers, which hath the countenance of the King and Laws, and the possession of the Parish maintenance and Temples. To how sad a state did all the Eastern Churches dwindle, when they fell under the Turks? How doth mere tolerated Religion thrive in France, or any other Land where the Laws and Rulers are against it? If we lose all the Parish-Churches, some other will have them. If Protestants have them not, Papists will: And the Parochial Religion will be the National and common Religion: The most will go thither, and attend those Ministers who have the public Authority and Maintenance: Therefore it is most evident, that they who would keep up the Protestant Religion, must do their best to keep it up in the Parish-Churches: And they that would corrupt and undermine it there, or drive or draw it thence into mere private tolerated Churches, would drive it out of the Land as National and Extensive, and let in Popery to be the National Religion: And I doubt not the Papists will be the most zealous potent helpers of all them among us who cry down a Comprehension; that is, the removing of the things which we account sinful, that we may live in concord (which it makes me shrug to think that ever a religious Protestant should be against, who himself counts that sin which we would have removed: As if they said, Reform none of your public sins, unless you will reform as much as we judge sinful, l●st—)  
And doubtless it pleaseth the Papists, that (as some Scots refused the Oath of Supremacy as well as they, so) so many refuse the Parish-Churches, and suffer as Recusants as well as they. I say as Mr. Hunt, There is no happiness for England but by an excellent Clergy, and an high (a just) esteem of them: And excellency will cause esteem.  
XXIII. There be some honest moderate men of interest (if not of power) who would endeavour our restauration and peace, which they know must be principally by concord, if they could see that the terms were possible. But while some make them think that nothing will serve us but the casting out of all the Liturgy and Church-Government, they turn their thoughts from it as an impossible thing: But the perusal of the Treaty, 1669. and the Kings Declaration, 1660. and our Agreement by the Lord Keeper Bridgeman's means, might have better informed them: And I will not contribute to their error.  
XXIV. But I have reserved my greatest Motive to Parochial Communion to the last I dare not condemn Jesus Christ and his Apostles, who communicated with far more vitiated Societies: Christ preached daily in the Temple: He there offered according to the Law, and sent Lepers cleansed to the Priests to offer, though the Priesthood was more corrupt and degenerated than ours. The High Priest that should have been of Aaron's line, was any one that could buy it with money or favour of the Heathen Romans (And some think there were two at once). The Pharisees had corrupted sacred Doctrine and Worship, and the Sadduces were far worse than the Mahometans; yet Christ did ordinarily join in the Synagogues: and had he not joined in their Liturgy, as the rest, he would have been noted for a Disturber, and the Rulers would not have called him to preach, as they did others: See Luke 4.16. and 6.6. john 5.59. and 18.20. Matth. 12.9. and 13.54. Mark 1.21▪ 31. and 6.2. We find Christ bidding men, Take heed of the leven of the Pharisees, but yet to hear them (delivering the Law) in Moses chair. They accused him for not separating more from Publicans and Sinners, but not for separating from the Temple or Synagogues: He told his Disciples, that men should cast them out of the Synagogues, but never bid them departed themselves.  
And I find Peter, Acts 10. scrupling Communion with the Gentiles, till God rebuked him; and c. 11. the jewish Christians offended at it, till convinced; and Gal. 2. Paul reproving him to his face for withdrawing from the Gentiles, lest he should offend the jews.  
And Paul would not himself have conformed so far as to circumcise T●mothy, and to shave his head for his Vow, and purify himself in the Temple, had it been unlawful. It was done by the same Votes (james, and the rest at jerusalem) who made the Decrees, Acts 15. And if you say, Paul, and all these, did unlawfully, you will shake our foundation. He professed to become a jew to the jews, and all things to all men, to save some. This moveth me above all.   

§ 10. But it is objected, 1. That it is in vain to come so near the Prelates, For nothing will satisfy them, or procure us the least abatement of their cruelty, unless you will do all that is imposed.  
Ans. 1. It is not to satisfy such as you describe, that I do what I do: It is to satisfy my own Conscience in obeying God.  
2. If but any one of all the forementioned Reasons hold good, it is not in vain, though it satisfy not the implacable. Do you think I go to worship God only to satisfy men? I daily receive that benefit to myself, which assureth me that it is not in vain.  
Obj. 2. You that come so near them, please them no better, and you have suffered with the first.  
Ans. 1. Had I done it to escape suffering, I would have done that which I suffered for not doing, and not done that which I suffered for. But all that I have ever suffered from men, is but a Flea-biting to that which I suffer from the Diseases of my own Soul and Body: and yet I can love and forgive myself.  
2. If I suffer for the acts of Piety, Love and Peace, it is for righteousness: And then Christ hath commanded me exceedingly to rejoice, Mat. 5.10, 11. But if I suffer for sinful censoriousness and division, what will be my comfort?  
3. I doubt not but I much more displease the Papists by my course of Communion, than they do, who by unjustfiable Opinions, do make their cause indefensible, and expose themselves to their triumph.  
Obj. 3. You grieve many good people of the contrary mind.  
Ans. No doubt of it: So I have done most good people whose mistakes I ever sought to cure (about Antinomianism, Baptism, and the rest). But I please those good people who think as I do.  
2. Compare these Two sorts together: How vast a number do the contrary minded censure? They think all our late Parliaments to sin in their Communion, even these last which they most praise: Mr. Hunt challengeth their Accusers to name any Number of them all that conform not: I have not heard of Three (if of any One) that is liable to the charge of Recusancy, and hath not communicated in the Parish-Churches.  
They accuse also all the Common-Council, since changed; and in a word, almost all the Christian World: And yet we can easily forgive them, and forbear them: And if they cannot bear with us, if we obey our Consciences, and give them the Reason of it; yea, if we had told them why we judge them to be mistaken, and to sin, they will show so much partiality and self-esteem, and so much impatient tenderness of themselves, as will too much harden their Accusers.  
Obj. 4. Many Learned good men do differ from you.  
Ans. I think a thousand to one through the World differ from them.  
Obj. 5. It will save none from suffering, there being so many other Laws against them.  
Ans. It is my duty to save men from mistakes and sinful censure and suffering for mistakes: and so it may save me from the guilt of Omission.  
Obj. 6. It is but Man's Law which you suppose maketh it a duty.  
Ans. 1. I make not light of the Laws of men about lawful things: But your supposition is not true: Were there no Law for it but God's, it is my duty.  
Obj. 7. Some body will answer you, and so it will cause strife.  
Ans. Do, or must all men forbear giving a Reason of their Judgement and Practice to those that think them sinful? yea, or to confute the mistakes of others, for fear of being censured? Will you censure us, and must not hear our Reasons? Are you so much worse than Lawyers, that can plead without breach of Charity? May not friendly debates beat out the truth to our mutual edification? No truths are so clear to us, before they are controverted, usually, as after. Reproach not the Nonconformists, as if they could not bear contradiction.  
Obj. 8. Your Cure of Church-Divisions did increase Divisions.  
Ans. The Disease than is very far gone, if the Remedy increase it: But I have cause to believe that it healed many. But I confess, as the Books by which I drew off many Anabaptists, did increase Division from their Party, by ceasing the Divisions from the Church; so it may be here.  
Obj. 9 But if men believe it lawful to go to the Parish-Churches, they will come to your Assemblies no more.  
Ans. 1. Experience confuteth this: I think most who hear me, do think it lawful, and oft go thither. 2. I have oft told them publicly, That I desire none of them to hear me, who do not need my help: If they have room, and sufficient helps in the Parish-Churches, I had rather they would not take up, with us, the room which others should have who truly need our help. If nothing bring them to me, but an Opinion, that its sin to join with the Common-Prayer, I will do my best to drive them from me. But if any cannot have room elsewhere, or cannot overcome the foresaid mistake (of the sin of hearing the Parish-minister), I will give them the best help I can: And if any live where public hearing is but lawful, and they truly need more suitable help, the bare lawfulness of hearing elsewhere, will never keep away those persons who feel their need of better, and the benefit, no more than it will make them forsake better Clothing, good Physic, or Estate, because a worse is sometime lawful.  
Obj. 10. But why do not you conform, if you can communicate with them?  
Ans. 1. Why cannot I be carnal, contentious, drink too much at the Sacrament, if I could have communicated with the Church of Corinth that had such? Why did not Christ commit the Synagogue-sins, if he could communicate in the Synagogues? The persons who put this question, disgrace themselves by judging of things which they understand not. If they know not what more is in Minister's Conformity, than in joining as private persons in the Parish-Worship, let them read my first Plea for Peace, and they may know.  
I will joyfully conform, I. If they will impose on us no sinful Oaths, Covenants, Promises, Subscriptions, Declarations or Practices.  
II. I would rejoice in the Reformation, if while some essentiate a Church by a Bishop, they would restore the Parishes to be Churches, which they make but Parts of the lowest Churches, as Chapels are, and make the Parish-Ministers Pastors again, whom they have degraded to be but Half-Pastors, or Curates to the lowest Pastors.  
III. I would hope, that we might yet escape back-sliding into Popery, if that part of the Clergy never govern the Ship, who are not content with a National Government, but make it our necessary duty, as against Schism, that all come under a Foreign jurisdiction: And if the true Protestant Clergy will join in the renunciation of that Jurisdiction (but not of Communion with Foreign Churches).   

§ 11. IU. Why I publish my Reasons at this time.  
Ans. 1. Because I think I have an urgent cause to endeavour to save some from the guilt of Persecution: And if I note the mistakes of One side only, I shall be justly charged with partiality.  
2. Because men's censure of my practice, as sinful, doth continue: And I own them an account of the Reasons of it.  
3. Dr. Stillingfleet, and such others, would make the World believe, that we defend that Separation which by word and practice we have long opposed: And we own fuller satisfaction to them, and to such as they misinform.  
4. I am much obliged to rectify men's mistake of the Reason, why many Nonconforming Ministers here come not to the Parish Churches: Many were agreed to come, when the Oxford Act of Confinement coming out, prevented it: For to have appeared in the Churches, would have exposed them to Six months' imprisonment for being in the City. And since then, the same Reason hindereth many, which keepeth Conformists from communicating with each other, even their own labours at home. But many do go to the Churches in public, and I conjecture others hereafter will get their Places sometime supplied by others, that they may go: For most of my acquaintance hold it lawful, as far as I can judge.  
5. I would stop them that censure, as sinners, unjustly, the late Parliaments, the Common-Council, jurors, and all the good Christians through all the Kingdom who differ from them, and that have no Ministers but Conformists.  
6. I remember why Mr. Io. Ball wrote against Separation just when Reformation was intended: Many thought it unseasonable, but it proved otherwise by the sad effects which he would have prevented.  
7. I cannot forget what this mistake hath wrought in England, from 1641. to 1660. which I will not further recite, but only say, That when there was neither Bishops, nor their Courts, nor Liturgy, nor Ceremonies imposed on them, separate Assemblies were as numerous, and as much and more pleaded for, than now, and managed with too much strife; and reconciling and Unity was much resisted by that side.  
8. I am bound to have real compassion on the multitudes who suffer as for Recusancy, and not by silence wrong their Consciences and their Purses. If I shut up the bowels of my compassion, where is the love of God?  
9 I am bound to do my best to keep out Popery; which must be by keeping up as much of Religion as is possible in the Parish-Churches (that it be not first thrust into corners, and then out of the Land), and by concord with the Parish-Ministers who are honest: And many such, through God's mercy, there are; though those that in 1661. brought us into this state, do manifest no repentance.  
10. Lastly, I find that our mutual Censures and Separations greatly hinder the success of the whole Ministry against sin, while they seek to bring each other into disesteem, and teach the people to disesteem them all: and some will not hear one sort, and some the other.  
The rest of my Reasons, you may gather from the fore recited Reasons of my Practice. § 12. I confess, that ad homin●m, the Canons Excommunicating us, may stop the mouths of the severe Canonists, if they accuse us: Would they not have us take their Canons to signify their will, concerning the extent of their Church-Communion? Or, would they have Excommunicate persons come to Church? All that do but own Nonconformity by a word, are ipso facto Excommunicate, till they publicly repent of it as a wicked Error. And their Writers Damn those as Schismatics, that obey them not: And so consequentially all that they call Indifferent, and Impose, are made necessary by some men to Salvation. I ha●e this at my heart: But yet it is not all the Parish-Ministers that like these Excommunicating Canons. And they are not bound to reject me till the Fact be proved; and I am not bound to do Execution on myself; but I am bound to all Offices for Love and Concord.  
I doubt not but some of the Excommunicating Clergy, will set these two Writings against each other, and say, as their Tutor and Advocate doth, that R. is against B. and that I am hardly reconcilable with myself; but if goggle Eyes judge each line to be a yard distant from another, I cannot cure them, but I can bear their Disease and the effects  
And if any will make use of my detection of the mistakes of conscionable peaceable Christians in some matters of Communion, to have a pretence to revile and persecute them, I enter my Protestation before God against them; and warn them to remember, that while they condemn others for Infirmities of so small a degree as few men are free from, they raise up matter of terror to their own Consciences when awakened, who have so much more heinous Sin to answer for before a holy dreadful God: even those little 〈◊〉 of whose scandalisers and neglecters Christ spoke so terribly, were none of them without some Sin; Though Paul and Barnabas differed to a parting, neither of them was silenced for it, nor called a Schismatic.  
If all shall be ipso facto Excommunicated, who have far greater Sin than humbly and peaceably saying, There is something sinful in some part of the Liturgy, Ceremonies, Articles, Subscription, or in some that bear office in the Church as to Government; I am passed all doubt that there will no one living, either Prelate, or Priest, Lord, or Peasant, be left to be a Member of their Church; and that by parity of reason, they have Excommunicated every person in the land; however the predominancy of their Wills and Interests above the Will of Christ, and the interest of the Church and Souls, may still bewitch them into a confidence, that those are the worst Men who most cross their carnal will and interest; and that the most ungodly are fit for their Church Communion than they.  
Psal. 14.4. Have all the workers of Iniquity no Knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord?  
Acts 28.30, 31. And Paul dwelled two whole years in his own hired house (at Rome) and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.  
1 Thes. 2 15, 16. Who both killed the Lord jesus Christ, their own prophets, and have persecuted us, and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: For the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.  
James 5.7. Be patiented, Brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.  
And if both sides call me worse than I am, for these displeasing Admonitions, I say, as St. Paul, Gal. 1.10. If I yet pleased men, I should not be the Servant of Christ.  
1 Cor. 4.3, 4. With me it is a very small thing, that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgement.— He that judgeth me is the Lord.  
Senec. Nemo pluris virtutem aestimat, quam qui boni viri f●mam perdidit, ne virtutem perderet.  
Jan. 10. 1680.    

AN ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS WHY THE TWELVE ARGUMENTS, Said to be Dr. JOHN OWEN's, Change not my Judgement about Communion with Parish-Churches. By RICHARD BAXTER.  1 Thes. 5.21. 
Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.  1 Pet. 3.15. 
Be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a Reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.  Gal. 2.11.12, 13, 14. 
When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For— he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulations. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, etc.  Acts 11.2, 3. 
They that were of the circumcision contended with Peter, saying, Thou goest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.  2 Tim. 2.20. 
In a great house there are not only Vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.  
LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns, in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel. 1684.   

THE PREFACE.  
REader, when the last sheet of the foregoing Paper was Printed, I received these Twelve Arguments, famed to be Dr. John Owen's: Whether Fame truly or falsely father them, I know not: It is the Cause that I am concerned in. After Three and Twenty years' practice since the Bishop's return, I was by Accusations, called to give the Reasons of my Practice, which yet I had often done in part before. They said, That my communicating in the Parish-Churches, even when myself and others were maliciously persecuted by a sort of proud and worldly Clergymen, did more harm than ever I did good: Tho I am bound with meekness to ●ender them a Reason of my practice; I have found by experience, that neither side can bear the account which they call for. Some wise and good men will blame me for making our differences to be so much known, especially for remembering old miscarriages: I obey my Conscience: All these things are commonly known already; and we hear sharply of them from God and Man, because Men hear not our Repentance, but our justification: Had we confessed, God is faithful to forgive. Impenitence threatens our yet greater suffering. When we give glory to God, and take shame to ourselves, our hopes will revive. Nothing bringeth so much scandal, and armeth Enemies against us, as owning sin, or hiding it. I durst no longer see Thousands of good Christians misguided into mistakes, and like to be ruined for them, and hereby hardening their Persecutors, rejoicing the Papists, who join with them in Separation, reducing the Protestant Religion into corners, and giving it up as public to— we may know whom; censuring one another, and dividing on these mistakes, and fathering all this on God: I say, I durst not stand by in silence to see all this, no more than to see men drowning, or the City on fire, without endeavouring to save men. It is an exceeding great quiet to my Conscience, under all the Confusions and Divisions that have befallen us, that in 1660, and 1661. I plainly and earnestly foretold the King and Bishops of them, and did my best to have prevented them.  
And the Author that I deal with, necessitateth me to recite the late fruits of Separation, in pulling down all Governments, casting out all the Ministers in Wales, and were near casting down those of England, with Tithes and Universities, persecuting and killing godly men, and fathering all on God, and now flying from the Bishops when they had opened them the door to return. He layeth his main Cause on the ill fruits of Liturgies (which indeed are rather the fruits of Pride and Malignity), and constraineth me to show the fruits of Separation. I dare not bury that in silence which God so dreadfully disowned by their own dissolution, without any blood; and that when multitudes are running into the old error, by mistaking the judgement of the Nonconforming Ministers, thinking that they took that for unlawful which they did not, and condemning all the excellent old Nonconformists and Conformists, and almost all the Churches on Earth.  
Let wiser men deal wiselier: I use the best wisdom that I have.  
It's true, that abundance of good people fear and distaste Communion in the Liturgy: What wonder, when such Reasonings as these Twelve Arguments (which how gross soever, poor people have not the skill to answer) persuade them it is false Worship, and heinous sin; and say others, Idolatry. They are conquered as the Mexicans were by the Spaniards, by the frightful roaring of their Cannons; the Militia used, Acts 15.1, 2. [The cannot be saved]; and as the Pope conquered Kings and Kingdoms, by threatening to keep them out of Heaven: Even as since men tell me, that they medicate their Wines with Arsenic and Mercury, I am afraid to drink them, which before I feared not; so are honest souls affrightned from Liturgies and Communion. How much in them I descent from myself, I have openly intimated to the World: But he that will join in no good that is mixed by men with faultiness and evil, must separate from all the World, and all from him: But how will he separate from himself? England in her Articles and Ordination, professeth to cleave to Scripture-sufficiency, as being the Protestant Religion. I go to join in this professed Religion: If the Speaker of any side add any unwarrantable passages by book, or without book, let him answer for them; I own them not: Did my presence own all that I hear, I would join with no man living. The Lord fit us for a wiser and more loving World.   
The Twelve Arguments said to be Dr. Owen's, impartially considered.  
D. O. Posit. It is not Lawful for us to go to, and join in Public Worship by the Common Prayer; because that Worship itself, according to the Rule of the Gospel, is not Lawful. 
1. Ans. I Shall use the same Method that he hath used, and first give you my Positions, and then the supposed Matter of Fact; and then consider his Arguments.  
Posit. It is not only Lawful, but a Duty for those that cannot have better public Church-worship without more hurt than benefit, and are near a competent Parish Minister, to go to, and join in Public Worship, performed according to the Liturgy, and in Sacramental Communion: And for those that can have better, to join sometime with such Parish Churches, when their forbearance scandalously seemeth to signify, that they take such Communion for unlawful; and so would tempt others to the same Accusation, and uncharitable Separation.  
The History of the Matter of Fact must be premised for the right deciding of the Case; which is as followeth.  
1. God hath commanded us to Preach, Pray, Praise him, and Administer his Sacraments and Discipline; and hath told us what Doctrine we must preach, what things we must pray and give thanks for, and what Sacraments and Discipline we must Administer: But he hath not told us, in what Words we must do these, nor in what Posture, nor in what particular Method, nor whether we must use oftest the same words, or various, nor whether they shall be before prepared, or spoken immediately without preparation of words, nor whether written or remembered; nor whether prepared and composed by ourselves, or by others, with such like.  
2. God prescribed divers Forms of Prayer, Confession and Praise, to the jews in Moses Law; and a Prophetical Song, which they were all to learn, Deut. 32.  
3. The Psalms were a chief part of the jews Liturgy, in which there are many Forms of Prayer and Praise; some made by David, some by Asaph, some by others, and some in or after the Captivity, no one knoweth by whom. And those Psalms were not in Metre, and sung in Tunes like ours now, but lo●dly said over.  
4. john taught his Disciples to pray, not only as to the Matter, but as to the Words; and so did Christ his Disciples at their Request, who had not then the after-pouring out of the Spirit (nay, knew not that Christ must die for Sin rise and reign in Heaven, etc.) and he said, When ye pay, say, Our Father, etc. though not tying them only to these words, yet giving them a Form of Words to be used as they had occasion, as well as a perfect Directory for Method.  
5. Christ himself joined with the jews in Synagogues and Temple, when they used Forms, and so did the Apostles; and never blamed them for the use of such Forms.  
6. Christ prescribed a Form of Words in Baptism, and in the Administration of the Lords Supper, and used a Hymn in Form.  
7. There are divers Forms of Prayer and Thanksgiving in the New Testament, in Luke 1. & 2. and the Acts, and Paul's Epistles, and the Revelations, which its Lawful and Laudable to use.  
8. We are commanded to use Psalms and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, which are Forms of Prayer and Praise (and was not then in Rhyme.) And it was not every one in the Church that composed these Extempore, but some made them for the rest to use: And if none Impose them (by Office, Authority or Persuasion) the Churches will never use the same. Christians in the primitive ages of the Church, were known to the Heathen by their constant use of such Hymns sung to Christ, and of Christ.  
9 The Churches from Christ's time to this, had a Creed or Form of sound Words, or necessary Articles of Faith, which they used in Catechising and in Baptism, which were a great means to keep out Heresy; and Church-Tyranny and Heresy were the Introducers of all their Alterations.  
10. The Lay-Christians of the first Aages were so full of Zeal, that they would have taken it ill to have been forbidden to speak their Answering and Consenting parts in the Church (as the jews before did) and as now we would take it ill for the Minister to Sing alone, and forbidden the People: And though the scantness of History in the first two Ages tell us not what words were then used as a Liturgy (and no doubt but praying by Habit was used chief) yet some few Sentences that are recorded, tell us that they used some Forms.  
11. Constantine himself made Prayers for his Soldiers, and every Bishop then used what Prayers he thought best in his own Church, and composed himself the Forms which he used constantly, till Heresy and weakness of Ministers caused a Council to decree, That every one should first show his Form of Prayer to the Synods, to be examined and approved before he used it.  
12. I do not read or hear of many Churches on earth at this d●y, that used not a Liturgy, except N●w England, and some Non conf●rmists here: Nor did I ever read that any one Church 〈…〉 for a 〈◊〉 Years after Christ's time, did ever scruple it or speak 〈…〉 remembrance) so that it was for many Ages the 〈…〉 Church on earth. At this day the Greeks, Arm●●ians, 〈…〉, Circassians, M●ngreli●ns, Indian and Persian 〈◊〉 s, the 〈…〉, Egyptians, all the Countries that have 〈…〉, M●ronites, beside the Papists, have a Liturgy very 〈◊〉 more 〈…〉: Even those ascribed to james, Mark, 〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉 have one, (or divers in divers Countries.) And th●se called 〈◊〉 Re●●●med have one, though a shorter and more simple 〈◊〉 France, 〈◊〉, H●lland, the Palatinate, Helvetia, etc.  
13. The Nonconformists in England were generally for the Lawfulness of a Form or Liturgy and for Communion of the Parish Churches therein, in the days of King Edward the Sixth, Queen Elizabeth, King james, and King Charles the First: And wrote more against Separation by far than the Bishops did, as is yet visible in their Books; specially Cartwright, Hildersham, Bradshaw, Paget, Gifford, Brigh●man, Bayne, Rathband, john Ball, etc.  
14. Those then counted the Fathers of Independency, were of the same mind, for Parish Communion and against Separation, Mr. jacob, Bradshaw, Ames, (see his First and Second Manuduction.)  
15. Yea, those called Brownists or Separatists were for Communion in the Liturgy in the usual parts, and for the truth of those Parish Churches that had good Ministers: I have cited their own words before, though all of them were not of the same mind.  
16. The Martyrs in Queen mary days had a chief hand in composing our Liturgy, and rejoiced in it, and worshipped God according to it. And none that I read of separated for this from the rest as false Worshippers  
17. When before 1639. there were but about one or two Nonconformable Ministers for each County; if it had been unlawful to Communicate in the public Churches with the Liturgy, all England must have lived like Atheists without any Church Worship, for want of Ministers, except about thirty or forty. Yea, those few kept up no usual Church Worship, except those of them that by connivance had small Chapels or peculiars. And of them most used much of the Liturgy.  
18. All the Congregations of the Nonconformists in England, that I have heard (save one now broken) not counting such as Quakers, etc.) have used, and do use, stinted, imposed forms of Worship to this day, and therefore judge it not unlawful, merely as forms, or as imposed. 1. Parents teach their Children a form of words in Catechisms, in Prayers, in giving Thanks for their Meat; and impose these on them. 2 Ministers impose on the Assemblies, their own method and words in Prayer, which are a form to the people; yea, and a form which they know not, till they hear it, and have no time to examine it, while it floweth from the Speaker. And their Sermons are imposed forms of Doctrine; (sometimes written also, and read). 3. Few men that retain any Sobriety in Religion, are against the Creed, to be used as a form of Confession of Faith. 4. The Independents drew up at the Savour, about 1658 or 1659. a form of Confession of their Faith and Discipline. 5. They attempted (Dr. Owen, Mr. Nye, Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Sid. Samson, Dr. Cheynell, and others), by appontment of a Committee of Parliament, to have drawn up a Catalogue of Fundamentals, to have been imposed for consent on all that should be tolerated in the Land in Church-Worship: they are yet to be seen in Print. (But Archbishop Usher being chosen for one, and refusing, and I being by his consent substituted in his room, broke that attempt; finding that their Fundamentals were lamentably composed, and that Christianity was not an unknown thing, and that Baptism, the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Decalogue, were a far better Catalogue of Fundamentals than theirs). 6. We all constantly use an English form of Translation of the Scripture, where all the English words, the division of Chapters and Verses, are man's invention, imposed on all. 7. We all use constantly forms of Confession, Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Praise in the singing of Psalms; where, when david's and the jews Psalms are used, the Translation, (or rather Paraphrase) the rhyme or metres, and the tune, are humane and imposed: And the Separatists themselves make no question; but other Psalms, (such as that of Ambrose, etc.) more suited to the State of the Gospel Church, may be fitly used, as Paul requireth, which must be composed by man, and imposed on the Churches, or never unanimously used. Our common use of singing Psalms and Hymns, is the use of stinted imposed forms. 8. He that doth not celebrate Baptism, and the Lords Supper often in words of the same signification, shall corrupt those Sacraments by his affectation of variety of words; the matter being the same. 9 No man knoweth beforehand, whether a Minister hath studied and sore compsed his Prayer or Sermon, and yet all join with him. 10. Many affect to compose all their Prayer in scripture Sentences, which do but make up one form of many.  
19 When the King came in, the Ministers of London were invited to attempt a Concord with the Bishops, and they offered to join in the use of the Litugy, if it were corrected: And they offered Additional Forms, or a Reformed Liturgy, which they would have used.  
I know it will be objected, That I plead in this but for my own works: But I answer, 1. The Exceptions and Emendations of the old Liturgy offered, was none of my work. 2. And the new one which I drew up by their appoinment, had their common review and consent.  
It will be said, That these were not all the then Nonconformists: I answer, It was the main Body of the London Ministers; and it was as many as would meet about it, when they were desired to come to Zion College, and after they Printed a Thanksgiving to the King for his Declaration; so that then they were not against all imposed Liturgies; so that the Imposition had no unmercifulness in it.  
20. The foreign Churches (in Holland, France, Germany, etc.) are so much used to pray in the same form of words, that if they were put to do all ex tempore, it would be lamentably done by most, even far worse than it is.  
21. I have formerly told the world, That many of the most noted Nonconformists in London, met and concluded for communicating in the Parish-Churches, about 1664. And two things done by the Conformists stopped them: One was a storm then arising against those that could not do it, which they feared to seem to countenance by their compliance: And Plague and F●re interrupting the purposes of some. The Oxford Act of Confinement made it unpracticable; because, to be seen in a Church would have cast them six Months in the Goal with Malefactors.  
22. Being thus hindered and delayed, the King's Declaration after giving them liberty to have Assemblies otherwise, they were then kept from the Parish-Churches by their labours with their own ●locks, as the Parish-Ministers be from hearing one another.  
23. Some in the City, and more in the Countries, all this while went constantly to the Parish Churches before this liberty, and as oft as they could after, lest they should by their practice, draw the people to th●nk that they took it for unlawful.  
24▪ Others that thought it lawful, judge it not necessary when they might do that which they judged better: And finding many Hearers offended at it, were loath to displease them, and bear their censures; till at last, by long disuse, the people thought their judgement was against it: And when necessity driveth them to declare their judgements, and change their practice, their Hearers (and their Adversaries) call them unconscionable Temporizers.  
25. Tho Mr. Tombs wrote for Parish-Communion, few Anabaptists followed him; and though Mr. Nye wrote for hearing the Parish-Ministers, few Independents consented: But some of their Ministers took the advantage of the foresaid forbearance of others, and so brought Separation to pass for a common duty with many▪ And renewed sufferings made it easier to draw men from the Communion of those that they so much suffered by; following the example of St. Martin, and saying, That persecutors obtruded without their con●ent were none of their Pastors; and that it's no Schism not to communicate with the Church, which causelessly hath, ipso facto, excommunicated them in Can. 6, 7, 8, etc. This is the true premised History.  D. O. 
Some things must be promised to the confirmation of this Position.  
1. The whole 〈◊〉 of Liturgical Worship, with all its inseparable dependences, are intend●●▪ For as such it is established by Law, and not in any part of it only; as 〈…〉 is required that we receive it, and attend unto it. It is not in our pow●●, it is not left to our judgement or liberty to close with, or make use of any p●rt of it, as we shall think fit.  
There are in the Mass-book many Prayers directed to God only by jesus Christ; yet it is not lawful for us thereon to go to Mass, under a pretence only of joining in such lawful Prayers.  
As we must not affect their Drink-Offerings of Blood, so we must not t●ke up their names in our lips, Psal. 16.4. Have no communion with them.  
§ 2. I Shall now examine the Doctor's Premises.  
To the first I answer, 1. If he will include all that is in the Liturgy, the Nonconformists confess, that there is somewhat in it which they descent from, as unjustifiable: And so there is in all men's Worship of God.  
2. He intimateth, That it is not in our power to close with some, 
I. Error.  and not withal. This is his First Error.  
Tho Man give us no such power, God doth: As it is in my power 〈◊〉 believe all that one speaketh truly and well, and not that which he speaketh amiss. I am not bound to own all that any Preacher or Priest shall say in the Church. God put it in the Disciples power to beware of the Leven of the Pharisees, and yet to hear them. Proving all things, is not approving all things.  
2. Tho the Mass have many good Prayers, the corruption by twisted Idolatry and Heresy, maketh Communion there unlawful: Heathent and Turks have good Prayers. Prove any such Heresy or Idolatry in the Church-Worship by the Liturgy, and we will avoid it. But if I may join with your own good Prayers and Preaching, notwithstanding your many Failings, and such Errors as are here pleaded for, why not with others?  
3. Psal. 16.4. is too sadly abused, which speaketh only of sacrificing to, and worshipping false Gods.  D. O. 2. It is to be considered as armed with Laws: (1.) Such as declare and enjoin it as the only true Worship of the Church. (2.) Such as prohibit, condemn, and punish all other ways of the Worship of God in Church-Assemblies: By our communion and conjunction in it, we justify those Laws. 
§ 3. THat our Communion justifieth all the Laws that impose the Liturgy, yea, the penal severeties, is too gross an Error to be written with any show of proof. What if the Creed or Lord's Prayer were too rigorously imposed, 
II. Error.  or Presbytery or Indepency, must we forbear them, or justify the Law? I can prove Episcopacy excluded too severely by the Covenant: But every one that is against it, justifieth not the imposition of that Covenant in that rigour. What if rigorous Laws should make it imprisonment or death, not to use our Translation of the Scriptures, our approved Catechisms, our Metre and Tunes of the Psalms, not to put off the Hat at Prayer, not to meet at the appointed Place and Hour, etc. Doth every man justify the rigour of the imposition, who obeyeth the Law? Then a rigorous Lawmaker may take away our Christian Liberty, by commanding us to use such things too strictly: yea, he may turn Duty, by too strict commanding it, into Sin. These are your unproved Premises.  D. O. 3. This conjunction in Communion by the Worship of the Liturgy, is the Symbol, Pledge and Token of an Ecclesiastical Incorporation with the Church of England in its present Constitution: It is so in the Law of the Land; It is so in the Canons of the Church; It is so in the common Understanding of all men: And by these Rules must our Profession and Practice be judged, and not by any reserves of our own, which neither God nor good men will allow of. Wherefore, 
§ 4. TO the Third Premise, I answer, 1. The Church of England is an ambiguous word: 1. As it signifieth a part of the Universal Church, agreeing in Faith, one God, one Christ, and all essential to the Church; so we desire the honour of being parts of it. 2. And also as it is a Christian Kingdom under one King. 3. And as it is a Confederacy of many Churches to keep Concord in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals. In all these senses it is a lawful Association. 4. But if any Church go beyond these bounds, and on good pretences shall agree upon any error or evil, it is a mistake to hold, That all that incorporate with them in the Three foresaid lawful respects, do therefore confederate with them in their error. 
iv Error.  This is your Fourth Error.  
I will give you a general Instance, and a particular one: 1. You cannot name me one combined company of Churches from the Apostles days till now, that had no error. You take Episcopacy to be an error in the very constitution: Name one Church from the 3 d or 4 th' Century, for a thousand years, that was without it, either Catholics or Heretics, that were indeed a Church: And must Christians have forborn associating with any of them? Or might not own the good in their Associations, without owning the evil?  
2. The Independents gathered a Synod at the Savoy, and there among their Doctrinals or Articles of Faith, laid down Two Points expressly contrary to Scripture: 1. That it is not Faith, but Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by, when as it is both; and the Scripture often saith the contrary. 2. That Christ's Righteousness imputed, is our s●le Righteousness: Whereas the Scripture doth many hundred times name also our inherent and practical Righteousness. I asked some yet living, why they consented to these, and did not rather expound the Scripture than deny it? And they said, That it was Dr O's▪ doing. Now doth it follow, that every one that there confederated with you, owned these errors?  
The Churches of Helvetia are a very honourable part of the Reformed Churches: They are commonly such as we call Erastian, for no Discipline but the Magistrates: Are ail that confederate with them as Churches, guilty of this error?  
2. But I further distinguish between the many Parish-Churches, and the Diocesan, and the Church of England, as constituted of such Diocesan Churches. The Old Nonconformists commonly owned the Parish-Churches (and the Church of England as made up of such), but not the Diocesan. This they openly professed. It is therefore another of your Mistakes, that owning the Parish-Churches and Worship, is an owning of the present Diocesan Constitution.  
Also it is your Mistake to say, That Communion by the Liturgy is the Symbol and Pledge of the foresaid Incorporation in the Church of England in its present constitution: 
V Error.  It is only a part of the Communion commanded, but no such Symbol: 
VI Error.  For, 1. The Rulers openly declare, that they take multitudes to be none of their Church, who join in the Liturgy: And it is subscribing, declaring, and swearing Obedience, which is the Symbol: yea, they excommunicate many that come to the Liturgy-Service.  
2. And many come to it who openly disown the Diocesan present constitution: So did, as I said, the Old Nonconformists, and many Foreigners, French, Dutch, etc. that come over hither.  
3. If one may join in Communion of Worship with a Presbyterian, Independent or Anabaptist-Church, without owning the Errors of their constitution, than so one may with a Parish-Church: But, etc.  
You mistake when you say, It is so by the Law of the Land: You mistake again, when you say, it is so by the Canon: You mistake again, when you say, It is so in the common understanding of all. I formerly instanced in one of the sharpest Nonconformists, Old Mr. Humphrey Fen, of Coventry, who would say aloud, Amen, to all the Common-Prayer, save that for the Bishops; by which all there knew his mind: Whether it were right or wrong, 
VII, VIII, IX. Error.  I now determine not. So here are Three more of your Mistakes.  
4. You make all other reserves of our own, to be allowed neither by God or good men. Here are two more mistakes. 1. God maketh it our great duty to hold Communion with most, 
X.XI. Error.  or almost all Churches on Earth with such reserves; that is, to own them in all that is good, and disown all their evil, though their Laws command the owning of them; without this reserve I would not join with yours, or any Church on Earth, that is, If my Communion were an owning of all their faultiness.  
2. And it's an immodest Error to say, That none are good men, that in this are not of your mind. Is there any spotless Church on Earth? or must we renounce the Communion with them all, or reserve exception against their faults and misperformances?  D. O. 4. He that joins in the Worship of the Common-Prayer, doth by his practice make Profession, That it is the true Worship of God, accepted with him, approved of him, and wholly agreeable to his Mind and Will. To do it with other reserves, is hypocrisy, and worse than the thing itself without them. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth, Rom. 14 12. 
§ 5. THis is your twelfth mistake, and one that hath dreadful consequents. 1. It contradicteth the express Profession of the Communicants, who openly tell the World, That they take not all in the Liturgy, 
XII. Error.  to be [wholly agreeable to God's Mind and Will]: And you are not to feign a Profession of men contrary to their open Protestation.  
2. It is most direful to your own separating followers, who by this are supposed to profess all your Worship to be [wholly agreeable to God's Mind and Will]. And so the honest well-meaning people are made guilty of all the Errors which you put into your Worship.  
3. It is contrary to your own former Profession, That you could in charity communicate with Presbyterians, or Anabaptists, etc. And so you approved of all the Errors of their Worship.  
4. It maketh it a down right Sin, to communicate with any Church on Earth: For all have their faults and errors, even in Worship; which you feign all that Communicate with them to justify, as [wholly agreeable to God's Will]. And to justify Sin, and teach men so to do, and to father it on God, are sad Aggravations; such shall be called least in the Kingdom of God. By this rule you would have separated from every Church on Earth, that we have notice of for a thousand years, yea, and to this day; and is not that near separating from Christ? And when no man knoweth before you speak in prayer, what you will say, How shall any man that joineth with you, koow but he may be guilty of your Sin at the next Sentence.  
5. It is a breach of the ninth Commandment, thus to charge all the Ancient Churches, and Reformers, and the Noncoformists, with hypocrisy, and worse than open sinning, who have all communicated on the contrary Supposition.  
6. It is no friendly act to the Church, to lay down such a Principle of perpetual Separation, and condemning each others Communion, and so to make the Communion and Concord of the Churches impossible.  
7. It is Self-condemnation to judge the present Bishops Church-Tyrants, for excommunicating good Christians according to the Canons, for professed dissent about their governing Offices, Liturgies, and Ceremonies; and for imposing Assent and Consent to all things, etc. and yet to go much further than they, by making it Sin against God, to Communicate where the Worship is not [wholly agreeable to God's Will]. Prove that ever the Bishops went so far from Concord.  
8. I only humbly ask, Whether this make not Christ, and all his Apostles Hypocrites, and worse than professed Sinners: Did Christ by his usual joining in the Synagogue and Temple-Worship, and commanding men to go to the Priests, to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, etc. profess that he took their Worship to be wholly agreeable to Gods Will? Or did the Apostles so, while they long joined in the Synagogues with the jews?  D. O. 5. There may be a false Worship of the true God, as well as a worship of a false god. Such was the Worship of Jehovah the Lord, by the Calf in the Wilderness, Exod. 33.5, 6. Such was the Feast unto the Lord ordained by Jeroboam, in the eighth month, the fifteenth day of the month, which he had devised of his own heart, 1 Kings 12.32.33. 
§ 6. YOur fifth Premise is unquestionable. But if you distinguish not of false Worship, you will make but false Work about it. 1. There is that, which is the corrupting of Gods own necessary Worship-Ordinances, in so gross a manner, either outwardly in the Matter, or inwardly in the Mind; as that God will not own or accept the Worship and Worshippers. 2. There is that which is false in Integrals, Accidents, or Degrees, by pardoned failings and infirmities. To be [false] is to be disagreeable to the rule; such in some measure, is every Prayer, Sermon or Sacrament, that ever you administered. He that saith he hath no Sin, is a liar. All sinful Worship, is so far false worship, which the best of men are guilty of: If you put all the Errors that are in this Paper of yours, in a Sermon or Prayer, will not so many falsehoods make it false worship?  D. O. 
On these Suppositions, the Proposition laid down, is proved by the following Arguments.  
1. Argument, Religious Worship not divinely instituted and appointed, is false Worship, not accepted with God; but the Liturgical-worship intended, is a Religious Worship, not divinely instituted and appointed, ergo, not accepted with God. The Proposition is confirmed by all the Divine Testimonies, wherein all such Worship is expressly condemned, see Deut. 4.2. Chap. 12.32. Prov. 30.6. Jer. 7.31. Isa. 29.13, etc. That especially, where the Lord Christ restrains all Worship to his own command, Matth. 28.20. It is answered to the minor Proposition, That the Liturgical-worship is of Christ's appointment, as to the substantials of it, though not as to its Accidentals; namely, Prayers and Praises; not unto its outward rites and form, which do not vitiate the whole.  
§ 7. TO your first Argument, I answer.  
I have fully answered this to Mr. Ralphson, 1. As to the bare name, either you will call all acts done to signify immediately the Souls honouring of God, by the name of Worship, or you will not; if not, then that which is no Worship, is no false Worship. If you will, than your Proposition is false; so that either your Major or Minor, 
XIII. Error.  is another Error. For I take it for granted, that by Gods instituting, you mean not a general command to man to institute it; such as, [let all be done to edification,] if you did, than your Minor is not true. Kneeling at Prayer rather than sitting, putting off the Hat, using white Linen and Silver plate at the Sacrament, praising God by new Hymns, and in English Metre, and Tunes, and many such, are Worship in the secondary sense, and yet not imposed by any determining Divine Institution  
Your wrong Exposition of all the Texts of Scripture, here cited by you, is more than one mistake. Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. Prov. 30.6. forbidden adding to God's Worship, 
XIV. Error.  which is broken by all that either say, that that is in God's Word which is not there, (as you here do); or that devise any Woship-Ordinances coordinate, or of the same sort with his own, as if they were imperfect: But there is not a word forbidding subordinate secondary Acts of Worship, such as Kneeling, putting off the Hat, using written Notes in Preaching, or Forms of Singing, Praying, Catechising, laying the Hand on the Book, or putting it under the Thigh, or lifting it up in Swearing, the formal words of Vows, Oaths, Covenants, Confessions, Professions, and many such. jer. 7.31. condemneth them that offered their Children in Fire to Idols, because God never commanded such Cruelty and Idolatry. It is not true, that therefore we may not Kneel, or put off the Hat, or Preach, Pray, or Sing in an humane Form of words, till God determine it by Command. It was forbidden things which Isa. 29.13. and Mat. 14. are reproved, as being the Precepts of Men, or things feigned to be necessary Acts of Obedience to God, which were not so. But this you think yourself doth not forbid your Form of Church-Covenant, nor your Books, Translation of Scripture, Hymns, written Sermons, because they are devised by Man; nor children's Forms of Prayer, for being commanded by Parents. Matth. 28.20. It follows not, that because Christ bid the Apostles teach all, that he commanded therefore nothing else subordinate may be taught. He commanded not the additional Form of the Creed, but only the Form of Baptism in three Articles; nor the Hymns and spiritual Songs in Form mentioned by Paul, nor the Kiss of Peace, the women's Vails, the men's being uncovered, not wearing long Hair, the selling all and laying it down at the Apostles Feet, etc.  D. O. But it is replied, There is nothing accidental in the Worship of God. Every thing that belongs to it, is part of it. Some things are of more Weight, Use and Importance, than others, Matth. 23.27. but all things duly belonging to it, are parts of it, or of its subsistence; outward Circumstances are natural and occasional, no accidental parts of Worship. 
§. 8. OUr Answer you well recite, if you add, that (call it substantial, or what you will) the common Lordsday Worship according to the Liturgy, hath not many, if any words in it, whose signified Matter is not found and true; and as to the Manner, Extemporate Prayer hath oft as great unaptness of words (which every Age changeth) disorder and defectiveness.  
As to your Reply, it is the strangest that ever I read from so Learned a Man, and is a great mistake: What is there in the world, that is a Subject, 
XV. Error.  without any Accidentals? God's Worship hath a multitude of Accidents; As the Hour, the Place, the Pulpit, the Tables, the Cups of Silver, the Linen and other Ornaments; the Books as Printed, the Metre, the Tunes, the Chapters and Verses, the words of Translation, the Building, the Gestures, Vestures, Treasures, etc.  
You add another mistake, that [every thing that belongs to it, is a part of it.] Then all these forementioned are parts of it, for they all belong to it. 
XVI. Error.  What a strange thing make you of God's Worship? Then your Time, Place, Notes, Words, Tunes, Gestures, Covenant-Form, Catechism-Forms, etc. are all parts of God's Worship, for they belong to it: And then you must be separated from for adding them. But after this mistake, you say, [Outward Circumstances are natural, and occasional, no accidental parts of worship]. Answ. Just now all Accidents were parts (or else Accidents belong not to it) And now [it hath no accidental parts] Certainly this is the truer; for I remember not that ever I heard of mere Accidents that were Parts. A man's Name, Relation, Trade, Clothing, Age, House, etc. belong to him, and are Accidents, but no parts of him: no nor his Hair, if it be a mere Accident. But do none of these duly belong to him?  
2. The word [Worship], as I said before, is Equivocal, as signifying only the Things made necessary to the honouring of God directly by Divine Command: or the subordinate Acts, Modes, Circumstances, left to Humane Choice. In the former sense, the Order, Words, and Forms in the Liturgy, and in all our usual Devotions, are Accidents, and not Parts. In the later sense, they are Parts: But whether this later sense of Worship be apt, is but a strife about a word.  
But you say, they are natural and occasional. Ans. Dark words! 1. I think the Translations, Metre, Tunes, Notes, your Words and Method, Table, Cups, Cloth, Temples, etc. are rather Artificial than Natural; Art and not Nature made them what they are. If you mean that Nature commandeth them, than God by the Law of Nature commandeth them: and what greater Authority can they have? But yet that is not so, Nature doth not determine us to this or that, but leave all to apt and prudent Choice. And so he doth as to the form or words of Prayer.  
If by [Occasional] you mean such as must be mutably fitted to just Occasions; there is no doubt of it: And while the Occasion is constant, so may the Accidents. But sure while they are such; yea, and relatively appropriated or separated to worship (as Buildings, Utensils, and Maintenance may be) they belong to that Worship which they are no parts of  D. O. 2. Prayers and Praises absolutely considered, are not an institution of Christ; they are a part of Natural Worship common unto all Mankind: His institution respects only the internal form of them, and the manner of their performance; but this is that which the Liturgy takes on itself, namely, to supply and determine the matter, to prescribe the manner, and to limit all the concerns of them to Modes and Forms of its own, which is to take the work of Christ out of his hand. 
§ 9 YOur Second Answer is no better: 1. If by absolutely, you mean not generally (but as opposite to conditional), it hath no sense here that I can find: But if it be [in genere] that you mean, as the Context intimateth, they are no part of Worship at all, natural or instituted: For there is praying, which is cursing, and striving against God and Goodness, and praying to Idols. But I suppose you mean [de specie], praying to the true God for good things needful. And so it is another Mistake, That this Prayer is not of Christ's Institution, because it is a part of Natural Worship. All is of Christ's institution which is part of his commanding Law: The Law of Nature is now Christ's Law, who by Redemption is become Lord of Nature, and of all, john 17.2, 3. Mat. 28.18, 19 Eph. 1.22, 23. Rom. 14.9, 10. john 5.22, etc. He most strictly commandeth Natural Duties. The Ten Commandments were of Natural Obligation, 
XVII. Error.  and yet instituted. And as Love was called a New and Special Commandment, as required on new and special grounds and ends, so is Prayer thus far also new.  
2. And it is another Mistake, That Christ's institution respecteth only the internal form, and the manner of performance: The internal form is inward desire offered mentally to God. 
XVIII. Error.  And is not this Natural, if Prayer be? Sure the Form is the Thing. But the institution of Christ reacheth the Matter of Prayer, as well as the inward Form and outward Manner: That we pray for the things mentioned in the Lord's Prayer; for God's Glory, Kingdom Will to be obeyed, etc. for Pardon, the Spirit, Grace, Glory, etc. That the Gospel may have free course, etc.  
It is another Mistake▪ That the manner of performance is sinful, which is not of Christ's institution. The Words, and Method, and Length, are the manner of performance. 
XIX. Error.  Can you show an Institution determinative of all the Words, Method and Length of all our Prayers? Or of all our Psalms, Rhimes and Tunes, and all our Gestures and Utensils? etc. By these words I am induced to hope, that the common report, That you were against the ordinary use of the Lord's Prayer in words, is false: for here you seem to be more for it than you ought: For if all the outward Manner must be instituted by Christ, sure the Lord's Prayer will be, at least the chief part.  
You say, the Liturgy takes on itself to supply and determine Matter.  
Ans. 1. Matter is more than Manner. But this is another Mistake: For the Liturgy supposeth that Scripture is the Rule, and Christ the Commander of all the Matter of Prayer which is of constant use and need (as the Articles of Religion, and the Ordination-Covenant show): And you give no instance of the contrary. But as to mutable Matter, which vary as occasions by Providence do (as days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving, the 5 th' of November, and those things that are specially suited to some times and places), you determine of such yourselves in all your Prayers.  

XX. Error.  It is another Mistake, That thus to limit the Concerns of Prayer to M●des and Forms, is to take Christ's work out of his hands. If so, than you must show us where Christ himself undertook so to limit us to his Modes and Forms only: else it is not Christ's proper work: Is there a Liturgy of his making, more than we ever heard of? 2. And then do not all Ministers in every public Prayer, take Christ's work out of his hands? Do they not limit the people in Matter, Mode, and Form of words? What heavy charges lay you on yourselves? Do not the Composers of Hymns and Psalms, so limit them to Mode and Form? It's clear that they do.  D. O. 3. Outward Rites and Modes of Worship, divinely instituted and determined, do become the necessary parts of Divine Worship. See the Instance, Levit. 1.16. Therefore such as are humanely instituted, appointed and determined, are thereby made parts of Worship; namely, that which is false, for want of Divine Institution. 
§ 10. YOur Third Reply is no better than the rest; viz. That because Divine Institution makes Rites and Modes necessary, therefore Humane Institution maketh such parts of false Worship, 
XXI. Error.  for want of Divine Institution. I cannot imagine how so worthy a man could mistake so widely, but by studying only what to say for his Cause, and never thinking what may be replied. God's determination can make any indifferent thing a Duty▪ And doth it follow, that therefore he hath left nothing to man's determination? God's choice of jerusalem for his Worship, of the Tabernacle-shape, of the Priests, etc. made these necessary: Is therefore man's determination of the fixed places for ordinary worship, of the form of the Temple, of ordained Ministers, false Worship? God made it a duty to sing the Psalm, Deut. 32. and other since: Is it therefore false worship now to make Hymns for public use? Christ taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer: may you therefore not teach your Children or Scholars any? Christ chose a Text, Luke 4. and preached, and that on a Mountain, in a Ship, etc. Therefore we may choose a Text, and Place, etc. God appointed anniversary Fasts and Feasts: Is it therefore false worship to keep the 5 th' of November, or the like? God determined of the Priest's maintenance: Is it a sin now to determine of Minister's maintenance? If God should institute and command all the words of your Church-Covenants, Prayers, Sermons, they would become necessary: Are they therefore sinful if man determine them? If God had made all the Articles of your Savoy Confession, or all the Laws of the Land, they would have been necessary: Are they now all unlawful, because Man made them?  
That which God hath commanded, is no false Worship: But God hath commanded the Churches to determine undetermined Modes and Circumstances needful in genere; so as all may be done to Edification, decently and in order, and not causelessly to cross the Customs of the Churches of God, and to obey those that are over them in the Lord.  D. O. 4. Prayer and Praise are not the things prescribed and enjoined in and by the Liturgy: It is so far from it, that thereby all Prayers and Praises in Church-Assemblies, merely as such, are prohibited; but it is its own forms, way and mode, with their determination and limitation alone, that are instituted, prescribed and enjoined by it: But these things have no Divine Institution, and therefore are so far false Worship. 
§. 11. HEre are two more strange Mistakes: 1. Are there so many Prayers enjoined, and the people called on with a [Let us Pray], and yet is not Prayer enjoined? There is some secret meaning in this: For doubtless, you would never else affirm it, and expect that all men renounce their Senses; 
XXII. Error.  you can mean nothing less than that their imposed Forms, when used as commanded, are no Prayers, which is another Error. If so, than all the Prayers of the Church of God for 1300. years at least, that we read of, were no Prayers: And then you desire no part in the Prayers of any Churches on Earth, at this day, save New England's, or a few Separatists. What wonder then, if you be left without the Benefit of all those Prayers? Is this the Communion of Saints, in the Catholic Church?  
2. And are there no Praises enjoined. Are none of their Psalms, Hymns, and Doxologies, the Praises of God, when used: You suppose that Christ will call them None, or else you durst not. And is such a Slander of Christ, and the Universal Church, no sin?  
Your next Misreport is that [by the Liturgy, all Prayers and Praises in Church Assemblies are prohibited.] This is too Rash: Where is there a word forbidding them? 
XXIII. Error.  This can have no Sense, but that either none are Church-Assemblies that have a Liturgy, or that nothing commanded in the Liturgy, is Prayer and Praise in a Church-Assembly: But if this be your meaning, it is both ways untrue. 1. Is there no Church on Earth out of England? Or do they forbidden any out of England, to Pray and Praise God? 2. Do they forbidden the Dutch and French in England, to Pray and Praise God? 3. Do they forbidden all Prayer and Praises in the Pulpits, in the Parish-Churches? 4. Have you proved all the Parish-Churches in England to be No Churches? Where is your Proof, how much soberer were the old Brownists? 5. Have you proved, that Commanding Men to Pray in such words, is forbidding them to Pray? when you set a Psalm for Praise, is that to forbid all Praise? Is not omnis modus entis modus, and includeth the Thing?  D. O. 2. Argument. That which was in its first contrivance, and hath been in its continuance, an Invention and Engine to defeat, or render useless the Promise of Christ unto his Church, of sending the holy Spirit in all Ages to enable it unto the due discharge and performance of all Divine Worship in its Assemblies, is unlawful to be complied withal, nor can be admitted in Religious Worship; But such is the Liturgical Worship. That the Lord Christ did make such a Promise, that he doth make it good, that the very Being and Continuance of the Church (without which, it is but a dead Machine) doth depend thereon, I suppose will not be denied, it hath been undeniably proved. 
§. 12. To your Second Argument, I answer. 1. To the Minor.  
Do you mean that this was the Intent of the first Contrivers and Continuers? or only that it had this effect, contrary to their Intent? The first seemeth your Sense, which is another misreport. 
XXIV. Error.  For 1. You know not who the first Inventor was. 2. You know not all the Continuers. 3. And so high a Charge is to be taken for a Slander, till it be proved. 4. Are you sure that you lay not this Charge of Malignity on the Men of God, that made the jews Psalms? and on Christ, that composed a Form of Praying and Baptising? and on Paul, that commands Hymns, and imposed on Timothy a Form of Sound Words?  
And if you meant it but of the English Liturgy, you could never prove that our Martyrs and Confessors that made it, had so malignant an End. But you speak it of Liturgical Worship in general, which obligeth you to prove almost all the Pastors for 1120. years and more, to be such Malignants. And it's easily disproved, whether you meant it of their Intent, or of the Effect, by assigning the true and better Intent and Effect. They did it not to render useless the Spirits help, but 1. To be useful where such Abilities were wanting: It was the antecedent disability of Men that occasioned Liturgick Forms. 2. And it was to be a help subordinate to the Spirits help, to those that have it but in part; as Spectacles to dark Sights, and Sermon Notes to weak Memories. 3. They are really a great help to many, and therefore not made only to hinder them. When fit and more sound and moving words are set before an unready Speaker, they help his affection more than his own shorter and unmeeter words would do; And his mind being not taken up with the study of words, is the freer to attend its affections. You must not measure all men's Volubility of Speech by your own. I can truly say, that Forms are oft a help to me: I find young and old Christians are more fit to use them than the middle-aged: For the young cannot at first pray well (at least before others) without them, till use hath taught them And the old have discretion to fit their Affections to sound words oft repeated. But the middle-aged, that have a greater Heat, and a lesser Light, are much more taken with their own sudden Effusions and Expressions.  
Do you think, that when Calvin form the Liturgy for Geneva and France, he had so Malignant a Design, as to defeat the Spirits help? Or do our English Psalms and Tunes quench the Spirit? and are they used to keep Men from the Gift of making Hymns Ex tempore?  
2 I answered your Minor first, because it is matter of Fact; but your Major also is untrue: For that which is imposed with an ill Intent, may be used to a good one: And that which hurteth some, may be a help to others. If the Parish Churches were all built to serve Popery and the Mass, and dedicated to Saints, yet we may use them lawfully to better Purposes. If Priests Marriages be forbidden for ill Ends, it may be forborn for good Ends. If Glebe and Tithes were here given first to maintain the Mass, they may be used to maintain sound Teachers. It was Popes that reversed the old Custom of not adoring, kneeling on any Lord's day: And yet you may lawfully kneel then in Prayer: Yea, though they brought in kneeling to the Host by that Alteration. 
XXV. Errer.  So that this is another Error. And your Confirmations are not true.  D. O. 
Hereon the Church lived and acted for several Ages, performing all Divine Worship in their Assemblies, by virtue of the Gifts and Graces of the holy Spirit, and no otherwise.  
When these things were neglected, when the way of attaining, and the exercise of them appeared too difficult to Men of carnal minds, this way of Worship by a Prescribed Liturgy, was insensibly brought in, to render the Promise of Christ, and the Work of the holy Ghost in the Administration of Gifts, useless. And herein two things do follow.  
§. 13. 1. IT is a great Error to think, that the Gifts and Graces of the holy Spirit may not be exercised, if we use the same words, or if they be prescribed. The chief help of God's Spirit, lieth in giving us a due esteem of the things prayed for, and a holy Desire after them, and a lively Faith and Hope that we shall obtain them, and a fixed Resolution to use all other means for them, and avoid all that would deprive us of them. And doubtless, he that hath these mental Dispositions, hath thereby a great help for his Expression of them; for out of the abundance of the Heart, the Mouth speaketh. But 1. It's well known, that Use and Knowledge, can enable an Hypocrite to pray as long, and in as good Words and earnest Tone, as a sincere Christian.  
2. That which is easiest, needeth the least help: It is to me so much easier to speak my own thoughts in Prayer ex tempore, than to remember a form of words; that never since I was twenty years old, did I ever learn and say without Book, the words of one Prayer, or one Sermon, since I Preached; to have learned a Prayer or Sermon without Book, would have cost me ten times and more, both time and labour, and fear of being out, than I ever used or could afford.  
3. Pardon me for ask, Whether if this Author put all the Errors of this his writing into a Prayer or Sermon, he did not need more help of the Spirit, to have avoided them, and to have spoken nothing but truth, than to have fluently uttered so many mistakes? He hath heard those called Arminians on one side, and Antin●mians on the other, oft fluently express their Opinions in God's Worship: The former he took to be heinous Errors: Had not all these had more of the help of God's Spirit, if they had uttered nothing but true and good in a form, than they had to speak so much Error and Evil to God or Man, with extemporate fluency.  
4. May not a man use the Lords Prayer by the Spirits help? If I have any help of God's Spirit, it is more in the use of that Prayer, than at any other time.  
5. May not one sing Psalms by the help of the Spirit, unless he make them extempore? I doubt you lay too much on words; Gods Spirit worketh on the heart, and its greatest help is in its greatest gifts, which are Faith, Repentance, Love, Desire, etc. and not words: Words must be used and weighed; but the main work is heart work, and God knoweth the meaning of the Spirit, when we have but groans, which we cannot express, and cry but Abba, Father.  
But you come to History, and add another misreport in the words, 
XXVI. Error.  [and no otherwise] that the Church for several ages Worshipped [no otherwise] than by such gifts as you describe, which exclude Liturgick forms. It's plain in the descriptions of justin and Tertullian, that they did use extemporate Prayer then; but not that they did not otherwise. 1. Tertullian himself giveth you their form of a Creed, and so do many others. 2. They used a set form of words in Baptising. 3. And they constantly used singing Psalms and Hymns, which were not made ex tempore, nor by every singer. 4. They used the Lords prayer in form often. 5. At the Lord's Supper they had divers words of form and responses. In Cyprian, some parcels are to he seen, and in divers others. 6. The truth is, our History of the Church's manner of Worship for the first two hundred years, is so little, that we know but little how they did it, beside the foresaid two passages in justin and Tertullian. But by what is in the Historians of the next Ages, and by the Churches general use of the Liturgies, without contradiction soon after, and what Daillee hath gathered, de cultu Latinorum, etc. we know that [no otherwise,] is not true.  
2. It's too true, that the carelessness, sloth and worldly alienations of Ministers, made all useful sufficiency for the work of the Ministry, in Praying and Preaching, to be neglected, and doth to this day. But I hope no wise man dreameth that all the Pastors had one soul, or one mind and design. If any Malignants used or enjoined forms, to make christs promise, and the Spirits help useless; others used them, and promoted the use of them, for the performance of Christ's promise, and the Spirits help. 1. Because there were not (when public countenance increased the Churches) half enough men for the Ministry, that had the extemporate gifts of Prayer and Preaching. 2. And you confess that each Church had then many Elders for oversight, besides those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine. Do you believe that all these had such extemporate gifts of utterance? Or that these might not on occasion Pray and Preach. 3. If Parents teach Children necessarily to Pray in a prescribed form of words, without designing to defeat Christ or his Spirit, but to subserve them; how can you tell, but the first prescribers of public forms did mean as well, when they found few persons able to do so well without, and abundance of Heretics ready to corrupt God's Worship with their Errors? 4. Let it be soberly considered, Whether men's long and hard Study for all the words which they writ in Books, and for their Sermons, be done to defeat Christ and his Spirit, or to subserve them? And why the use of words studied by others, and weighed by us, before we utter them, should defeat the Spirit any more, than words premeditated by ourselves? Or at least, is not the Spirit as much defeated in the People that join, who ever prepareth the words? For they do not themselves put them up by their gift of utterance. And its impossible when you speak, for the people to know whether those words were before studied, and whether by yourself or by another, from whom you borrowed them. I have heard Mr. Ph. Nye, wish that some men were sent into Wales, and other such places, with an injunction to read good Sermon Books to the people, such as Dr. preston's, Sibbs, etc. was this spoken to defeat the Spirit, or to serve him?  D. O. 1. A total neglect of all gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the Administration of Church-worship and Ordinances. 
§ 14. THe first Consequence is an untruth: No doubt but Liturgies were abused to cherish Ignorance and Negligence. 
XXVII. Error.  But that the neglect was total, is not true; whether you respect all the Churches, or all the parts of Worship and Ordinances. 1. The many holy and excellent Men, whose fame and writings are transmitted to us, did not totally neglect all gifts of the Holy Ghost. Were all the great Volumes of Sermons preached and written by chrysostom, without any gift of the Holy Ghost? Or was Preaching no Ordinance? Were all Augustine's elaborate Volumes done without him? Or all Cyprian's, Macarius, Ephrem Syrus, Basil's, Gregory's, yea, or Bernard's Homilies and Works?  
2. Are the gifts of Holy Desire, Faith, Hope, Repentance, no gifts of the Holy Ghost? Or can you prove that these were all totally neglected in the administration of Church-worship?  
3. It's known, that in the Exercise of Discipline, which is a Church-Ordinance, and in Catechising and Preaching, they were not tied only to a form of words; no, nor in all Confession, Prayer and Thanksgiving.  
4. It's a great blow to the Universal Church, to say, That it totally neglected all the gifts of the Holy Ghost.  D. O. 2. When a Plea for the Work of the Holy Ghost began to be revived, it produced all the enmity, hatred and contempt of, and against the Spirit of God himself, and his whole Work in the Church, which the World is now filled withal. 
§ 15. THat word [his whole work in the Church], is another misreport. 
XXVIII. Error.  It is not [his whole work] that is so contemned. A man may preach for Mercy to the Poor, for Obedience to Authority, for Love, etc. and he may sing Psalms of Praise, and pray for Pardon, and for Kings and Magistrates, and for daily Bread, and may profess to believe the Creed, and Scripture, etc. without the contempt which you describe. But no doubt but Malignity will take advantage of Liturgies, and of almost any thing, and so hath still done: All is not unlawful which bad men abuse: What is more turned against Christ in the world abroad, than his Two great Ordinances of Magistracy and Ministry: What more abused to strife, than the Sacrament of Love, Union and Communion? Are all these therefore unlawful?  
And it's a palpable Mistake, That the foresaid scorn of all done by the Spirit [ariseth from hence alone], 
XXIX. Error.  a justification of the devised way of Worship. It ariseth more from a malignant enmity to serious godliness, and from worldly interests and designs, and from the slanders of Seducers that accuse good men, and too much from the miscarriages of many that have boasted most of the Spirit, as Quakers, Ranters, Familists, etc. do.  
And Experience confuteth you: For all those Countries that make but little use of Liturgies, have yet malignant parties that hate and oppose spiritual serious Exercises of Religion.  D. O. 
All the Reproaches that are daily cast upon the Spirit of Prayer; all the concontempt and sc●rn which all Duties of religious Worship performed by his aid and assistance, are entertained withal, ariseth from hence alone, namely, a justification of this devised way of Worship, as the only true way and means thereof.  
Take this away, and the wrath and anger of men against the Spirit of God and his w●rk, in the Worship of the Church, will be abated; yea, the necessity of them will be evident.  
T●is we cannot comply with, lest we approve the original design of it, and partake in the sins which proceed from it.  
§ 16. BEcause you lay the main stress of your Cause on History and Experience, you constrain me to add some more History, which I had rather have passed by: But if I set not Experience against Experience, I shall leave abundance unto the danger of error, who can judge by little else than Experience, and that see and feel what's present, and forget what is long passed and gone.  
The Truth I have opened in my Christian Directory, that both ways are liable to great abuse, and all humane actions have their inconveniences. The benefits of a sound Liturgy, are, 1. To keep out Heresy and ill words from public worship. 2. To be a help to men of unready utterance. 3. That the people may know beforehand what they join in.  
The inconveniences are, 1. The dulling of Affection in hearing still the same words. 2. The tempting of slothful worldly Candidates and Ministers to learn no other way of praying, when this will serve all their worldly turns. But I must add, That this followeth not the imposing of a Liturgy, but the exclusion of other Prayer, and taking up with this alone.  
2. The conveniences of praying from an habit▪ are, 1. A just variation, as Occasions vary. 2. Help to fresh Affection. 3. Forcing Ministers to get ability for utterance.  
The inconveniences are, 1. That the people know not till the words are past, whether they may own them, and so hardly try all, and follow with just consent. 2. That abundance of young, raw, unskilful men, do ordinarily disgrace Prayer by their unskilful methods and expressions. 3. That Heretics and erroneous men have great opportunity to put their sins into their prayer, which yet the people should by joining in, make their own, were they sound (which they are not bound to do by Sermons): And no man of understanding can choose but suspect, that weak ignorant Ministers will be showing their weakness in the highest Duties; and so must suspend their consent till late. 4. That less care will be taken in speaking to God, than in speaking to Men, while most sober Ministers study their Sermons. 5. That when to avoid disgraceful words, and manner of praying, men must decree, that no such weak or unready men shall be Ministers, the number that can do it better, will be so small, as that most Churches on Earth must be so deprived of Ministers, and all public Worship, if that take place. 6. That by this means young ignorant men, that by use can speak fluently and fervently in prayer, shall be followed by the people; when many great Divines, judicious and holy, that have not that readiness of utterance, shall be rejected, as having not the Spirit. 7. That as all men's bodies and minds be not in the like quickness and fitness at all times, but sometimes clouded by Fumes or Weakness; the public Worship shall be as mutable, uncertain and various as men's Tempers are.  
All these on both sides are so great inconveniences, that though both Formalists and fanatics have derided me for it, I have formerly said, and still say, That I believe that the best way to avoid both sorts of Evils is, To have meet set Forms, which shall be owned by the Church, as their professed desires, not being so long, as to take up too much time from freer Prayer, much less to forbid it; which Calvin wisely ordered for France and Geneva.  
And now as you have Historically told us the ill Consequences of a Lturgy, I shall first tell you, It is a Mistake: None of these arise from a sound Liturgy, but from the using that alone, and not using also free Prayer with it: And next, I shall add some more of the History of Separation from Churches that have Liturgies, though it be as displeasing to me, as it is necessary to the People.  
I will pass by the Histories of Muncer and Munster, and of David George in Holland, and of Henry Nicols, and the Familists, which were the Offspring of Separation: And the sad Conflicts which they had against the sober Nonconformists; and their sad Divisions among themselves in Holland, and how many of them went further to Anabaptistry, and more; when Brown their Leader here, turned Conformist. It is only what I have lived to see, that I briefly mention. When the Parliament began, 1640. there were few Separatists known comparatively in England: But when they were encouraged by hope of Success, they began to stir, and show themselves, and two sorts fell in with them, and quickly increased them, that is, 1. The exasperated Sufferers. 2. Women, and weak young Men, who thought it a great honour in Religion, to go far enough from Persecutors, and formal or ungodly Ministers, not seeing the Danger on the other Extreme. Holy and Learned john Ball foresaw the Danger, and wrote his Book, called, The Trial of Separation: and after, two more; one against Can, and another against two New England Ministers. The Assembly being called, even sober and excellent Men that were for the old Conformity in case of Necessity, but not otherwise; Five of their number, differing from all the rest, save two more, wrote for Independency. This Controversy began the great Breach, while the Five Dissenters stood stiffly for a Liberty, that Men might gather New Churches out of the Churches of the other Ministers, of as many as should come to them in all places, and should have all Church-Power in those separated Churches. The other did not what might have been done skilfully to heal the Breach, though they did much. The two Parties drew others into the Division. Those called Presbyterians were the more quiet, because they thought the Dissenters few. Independency might have been tolerated, but Separation was that which would not be endured, when nothing was imposed in Doctrine or Worship, which the Dissenters excepted against. The Separaters finding themselves few, were the more industrious, especially to get Interest in Parliament and Army. In the Parliament, they could never get near the Major Vote; but they had some, whose Policy and Industry made up what was wanting in Number: And by them, they got the Army new modelled; all Parliament Men thence put out, and Cromwell put in Power, Second in Name, and First in Deed: He placed his Interest (as Constantine did, in owning the persecuted Christians, who had no other outward help but him) in declaring himself to be for Liberty in Religion, and the Protector of all godly Men that suffered for Conscience-sake, or feared it, whereby the Dissenters that feared lest the Presbyterians would Master them, came in to him, and he got enough to Head his Army (and great numbers also of Common Soldiers) who were for Separation; and being Men of other Parts and Interest, than those t●at Fight only for Pay, would not run away, but Conquered almost where ever they came. I lived in Coventry quietly, and with godly understanding Men, who thought all the Accusations against Fairfax's (or rather Cromwell's) Arm▪ as turbulent, overturning Men, had been Slanders. After Nas●by Fight, being near them, I went for Novelty to see them. There some sober Men among them told me, how they had discouraged all the Orthodox Ministers, save one or two, and were deserted by them, and turned Preachers themselves; they that had most Self Conceit, being the Speakers; and in a word, foretold me what Changes they would attempt, against King, Parliament, and Ministry, I went home, and told what I saw and heard, and being Invited by some of the soberest to the Army, I told an Assembly of Ministers my willingness to venture Life and Labour among them, to undeceive as many as I could. The Ministers consented to my going (Dr. Grew, and Mr. Simon King, yet living, were two of them); There Cromwell having notice of all before I came, gave me no opportunity to come near himself or the Chief in Power: But where I came, I did my best: For I found the Separatists half Arminians, and the other half contrary, Antinonians; agreeing to use their Power for the Changes that were after made. The Scots and Presbyterians they designedly and bitterly reproached. The Book called, Mar●in Mar-Priest, and other such, tell you their Dialect: Their usual Titles were, The Priest-byters, the Drivines, the Sinners of Westminster, the Dissembly men, and such like. The godly able Ministers, were more scorned by them, than formerly I had heard among the Drunkards. What they did after this, England and Scotland felt. They cut off the King, they cast out Eleven Members from the Parliament: After that, they cast out and imprisoned the Major par, which was the House of Commons, and cast out all the House of Lords; then by these they made the People take an Engagement against the old Form of Government, To be true to the Commonwealth, as then Established, without a King and House of Lords: They ordered the Sequestering of all Ministers that would not Fast and Pray before, and give Thanks after, for their Victories in Scotland. They then pulled down this Remnant of the Commons, and called themselves without the People's Choice, Two out of each County, and called them a Parliament. These put it to the Vote, Whether all the Parish-Ministers in England, should not be put down at once, and as credible Report went, it was carried against them but by three Voices. These gave up their Commissions to Cromwell. He now becomes the Defender of the Ministers: The Government is again Changed, and he made Protector, and Fundamental Laws made among themselves, by we know not whom; Parliament Lords made by him: Parliaments called, and broken at his pleasure. The Government of the Counties put into the Hands of Major Generals. After the Death of Oliver, his Son set up, and his Parliament first pulled down (in which the Reverend Author, n●w opposed, told me, he was an Agent) and next himself. Then the Commons, called the Rump, were made Sovereign again. Then they were pulled down again, and a Council of State out of the Army that did it, is set highest: Till at last, by God's most remarkable hand, this conquering Army dissolved utterly without one drop of blood, and the King restored without opposition.  
It's true, that serious godliness all this while much increased in most parts of the Land: But how? It was mainly by the excellent preaching and living of that Ministry whom these Separatists vilified, such as the Assembly-men had been, and by a middle sort of Peacemakers, who engaged in no Sect, but would fain have healed all: For the effects of the separating party were these: 1. The Land was cast into division and confusion by them. 2. Ranters and Quakers sprung from them. 3. Their overthrow of Government brought a Reproach on Religion. 4. Separated Churches of Anabaptists kept up a Religious War in many places. 5. All the Parish-Ministers in Wales were put down, and most of the Churches shut up, Itinerant Preachers being set up in their stead, lest the Parishes should be thought to be Churches. Perhaps you'll say, That these Itinerants were better than the old ignorant Ministers: But, 1. Their Number was so small, that there was commonly but one to Six or Eight Parishes: so that the People publicly worshipped God but once in Six or Eight weeks: And had not a Liturgy been better than nothing, or than to live like Atheists? 2. The most famous of the Itinerants were Mr. W. Cradocke and Vavasor Powel: I knew them both: The former was a most zealous man for practical godliness, with whom I conversed in my Youth, when in Mr. Rich. Simond's School in Shrewsbury, he was concealed from the Bishop's pursuit, by the Name of Mr. Williams: But how gross an Antinomian he turned after he had learned Separation, before he was Itenerant there, his Printed Sermons tell us, where he so earnestly persuadeth mwn not to question their Justification after Conversion, for any sin whatsoever they shall commit; and more such like: And his Printed Writings show, that Mr. Erbury, of whom he learned Separation, fell so far, as that it's hard to discern that he was at all a Christian. And Vavasor Powel was an Antinomian.  
Now I crave a sober Answer to this, 1. Whether a Liturgy had not been better than no Worship for six days in seven? 2. Whether these Itinerants, that so dangerously erred in Doctrine, were not more sadly destitute of the help of the Spirit, than they that only wanted ability to utter sound words without a Form, or Books? And had not good forms been safer for that People, than the Doctrine of Mr. Erbury, Mr. Crad●k, Vavasor Powel, Morgan Lloyd of Wrexham, (known also in Print). It grieved me to talk with one of these Itinerants in 1663., who came to me for Counsel: He had been an Anabaptist set up for an Itinerant over many Parishes; I examined him, and found that he had not any more learning than to read English, and was grossly Ignorant in Divinity: He was ordained for all that by a Bishop and conformed; I wondered how he passed their Examination: He told me that they asked him no questions about his Learning or Knowledge, but only whether he would Conform, and so ordained him.  
I have now opened some of the fruits of Separation in England, as you have done the supposed fruits of the Liturgies, but indeed of the exclusion of free Prayers. And judge now whether all the ill effects have come from one extreme. The truth is, having impartially observed the mischiefs of the Age in which I have lived, I have found that both the extremes have been the chief causes; and the Peacemakers both the most understanding, and the most innocent: And the nearer any of the several parties have come to them, the more innocent they have been. It is not mere Episcopacy or Liturgies, that have done the mischief; for such excellent men as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, Parker, jewel, Grindal, Davenant, Ʋsher, etc. could use both profitably: It's not mere Presbytery; for such as Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, Sadeel, Rivet, Chamier, Dallee, Blondel, have been excellent Lights in the Church: It is not mere Independency; for Ramus, Amesius, H. jacob, jer. Burroughs, and many others of that mind, have been excellent peaceable men. It is not mere Anabaptistry, for there have been many peaceable worthy men against Infant Baptism, (and some Bishops thought it not of Divine Institution); and when they were rebaptized, continued in Love and Communion with others. But it is Proud Ignorance, and want of Christian Love, causing Excommunicating, Persecuting, Separation or Schism in some, and withdrawing censorious Separation in others, who (neither party) understand the truth, nor ever loved their Neighbours as themselves, nor learned to do as they would be done by. The worldly P R. IGs. and the unruly P R. IGs. by Persecution, and by causeless Separation and Alienation, have done the hurt.  
But I will tell the Bishops, that they should not be too angry with the Learned Author of these twelve Arguments: For I know not three men alive, whom they are more beholden to for their restitution, by opening the door, and sweeping the way, and melting down or pulverizing all that was like to have resisted them. I speak not of the Intention, but of the Action; by which the Separatists cut down the banks, and when they had let in the Prelacy and Liturgy which they dislike, then writ and talk against them.  
I will add one Question to this unpleasant Section; If there be as few in all the Christian World; yea, among the reformed Calvinists and Lutherans, out of our King's Dominions, that can pray as well without a form, as with it, as we have great cause to believe; would he have all these Nations dissolve all their Churches, and like Atheists cast off all public Church-worship, till they have Ministers enough that have learned to pray better without a Form or Liturgy than with it? If this be desired, I appeal to any that can difference Christianity from Heathenism, Whether Liturgies, or such a Separation from Liturgies, would do more hurt?  
And I will add yet one question more, If there be not above two or three (or at last no) Church-assemblies in a County, which have Nonconforming Ministers, and opportunity to worship God as Churches; would you have all the rest of the Countries dissolve their Church-assemblies, or forbear all, and live like Unbelievers? If so, I am a Separatist from such destructive Principles and Separations.  D. O. 
3. Argument, That in religious Worship which derogates from the Kingly Office of jesus Christ, so far as it doth so, is false Worship.  
Unto the Office of Christ, it inseparably belongs that he be the sole Lawgiver of the Church, in all the Worship of God. The rule of his Government herein is, Teach men to do and observe whatsoever I command.  
But the Worship treated about, consists wholly in the Institutions, Commands, Prescriptions, Orders and Rules of Men; and on the Authority of men alone doth their Impositions on the practice of the Church depend. What is this, but to renounce the Kingly Office of Christ in the Church?  
§ 17. TO the Major of your 3 d. Arguement I answer, 1. There is that in Worship, [as the badness of the men, etc.) which is no part of the Worship, and therefore no false Worship. 2. True Worship materially may be so abused, as to derogate from the Kingly Office of Christ. 3. But it is granted, That all your own, or other mers' Errors, or Sin in Worship, (which no man is totally free from) do in some degree practically derogate from the Kingly Office of Christ, (which should be better obeyed) and so is so far false Worship.  
That it belongs to this Office of Christ to be the sole Lawgiver in all the Worship of God, 
XXX. Error.  is another mistake. 1. There is that in God's Worship, which is no part of his Worship. 2. There is a secondary Worship subservient to Gods Institutions, which men may make Laws about. 3. There are temporary By-laws and Mandates, which have the essence of Law, (which is, to signify the Rulers Will, making the Subjects Duty) besides general Laws by Excellency, so called.  
And so, 1. Prince's may make Laws for the Use of the best Translation of Scripture, for the Version of Psalms, for Ministers due ordering Worship; to restrain some Seducers, for Time, Place, Utensils, to be uncovered, and to kneel or stand at Prayer, etc. And the Pastor may by Mandate, oblige the People to much of the like.  
Matth. 28.20. By saying [whatever I command you] doth not say, Do nothing which your Parents▪ Prince or Pastor command you, besides my Commands. Sure it was his Spirit that said, Heb. 13. Obey them that have the Rule over you. Christ never particularly commanded any of the Twenty things, in which I instanced to Mr. Raphson. Must not Children obey Parents, or Servants their Masters, in learning any Form of Catechism, or choosing any Minister, or writing Sermons, etc. till Christ will particularly command them? This is a false Exposition.  
It is another Mistake, that the Worship treated about, consisteth wholly in the Command, etc. of men. This Worship containeth, 1. In General, Praying, Praising, Preaching. Is this none of God's Command? 2. It containeth for the Matter signified, 
XXXI. Error.  the Confession of Sins of Omission and Commission, the Petitioning for all contained in the Lord's Prayer, and for all Graces (though Prayers for Faith or its increase, was much forgotten, save on St. Thom●s day, or such an odd occasion) and for the Church and others, as well as ourselves, for Kings, and all in Authority; And Thanksgivings for all sorts of Men. I can find little in the Common Public Worship, whose Matter is not of Divine Command; And can you find none such at all? wonderful difference of Eyesight!  
3. The Matter signifying, is much of it: The Psalms of David, the Old Testament and the New Read, the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, Scripture Hymns, a Scripture-Benediction: Is none of all this commanded by God? What Christian should believe it?  
It is also a Mistake, that [on the Authority of Men alone, doth their Imposition on the Practice of the Church depend]. For, 1. The foresaid parts are imposed by God himself. 2. The Lawful Modes imposed by Men, depend not on their Authority alone, 
XXXII. Error.  but on Gods, who Authorizeth Rulers to do it: For he hath said, Let all be done to Edification, in Order; Obey them that have the Rule. They that obey a Pastor for Time, Place, Utensils, Translations, Psalms, etc. or that obey the King, depend not herein on Man alone.  
Your Conclusion also is a Mistake. 
XXXIII. Error.  This is not to renounce the Kingly Office of Christ in the Church, no more than you did, when you wrote your Savoy-Articles of Confession, or when you draw up the Form of a Church-Covenant for your Flock. All that is a Sin against Christ's Kingly Office, is not a renouncing of it.  D. O. 
4. Argument. That which gives Testimony against the Faithfulness of Christ in his House, as a Son and Lord of it, above that of a Servant, is not to be complied withal; let all his Disciples judge.  
Unto this Faithfulness of Christ it doth belong to appoint and command all things whatever in the Church, that belongs to the Worship of God, as is evident from this Comparison with Moses herein, and his preference above him. Hebr. 3.3, 4, 5 6. But that Institution and Prescription of all things in Religious Worship, of things never instituted nor prescribed by Christ in the Forms and Modes of them, ariseth from a supposition of a defect in the Wisdom, Care, and Faithfulness of Christ; Whence alone a necessity can arise of prescribing that in Divine Worship, that he hath not prescribed.  
§. 18. TO your Fourth Argument, I answer. 1. To the Major Proposition (1. To give Testimony) Signifieth either by remote unseen Consequence, to cross Christ's Faithfulness: And so do many of the mistakes of you, and every Party; Or it signifies a known denial of Christ's Faithfulness. No Christian complieth with this.  
2. Complying also is an ambiguous word; if it mean an approbation of any Sin, so no man must comply. If it mean communicating in good, where there is a faulty mixture of some evil, so he that will not comply, must join with no Church, and with no Man living.  
2. To your Minor, I answer, (passing by the misforming) in your Supposition, It is not true, that it belongeth to Christ's Faithfulness to appoint and command all things whatever in the Church, 
XXXIV. Error.  which belongs to the Worship of God: Else he were unfaithful in bidding them appoint many things belonging to his Worship. I have named Instances enough; which I must not still repeat; You and all Ministers belong to his Worship, and yet Christ hath not in Scripture named you, but left the Choice of you to Man. So of all Accidents undetermined.  
It is another Error, That the Prescription of Forms and Modes of things in Worship, 
XXXV. Error.  not commanded by Christ, can arise from nothing but from Supposition of a defect in the Wisdom, care and faithfulness of Christ. I confute it, 1. You know not the hearts of all the World, and therefore cannot say, That this can arise from nothing else: Did you know Ambrose, that made the Te Deum, and all that made and prescribed Psalms, Hymns and Prayers; and Calvin that made a Liturgy; and Bucer, and the Martyrs here, and all that prescribed Translations and Metres, etc. so well, as to know that all these, and almost all the Churches on Earth do suppose Christ to be unfaithful?  
2. Is it only such a charge or Supposition against Christ, which made you yourself prescribe your form of Church-Covenant, your Savoy Articles, your Catalogue of Fundamentals, your Lay-Elders, your time and place of Meeting, your Utensils and Ornaments at the Sacraments, & c?  
3. I tell you another possible end, They did it, because they thought that these Modes are mutable according to Persons, Place, Time, Occasion, etc. And therefore, that it belonged not to Christ's faithfulness to detemine them, and that they should deny his faithfulness if they did deny that it hath left them to humane Determination under general Rules, and bid the people obey them that have the rule over you, etc.  D. O. 
5. Argument, That which is a means humanely invented for the attaining of an end in Divine Worship, which Christ hath ordained a means for, unto the exclusion of that means so appointed by Christ, is false Worship, and not to be complied withal.  
The end intended, is the Edification of the Church, in the Administration of all its holy Ordinances; this the Service-book is ordained and appointed by men for, or it hath no end or use at all; but the Lord Christ hath appointed other means for the attaining this end, as is expressly declared. He has given gifts unto men for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body, Ephes. 4.7, 8, 11, 12. that is, in all Gospel Administrations. But this means ordained by Christ, namely, the exercise of spiritual gifts in Gospel Administrations, unto the Edification of the Church, is excluded; yea, expressly prohibited in the Prescription of this Liturgical Worship.  
§. 19 TO the Major of your 5 th'. Argument, I answer, As to the former, No man is to comply by Approbation with any thing that excludeth any of God's means; for instance, not with you that exclude the great duty of Catholic Communion. But we may so far comply with you and others, as to join with you in God's Worship, though you mix some evil. Mr. Faldo at Barnet was fain many years to Preach to a people that excluded singing Psalms. He did what they would bear, when he could not do what he would. He complied not by Approbation with exclusion, for he spoke against it.  
Are you sure that all your ways have tended to the Edification of the Church? Every weak Minister that preacheth or prayeth, when an abler might be had, hindereth the Edification of the Church. Is it a Sin therefore to hear any but the ablest?  
2. That which hindereth the Church's Edification by the Ruler's fault, it may be the People's duty to obey for a greater good: For instance, ●t is less edifying to use our old singing Psalms, than a better Version: And yet for Concord, if the Ruler appoint them, the People must use them; because Concord with that imperfection, is better than to sing every one a several better Version, or divers at once: so a faulty Translation of Scripture, a weak Sermon, an inconvenient hour and place, when Concord is necessary, and cannot be had in the more edifying circumstances, it must be had in the best way we can. If the Sheriff appoint an unfit time and place to meet to choose Parliament-men; it's a duty to comply, rather than not to meet at all; every evil so far excludeth good: And yet we must not renounce Communion in all good, where men mix any evil, left we also give over all good ourselves.  
3. Christ giveth gifts to men now in the due use of means, and not by miracle: Therefore he giveth them in great diversity, and by hard Study, and long Time, Heb. 5. For the time they ought to have been teachers, etc. Therefore a Novice must not be a Bishop; but an Elder, whence the Office had its name. All your pupils, people or Ministers, that had the Spirits gifts, had not your redundancy of Expression. And many can talk more fluently for falsehood, than good men can for truth. I was never much troubled myself for want of words to express what I know; but I have ten thousand times more begged hard for more Knowledge, Faith, Love, and Hope, than ever I did for the gift of utterance; a full heart is earnest, fervent and ready.  
It is another mistake, That the exercise of Spiritual gifts is expressly forbidden; 
XXXVI. Error.  unless you had meant that just at the use of the Litutgy, extemporate utterance is forbidden; but it is not so in the Pulpit.  
And you should not confound things so different, as is the use of the Liturgy, and the forbidding of other prayers.  
Nor yet the act of the Commander, and of the People. If Rulers should command Preaching, Prayer, etc. to exclude the singing Psalms, that is their Sin, and not the People's, who must not (like peevish Children at meat) refuse all, because they cannot have what they would.  D. O. The pretence of men's liberty to use their Gifts in Prayer before Sermons, and in Preaching, is ridiculous; they are excluded in all the solemn Worship of the Church. 
§ 20. THis answer is not only a mistake, but of an ill aspect on yourselves. 
XXXVII. Error.  It's not true, That the use of Gifts [is excludeded in all the solemn Worship of the Church]. As if Prayer, Praise, Thanksgiving, Confession, Explication of the Scripture, Reproof, Exhortation, Comfort, Direction, Benediction, were no part of the solemn Worship of the Church. Indeed some Superconformists have said so, but I had hoped you would not.  
2. I said, It's of an ill aspect. For 1. If Preaching and Pulpit-Prayer before and after, be none of the solemn Worship of the Churches, than all those Churches which seldom use any other, (saving a Psalm, which is a Liturgick form) have no solemn Worship at all. 2. But if it be otherwise, (as it is) than the Parish Churches so far excel most of you, that they have all that you have (Pulpit Prayer and Sermon, and sometimes a Chapter) and all the Common Prayer more. And is not that better than your nothing (except at Sacraments)? I know that the Nonconformists that I have conversed with, are in judgement for more, (for reading the Psalms, Chapters, Creed, Lords Prayer, Decalogue, etc.) But I have come into so few of their Churches that do any more than the common Pulpit work, (sing a Psalm, Pray and Preach there) that I have in that respect preferred the Churches that do all that, and add all the Liturgy besides, more than you use.  D. O. Argument 6. That which hath been, and is obstructive of the edification of the Church, if it be in Religious Worship, it is false Worship: For the end of all true public Worship is edification. 
But such hath been, and is this Liturgical Worship: For,  
§ 21. YOur Sixth Argument is but a Former repeated. To the Major I grant it: All that is bad, is so far false.  
To the Minor, 1. And such is all your Errors, and all the Disorder, ill Reflections, slovenly Expressions which any weak Minister useth, and the faults that all men have in some degree.  D. O. 
1. It puts an utter stop to the progress of Reformation in this Nation, fixing bounds unto it that it could never pass.  
2. It hath kept multitudes in ignorance, etc.  
3. It hath countenanced and encouraged many in reviling and reproaching the holy Spirit, and his Work.  
4. It hath set up and warranted an ungifted Ministry.  
5. It hath made great desolations in the Church: 1. In the silencing of painful Ministers. 2. In the ruin of Families innumerable. 3. In the destruction of souls.  
It is not lawful to be participant in these things; yea, the glory of our profession lies in our testimony against them.  
§ 22. TO your Reasons: 1. It's not the use of a Liturgy that hinders Reformation, but the abuse of it, and forbidding other ways of duty.  
2. The same I say of keeping men in ignorance: Use all other means, and the Liturgy with it, and it will keep none in ignorance. Some Helvetia Ministers who endeavoured to have practised my Reformed Pastor, in personal conference, told me, That there the common people go customarily, almost every day in the week, to a Sermon, without Ceremonies or Liturgies (usually) with a Bible in their hands, and continue as ignorant as those here that have no preaching.  
3. I think it was not the esteem of a Liturgy that made Quakers and Separatists here, revile and scorn the best Ministry, I think, in all the World.  
4. Nor was it the Liturgy that set up and warranted such ill-gifted Teachers as Mr. Erbury, del, Den, Paul Hobson, Chillington, Lilhurne, Prince, Wallwin, William Sedgwick, no, nor Mr. Saltmarsh, who wrote for comfort, That Christ hath repent and believed for us; and we should no more question our Faith and Repentance, than we would question Christ. I pass by multitudes of Army-Preaching-Soldiers, such as those in Major Bethel's Troop, in the same Regiment that I was with; against whom, one day in Amersham-Church, I was put to dispute from morning till near night, to save multitudes whom they drew every week to hear them, from their absurd Errors (and at last they turned Levellers, and Cromwell was put to hunt them to death). The like I was put to with Brown, an Army-Chaplain, and an Arrian, that maintained, That Christ was not God, in a Church at Worcester: And this life I had with them long. Was all this caused by a Liturgy?  
5. The desolations made in the Church, malignant men would make with or without a Liturgy. What may not be abused? The Authors must answer for it. Such as aforesaid, jewel, Grindal, Ʋsher, etc. Preston, Sibs, Bolton, and a Thousand such, made no such havoc.  
It is not lawful to partake in persecution: but we must partake in much good, which bad men will abuse to persecution. An excellent foreign Church hath decreed to reject all Ministers that are not, 1. For the Antiquity of the Hebrew Points. 2. Against Universal Redemption. Our Learned Author here was for both these, though men abused them to persecution.  D. O. Argument 7. That practice whereby we condemn the suffering Saints of the present Age, rendering them false Witnesses of God, and the only blamable cause of their own sufferings, is not to be approved: But such is this practice: And where this is done on a pretence of liberty, without any plea of necessary duty on our part, it is utterly unlawful. 
§ 23. TO your Seventh Argument: The Major meaneth, either Saints that suffer for well-doing, or for ill-doing. If the Anabaptists should be suffering-Saints, I would be none of those that they suffer by: But yet I would not be for Anabaptistry, for fear of condemning them as the cause of their own suffering: By that Rule I must own every error or sin that any Saint suffereth for.  
2. The Truth bids me say more than I am willing, to confute this Error. I have heard Army-Officers say, That they believed abundance of the Ten Thousand Scots, killed at Dunbar, were godly men: And yet you were one that publicly, in Pulpit and Print, accused them, and did not justify their cause for being Saints. Do you think none of the Ministers in England were Saints, that refused the Engagement, and were sequestered for that, and not keeping Fasts and Thanksgivings for Blood? Are you sure that Christopher Love (beheaded), was no Saint? Or did you therefore own their Causes?  
To your Minor: It is a gross Mistake to say, That going to the Liturgy maketh the Refusers [the only blamable cause of their own sufferings]. What! 
XXXVIII. Error.  are you one that acquit all their Prosecutors, if it be but proved, that the Refusers are mistaken? Who could have suspected this? What if Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and such others err (as you believe they do)? If any would therefore silence, imprison, banish or hang them, dare you justify it, and say, That the Dissenters are the only blamable cause of their own sufferings? Sure you consider not what you wrote: You thought not so.  
2. But are there no Saints that go to Common-Prayer? Why do not you distinguish Saints? I hope there are many times more Saints (and wiser), that separate not, than that do: And are not you as faulty for saying, They sin, as they for saying, You sin, if their cause be true? This soundeth as too much of a Sect.  
3. The Truth is, Repentance is so hard a work, that I see both Extremes fly from it on a proud pretence of Constancy, and that they may not confess that they have erred. It was the grand Argument that bore down me and others, when we pleaded with some Bishops to have prevented our Divisions by some alterations [Oh than it will be thought that we erred, and gave cause for old complaints]: And now we must none of us hold Communion with the Parish-Churches, lest some Saints that separate, should be rendered False Witnesses of God, and blamable. But were not the old Nonconformists and Conformists, as real Saints as the old Separatists, and a Thousand for One? And do not you now make them all as False Witnesses? If really you have fathered any Love-killing, dividing Error on God, repent of it, and do not justify it, for fear of being thought blamable. This is it that keepeth England in confusion, and threatneth worse: Neither of the Extremes that have caused our calamities, are humbled, nor can endure a motion to repent; but Overturners justify their former and their present love-destroying ways. The Lord give England Repentance unto Life: And the Lord help me to see all my Errors, and to repent the more, because I see that proud Nature is so much against it.  
And you mistake, if you think that we plead only liberty for this Communion. It is duty that we plead: but not duty to all persons, nor all times, as if the case of all were the same.  
We have not the happiness of Innocency: Repentance is next to it: When we confess our sins, we vindicate Christ and Religion, which are against them: When we justify them, we falsely honour ourselves, and lay all on Christ, as if he would justify that which he abhorreth and died for. God will yet more shame us, if we will shame his Cause, instead of taking shame to ourselves. Impenitence is more dangerous than any sin which we should repent of. Carnal Policy will be angry with me for mentioning the old faults which Adversaries sufficiently reproach us with. (And I must say, that God in his time, will justify the generality of the sober godly people of England, from the false Accusation of those Malignants and Papists, who charge them with all the Gild of the Sins of a few Sectaries got into an Army, even the subversion of Church-Order, and Civil Power, when it could not be done, but by a Conquest and Oppression of these Religious People first, both Parliaments, Ministers and their Flocks; in comparison of whom, the Army separatists were inconsiderable for number. They that would destroy thousands of faithful Subjects, as guilty of that which they opposed, till they were Conquered, and suffered for opposing, do but show their own Iniquity) But yet God never taught men that way of Policy: Repentance, and not Impenitence, or Self-justification, is the way to take off men's reproach. God permits them to do it, because we do it not. To confess our own Sins, is no Extenuation of the wickedness of any Malignant Persecutors, or debauched men. What they truly upbraid us with in malice, let us openly lament in serious penitence; and not stand to a sinful dividing Principle and Cause, lest the Saints be blamed, that have fathered it on God. This Learned Author hath done otherwise himself, and so hath the Party now opposed. He and I knew the Man who was Pastor to the Commanders of the Army, when they pulled down and set up, and again pulled down, till they had turned their Armed Bulwark into Atoms; and when he saw what they had done; said, [I wonder the people do not cast stones at us as we go along the streets]. Was not this a blaming of his Flock? He knew how oft the Addresses of the Separatists to the several suddenly erected Sovereignty's, did change their minds, and cry peccavimus by their new Addresses for the old: And why may we not blame them that blamed themselves for Fathering their Mistakes on God?  D. O. 
Argument 8. That Practice which is accompanied with unavoidable Scandal, engaged in only on pretence of Liberty, is contrary to the Gospel; but such is our joining in the present Public Worship.  
It were endless to reckon up all the Scandals which will ensue herein. That which respects our Enemies, must not be omitted. Will they not think, will they not say, That we have only Falsely and Hypocritically pretended Conscience for what we do, when we can on outward Considerations comply with that which is required of us? woe to the World because of such Offences: but woe to them also by whom they are given.  
§. 24. TO the Major of your Eighth Argument, I answer, 1. It is not true, when there is far greater Scandal by forbearing that Practice; but only when there is less on the other side.  
To the Minor I answer, It is not true, That it is only Liberty that is pleaded for the Communion in question. It is great Duty that is pleaded: 
XXXIX. Error.  1. The Duty of Christian Union, and Concord, and Love, and Peace. 2. The Duty of obeying the Commands and Example of Christ and his Apostles. 3. The Duty of avoiding the Principles of Schism, and the condemning and false accusing the Church of Christ on earth. 4. The Duty of bearing Witness against the Principle (of the sinfulness of Communicating with a Church in Liturgies) which would make Christ in most Ages to be no King, as having no Kingdom or Church on earth. 5. The Duty of taking warning by the mischiefs of Causeless Separation, in Ages that hath so much smarted by it. 6. The Duty of seeking our own Edification. 7. The Duty of keeping thousands of Christians from ceasing all Public Worship, where they can have no other, but in the Parish-Churches. 8 The Duty of keeping thousands of good people from being ruined for mistakes and evil doing. 9 The Duty of obeying Magistrates in Lawful things. 10. And the Duty of avoiding Scandal on the other side: Is all this nothing but pretence of Liberty?  
As to the Scandal mentioned by you, No doubt, Adversaries will reproach you, whether you Communicate in the Parish Churches or not. But note, 1. That if any be guilty of such sin, as for outward Considerations to do any Evil, or any Good which they take to be Evil, these men deserve some Reproach. But, 1. If they before were in Circumstances which made it no Duty, and after by God's providence are in Circumstances which make it a Duty, the Reproachers do but show their ignorance or malice, whether they be Persecutors or Separatists, that so reproach them. 2. Or if men see the Error of their former Separation, they must not forbear Repentance and Amendment, for fear of Reproach.  
There is so great a difference of Men and Cases, that it's gross sottishness, to think that their Duties and Sins are the same in mutable Cirstances. It's a Sin to Preach or Pray, when we should be quenching a Fire, saving men's Lives. Christians, as well as Pharisees, are yet to learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice, and therefore accuse the guiltless. Some men have no possibility of any other Church-Worship, but in the Parish-Chuches. Some have no other, but what is worse. Some may have abler Teachers, but at the cost of Imprisonment and Ruin. It is not Lawful to lie in Prison merely for refusing to hear a weak Nonconformist, when you might hear an abler: And so it is in the Case of Conformists; Else all were bound to a few men. Some have Liberry to hear fit men, or at the least, more agreeable to them, without greater hurt than good (As the Dutch and French here have). Some are commanded by Husbands, Parents and Masters, to one Church, and some to another. Some have more able and godly Ministers in the Parish-Churches, and some have such as I would never own or encourage in the Ministry, by seeming to own them. Some can remove their Dwelling, and some cannot. Some had Liberty the last year, that cannot have it this year, without more hurt than their benefit will compensate. In these Cases where God hath not at all tied us to a Book, or no Book, to this Church or to that; he that can truly tell which way he shall do, and get most good or hurt, may by that better know his Duty, than by these Arguments, or men's Censures.  
But, verily, my chief Reason for Communion in public, is the very same which you bring against it: Even the avoiding of heinous Scandal. I have told the World, 1. That Scandal is not displeasing men, but laying before them a temptation to sin. 2. That if the Separatists be the best Christians, they are farthest out of the danger of Scandal: It is the worst that are easiliest tempted to Sin, and so whom we should be most fearful to scandalise. 3. And it's a greater Sin to scandalise many, than few. 4. And worse by scandal to tempt men to the mortal Sins of persecuting or scorning godly men, than merely to tempt them to some small mistakes, or to grieve them. 5. And to scandalise our Rulers, is worse than to scandalise Inferiors (Caeteris paribus).  
And now I tell you, I the rather join in Public, 1. Lest I should harden thousands in the Opinion, That we take that to be unlawful which is not, and that we are for sinful Separation, and that we separate from, and unchurch almost all Christ's Church▪ and that we are Enemies to Order, and Peace, and Concord, and that we are unruly enemies to Government, and giddy, ignorant, self-conceited people. 2. And so, lest we breed throughout the Land such a contempt of Conscience in God's service, as they have of Quakers; and thousands by this should be alienated from the Reverence of serious Religion, and Youth should be educated to the like contempt, under these temptations. 3. And lest if any in Church-matters be guilty of sinful Extremes on the other side, (in Oaths, Professions, Ceremonies or Practices), we should harden them therein, by tempting them to think, that we have no worse against their way, than the Use of a Liturgy. 4. Lest the Conceit, that we are but a company of giddy fanatics, encourage any contentious Preachers to render us odious, and rail at us in the Pulpits, to their own shame, and the widening of our Breaches. 5. And lest the same Error should tempt any Bishops or Magistrates to think, they do God and their Church and Country service, in silencing, imprisoning, reproaching and ruining Gods faithful Servants without cause, and bring the Land under God's wrath by persecution. Are these no Scandals? or not greater than offending or displeasing the dissenting Separators? to say nothing of ocsioning our Reproach in all the Foreign Churches which have a Liturgy.  
If against all this, the displeasing your mistaken Flocks should prevail, than their weakness and error would constitute them our chief Governors.  D. O. Argument 9 That Worship which is unsuited to the spiritual relish of the New Creature, which is inconsistent with the conduct of the Spirit of God in Prayer, is unlawful: For the Nature, Use and Benefit of Prayer is overthrown hereby in a great measure. Now let any one consider what are the Pr●mises, Aids of the Holy Spirit, with respect to the Prayers of the Church, whether as to the Matter of them, or as unto Ability for their performance, or as unto the Manner of it, and he shall find that they are all rejected and excluded by this Form of Worship, as is pretended, comprising the wh●le Matter, limiting the whole Manner, and giving all the Abilities of Prayer that are needful or required: This hath been proved at large. 
§ 25. TO your Ninth Argument, I answer, 1. O! confine not the New Creature to those of your Opinion. Do you think none of the Old Nonconformists or Conformists, none of the Reformed Churhes, and no Church on Earth for a Thousand years, had any of the New Creature? When you have affrighted People with telling them, it is heinous sin, and returning to Babylon; and also by long disuse, made a Liturgy uncouth to them, do not ascribe all their averseness to the New Creature, which is from prejudice and disuse. For my part, when God taught me first to pray, I had no averseness to a Form: When I heard it charged with sin, I began to be averse to it: When I had studied the case, I was cured of that averseness: but never reconciled to the forbidding of all other Prayer, nor to the faults of any Forms.  
And who knoweth not, that Man's culpable Nature loveth Novelties, and are hardly kept in lively Affections under any thing that is very often said? A Book, or Sermon, though never so good, affecteth us not so much after many times reading and hearing, as at the first: We must not lay this weakness on the New Creature, though it should teach Imposers to suit the Remedy to the Disease, and give children such food as is not too displeasing to their Appetites.  
And yet I find not the generality of Appetites▪ even in your Flocks, is against the Forms of Psalms, being not prejudiced against them.  
It is not true, that Liturgies are inconsistent with the conduct of the Spirit in Prayer: It is a Mistake also, 
XL. Error.  That this Form of Worship rejecteth and excludeth the matter of Prayer, whenas the Visible Book tells all the contrary. Do all those words express none of the Matter of Prayer? It is untrue, That it rejecteth and excludeth the Manner, as to the chief part: For the Lord's Prayer is a perfect Form for Matter, Order and Method: And the Psalms read and sung, are for Matter and Manner, neither evil nor excluded. And sure there is much of the rest laudable. If all Matter and Manner be rejected and excluded, than the Martyrs that used it, and all the Churches on Earth, almost, have no Church-Prayers. But again I tell▪ The use of Forms, and the forbidding all other Prayers, are Two different things, which you ill confound.  D. O. 
Argument 10. That which overthrows and dissolves our Church-Covenant, as unto the principal end of it, is as to us unlawful. This end is the professed joint subjection of our souls and consciences unto the Authority of Christ, in the observasion of whatever he commands, and nothing else, in the Worship of God.  
But by this practice, this end of the Church-Covenant is destroyed, and thereby the Church-Covenant itself broken: For we do and observe that which Christ hath not commanded: And while some stand unto the Terms of the Covenant, which others relinquish, it will fill the Church with confusion and disorder.  
§ 26. TO your Tenth Argument, I answer, 1. What your Church-Covenant is, I know not: But if it profess subjection to nothing in Worship but what Christ commandeth, 
XLI. Error.  it is your Church-Error: For than you are in Covenant not to obey the Pastor (even yourself), if he set a Psalm, a Tune, a Translation of Scripture, nor if he appoint Time, Place and Utensils for Worship: For these are in the Worship. Then you are covenanted to disobey the Magistrate, if he command any of these, or command men not to put on their Hats, or sit at Prayer; or for concord, t●e all the Land to one Translation of Scripture, or any such undetermined Mode.  
2. It is a greater disgrace to your Churches than ever I knew of before, not only to covenant against God's Word, Heb. 13.7, 17. 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. etc. and against the Fifth Commandment; but also to make this necessary to Concord, That your Churches must break, if the Members agree not all herein. This is a plain demand of Conformity to an Humane unsound imposition. No wonder if they are Dividers who set up by Church-Covenants, false Terms of Unity.  D. O. 
Argument 11. That which contains a virtual renunciation of our Church-state, and of the lawfulness of our Ministry, and Ordinances therein, is not to be admitted or allowed.  
But this also is done in the practice enquired into: For it is a professed conjunction with them in Church-Communion and Worship, by whom our Church-state and Ordinances are condemned as null: And this judgement they make of what we do, affirming that we are gross Dissemblers, if after such a conjunction with them, we return any more unto our own Assemblies. In this condemnation we do outwardly and visibly join.  
§ 27. IF your Church-state be essentiated by a Covenant, to be subject to nothing else in Worship (even the Accidents which God bids men determine by his general Rules of Edification, Order, Decency, Love, Peace, Church-Custom, etc.) than I commend the generality of Nonconforming Ministers, that they set up no such Church-state: And they do well to renounce all that you do ill to invent and impose, while you talk against Imposition, and adding to God's Word such Humane Forms.  
But yet it's an Error to hold, That if any unjustly condemn other Churches, 
XLII. Error.  it is a renunciation of that condemned Church-state, to have Communion with them that condemn. Who would have thought the Two separating Extremes had so agreed in their Principles? This is just the very Core of the evil of the Book of the contrary party which I here answer. Alas! how few Churches on Earth have not peevishly condemned one another; it may be for Easter-day, for the choice of a Bishop, as the Donatists (striving whose Bishop was the right): The case of the Novatians, Audians, Luciferians, and even of most in East and West, are sad Instances: And will such censoriousness unchurch them, and forbidden us Communion with them? This is plain revenge, and to curse them that curse us, and abuse them that abuse us. I l●ke Calvin's Spirit better than this, who said, Tho Luther should call me a Devil, I would call him, the Excellent Servant of God. Too many Lutherans now renounce Communion with the Calvinists, who yet renounce not Communion with them.  D. O. 
12. Argument, That which deprives us of the principal Plea for the justification of our Separation from the Church of England, in i●s present state, ought not justly to be received or admitted. But this is certainly done by a Supposition of the lawfulness of this Worship, and a practice suitable thereunto, as is known to all, who are exercised in this Cause.  
Many other heads of Arguments might be added to the same purpose, if there were occasion.  
§ 28. TO your 12 th'. Argument, I answer, 1. That which discovereth the unsoundness of any one's Plea for Separation, is to be received. There are several Cases, in which Separation from the Church of England is sinful. As 1. If any separate as the Papists do, because they are against sound Doctrine, or any good that is in the Church.  
2. If any renounce Communion with all the Parish Churches under the name of the Church of England.  
3. If any renounce Communion with the Church of England, as it is a Christian Kingdom, headed by one Christian Protestant King?  
4. If they renounce Communion with the Church of England, as it is called one from the Association or Concord of its Pastors, or Church Governors.  
5. If any renounce Communion with faulty Bishops, or Worship, or Discipline, simply and absolutely, and not only secundum quid, and so forsake the good that is in them for the sake of the evil. In a word, 1. All that Separate for a wrong cause. 2. Or further than they Separate from Christ, or than Christ would have them separate, do sin.  
2. But they that renounce any corruption, as such, and the Church no further than secundum quid, as it is faulty, do well: For we must so renounce the faults of all Churches and Christians in the World, (and our own first.) But not the Churches and Christians for any tolerable faults, so we commit no Sin ourselves, which they impose as the condition of their Communion.  
Reader, I displease my own disposition as well as others, in the answering of these Arguments. But when I had read them, my Conscience would not suffer me to see many thousand good People so misguided, who have not skill themselves to discern the Fallacies, and by Silence to betray them.  
Let it be noted, That it is not all, nor the greatest Objections I confess which I here deal with, having done it oft elsewhere; but these Twelve militate so much against all the Liturgies in the World, as well as ours, that I durst not pass them by in Silence.  
1. Some object against the faults, which they supposed very great in divers By-offices, Baptising, Confirmation, the Lords-Supper-Impositions, Burial Circumstances and Forms: But these are nothing to the common Worship of the Church on the Lords days.  
2. Some object against the Ministers as Usurpers, being chosen by Patrons, and not consented to by the Flocks. But this is nothing against them that are consented to by Acceptance, though not by Election.  
3. Some Object the heniousness of the Sins of Ministers Conformity, as being deliberate Covenanting to— (I am loath to name them) and so the command, (from such turn away, with such not to eat]: And the case of Marshal and Basilides in Cyprian, and that of Miracle-working Martin, (which on another occasion I have mentioned). But were these Sins never so surely proved, as great as alleged, 1. Every Minister cannot be proved guilty of the worst part. 2. And the Matter of a Sin may be heinous, and yet ignorance take off much of the guilt, as it did of Paul's Persecution: An unlawful War, in which thousands were murdered, and Countries ruined, is Materially one of the greatest Sins in the World; And yet woe to abundance of Princes and People, if Ignorance excuse it not; and if we must renounce Communion with all Countries and Persons, that are guilty of it. 3. And when whole Countries and Churches are in Sin, which we cannot cure, and have no government of, the case of commanded Communion much differs from that which is with single Offenders, and that is in our Power to choose or refuse.  
4. Some Object, that the 5 th', 6 th', 7 th', and 8 th', Canons, have excommunicated us already. Therefore we separate not, but they cast us out. Ans. Let them that are concerned in those Canons, defend them if they can, and justify themselves, for it's past my skill. But we are not bound (though excommunicate) to execute them on ourselves: Let others do it, if it must be done.  
FINIS.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
REader, Upon the review of what I have here written, I think meet to repeat the Occasion, and to say somewhat of the Matter and the Manner of this Writing: The last sheet of my Reasons for Communion being Printed, and the opposite Twelve Arguments suddenly sent me, as being in many hands, and such as would frustrate all that I had written, if they were not answered: For the sake of such as have not skill to see Truth from Error, and are led by Prejudice and Names, I durst not in Conscience let them pass unanswered, they being of such dangerous tendency, and so exceeding erroneous and fallacious. But being put, by the stay of the Press, to do it suddenly, I see Reason to say more, lest I be misunderstood.  
And First, of the Cause which I writ of, in its self and its consequents: 2. The Season of it: 3. The Manner, as to the Authors whom I gainsay and confute and the manner of confuting them: 4. My Reasons for the writing of this Confutation.  
I. I am not writing against Episcopacy, Presbytery, Independency or Rebaptising: I am so far from judging any part of them to be men rejected by Christ, or to be cast out of the Church, or denied leave to worship God in their own Way, or persecuted for it, that I would do any lawful thing for their just Liberty: Yea, so far, that it is only the contrary principle and endeavours by which they strive against, and condemn one another, and call aloud to their followers (such I mean that are for the opposed Separation) to avoid one another, as ever they would scape the guilt of Idolatry or wilful sin. And if I see one man in the streets beating all about him, I cannot keep peace without resisting his unpeaceableness.  
I am not justifying all that is required to Conformity, nor all in the Liturgy: Let them do it, that can. Mr. Warner speaketh untruly when he talks of my change herein, and as if I went to the Parish-Churches for some worldly end. I have been at no Church since August was Twelvemonth, nor am ever more like to be, unless the Church come to my bedside or my door. Is Mr. Warner so lately born, that he never saw nor heard of our joint endeavour when the King came in, 1660. to have prevented these Confusions, by getting a Reformation of the Liturgy? at least, before he said he knew not what, of one whom he knoweth not, he should have enquired, whether I have not, to this day, since then, 1660. held constant Communion with good Ministers in the Parish-Churches.  
But with bad men, and well-meaning honest men, Satan doth most of his Work in the World by untruths and fallacies. Most that think they do God Service by speaking evil of me, falsely, believe and persuade one another, That I do write against them for not coming to the public Churches; and that I am an Accuser and Plaintiff against them for this; and that hereby I animate men to afflict them, with many other such untruths.  
Whereas I have written over, and over, and over, That I persuade no man either to or from a public Church, till I know his Circumstances: And that I doubt not but its one man's duty, and another's sin. Were I under one intolerable for Ignorance, Heresy, or malignant Wickedness, who did more hurt than good, I would not seem to own him as a Minister, any more than Cyprian did Martial and Basilides, or Martin Ithacius, Idacius, and the like; or Gildas the Priests whom he describes, or the ancient Churches Heretical Bishops: Abundance of Circumstances make various the Cases of particular men.  
Yea, though those Dividers renounce Communion with one another (while I blame them, and lament it), I renounce Communion with none of the Parties, no, though they revile and hate me: Only, 1. I will not commit any known sin with them while I communicate with them in all things else, and own them as true Christians, though faulty. 2. And I will not prefer worse before better, if I know it, though I renounce neither.  
It's ordinary for Two Women fight and scolding in the streets, to turn both their railing against him that would quiet them. And I expect the like.  
The Cause that I writ against, is this (Reader, understand it, or meddle not with what you understand not, 1. That God's Worship (saith D. O.) 〈…〉: That all that is in it, and belonging to it, and the manner o● it, is fal●e Worship, if it have not a Divine Institution in 〈◊〉: That all Liturgies, as such, are such fal●e Worship (and not the English only) used to 〈◊〉 Christ's Pr●mi●e of Gifts, and God's Spirit.  
2. That this Worship is Idolatry (say some), or so false and unlawful, say the rest, That it is a denying of Christ's Fidelity, and it is a going to Idols Temples; or at least, unlawful to join in Communion with such as use it. And therefore they persuade all, as they will avoid Idolatry, or false Worship and sin, to avoid Communion with such Churches.  
3. And suppose that they truly instance in many things amiss, in Order, Ceremony, Forms, Impositions, Defects; because these are sinful, he sinneth who communicateth with the Church which useth them, his presence signifying his approbation, specially if commanded to that end.  
4. And so Renunciation of Communion being the Excommunication which one Church hath power to inflict on another, the sum is, I writ against the unjust Excommunicators of one another. Their Executions are divers, but their Principles and Spirits too like, though few of them know, or will know what manner of Spirit they are of. The uppermost Schismatics, like the uppermost Millstone, are the Active, and the nethermost the Passive part, between both which Truth and Peace is broken, and the Church pulverised. Both Parties have not power to burn the Excommunicate, or lay them in Goals, or defame them without open control: But the nethermost Party in this agrees, if not exceeds the other; That they renounce Communion with the whole Church on Earth for 1200, or 1300 years, and with almost all (Protestants as well as others) now: Whereas the Pope was taken to be intolerably arrogant when he excommunicated and interdicted, but rarely a whole Kingdom, or one King; but not all the Church on Earth.  
2 That the Pope and his Prelates excommunicate the Greeks, and such as they call but Schismatics, and not Heretics, with Exceptions, That they may yet possibly be saved Christians: But those that I confute, charging the whole Church on Earth, for 1200. years, with Idolatry, or false Worship, which God accepteth not, and none may communicate therein, do thereby call all men to come out from among them, and be separate, and to hate them with that hatred which is due to Idolaters, and to afford them no other love than is due to Idolaters, or men that we must renounce Communion with.  
I writ therefore but as a Defendant of Love, and Unity, and the Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saint●, and the Souls of Thousands young ignorant persons, that being justly afraid of sin, and Idolatry and Damnation, are a●frightned from Christian Love, and Unity, and Forbearance, into the Wilderness of sinful Divisions and Confusions, by these false frightful Names.  
As I renounce all Canons that, ipso facto, exccommunicate men for being against humane unnecessary Formalities, Offices, yea, and Corruptions: So do I for the same Reasons, renounce them that at one blow wo●ld cut off all Christ's Churches on Earth, or renounce Communion with them, if they have (but really or conceitedly) such Corruptions and Defects. Yea, I maintain (in the First Part), That such faulty separating from one another, is not a separation of them all from Christ, when they see not the Consequences of their own Errors; and man on Earth is in so great darkness, that we all swarm with multitudes of Errors.  
Now Reader, if opposing all this, be not Peacemaking, I know not what is: And if the Peacemakers be the Incendiaries for confuting the Excommunicators, and to be taken for the Enemies of Peace, for breaking Satan's factious Peace breaking Peace, Christ was mistaken that calleth them blessed: And if the Zeal of the Sects which inclineth men to speak evil of such Peace makers, as Troublers of the Church, be the Wisdom from above, why did Christ call such the Children of God? O that men would often read over Rom. 14, and 15. 1 Cor. 12. and james 3. with ●hil. 2.  
The ●lain Consequents of the Cause which I confute, are these (which I charge on the ill Cause, and not on the honest ignorant men that see them not).  
1. That is is unlawful to communicate with almost any Church on Earth. 2. That Christ having no Church for 1200. years, was no Head of it▪ and so no Christ. 3 That men must covenant to disobey Rulers or Pastors, if they bid them kneel, be uncovered, or any of the oft named Accidents and manner of Worship: And Children must disobey Parents that command them a Form of Prayer, Psalm or Catechism. 4. The Scots Covenant, and Independent Covenant, Catalogue of Fundamentals, etc. are made Idolatry. 5. The contrary Extreme is encouraged, To charge all this falsely on the Nonconformists, if we confute it not. 6. The Nonconformists, that 1660, 1661. attempted Concord by reforming the Liturgy, are made Idolaters, or their Communion unlawful, etc.  
II. And whereas my Writing is judged unseasonable by some that own the Cause ● write for; 1. ●t never will be so seasonable as to be liable to no inconveniencies or great abuse, nor hath been this Three and Twenty years.  
2. It is when the Universal Non-Communion is maintained in Print by many, and more dangerously by an excellent man in Writing, and multitudes by these drawn into the sin.  
3. And when thousands are possessed with a false Opinion, that the Nonconformists commonly are of these Opinions, and are to be hated and destroyed; our silence seeming to them to own them.  
4. And when by 20 years forbearing public Communion, though commanded and persecuted for it; our hearers are brought confidently to believe that we all this while took it for unlawful; and that if any now say otherwise, it is but cowardly backsliding.  
5. It is when the Papists assaults of us, and of honest Conformists, as Trimmers, maketh it necessary to unite and encourage all honest men, That we fall not all into Roman snares, and not to bid all Christians forsake all such honest Parish-Ministers.  
6. It is at a time, when thousands are in danger of being ruined for mistake, and thousands to be drawn from all Church-Worship, when they can have no other than in Parish Churches.  
7. It is, when we are in danger of transmitting this dividing Error to posterity, by suffering for it, as for the cause of God.  
8. It is when other Ministers do it not, and therefore some one must: And I that have no great impediment from friends, or outward temptations, but wait for my change, am fit to bear the noise of Censures, than they that I hope may labour longer.  
9 And if I do it, it must be now or never: For there is no work in the Grave and Darkness. But of all this, my Reasons say more  
III. As to the Manner of my writings, I doubt not but all that ever I wrote, are faulty: I am imperfect, and can do nothing perfectly: I herein suspect this (and all) myself: and which is worst, I have not skill enough on the longest consideration to avoid the faultiness: For I have a strong love to Truth, and hatred of Lying, and specially a love to historical Truth, and hatred to the deceiving of the World and Posterity: And I have a diseased Impatience, (above any ordinary Trial) to hear men rage and be confident in Error, and pour out words for untruths, with unconvincible Fallacy, and speak evil most zealously of that Truth, which they least understand.  
And in this Impatience, I am apt to fit my Confutations to the Cause, taking words to be false, that are not to be adapted to the Matter: But when I have done, the guilty, (yea and their favourers) cannot bear them, and the words fit not the hearer which fit the Matter, but the Disease is exasperated by the Medicine. But then I think what's needful to save those that are not yet infected, and to silence reproaching Enemies, though the guilt be not cured.  
As to this writing, it grieved me to write a Defence against Mr. Ralphson in Prison, and more when I heard that he was dead: But I knew no other means suitable against a printed Temptation, and Accusation, but a printed Antidote and Defence.  
Mr. Warner hath since printed a further Accusation, with the same charge of Idolatry and false Worship, against all the Manner of Worship not instituted, and gives no Answer to my Confutation of it in Mr. Ralphs●n; and said so little, that I will not write for him, that cannot himself confute him.  
The Twelve Arguments I understand, are likest to prevail most by the honour of Dr. Owen's name, more than by any strength that is in them: I was willing, as long as I could, to believe that they were not his; they being as fallacious and frivolous as any of the rest, and one Error managed with above forty Mistakes. But when his own Friends that have more of his on the same Subject, (chiding me for Answering them) professed that they are his, I thought on Paul's case, Gal. 2. who openly opposed Peter, because he was to be blamed, lest his great Name should make the Separation the most prevalent, when Ba●●abas and others were carried away to Dissimulation, and seeming to approve it.  
It grieved me, I think, as much as any that blame me for it, to seem to confute so worthy a man, when he is dead, and cannot answer for himself: But I durst not let the writing of a dead man be so dangerous a trap for Souls, and silently see the mischief prosper, for fear of displeasing the mistakers.  
But let the Reader know, That it is so far from my design to wrong the Name of Dr. Owen, by this Defence; that I do openly declare, That except in this point of his Mistake, (and who mistaketh not in more than one? I doubt not but he was a Man of rare Parts and Worth: And though in the Trials of the late Distractions of this Land, I mention some of his Confessions; it is to tell you that I had reason to hope that he repent for doing no more in his public opportunities against the Spirit of Division, which dissolved us. And which of us need not repentance for our faults in those days of Trial?  
Ye●, in his Doctrinal writings in his later Years, he is much clearer than heretofore: And even, that Book of Communion with the Trinity, (which he writeth against whom I here deal with in the beginning▪) is an excellent Treatise: And his great Volumes on the H●brews, do all show his great and eminent Parts: it was his strange Error, if he thought that freedom from a Liturgy, would have made most or many Ministers, like himself, as free▪ and fluent, and copious of Expression. In the late time he had never been so long Dean of Christ-Church, so oft Vice chancellor of 〈◊〉; so highly esteemed in the Army, and with the Persons then in Power, if his extraordinary Parts had not been known.  
But, Reader, if this excellent man had one mistake (against all Liturgies, and for Separation from them) when yet he was of late years of more complying mildness, and sweetness, and peaceableness, than ever before, or than many others; and if you will use his Name and Authority for this one Error, Let me tell you, I am confident you will wrong Dr. O. by ignorant defending him: I doubt not but his Soul is now with Christ; and that though Heaven have no Sorrow, it hath great Repentance: and that Dr. O. is ●ow more against the receiving of this his mistake, than I am: and by de●ending it, you far more displease him than me: There is there no Darkness, no Mistakes, no Separation of Christ's Members from one another; no excommunicating or renouncing of Communion: They all repent that ever they did any thing against Christian Love and Unity, and received not one another as Christ receiveth us, and did not own Communion in all that was good, while they avoided the wilful consent to evil.  
Were D. O. now to speak to you, I am fully confident, it would be to this purpose.  
Tho all believers must be holy, and avoid all known wilful Sin, they must not avoid one another, or their Communion in good, because of adherent faults or imperfections; for Christ, who is most holy, receiveth Persons and Worship that is faulty, (and false, if all faultiness be falseness) else none of us should be received. There is greatest goodness where the●● is greatest Love and Unity of Spirit maintained in the bond of Peace. O call not to God to deny you Mercy, by being unmerciful, nor to cast you all out, by casting off one another. O Separate not from all Christ's Church on Earth, lest you separate from him, or displease him? God hath bid you pray, but not told you whether it shall be oft in the same Words, or in other, with a Book, or without a Book: Make not superstitiously a Religion, by pretending that God hath determined s●ch Circumstances: O do not Preach and Writ down Love, and Communion ●f Saint●, on pretence that your little Modes and Ways are only go●d, and theirs Idolatrous or Intolerable; and do not slander and excommunicate all, or almost all Christ's Body, and then wrong G●d by fathering this upon him. You pray [Thy will be done on Earth, as it is done in Heaven]. Why here is no S●●ife, 〈…〉 Animosity, Sects or Factions▪ n●r Separating from, or Excommunicating on another. Learn of Christ, and know what Spirit ye are of, and separate from none further than they separate from Christ; and receive all hat● 〈◊〉 receiveth. While ●ou blame canonical Dividers, and unjust 〈…〉, do not you reno●nce Communion wi●h 〈◊〉 more than they 〈…〉 of too narrow 〈◊〉 ●rinciple●, and in the time of Temptation, I did n●t foresee to what 〈…〉 Con●usion▪ and Dissolution, and Hatred, and Ruin, dividing 〈…〉 did tend, but the 〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 perfection of Love to God, and one another; bids me beseech you to avoid all that is against it, and to make use of no mistakes of mine, to cherish any such offences, or to oppose the motions of Love, Unity, and Peace.  
No doubt but now this is D. O's mind.  
If any one think that my Answers to him, favour of too much disrespect, (which I fitted merely to the Words I answered) confessing my imprudence and liableness to such faultiness; I desire that none will approve my failings, blame me for them, but do not therefore justify true Schism, and blame the cause of Love and Catholic Communion.  
As to the mention of former miscarriages, which arose from the Spirit and Principles of Division; the Drs. Argument led me to mention them so necessarily, that I must else have wronged the Cause and Truth Defended: And I had great reasons, I thought, both for that, and for this Defence, which I shall next enumerate.  
iv I am not so blind as not to see inconveniences that abusers will raise from all that I have said. But while I put those into one end of the Balance, I have so much to put into the other, as with my Conscience quite weigheth down. I know that men have already made tenfold worse use of our Silence in this Case; and the Opinion, 1. That we were all for the old Seditions and Convulsions, And 2. that we are now o●●he Dividers mind, than ever they did of our writing against them. And I have said so much against the active violent Dividers, that should I say nothing against the Passive, I should be partial, and seem a Sectary myself. Ovid taught me when I was a Child, That 
Omnia perversas possunt corrumpere mentes.  
Stant tamen illa suis omnia tuta locis.   
1. Truth, and Love, and Peace, will be good, when men have said and done their worst against them: And I own much more than this to their honour and defence. Buy the Truth, and sell it not, is an old Precept: These three are the very sum of all Religion, and must not be forsaken or betrayed.  
2. The great success, and late prospering, on both sides of dividing Love-destroying Opinions (which I foretold in my Moral Prognostication) calleth loud for remedying attempts: And when is the Medicine seasonable, but when the Disease is most dangerous and common: They that go to Sea, carry Medicines against the Scurvy, and Flux; and they that go where the Plague reingeth, carry Antidotes against it, etc.  
3. The Ministerial calling layeth strong Obligations on us to fidelity, sowing Pillows, and saying peace to sin, and daubing with untempered mortar, are oft concluded with that Thunderclap, Their blood will I require at thy hands: And I have been loath to desert the worst Malignants by despair, as Dogs and Swine: And shall I forsake the Children as such, because they cry, and are angry with the Mother because she hinders them from calling one another Bastards, or beating one another, or forsaking the house, because of one another's Presence? or is She the makebate, because they cry for being parted in their frays?  
4. Thousands that hear the great Precepts of Love, and Pray to be forgiven as they forgive; are by such mistakes engaged in sinful despising, censuring, backbiting; yea, and rendering odious one another, and so live in ordinary sin.  
5. Charity to such Souls is more necessary than to the Body; and how dwelleth the Love of God in him that neglecteth it?  
6. He that doth not what he can to save others yea, multitudes from sin, becometh a partaker in the guilt and danger.  
7. He that openeth a Pit, must fill it; and he that seethe it covered with Leaves, and telleth not men of the danger, is guilty of the hurt.  
8. I must not cease Preaching, because men will misconstrue it: Therefore not Preaching by the Press, when I have a call.  
9 I have long found, that multitudes of our conscionable hearers, are settled in belief, that their Teachers take Parish-Communion for Sin, because they practise it not, even when they are commanded, and threatened, and punished: By which they are silently misled, till necessity force us to tell them otherwise. And then they Censure them as unconscinable Temporizers, and so they do all godly men that communicate in public.  
10. I see how hard it is after, to undeceive all these.  
11. Most of the Epistles of Paul, james, and jude, Peter, and john, speak much and sharply against Church-dividers, and separaters.  
12. The Scots Covenant swore all that took it, against Schism, and profaneness, and all that's against sound Doctrine and Godliness.  
13. Christ told us, A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.  
14. I saw that it is a dreadful dishonouring God and Religion, to father on him our love-killing mistakes and sins: And that he will vindicate his honour on us, if we do it not ourselves, by open and penitent confession of such faults.  
15. We have long smarted under his Judgements already, and show no public Repentance, and are threatened with much more; which if God may judge, it's repentance that must prevent.  
16. The common Convulsions, Silencing, and Calamities, which we have long felt, are notoriously the fruits of this same Spirit and Error, and both the parties which I here gainsay. And shall we lie four and twenty years in the Flames, and be afraid to cry [Fire] or call for Water, lest the Incendiaries on both sides be displeased?  
17. God's dissolving their Power, and conquering Armies, without a drop of Blood, by their own Divisions, did so notoriously show the Sin by the punishment, and show God's hand against it, as was a kind of Miracle of Providence, and maketh their Sin, that be not moved by it, too like to Pharoah's.  
18. The main thing that moveth me, is, That thousands being too young to know those days and deeds, blind and malicious Enemies, without any shame, charge all the Crimes and Confusions of a party of men in Arms, upon all the Religious People of the Land, that be not in all other things of the Slanderers opinions; and have made multitudes believe that it was all such that did the very thing which they opposed, and suffered for opposing: Yea, they would interpret some late Laws, as if they had such an accusing Sense. And shall we by silence, leave so many thousands under the guilt of such false Accusations, to their own sin, and to others wrong, lest we blame the guilty?  
19 I find that this Error possesseth the minds of so many young Scholars, and some Ministers, as that they think of all Dissenters with so much scorn, as that it is the very thing which hath tempted them into the contrary extreme.  
20. I read and hear so many on this very Supposition, calling out for our destruction, and not to bear with us, or spare us; that our Rulers have great need of God's Mercy to save them from the damning guilt of Persecution, to which such temptations would induce them, lest they take the Innocent for Guilty, and think that its Service to God to ruin them.  
21. I see that it is a most dangerous Scandal not to remove such a stumbling-block, which tempteth thousands to hate their Brethren, if not Piety itself; as if all the stir that we have made, were but against such things as Communion in the Liturgy with Parish Churches.  
22. I see multitudes like, by mistakes, to suffer as evil doers, and be ruined for their Error; and by glorying in it, to disgrace the suffering of those that suffer for Truth and Duty.  
23. I see many Servants and Children, tempted to disobey their Parents and Masters▪ that call them to public Worship; and Families to be divided by this mistake.  
24. I see how Atheism is at the door, if when all private Church-meetings are forcibly hindered, men be taught that all Church Worship must be forsaken. And in how great a part of the Land already must they have such, or none?  
25. I know that to drive all godly people from the Parish-Churches, and to cast out sound Religion thence, is the way to let in— you know whom: And that it greatly serveth the interest of the Papists, to have the Parish Churches vilified, and us divided; besides the discouraging many godly Conforming Ministers.  
26. I have said after and oft, That to separate from a Liturgy, as such, is virtually to separate from all Christ's Church on Earth (that's known by History) for a thousand years and more. And at this day to separate from almost all, even the reformed Churches: And to make Christ no King, if he had all that while no Kingdom: And to censure himself and his own practice.  
27. I have showed the wrong that was done the old Nonconformists by this party, and their full Testimony against it. Yea, and that the old Separatists were for much that these now do condemn.  
28. I have observed, That the deepest Sufferers have been readiest to run into this exream, and therefore Passion to be suspected.  
29. I see that the foreign Protestants are scandalised by a false conceit, that the Dissenters here are against Communion in the Liturgy.  
30. It greatly moveth me to see, That as Church-dividers by Oppression, do tear East and West, by making false terms of Communion by their Canons; so the Passive-dividers take a like way; that is, make false impossible Terms of Union and Communion; censuring all that communicate with other Churches on such Terms, as they mistakingly think sinful; making men guilty of the faults of Worship, by their presence. What is their Censure of us, and Anger, that we writ our reasons, but as much as to say, we must all Unite on their Terms, or be judged Dividers, and Corrupters? So that they are at the old game, Rom. 14.1, 2. one part despising, and the other judging.  
31. By the reason, That we may not write our reasons against them; it follows, That Magisterially they must not be gainsaid, though they mistake and misled others (remedilessly).  
32. The History of the Church showeth, that the Separation opposed, is a cause that God never blest, but ended still in worse.  
33. If the Principles that caused it, be not cured, a continual War against Love and Communion will be kept up from Age to Age.  
34. Historical Truth is of great use to Posterity. And as God needeth not our Lie, his Cause feareth not Truth.  
35. God himself recordeth the faults of his Servants; and hath made Repentance necessary to Pardon: It's Impenitence that is impatient of Evidences and Conviction.  
36. The History of our Faults and Confusions is published over and over by Adversaries; and it's impossible to conceal it. The Booksellers Shops, and their Talk and Sermons, abound with it. If a deaf man hear not this, must it not therefore be spoken? And when the generality of the innocent are falsely accused, it is the fittest season to confute the Accusers.  
37. It cost me dear to attempt the preventing of such Confusions▪ Almost Two years Travel in that Army, in heat and cold, whither I went for no other end: It cost me the ruin of my Health, and after the wilful dissolution of all Power and Order, cast me into those Groans and Tears which I can never on Earth forget. And must I not after all that, disown the things which I opposed at so dear a rate?  
38. If men of Name and Piety write that which tendeth to cast honest Souls not only into scruples, but into a way of opposition to Unity, Love and Order, to their own and the Church's detriment and danger, it is Cruelty not to try to help them: And what way is there, if we must not not give our Reasons against the snare and error?  
39 To say, That it will but enrage them, and make them worse, is to be uncharitably censorious, as if they were so partial, passionate and proud, as not to endure to be contradicted, nor to hear us give a Reason of our Judgement and Practice, and defend it against Error. I can bear it without alienation from them, in Respect and Love, if they say, That I am erroneous, or bad, or whatever they will censure me. If they cannot bear my true Confutation of Church-dissolving, and Love-destroying Principles and Errors, that proveth them not better than I in Judgement and Charity. If I yet please men, I am no longer the Servant of Christ. Carnal Policy in complying with sin, never was blest of God, though for some Job it seemed to be needful. If a man going out of the World, may by silence betray the Truth, on pretence of despairing of success, even with godly men, and let Peter lead Barnabas into dissembling Separation, in reverence of Peter's Name, than Paul was too blame; and who then shall ever own Truth or Duty, or try to save the Church from danger, if he must not do it till the mistaken do consent? Or if a pretence, That the Disease is uncurable, shall excuse us; and godly men must be taken for Dogs and Swine, that must not have God's Truth given them, lest they tread it under foot, or turn again, and all to ●end us?  
40. Either this Doctrine of renouncing Communion with all Churches that use Forms of Liturgy, as Idolaters, or false Worshippers, and Adversaries to the Spirit, and the Office of Christ (and that Churches must covenant to obey none but Christ in any thing duly belonging to Worship, or any manner or accident of it): I say, Either this must be confuted, or not: If not, Christian Love and Communion are given up as hopeless, and Christ deposed by denying his Kingdom or Church: And why strive men about Ceremonies, when they have renounced the substance, and pulled down the house, and threatened all that come not out of it. ●ut if it must be confuted, 1. When, if not now? must it first take deeper Root, and deceive more? Both Extremes already are silencers of all that would undecieve them: And those that accuse one sort of silencers, are the other sort themselves, and cannot bear a Confutation.  
2. And who shall do it? I confess I am liable to do this, and all amiss in Manner: But if others would do it, that wish it done, I would have forborn. The Truth is, Again I say, I am willing to save many the cost of it, who are not so fit as I to bear it. I have cast my Reputation overboard long ago, with both Extremes: I am not like ever again to be considerably serviceable to the Church: I am Independent, and neither have preferment to get or lose, nor any Church these Three and Twenty years, with whom I should be solicitous to keep any Reputation for their good. The Dust, or the Souls in Heaven, feel not the Reproaches of men on Earth. How could I lay down my Life for TRUTH, LOVE and UNITY, if at so cheap a rate I would sell it, or desert it, and go away sorrowful? But many others of my mind, I hope, may live to serve God longer; and their peace with mistaken froward persons, may be needful to their desirable success. I do therefore voluntarily take the Thorn into my Foot, and let God do with my Reputation what he please.  
The Names of the Ministers who, as Commissioned, did consent to the use of the Liturgy when corrected▪ were, Dr. Anth. Tuckney, Dr. Conaut, Dr. Spurstow, Dr. Wall●s, Dr. Ma●ton, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Arthur jackson, Mr. Case, Mr. S. Clerk, Mr. Ma●th. Newcomen, Dr. Horton, Dr. jacombe, Dr. Bates, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Rawlinson, Dr Lightfoot, Dr. Collins, Dr. Drake, Mr. Woodbridge, and Ri. Baxter (named in the King's Commission): But Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Horton came not to us; but they conformed after, as did also Dr. Edw. Reignolds, and Dr. Worth● who joined with us, and were made Bishops, and one or two more were distant.  
The Names of a greater Number of London-Ministers, who gave the King thanks for his declaration, may be seen in the Printed thanksgiving: Of all that met, only Two refused to subscribe (Mr. jackson and Mr. Crofton), lest the Subscription should seem an Approbation of so much of Prelacy as the Declaration established; and so be a breach of their Covenant: But they professed their gratitude without subscribing. Divers of them are yet living but most by far are dead.  
Were it not lest the Papists take advantage by it, to undermine and ruin Peacemakers, under the Name of Trimmers, I would name you many places up and down in England, where all the people live in love and quietness, as if there were no Convulsive Cruelty or Schisms in the Land; and this through the wise and conscionable behaviour of the Ministers; the public Ministers, with the ejected Nonconformists, living in so great and open amity, as uniteth all the people: Those that desire Reformation, won by the good preaching and living of the public Minister, and by his kindness, go all to hear him; and when at other hours they meet to edify one another by praying, singing Psalms, repeating a Sermon, or reading a good Book, he is far from hindering them.  
Let any man that hath the Spirit of Christ judge, whether this be not a better state of the Church, than for some to be railing men from Communion, with the charge of Idolatry, and making the rest odious; and for others to profane the Pulpits, by preaching up slanders, and scorns, and serving Satan in Christ's Name, by making Religion seem Hypocrisy, and conscionable men pass for odious Rebels for fearing lest some points of Conformity be sin; and stirring up Rulers to use them accordingly, if they were so bad and miserable as to be persuaded by such to persecution: Which of these, think you, is the better and more desirable case?  
Obj. But what would you do yourself, if you were in Spain, or any other Land where there is no Church-worship but the Mass? Would you not forbear all? And will not the Papists use against you the same Arguments which you use against us, and say, That you separate from all the Church on Earth for 1000 years, and so from Christ?  
Ans. 1. What the Papists will say, maketh not all true which they say: The Question is, Whether they say it truly?  
2. It's the trick of deceivers in dispute, to prove ab obscuriore, and carry the Controversy into a darker Room, and to fish in troubled Waters. What if it were an hard Controversy, whether I must separate from Papists, from Bonner, Gardiner, etc. doth it follow, that it is as hard, whether I must separate from Bradford, Ridley, Hooper, and all those Martyrs, and all the Protestant Churches? With whom then shall I communicate?  
3. I'll tell you what I would say, and do to such Papists: 1. I will prove their Objection false. And 1. that at this day all Papists in the World are but (as Bishop Br●mhall estimates) about a fourth part of the Christian World. 2. And that it was not till the days of our King john, and their Innocent the 3 d, that a General Council decreed the Idolatry of Transubstantiation. 3. That a great part of their own never consented to this, and that few of the people understood or believed it. 4. That even this Canon was made against great numbers of Godly men, called Albigenses and Waldenses, who opposed them in this Idolatry.  
4. Therefore I would resolve, I will have no Local Communion with any Church in the use of this, or any Idolatry, but will Worship God in private, if I can have no better; but if I can, I will. And I separate not by this, from the most of the Church, but from a Tyrannical corrupt Sect or Schism: Yea, as to them, I hold mental Communion with them in Christianity, and in all that is good and sound, and renounce Communion with them in all that I know to be evil.  
Obj. But what if a Protestant Church make any Sin a condition of their Communion, will you not separate?  
Ans. 1. I have said so much of this in this Book, against the Resolver, and Unreasonable Defender, as that I am ashamed that men's Objections make me guilty of so much repetition. 2. None such can make any Sin the Condition of my mental Communion: For if they join good and bad, and bid me do so, God forbids me, and requireth me to own the good, and disown the bad. If they use the bad themselves, and put not me to subscribe, or own it, I will join with them notwithstanding, in that which is good, and in due time and place, disown the evils, e. g. I have oft heard well-meaning men Preach falsehoods against Calvanists, and others against Arminians; some against Presbytery, some against Independency, some against Infant-Baptism; and alas! how ordinarily do men drop their Errors, and put them into their Prayers; I will not for this separate from a Church that professeth to to take the Scripture for their rule. Let them answer for their own misdoings.  
2. But if they bid me Subscribe, or Approve any one Falsehood or Sin, I will deny it: If they forbidden me Communion, I will continue it till they put me away by force. And then it is not I that separate from them, but it's they, by unjust casting me out, that are Schismatical; I'll still have mental Communion with them in Faith and Love, and not persuade any to separate from them as Idolaters, or make them worse than they are; but if I can, I will go to another Church (though worse) that will receive me without imposing actual sin; but not draw others from them, who are not cast out for refusing sin, as I have been: And though I will not justify many Protestant Writers, who say, That we separated not from the Church of Rome, but they cast us out for not sinning; yet I doubt not but this must be our case with sound Churches, that would impose any Sin upon us.  
But still, To prefer the best and (all things considered) most profitable, before the more faulty or imperfect, without renouncing Communion with them, or persuading all others from it, as Idolaters, or unlawful, is that which I never called Schism, nor wrote against.   

To the unknown Author of a LETTER lately sent me.  
SIR,  
YOUR Letter contained, 1. Your friendly reprehensions of me, not only for my purpose to write against a MS. which you say was Dr. Owen's, but for many other things; and your enumeration of those faults of mine. 2. With a friendly motion, That I suspend my writing till we fairly debate the Cause, upon some larger Papers of the Doctor's on that Subject which you offered to send me.  
I wrote you presently an Answer, but your Messenger never more called for it; by which I supposed that you changed your purpose: If yet you will send for it, I will send it you. The Breviate of it is this: 1. I do not feignedly, but from my heart, accept your manner of Reproof: It is honest and friendly; and I am truly thankful to you for it: Tho I am thought to be too plain and sharp, I can bear twice as much as I use. It's foolish pride that maketh us grudge at a friendly, though sharp reprehension.  
But your misinformation tells me the pitiful Case of most in the World: Your honest Reproofs are founded on abundance of untrue Conceits: There are about Twenty Untruths, through mistake, in matter of Fact, in your Letter: And how gross are many of them? As that I writ not against Persecution, which I scarce over write a book that hath not much against it: and this book itself doth fully confute you: And that I oppose not, but encourage divers things; which I know not the man that hath said half so much against: And you carry it all along, as if I were your Accuser for not going to the public Churches, when I am a mere Defendant against your Accusations, and plead the Cause of the Universal Church, as not deserving an Excommunication; and of many poor weak women, and young people, that would be drawn to renounce all Church-Worship in England, for fear of Idolatry, or a Curse from God.  
If you that have his offered Ms, and say, This which I answer is Dr. O's; were the man that made this MS. which I answer, so common, I think you did him a great deal of wrong: Tho in his Printed Books, especially that of Prayer, and for Peace▪ etc. he owns the ill Principle which I now confute, against all public Worship by Liturgy, and against man's power to command any more than Christ hath done in the order and manner of Worship and Church-Government (which also is to be seen in his Preface, etc. of his Original of Churches, and his Vindicatian of the Nonconformists▪ &c). Yet these Printed Books of his (especially his Original of Churches, etc.) have so much sound and excellent matter, and so many healing peaceable passages in them, as did hid this one great Mistake: so that I long purposely forbore all contradiction of him in it (though I plainly answered his Arguments in my Cure of Church-divisions), for fear lest I should occasion a more common offensive or hurtful notice of them. But when that one Error which was thus buried in abundance of sound matter, was by some of you, not only culled out, and made common in MS. by itself, but even in a writing, in which he goeth yet further towards Non-Communion with all the Churches almost on Earth, than ever he did in his Printed Books; and this to affright all others into the same Non-Communion; you could not sure imagine, that no Christian had so much love to the Church, to Souls, to Catholic Communion, to Love and Concord, as not to let such a Writing do its worst, without any Antidote and Answer. You could scarce have wronged the Doctor, or his Memory more: All his Enemies could not have done half so much against him, having no such matter to accuse him of, as you have unadvisedly given them. And if 〈◊〉 also you will lay your own Fault on others that love the Truth, and Church, and Souls, and Peace, better than this Manuscript, or its Reputation, you will but run further into Error.  
And can you possibly be ignorant how like you are to the other Extreme, 1. While you excommunicate far more than they do, even almost all the Body of Christ, as to External Communion: 2. And are for silencing us as well as they: Why else may not I have leave to render a Reason of my judgement and Practice, to those that are offended at it? 3. And as they would deprive Congregations of sound Doctrine, Instruction and Worship, for the Cause of the Opinions of their Faction, would not you discharge almost whole Counties from all Church-worship, where Forms are used, and your way is not tolerated?  
Had not the MS. been against all Forms of Liturgy, but only against the real or supposed faults of the English one; and had it been only against owning the faults, and not against Communion in necessary Duty, I had not troubled you, by my Defence.  
II. I did much approve of your brotherly motion to debate the Case friendly, on the perusal of his larger Writings. And though your Letter came to me a week after the Book was printed, the Bookseller said he had sold but two, and I purposed thankfully to accept your offer, and (though to my cost) to have done my best to stop the rest, and recall those two: But not knowing you, nor how to send to you, I must suppose that you retract your Motions, your Messenger not calling for my answer, as we appointed.  
Remember, I beseech you, that the Dr. writeth for mental Communion in Faith and Love, with all true Churches, though he writ against outward Local Communion with almost all: And I crave your perusal of the first and third parts of this Book, against the Resolver of three Cases, etc. And if you find that all the Cases, in which I vindicate Local Separation to be no Schism, be not enough, bethink you what the Scripture meaneth by reprehended Heresy, Schism, and Division; and whether there be any such Sins; and whether they that are so much for Scripture-sufficiency, as not to communicate with a Mode, Order or Form of Words, which it prescribeth not, should set so light by it, as not to fear its many sharp Condemnations of the foresaid sins, and its frequent and vehement Exhortations to Unity and Communion of Saints, and to receive one another, as Christ received us, to the Glory of God.  
Lord pardon the faulty imperfections of our Services, which we must rather venture on, than a total Omission; and teach us to pardon one another.  
April 7. 1684.   

REader, I have not time to gather the Errata of the Press or Copy; only I entreat you to insert an omitted line, page 29. line 35. because the sense is altered by the omission: After [them] add [than those of the Opinion which he pleads for].   

Books Sold by Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel.  

1. MR. Baxter's Christian Directory, or Sum of Practical Divinity, and Cases of Conscience.  
2— Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, and Peaceable.  
3— Which is the True Church, in Three Parts.  
4— Life of Faith in Three Parts.  
5— Answer to Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlock.  
6— History of Counsels Enlarged and Defended.  
7— Catechising of Families, A Teacher of Householders, how to Teach their Households; wherein the Creed, Ten Commandments, Lords Prayer, and Sacraments, are Expounded.  
8— Two Disputations of Original Sin.  
Dr. Horton's 100 Select Sermons.  
— Sermons on the 4 th', 42 d, 51st, 63 d. Psalms.  
Dr. Anthony Burges Sermons on 2 Cor. 3. Chap.  
Dr. Donn's Sermons, Vol. 3.  
A Discourse of God's Providence, by Dr. john Collings.  
Morning Exercise against Popery.  
Sermons on the Epistle to the Colossians, by john Daille, Author of the Use of the Fathers.  
A Discourse of the Covenant of Redemption.