A Compendious DISCOURSE UPON THE CASE, As it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one hand, and again between the same Church of England and those Congregations which have divided from it on the other hand.  
TOGETHER WITH The Treatise of the Division of the English Church and the Romish, upon the REFORMATION.  
Enlarged with some Explicatory additionals. By H. F. D.D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for R. Royston, at the Anstel in Ivy-lane. 1655.   

To the READER.  
BE pleased to understand, that for amending not a few faults escaped in the first Edition of the Treatise touching The Division of the English and Romish Church, upon the Reformation, the Printer intended a second. In order to which, the Corrections were sent up to him with some explicatory additionals; but other more necessary employments intervening caused him to lay it aside; and when I thought he had forgotten it, and was willing he should do so, he lets me know he had reprinted some sheets of it. I did not like he should after almost two years' suppression, send it abroad with no more advantage: it came therefore into my mind to draw up the Case into a more compendious and methodical Discourse, and to add the other part of the Case, as it stands between us and those that have divided from us; still making references to the like points and passages as they lie scattered in the Two Treatises before printed: This of the Division, &c. and that other of Certain considerations touching this Church.  
What is here done, is intended, and accordingly contrived (with such brevity and plainness, as the Cause would well permit) for satisfaction of those, who, not acquainted with large Controversies, are ready to receive the instruction given them; and being still in the unity and Communion of this Chu: are willing to continue therein, notwithstanding the Temptations on both sides; or else following the seduction of the one side or the other (Romish or Sectarian) in the simplicity of their hearts, are not unwilling to return upon discovery of the Error, and danger of their Way. Which that they may see, I pray God in time to open their Eyes.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 15. l. 28. add former. p. 24. l. 11. after serving God add Rom. 12. 1. p. 28. l. 15. for or Western, r. and Western, l. 25. after of which tima, add i. e. of the four first general counsels. p. 31. l. 20. for Christ always, r. and always. p. 45. l. 27. after yet, add they think. p. 49. l. 13. for Act r. Article, p. 54. l. 6. for of r. or, p. 87. ult. for preserving r. preventing. p. 111. 16. for understanding r. undervaluing, p. 122. l. 25. for know r. knew, p. 126. l. 11. for that may r. that they may, p. 129. l. 25. for his r. their. p. 136. l. 15. for the old Prophet r. old Prophets, p. 144. for cares r. jars.   

A Compendious Discourse upon the case, as it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one side; And again, between the same Church of England, and those, who have divided from it, on the other.  

§. I. The Church of England.  
I Need not premise any thing for distinguishing the three Parties concerned in this case. They are too much at odds, and their differences too many and notorious; yet lest there be a mistake in Names, (because all the Sects in this Nation call themselves Churches, and Churches of England) therefore by the Church of England is understood the Church of Christ in this Land established upon the Reformation, holding out her Doctrine and Government in the 39 Articles, her Liturgy and public Divine Service in the Book of commonprayer: and all those are called Sectaries, and are proved so to be, who (of what persuasion soever) have departed from, or refused to hold communion with this Church upon dislike of Doctrine, Government, Liturgy, Rites and Ceremonies, or any of these.  

It holds the truth between Romanists and Sectaries.  The Church of England, standing thus between the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the aforesaid Sects, which have divided from it on the other hand, is challenged, and assaulted by both, put now to defend itself against both. Which brings to mind the Device of some Romanist, who to make himself merry, has pictured an English Protestant standing between a Papist and an Independent, borrowing Arguments and Reasons from the One, to oppose or answer the Other: Against the Papists he must plead (as do all Sectaries) Invisibility of the Church, Scripture alone, Liberty of private judgement: against other Sects he must help himself by urging (as do the Papists) the visible condition of the Church, the Authority of it, Catholic Tradition and Practice, and the Succession of Bishops and Pastors. Well, the Romanists may thus seemingly▪ please themselves, but indeed This of all other Reformed Churches has been, and is, by reason of its most regular Reformation, their great eyesore and heart-sorrow. And the English Protestant, or obedient Son of the Church of England, as he is well set between a Papist and sectary, as between two Extremes, so he only is able to stand against the opposition or pretensions of both; for if we examine the false Grounds and deceiving Principles of Both, as to this point of the Constitution, Government, and Communion of the Church: we shall clearly see the Truth lies in the midst between both, and the Church of ENGLAND holds and maintains it. To give some Instances.   

§. II. First instance in Holy and Catholic.  
I. The Church of Christ according to the Article of our belief is One, Holy, Catholic. The Romanists run away with the name Catholic, appropriating it to themselves, and every Sect with the title Holy, holding themselves the only Congregations of Saints. And as the Romanists enforce the name Catholic to the prejudice of the Title Holy, admitting no Church to be Catholic, that will not defile itself with their errors and corruptions: So Sectaries, under pretence of advancing holiness, and purity, and of gathering a Holy Church, and assembly of known Saints, overthrow the Catholic, and draw the Church of Christ into a corner, confining it to their own Sect or persuasion. Now see the Church of England in the midst: which by a most regular and warrantable Reformation had respect to both, and in relation to the title Holy, provided for purity of Doctrine and worship so, that there can be no just complaint of Errors retained, and for purity of life, by coercion of ecclesiastical censure so, that no scandalous or notorious offender should be suffered. So in relation to the title Catholic, this Church did retain (as for Belief, so for practice) whatever had that stamp of Consent of all Ages upon it; not confining the Church of Christ within the bounds of her persuasion, but leaving it still Catholic, and communicable to all such Christian Assemblies, as do not wilfully cut themselves off, but are careful, so far as they have means, to hold the unity of faith, with the bond of charity: which is necessary for preserving that one body, which is the Church, Eph. 4. 4. 13. 16.  

In Catholic, Practice and Tradition.  II. As for Catholic or universal Practice or Tradition, which stands in the consent of all the Churches in all Nations and Ages since the Apostles, as Sectaries wave it altogether, as wholly contrary to their Novelty, so Papists pretend it only, reducing it into the testimony of their present Church, and cannot truly give Catholic Tradition for any point of their faith and worship, wherein they differ from us. But the Church of England, in the midst between both, denying only the Romish Tradition, which brings not down any part of their Faith or Worship through all Ages from the Apostles, admits of the true Catholic Tradition or Practice, and yields due Authority to it: the force of it resting upon common sense and reason (which is in every man, and which he must forsake that denies the witness of such Tradition) it being not possible, that all the Christian Churches, which began in and about the Apostolical Times, and so succeeded through all Nations and Ages, should be either deceived in what they unanimously witnessed, or agree all of them to deceive those that followed them. Whereas the testimony of the Romish Church, being but part of the Catholic, and possibly overruled with some prevailing Faction, cannot convince upon any such common notion of human reason; but must first prove itself to be the only Church, and infallible. And seeing it is forced to seek such proof by witness of Scripture, they plainly run in a Circle from the testimony of their Church to the receiving or proving of Scripture to be the Word of God, and back again from the witness of Scripture to prove their Church; But Catholic or universal Tradition brings down Scripture to the Conviction of Heathens or Jews, that will but use their common sense and reason: that discovery, which Scripture makes of itself by light from the innate qualities, and internal Arguments relucent in it, comes after, and appears to them only, that having entertained it upon the former witness of Catholic Tradition, are versed in it. So by this witness of Catholic Practice in observing the Lord's day, Easter day, Episcopal Government throughout the Church from the Apostles time, we are assured that such passages of Scripture, as concern any of these, do show the Beginnings of the said Practices: and the Church of England, as it received at first and ever since observed the forementioned particulars, so it commands in general, due respect and adhesion to that sense of Scripture, which comes down by such universal consent.  

In the visible and invisible condition of the Church  III. Whereas the condition of the Church according to several respects admits the distinction of Visible and Invisible, the Romanists bear themselves too much upon the one extreme, and the Sectaries upon the Other: the first will have such a visible flourishing condition of it, as is inconsistent with that state, which the Church of Christ has and may fall into, and prejudicial (as by them pretended) to all just Reformation, and profession of Truth, which more nearly concerns the life and soul of the Church, and the more invisible perfection of the members thereof. And therefore they please themselves with the outward garb and face of their Church, and will have it tried by the conspicuous Eminency of it, (as Tr. 1 c. 12.) rather than by truth and purity of doctrine. Sectaries on the other extreme bear themselves too much upon the Invisible condition of the Church, which stands in those inward qualifications of true faith and sanctification, requisite to make a true and lively member of Christ's mystical Body: so that in the pursuit thereof, and in pretence of gathering Churches consisting of such members only, they dissipate the visible Church of Christ, and dissolve the Government he has settled in it.  
But every true English Protestant acknowledges the Church of Christ is a visible society of Believers, or of Professors of the Christian Faith, (of whom some are effectually called, true and lively members, but that is invisible, others not yet advanced beyond the external calling or profession) a society, I say, of such Professors, under such a Regiment or Government left by Christ and his Apostles: and left to this purpose, to keep all in unity, and to advance those, that are admitted in the visible Church to the means of Salvation, unto a real and effectual participation of Grace and Union with Christ, as lively Members of his body, Eph. c. 4. 11 12, 13. 16. And therefore all Christians are bound to yield obedience to the lawful Pastors and Governors of that Visible Church whereof they are Members.  

The Article touching the Church.  All this we profess in that Article of our Creed touching the Church; for albeit that invisible condition of true Faith and Sanctity be the highest concernment and qualification of a Member of Christ's Church, and the attaining to that condition be the hope and aim of every good Christian in the Visible Church, and therefore the chiefest thing in the profession of that Article, (viz. a Communion of such true Believers, Saints, and Members of Christ) yet because the administrations of the visible Church tend necessarily unto that end, and he that cuts himself off from the communion of the visible Church, bereaves himself necessarily of the means to be advanced to that invisible condition; therefore he that professeth this Article, says he believes Christ always has his visible Church, which may be found, in which such means and Administrations may be had, and that he yields obedience to the Pastors and Governors set in it to that end and purpose.  
IV. As the Romanists pretend to an infallible assistance of God's Spirit bound to St. Peter's Chair; so have Sectaries their confidence of the special guidance of the same Spirit. 
In the Papal Infallibility and private judgement.  And if we set the vanity of the one against the other, we may find as much semblance of Reason from those places of Scripture, which Sectaries allege for every true Believer so inspired and directed, as from those places the Romanists allege for the Papal Infallibility, of which Tr. 1. c. 27. Both these pretences are the very bane of the Unity of the Church: Romish Infallibility rendering that Church incorrigible, and setting it beyond all bounds of accord with other Christians, that desiring Reformation, will not be satisfied or put off with that pretended privilege: and the pretence of Sectaries, rendering Pastors and Teachers in the Church useless, or at least weakening the obedience due to them, puts it into the power of every one, that will fancy himself a true Believer, and guided by such assistance, to be a Reformer, and to break the Church in pieces.  
In the Church of England no such pretence, either of Infallibility in the governors, or of Private judgement in any against their governors; but such Authority of governors and Pastors lawfully constituted, as is beyond Appeal, (save to a general Council sitting) and competent to determine and define in all Causes, and to stop the mouth of the gainsayer, and bind under ecclesiastical Censures. The ancient Church pretended to no more, had no other way, or means of preserving Unity; as said Treat. 1. c. 13.  
When we ask of Those, that dissent from this Church, in following their own sense or interpretation of Scripture, Who shall judge? The Papists think we then come into their Road, and oppose their Plea to our Sectaries; But we are still in the midst between them: Not establishing a Papal Infallible Judge, nor allowing Private judgement to stand against the public: Not calling them to be tried at Rome, as if that Church should judge for all, but to submit to the public judgement of this National Church, of which they were Members, and in which there is such power (as is said) of judging for others, and of censuring or binding the obstinate Gainsayers, as Treat. 2. c. 1. nu. 36.  
If it be objected, There was such Authority in the governors of this Church before Reformation, how then could Private Judgement take place against them, to introduce the Reformation?  
We answer, It is possible there may be cause of dissenting from the chief governors of the Church, and that Reformation may take its first rise from Private Judgement, as Tr. 1. c. 9 but then to be managed with all peaceable moderation and subjection, as is there shown, and more largely, Tr. 2. c. 1. Now whether our Reformation took rise from some private judgement intimated to them in Authority, or from the immediate inclination and judgement of those that had the Authority, it is not material, seeing all was carried peaceably, and the work done not against, but by those that were the chief governors in the Church.  

In the due subordination of Pastors and Governors.  V. As for that due Subordination of Pastors and governors in the Church, seen and set forth in the true ancient Episcopal Government, it is wronged on both sides. The first invasion was made upon it by Papal usurpation, under the title of universal Bishop or Pastor, which in the judgement of Gregory the first, is to make him in effect the only Bishop, and all others but his Ministers, as the same Gregory declared against John of Constantinople, affecting that Title, and cleared himself and his Predecessors from assuming it to themselves. But it was not long ere his Successors challenged and obtained it, and ever since have used it to the vassalage of Christian Bishops, where they will suffer themselves to be so abused. On the other side, every Sect risen in these days, has lift up a hand to pull down that office and power, making spoil of the Means and Maintenance thereunto belonging. The Church of England in her Reformation did according to the universal Practice of the Church, retain the Episcopal Government, vindicating it from Papal Usurpation; and is now put to defend it against the invasion of all other Sects, which therefore stand convinced of downright schism; as will appear below. I have the longer stayed upon these Instances, because they do much tend to the clearing of the business in hand. Now more particularly to the Case, which is thus in general resolved.   

§. III. Resolution of the case.  
The true Protestant Church of ENGLAND is unjustly charged with schism by the ROMAN, for that Division which followed between them upon the Reformation: But does justly charge all other Sects with schism, which have divided from it, since that Reformation.  
There are three words to speak of here by way of Explication, 
National-Church.  1. National Church; for we have often spoken in the Treatises, and still shall speak of the Church of England as of a national Church. That therefore is to be accounted a national Church, which has in it the whole subordination of Church governments, (as the third council of Carth. Can. 2. Provinciae quae primas sedes habent) viz. One Primate, with several Bishops, Priests and Deacons: Whether the extent of it be bounded with the Limits of the Nation, or according to the Precincts appointed by the Ancient Councils, or the Supreme Civil Power. Every Congregation, nay every House may bear the name of a Church, (the Church in their h●use, Rom. 16. 5.) but as part only of, and in subordination to the National Church. So the Churches of Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, upon the first planting of Christianity in these Cities, began in a singular Congregation, but being enlarged to a due fullness, had every of them the exercise (or practice) of that whole subordination of power and Government.  

Reformation public or Private.  II. For the word Reformation. We must distinguish between that which is public or national, the reformation of a whole Church, in forbidding and casting out errors or Corruptions in belief or practice, and that which is Private or particular, the Reformation of a man's self, in not admitting or ceasing to profess Errors prevailing or imposed by the Church, of which he is a Member, or in which he was baptised and Educated: upon which Reforming of himself may follow a dividing from that Church by Excommunication, or at least by Non-communion.  

Actual Non-communion.  III. Touching the words schism, or dividing of Communion, we must distinguish Actual non-communion, or want of Actual Communion with a Church, from schism or the guilt of schism. The first, which is want of Actual communion may happen between two national Churches disagreeing in some practices, and that disagreement followed with too much heat, (as Tr. 1. c. 17, 18.) and sometimes between a Church and particular Members of it, through misinformations, passion, exasperations: 
schism.  But schism is a wilful (i.e. voluntary, causeless,) dividing or separating from those we ought to hold Communion with. And as before said of Non-communion, so observe that the guilt of schism may fall either upon a national Church causelessly dividing from, or refusing to hold communion with other Churches: 
Difference of it in regard of the parties between which.  or else upon the Members and parts of a National Church, withdrawing their obedience from their lawful Pastors or governors, and dividing from them and the Congregations under them: setting up a distinct communion, or joining themselves to any such, elsewhere set up, The case between the Churches of England, and of Rome stands according to the first consideration of schism, as it falls between two national Churches; and if the division, which followed upon the Reformation, must be called Schism we shall see in examining the cause of our Reformation, that the guilt of it falls on them, not us; But the case between the Church of England and other Sects, which have divided from it, stands according to the second consideration of Schism, between a national Church and the Members thereof. Which dividing from it stand guilty of the highest degree of disobedience unto their governors, and the highest breach of Charity both towards their governors and also all the people of God continuing in obedience to, and Communion with them.  

Difference in degrees of it.  Lastly, there are degrees in the height and guilt of Schism. A Schism, by a bare recess from the Communion of an established Church, setting up a distinct Communion from it, but leaving it in its own condition and establishment, pretending only to private or self-reformation; Such was the Schism of former Separatists, whilst this Church stood free from violence; They went their way, and it remained where it was. This incurs the guilt aforesaid of high disobedience and breach of Charity: but not in so high a degree as that which follows. A Schism, that not only divides from the Communion, but also offers violence to the destruction of the Church, pulls down what was, not only persons and governors, to set themselves in their places, but also the form and government itself, to set up their own in stead of it. This is higher and farther than ever any of the Ancient schismatics went, which changed not the form of Government always used in the Church: and this will be considerable in the violence of our modern Schism. But before we charge them according to the premises, let us clear the Case as it stands between the Church of England, and that of Rome, charging us with schism upon the Reformation.   

§. IV. Our Defence against the Church of Rome.  
Our Defence in general comes to this (as it was touched Tr. 1. c. 4. 5, 6.) This Church had Cause for such Reformation, and Authority for the doing it: sufficient both. For when such Errors prevail in a Church, and come to such general practice, it is high time by due Reformation to cast them out: and when they are in Authority be convinced and do it, than is the Reformation just and lawful.  

just cause for Reformation.  First, there was sufficient Cause by reason of Error and corruption in belief and Worship, such as we could not continue in without gross dissembling and wrong to our consciences and God's honour. The truth and evidence of this stands upon the examination of those doctrines touching Faith and Worship, wherewith the English Church was generally tainted according to the Romish infection. The trial whereof was in part made, Tr. 1. c. 30. to show that the points, wherein they and we differ, cannot be (as they would impose upon the world) Catholic doctrines, i. e. the belief and practice of the Church in all ages since the Apostles, or as S. Jude, ver. 3. calls it, the faith once delivered.  
But farther, to the end that they, which cannot examine all the Romish doctrines, whether they be Catholic, or professed in all Ages, may briefly and more near at hand see so far into that Church, as to perceive it is not such a Church, that they, who have means to know better, can safely or conscionably communicate with: 
Trial of a Church as to a safe communion with it.  We will make a brief trial or estimate of a Church, by the Faith, Worship, Sacraments professed, practised, administered therein; for these the Romanists will not deny to belong immediately to the constitution of the Church: and therefore fit to give us direction for holding, or not holding Communion.  
As for example, If we find any Church or Congregation of Men, calling themselves Christians, deny directly and peremptorily any Article of the Creed or Belief, into which all Christians are baptised, as professed Arrians and Socinians do; it is evident their Error is immediately against the foundation: they do not deserve the name of Christian Churches. We do not so charge the Church of Rome. But albeit she holds the Foundation, yet find we her superstructures, in no less matters than of Faith and Worship, to be such as the Foundation will not safely bear, nor any good Christian (coming to the knowledge of them) conscionably endure. For when any Church propounds any thing, as matter of Faith & Worship without manifesting the truth thereof to men's consciences by clear consequence from those prime Fundamentals into which they are baptised, or from Scripture itself: 
A necessary Rule.  it is intolerable. For this Rule is just and reasonable; Whatever the Church propounds so to be believed and practised, it stands bound so to manifest the same: else it sets itself in God's stead, taking an immediate dominion over men's faith and consciences; but in all other things, which the Church propounds and enjoins, as matters of Order, Ceremony, discipline, for the more significant profession of that Faith, or the more decent performance of that Worship, every Member of the Church is to obey, or to bring as express warrant from God's word against the particular he refuses to do, as the command is express, which binds him to obey those that are over him in the Lord. Were this Rule well held to, there would have been more peace in the Church. It was necessary for peaceable subjection, Tr. 2. c. 1. will be useful below against those that causelessly divide from this Church. And as to the present Case, we did not quarrel at the Church of Rome for matters of Rite, Order or the like, but of Faith and Worship. The superadded Articles being so far from a manifestation by clear consequence as above said, that they proved clearly inconsistent with the Word: and the worship then in an unknown tongue against the Apostle plainly, 1. Cor. 14. against the reason of a reasonable serving of God: beside that Worship which was given to Images against the express words of the second commandment.  
Lastly, examine a Church by the Sacraments in it administered: Those two, which confessedly are of Christ's appointment. Where we find the Cup denied to the Cummunicants, we see a direct breach of Institution, a defrauding the People of God of that part of the Sacrament which affords and makes them partakers of Christ's bloodshed, also where we find a daily propitiatory Sacrifice established, we plainly see a depravation of the Sacrament, and a derogation to the One oblation upon the Cross. Thus to say nothing of Primitive Antiquity: it is clear to every one that sees any thing, there is just Cause of Reformation, where such Errors and Corruptions have prevailed, and of ceasing to communicate (at least as to those Errors and practices) with that Church which will not (being admonished) reform them: so that if the Question be put to any man, whether he will be of the English Church, as it was corrupted together with the Romish, or as it was after reformed? it amounts to this: Whether he would be a sick and diseased man, or whole and healthful? Whether keep company with persons infected, or with those that are clear and sound? The choice is easy to a man in his wits.   

§. V. just and sufficient Authority for public Reformation.  
But to cast those Errors and Corruptions out of a Church, by public Reformation, is required Sufficient Authority. That also was not here wanting, both the civil and the ecclesiastical. Both these were seen in the Ancient lawful Synods, gathered and held for the same purpose of Reformation. And therefore every national Church, having within itself, the whole subordination of ecclesiastical Power or Government, (the Permission and Authority of the Supreme civil Power concurring) may reform itself, i. e. make a public national Reformation. The ancient Council of Arles in France, the several Councils of Carthage in Africa, of Toledo in Spain, did so; and that not only in matters of Discipline, but Doctrine also; as that of Arles, for rebaptising them which came from heretics, denying the Trinity▪ can. 8. The Melivetan Council determined against the Pelagean heresy: The third Council of Toledo gathered for extinguishing the relics of that heresy, which had long infected the Gothic Nation, and hindered the meeting and benefit of such Councils: as King Riccared (who called that national Synod) complains in his speech to the Bishops then assembled.  
Again, these Councils were gathered, and held, and did conclude independently on Rome, or without acknowledgement of any such Jurisdiction, as was after challenged by the Bishop of Rome. fair respect indeed was had to that Bishop in a fraternal way of Communion, and sometimes of communicating to him, what they had done and concluded; as that first Council of Arles, Fratri Sylvestro, and charitatiuè significamus; In the third Council of Carthage, Can. 47. for reading nothing in the Church but canonical Scripture, it is added, Hoc innotescat fratri & con-sacerdoti Bonifacio (I suppose they mean Boniface, Bishop of Rome) vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, to the end, this Canon might be received and practised in those parts: But presently after in the fourth Council (in which S. Augustine was) when the Liberty of their Church seemed to be infringed, through a kind of Jurisdiction challenged by the same Boniface in the point of Appeals, they utterly rejected his Plea, which he made by the general Council of Nice, but could not prove it. So he that looks into the several Councils of Toledo, will find no signification of a dependence on Rome, but great acknowledgement of the religious care of their several Kings, by whose permission they assembled.  

Such authority in the national Ch: of Engl.  The Church of England therefore being such a national Church, and having like power, might lawfully reform itself without asking the Bishop of Rome any leave, or without staying for a free general council: for albeit such a council was in agitation, yet could not be expected, either a general one, because of the Division of the East or Western Churches, or a free one, because of the Pope's exorbitant power, as Tr. 1. cap. 4. And as it might, so it did justly reform, casting off in the first place that papal usurpation, which hindered all Reformation, but desining nothing against the definitions of known and approved general Councils, (within the compass of which time Cardinal Perroun thinks it reasonable the trial of a Church be restrained, as Tr. 1. c. ult) unless some will quarrel at something of Discipline, not retained in our church according to the ancient constitutions: which being a matter of prudential Provision, admits variation according to the Exigence of the Times. Also it is clear, that national Synods have not held themselves always bound to all things determined formerly in that kind, but have put the receptions of such Canons to the vote, as we see in the beginning of the first of Toledo; Statuta Concilii Niceni, The Statutes of the Council of Nice about Ordinations, before not used among them, are voted there to be observed. Also we find they frequently make relaxation of former rigour, as in the injunctions of penance. Lastly, it is evident, there are many constitutions of this kind not retained or observed by the Church of Rome; Such as concern the exercise of public Penance; such as forbid the translating of a Bishop from City to City, and Ordinations without a Title: things determined in general Councils. Of this, as to the point of single life of Clergy men, T. 2 c. 1. & of the whole point of the warrantableness of our Reformation, Tr. 2. c. 2.   

§. VI. Answer to the Romish Plea.  
Upon these Grounds, it is easy to answer, what they object or pretend against us, which, that it may have the better impression upon the unwary, they represent the Church of England, before Reformation, wholly Romish, professing their Doctrine ever since the receiving of the Faith in this Land, under Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome, acknowledging that jurisdiction, and accordingly yielding Obedience to that See, yea, and owing it as Duty upon the conversion of this Land. From these premises their Inference is (and they think it will take with the unwary) That the Church of England by her Reformation, has cast off the Faith received, and so fallen into heresy, and by denying subjection to that See, has incurred the guilt of schism. But as there is some truth apparent in the Premises, so as much falsehood supposed, and taken for granted, which renders the Inferences inconsequent and invalid.  
First, it is a Truth, that the national Church of England, before the Reformation, was generally Romish, both for Doctrine professed in it, and for Obedience yielded to the Bishop of Rome; but then the Inference they make, therefore the Protestant Church of England is a New Church, or heretical, is invalid, because it rests upon this untruth, supposed, and taken by them for granted, viz. that the Romish Church was always such, teaching such Doctrine, and that the profession of such Doctrine makes a Church to be Catholic, and the denial of it renders it heretical; all which they must prove to make good that Inference; where as it is evident that the Catholic Christian Faith once delivered, 
what makes a Church Christian Orthodox.  Jude 5. Christ always professed in all ages (and into which they and we baptise) makes a Christian Church, and the holding that Faith undefiled, and free from errors and Corruptions in Belief and Worship, makes a pure and Orthodox Church. So did the ancient Church of Rome hold the Faith, so does the reformed Church of England hold and profess it, freed from the mixture of error, which had crept into the later Romish Church, to the infecting of the English; so that this National Church is so far from being heretical, by ceasing to be Romish, that it is therefore the more pure and Orthodox.  
Upon the like supposals, false and impertinent, they give pretence (plausible to the unwary) for that demand: show such a Protestant Church in England before the Reformation, as if every national Church did always teach the same Doctrine, without mixture of such error generally prevailing; or as if it were reasonably required of us to show the Church of England always Protestant, 
Protestant and reformed.  i.e. protesting against Errors, whereas the errors were not always, nor at first known; or to show a Reformed Church before the Reformation made. For though Truth be always before error, yet error is before Reformation, which protests against it, and casts it out. So the English Church, as corrupted with Romish errors, must needs be so before it could be Protestant or Reformed; but the Catholic Truths it always held made it a Christian Church, even under that mixture of errors: so when by Reformation it had cast them off, it remained the same Christian Church: but a more pure and sound one, holding still the same Catholic Truths, without that mixture of error, like as the ancient Christian Church did, before Popery prevailed, as Tr. 1. c. 1.  

we have not cast off the Faith received.  Secondly, It is a Truth, that the Saxons or English (whatever preparation they had to it by the Vicinity and Acquaintance of the British Christians) did indeed receive the Christian Faith from Rome, through the godly care of Gregory the first, than Bishop, and the Ministry of Austin and others, whom he sent to preach it here. But then the untruth (which they suppose, and usually impose upon the unwary) is palpable, viz. That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as to Faith and Worship, is the same it was in Gregorie's time: and that we, by Reformation have cast off the Faith we received. For first, as to the main and fundamental Faith, that makes a man or Church Christian, no question but Austin, and those that were sent, preached that they baptised into, which is the very same that we do still. Then as for the matters of Faith and Worship, which they and we differ in, the Novelty is clear: neither can they demonstrate, that any point we cast off, was a doctrine of Faith in S. Gregory's time. Some things, I confess, of misbelief and practice, were then crept in, and gathering strength; but it is observable, that in all their allegations of Fathers for the points we differ in, their own Gregory comes rarely in; indeed, that Purgatory was his opinion, they have express proof, not that it was an article of Faith in that Church. On the contrary, it is plain, that Communion in both kinds, was the doctrine and practice of the Church in his time, as it had been always before: that Image-worship is declared against in his answer to the Bishop of Marseilles: the Title also and Jurisdiction of universal Bishop (which immediately concerns the Cause in hand) is declared against, in his contestation with John of Constantinople, who affected it. In a word, had the Church of Rome continued the same for Faith and Worship, as it was in Gregory's time, and the Bishop of Rome taken no more to himself than the said Gregory did, certainly it would not have come to a division, neither would there have been cause for it.   

§. VII. Denial of Obedience to papal jurisdiction makes not schismatical.  
Thirdly, it is a Truth, that the English Church (still generally taken) before Reformation, acknowledged the Jurisdiction of that See, but the Inference they make (therefore it is schismatical in casting off or denying to yield obedience thereunto) is invalid; for it supposes this untruth, that we owed it of duty upon special relation, viz. our conversion or receiving the Faith by the Ministers of that See. To answer,  
I. It seems the Bishop of Rome makes his claim to England upon a double Title, One of universal Pastorship, which extends to all Churches of what Plantation soever; the Other of Conversion or Plantation, 
Bishop of Rome his pretence to universal jurisdiction.  which reaches to England, and some other Nations; and it seems, when these Titles are divided, the first prevails, and swallows up the other, and so brings under his Jurisdiction, all the Churches which other Apostles (besides Peter) and their Successors planted. Whereupon it follows, that the other Apostles shall not leave the like Title of Jurisdiction to those which succeeded them in the Churches they planted, unless dependantly on Rome: also that the other Apostles laboured dependently on Peter, and as his Ministers and Commissioners plaated Churches for him to rule over as supreme general Pastor; when as it is evident they were sent immediately by Christ with equal commission to plant Churches in all the world: God teach all Nations, Mat. 28. and As my Father sent me, so I send you, John 20. Therefore Peter and Paul, when they made that agreement, Gal. 2. departed to the work upon equal terms.  

Impossible to make it good.  To establish this first and transcendent Title of Universal Jurisdiction, they are bound to make good these several untruths. That it was so with Peter in respect of the other Apostles: That it is so with the Successors of Peter in respect of Those which succeeded the other Apostles in the Churches by them planted: That the Power and privilege pretended to be in Peter, was derived upon his Successors: Lastly, that it is derived only upon the Bishops of Rome, not of Antioch or elsewhere. All these they are bound to make good; yea, and seeing all their Romish faith (resting upon the pretended privileges of that Church) is founded upon these false Supposals: they are bound to make all good by apparent Scripture; for they grant, that the prime points of Faith, necessary for all to believe (as this is according to their doctrine) are clearly contained in Scripture. But to show this point of the privileges of that Church (Infallibility and universal Jurisdiction) so contained, is impossible for them to do; for when in this vast controversy they leave nothing untouched in Scripture or Fathers, which may be drawn to make any seeming appearance for such privileges, they do but give us words, nothing of force to prove the thing indeed. Some passages to this purpose in Tr. 1. c. 27. and in cap. 28. & 30.  

His special pretence to jurisdiction over this Chur:  II. As to his second Title from Plantation of the Church here: We do not find, that the Converting of any Nation to the Faith gave a Title of Jurisdiction to that Church from whence that Nation received the Faith; for we do not see it was held for any Rule in the distribution of Provinces, and the limiting or extending the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: We do not find that the ancient Councils, which provided therein, had any respect to such Title, but to the constitution of the Empire rather, and the Provinces thereof; and that the alteration, which has been anywhere since made in the bounds of National Jurisdiction, followed the division of kingdoms into which the Empire was broken: which appears in the several Councils of Toledo (above mentioned) under their several Kings, without dependence on Rome. And if we look into the Saxon Church and Councils (gathered and published by the industry of Sir Hen: Spelman) it will appear, that all the Application made unto, or intercourse had with Rome, did not speak a due subjection, but at most a voluntary adhesion; not acknowledgement of that Jurisdiction, but of their fair respect, such as any Church ought to have to that Church, from which it received the faith, so long as that Church continues safely in the faith it propagated, and so in a condition of giving advice and direction to, and of receiving due respect and compliance from those, among whom it planted the faith.  
But as Errors prevailed in that Church of Rome, so in this; and among the rest, that usurped Jurisdiction. Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the 7. about 400. years after Gregory the first, did lay on that yoke, and began to bring the necks of Kings and Princes under it too: and still by their power does the Bishop of Rome hold his jurisdiction over the Churches within their Dominions, as Spain, France, &c. But such Princes as came to understand their own right, not only in Civil, but Ecclesiastical things, did justly vindicate their Crowns to the power and dignity due unto them, and their Churches to the Liberty and Independency, which, as abovesaid, belongs to every National Church, having within it the whole Subordination of Ecclesiastical Government.  

Conclusion of the whole case as it stands with the Roman Church.  To conclude. Seeing by Reformation we cast out, as we had just cause, Error and Corruptions crept in upon the Christian Faith and Worship, and retained what ever was Catholic, we cannot be accused of heresy; Seeing also by the same Reformation we cast off the yoke of an usurped Jurisdiction, and vindicated this National Church to the just Liberty, we cannot incur the guilt of schism: for that breach of Communion, which followed either upon our ceasing to hold and practice with them in the aforesaid corruptions, or upon our denying farther obedience to that usurped Authority, cannot be imputed to us, who had just cause for doing it, and used just Authority in the doing. But if that breach of communion, which followed, be schism, the guilt of it rests upon the Church of Rome in general, and on all English Romanists in special: according to the several consideration of schism (above, §. 3.) as it falls between two National Churches, or between any National Church and the Members thereof; When between two National Churches, that Church stands guilty, which gives the cause, and peremptorily prosecutes it: So the Church of Rome did, by imposing (under pretence of Infallibility, and therefore incorrigible) her own doctrines, pronouncing all those to be heretics that did not receive them, and by usurping Universal Jurisdiction, concluding them schismatics, that did not obey. But the guilt of schism lies upon all English Romanists, holding to that Church, as upon Members dividing themselves from the body and communion of their National Church; and this concerns not only those, who have revolted from this Church to the Romish, but such as always professed themselves to be of that Church: it falls upon these not for desertion or separation, but for recusancy, or their fefusing the communion of their National Church, and adhering to a foreign Jurisdiction: which is contrary to the way and order which the ancient Church took for preserving Unity, and excluding schism: by no means suffering such disobedience and division of the Members of any National Church, where that Church did not divide itself from the Catholic, or give cause, as the Church of Rome has done.   

§. VIII. Second case as to those that have divided from this Chur:  
Now to the consideration of the Case, as it stands between the true Reformed Church of England, and Those who (of what persuasion soever) have divided from the communion of it.  
By that which has been said, it is evident, the Reformation made by this National Church was most just and regular: taking for the Rule, God's Word, with the consent and practice of the Ancient Church, and thereupon rejecting no more than was necessary, and retaining what wns useful: 
Difference twixt just and distempered Reformations.  showing therein a due zeal of Truth, together with Christian Prudence and Charity: to the taking away just cause of Complaint from all distempered zealots, and giving fair occasion of conviction and allurement to those of the Romish persuasion, from whom we differ; when they shall duly consider, there was no more Difference made, than needs must: Whereas others, who have endeavoured Reformation out of a misguided zeal, taking for their Rule, an opposition to the Church of Rome, rather than a conformity to God's Word, and the Consent of Primitive Times, have cast out for Popery many things (Episcopal Government, Set Forms of Liturgy, Kneeling at the Communion, and the like) which were most undeniably before Popery was hatched in the world. Now these being cast out upon that score by Heady Reformers, who call themselves Protestants, (Protesters indeed against many Truths) the Papist takes them up, and thanks such Reformers for yielding such Truth to be Popery; and so he remains more confirmed in his way, and hath more cause of offence at Reformed Protestants, were they indeed to be measured by such irregular proceedings.  
The Romanists know this well enough, and are sensible of the difference between the Reformation or Establishment of the Church of England, and all other pretensions: and therefore have made it always their main design, to undermine this Protestant Church so well established: and in these days, the Emissaries of Rome have been very active to help forward a confusion, joining themselves (if there be truth in that, which so many have reported on their knowledge) to Sects of several persuasions, for the pulling down what was, and advancing their pretended Reformations. Not that the Romanist approves them, but because he knows, that if the Church of England, established on such sure grounds, can by any means be subverted, the other unbottomed Reformations will fall of themselves, or stand at no stay, to the shame of the Religion they profess; and so make fair way for the Romish Religion, to come in through their breaches, or over their ruins, and find more general entertainment. It is the tempter's Policy, and indeed his masterpiece, when he must act an Angel of Light, and must make his advantage of those that are come to some sense of Religion, or at least to a conceit they are religiously disposed, to lead them on by false Lights, and make them overact their parts by a misguided zeal, to a quarrelling with their governors, and slighting all former Reformations, under pretence of Purity and Reformation; till in pursuit of that purity, and seeking out a more Reformed Assembly or purer Church, they run themselves clean out of the Church, and yet carry it with them.  
Whither they are run, that have left us, let them look to it. It is our work now to show (and I wish they would sadly consider it) what they have incurred by leaving us, no less than the guilt of schism, which lies heavily on as many as have (of what persuasion or Sect soever) wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England: Whether they do this (as above premised) by a bare Separation, or by adding Violence and sacrilege to it, in pulling down, and (as much as lies in their power) destroying what was established, that they may set up their own form and way of Government, and public Worship. I said divide themselves wilfully, to lessen the guilt of those that follow the schism in the simplicity of their hearts, deceived with the fair pretences of Religion and Purity, which they could not at first see through; but if they will not use their eyes, and carefully look into their way: if they will not use the best means they can for discovering the obliquity and danger of that way, and so return from it, they lie under the same guilt with those they follow, and will with them fall into the ditch. Also we must note here the difference of the Case, between us and them, from that with the Church of Rome; which will at first sight show the impertinency of the Romanists alleging, that the present Sects of these days may plead against the Church of England, from which they have divided, what the Church of England can against the Roman; for, as it was above premised, the case between English and Romish Church, is as between two national Churches, having full authority for public Reformation; but the case between the English Church, and those that have divided from it, is between a national Church, and the members of it; by which appears, they could have no sufficient Authority for public Reformation, without, and against the Authority in being, to pull down and set up as they have done, and it will appear they could have no just Cause for so much as a Separation from the Communion of this Church.   

§. IX. Grounds laid for convincing them of Schism.  
Now for making good the charge of schism against them, we will premise some undeniable Truths, which speak the Authority of church-governors, the obedience due thereunto, the condition of Schism, and the danger and guilt of it.  

1. Church Government.  I. That the Church of Christ is a Society or Company under a Regiment, Discipline. Government, and the Members constituting that Society, are either Persons taught, guided, governed, or Persons teaching, guiding, governing: and this in order to preserve all in Unity, and to advance every Member of this visible Society, to an effectual and real participation of Grace, and Union with Christ the Head; and therefore, and upon no less account is obedience due unto them: Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13, 16. and Heb. 13. 17. and he that will not hear the Church, be as a Heathen and Publican, Mat. 16.  
II. That every national Church has power, 
2. Church Authority in making Decrees & Orders  as to determine in matters of Faith, according to God's word, so to determine in things indifferent, Rites, Ceremonies, matters of order, as in prudence it sees most fit for the better and more convenient performance of God's worship, or administration of Discipline and Government. This is plain by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 26, 40. The Rule above delivered speaks to this purpose, That the Church propounding or determining matters of Faith, or of the substance of Worship, aught to manifest it out of God's Word, cannot do it besides the same, (as the 20 Act of our Church hath it) and we may expect such manifestation or proof, before we yield the absolute assent of belief unto any thing so propounded; But in the church's determination of things in themselves indifferent, and enjoining the observation of Rites and Ceremonies, it is enough that the particular be not against God's Word: and he that will not yield obedience to it, is bound to show it plainly contrary to the Word, or else stands guilty of disobeying the known precepts of the Word, which command obedience to Authority.  
I will not be enough to say, The governors of the Church did not hold to their Rule, for this Rite or Ceremony is not to edification, is not decent; it might be better otherwise. For this is to set a man's own judgement, against that of the Church, in matters of prudence: a spice of that pride and self conceit, which is the Mother of all disobedience & Schism; and though a private judgement might truly say, some things might be better done in, and about God's Worship or Service; yet unless such a one can say as truly, those things are unlawful to be done, and that by direct warrant from God's Word, he ought not to disobey.  
III. When the Apostle used an argument from custom against certain disorders, 
3. Force of church-custom.  We have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11. 16. he plainly shows what force the customs of a Church (so they be not against God's Word) have to bind the Members of that Church, as from Introducing any New custom without Authority, so to observe such customs as the Church hath; and he that will not, is reckoned by the Apostle there, among the Contentious, or disturbers of the peace of the Church; for against such he urges that. Much more are we to take notice of the strength of universal Tradition, the custom and Practice of the whole Church in all Ages: for of this we shall have occasion below against the Contentious.  

4. Union of charity.  IV. In the same Epistle (for it is mainly spent upon this Argument) he commends Charity, as a Remedy against that Pride, which upon conceit of Knowledge, or Spiritual gifts (cap. 12.) puffed: them up, and made them swell one against another, and despise one another; the ready way to Division, and breaking all asunder. This Charity (not that which does works of mercy, or relieves the poor, as we see by ver. 3. cap. 13. but which binds together the body of the Church; Edifying itself in Love, as Eph. 4. 16. (Charity in opposition to Schism) this I say he commends, and by several properties discribes: It vaunteth not, is not puffed up, ver. 4. not against Equals, much less in setting our private judgement against our Governors. It thinketh no evil, ver. 5. It receives satisfaction easily from Equals, interprets their Words and Actions to the best: much more the commands and doings of our governors. Charity seeks not her own, endureth all things, ver. 5, 7. suffers much, rather than come to open difference and contention with Equals: so will peaceable Charity suffer much ere it come to a division from the Church: much less will it seek that which is another's, that especially which belongs to the governors, their power, means, preferments. Thus Schism takes beginning from Pride, and self-conceit, goes on by uncharitableness to enormous excess of disobedience and injustice; and renders all Knowledge, Faith, and other good works, for want of this Charity, unprofitable, nothing worth; as the Apostle in that Chapter often tells us.  

5. Admonition and rejection of heretics and schismatics.  V. The Apostle when he set Titus over the Churches of Crete, directs him in the use of his power, as to this point of dealing with the Contentious, Tit. 3. 10, 11. A man that is an heretic— reject— being self-condemned. Every schismatic is this heretic: for so the word heresy and heretic signifies, and according to the use of it then employed; one, that obstinately stood out against the Church, or that lead any Sect: after the strictest Sect (or heresy) of the Pharisees, Act 26. 5. after that— which they call heresy— Act. 24. 14. a Factious company divided from the Church, so they called or accounted of Christians; and Gal. 5. 20. we have it reckoned among the works of the Flesh, Debates, Contentions, heresy: So here heretic, that leads a Faction, a Sect, or that wilfully follows or abets it. A Man therefore that is a heretic, contentious, disobedient to the Order and Authority of the Church, reject, for he is self-condemned, having both passed the Sentence upon himself, by professing against, or dividing from the Church, and also done execution (like that of the church's censure, and excommunication) upon himself, by actual separation, or going out of the Church. A fearful condition.  

Application of the Premises.  Now the application of the Premises to the convincing of those that have divided from the Church of England, is very easy and obvious. Disobedient they are to the lawful Authority in this Church: and that, not only in their denying to obey the Orders, Decrees, Constitutions Lawfully made by them which had the Authority, but in an utter withdrawing of their obedience for the future: yea, in abolishing and taking away (as much as in them lay) that very Authority and Office too; a step farther than ever the ancient schismatics went. And all this against the Constitution and custom, not only of this Church, but of all the Catholic church: against that Charity which Saint Paul enjoins, as most necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church, and to keep out Schism: against all the admonitions (not once and again, as the Apostle bids Titus, but often given them) yea, satisfactions endeavoured by the governors and Writers of this Church, in all the particulars of Government, Worship and Ceremony, which the Contentious from time to time excepted against.   

§. X. Answer to their plea against this Chu:  
Let us then hear what they plead to this charge, by way of exception against the Church of England, and briefly rejoin, so as may be to the satisfaction of them at least, who desire to continue in the Unity of the Church of England, notwithstanding the Temptations of the Times, and to the reduction of such as follow the Schism in the simplicity of their hearts, deceived by the fair pretences thereof.  

want of Purity.  Their general pretention for themselves, and exception against this Church, is, their desire or seeking of Purity, holiness, strict walking, which they could not have or exercise (in that way they desired) under the Government, or in the way of Worship, used in this Church of England. Answ. The pretence of Purity, holiness, and strict life, has a fair gloss, and to endeavour it really and conscionably is the duty, and should indeed be the desire and care of every Christian. But we find the Pharisees in the Jewish Church, pretending to it above all other, and by the forced exercises of it, drawing admiration from the beholders, and bringing in proselytes to their Sect; and it would be worth the examining, at least in the Consciences of these Pretenders, whether their righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees! Our Saviour has also foretold, that false Teachers shall arise in his Church, 
Ancient schismatics had like pretence of purity.  and come in sheep's clothing, but may be known by their fruits. We find also that the ancient and famous Schisms of the Novatians, and Donatists, had the pretence of purity and strictness; Novatus about the year 250. was so strict, that he denied reconciliation to all that after baptism fell into Adultery, or in times of persecution yielded to Idolatry: and broke with the Church for readmitting such upon their unfeigned Repentance. His followers were called Cathari or Puritans upon this pretence, and many followers he had; yea, many of the Confessors, such as suffered for the Christian Faith, were carried away with that false pretence, and sided awhile with him, till seeing their error, they returned again to the Unity of the Church, and condemned his Schism, as Saint Cyprian relates it to Cornelius, Ep. 46. Donatus in the next age after him, discontented because he could not be made Bishop of Carthage, divided himself and his party from the Communion of the Church: despising it as a mixed company of good and bad, and rebaptising all that revolted from the Church to his Communion, confined the true Church only to those of his persuasion: for under that pretence of Purity, he drew many away, and it proved a Schism of great extent, and long continuance.  
If therefore this be one Reason wherefore our pretenders cannot, as they conceive, have that Purity, or partake of the Ordinances as they ought, because of carnal Christians suffered in the Communion of the Church of England, and unworthy receivers admitted to the Sacrament: it was long ago refuted by S. Austin, in his learned works against the Donatists, demonstrating by several places of Scripture, which acknowledge, and by several parables of our Saviour, which represent the condition of the Church on Earth, to be such for mixture, as a heap of Chaff and Wheat in the same Floor, of good Fish and bad in the same Net, of corn and Tares in the same Field, and that neither the unworthiness of the Minister, or of other Receivers, makes God's Ordinance ineffectual, or pollutes him that comes in Charity, and with a Conscience undefiled, or cleansed from self-pollution. It is in the power and belongs to the duty of church-governors, to cast out the scandalous, or such as walk disorderly: but when that is done, it is not for any man to judge, he or she is carnal and unsanctified; for this is to take the Lords Fan out of hand, with which he will purge his Floor, Mat. 3. and by breach of charity to offend against his Brother: Nay, if that be not done, but that disorderly persons are yet suffered, and come to the place of Worship, yea, to the Lord's Table; the guilt rests upon the Governors that are to see to it, the Ordinance is not less effectual to thee, if by self-conceit and uncharitableness thou render not thyself uncapable of the benefit, as the Pharisee did, when he saw the Publican in the Temple with him; yea, for any thing thou knowest, such a disorderly person may come at that time, when thou art offended with him, as the Publican than did, truly penitent and converted.   

§ XI. Trial of Purity of Religion.  
In the next place, I would know, what hindrance or prohibition of purity, or strict life, had they in the Communion of this Church? Did the Governors thereof forbid any thing which St. James requires to pure Religion (c. 1. ult.) to keep themselves unspotted of the World, by covetousness, self-seeking, Swearing, drunkenness, Lusts of the flesh, the common spots of the World? Or did they forbid to visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction, or any works of Charity? Might they not have done all these with praise and commendation, had they continued in the Communion of this Church? And for these other exercises of Devotion, Prayer, Reading, Hearing, (which though belonging to pure Religion, S. James thought good to omit; we shall see the reason of it presently) might they not be had duly, frequently? Was there any thing forbid but the irregular use, or seditious abuse of them? Private Meetings or Conventicles, which were preparatories to Separation and Schism, in a performance of those Duties, to the despising of the Church, or public Assemblies.  
But they will say, they could not have these exercises in public purely administered or performed: that is (as it will appear below) not according to their own devising and fancy. Good reason there is, that every Christian should have a special care of performing these duties of Prayer, Reading, Hearing: but seeing our Pretenders to Purity seem to place the sum of Religion in these especially, I would wish them to examine the purity of their Religion, by the Apostles trial of it, Jam. 1. ult. who thought good to omit the mention of these exercises, because of the Pharisees, seeking the esteem of holiness by such performances, & because of Christians then (as now in our Times) resting too much on a fancy of their faith & performance of such Exercises without works and deeds answerable. And therefore the Apostle described pure Religion, by such duties (of Charity, & abstaining from all spots of the world or works of the Flesh) as make better proof of the sincerity of Religion.  
If the making of fatherless and widows, the turning men out of their Estates, the invading of other men's Rights, had by the Apostle been made the trial of pure Religion, then might the Contentious of our days have pretended to Purity and Religion; and have blessed the Lord that they were become rich, though with the spoiling of others, as they did, Zech. 11. 5. but if Charity, and denying of worldliness, and lusts, be the marks, then let them try whether their way of Religion bring forth such fruits, or be in a capacity to do it: When the Romanists allege the many pious and charitable works (as building of Churches, colleges, Hospitals, Schools, and the applying maintenance thereunto) done by men in their Religion; our pretenders to Purity will be ready to say, it was the Doctrine of Merit that did it; not reflecting upon themselves to consider what kind of Doctrine theirs is, which pulls down the Monuments of Piety and Charity, and converts the public to private use. But when we show that since the Reformation (which cast out Popish merit) as many good works (for the computation has been made) done in the like kind, as have been done in any one Age before: we show the fruits of our Religion, and challenge theirs, which only can show (for their way and doctrines tend to no other issue) a distempered zeal in destroying much of that which before was raised to pious uses, and a self-seeking in the enriching themselves by the spoils. Swearing and drunkenness, the usual and noted spots of the World, are (as it is fit) very much declined in their way of purity; but the Pharisee could say more, he was no Extortioner, no Adulterer; and Saint James implied many other spots of the World, which pure Religion must keep a man from: and S. John, 1. Ep. c. 2. 16. reducing the things of the world, to three heads, makes two of them the lust of the Eye, and pride of Life, and therefore tells us, that Coveting, Injustice, sacrilege, and the Pride of life, that either causes them, or is maintained by them, are the Exorbitant Iniquities of the world, and therefore Spots, which by S. James his rule, will not consist with pure Religion.  
I have been the longer upon this Argument, because there is scarce any other thing by which the Devil hath gained more, or the Church lost more, than by this pretence of Purity, the common plea of all Sects in all Times.  
Now, as to their Reply above, that they could not have those duties of exercises of hearing, praying in public, purely administered, satisfaction will be given below, when we come to consider of the offence they take at the Liturgy, forms of public Service, Rites and Ceremonies used in and about God's worship in this Church. But first of their Exceptions against the Government itself; for we charge them of separating, or withdrawing their Obedience from their lawful Pastors and governors. Such as Bishops were in this, and in all the Catholic Church in all Ages.   

§ XI. Their Plea against the Government of this Chu.  
They plead it is no lawful government of the Church, but to be cast out as Antichristian. This last contentious age has called the office of a Bishop into question, and made a vast controversy of it. I will not follow it at stretch, but only observe such grounds as Truth and Peace seems mainly to rest on, and which every ordinary capacity may understand, and receive satisfaction so far, as to keep himself in the unity of the Church.  

what is meant by a Bishop.  It is fitting therefore in the first place, to remove the prejudice, under which the Adversaries usually represent Bishops to vulgar eyes: as men swelled with their titles of Honour, large Revenues, attendance of Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, Lording it over the flock not feeding it. Why persons ecclesiastical should be thought uncapable of the Honour, or unfit for the means which the piety of former times has applied unto them, out of a religious respect, I know no cause besides the ingratitude, and sacrilegious disposition of this latter Age: But to wave these Additionals, as external, to the very office of a Bishop, and to pass by Abuses, that might be in government, through the iniquity of Persons and corrupter Times, all which are capable of Reformation by due Authority: that which is concerned in this Controversy, is the Function, and very office of a Bishop. By the office (be the times what they will) he is set in the Church, as a chief or more general Pastor, within such precincts or compass (commonly called a diocese) having inspection and superintendency (in which stands his Prelacy) over particular Pastors and Flocks, providing or ordaining such Pastors as need requires; and doing all this with the advice and assistance of his Presbyters, or some of the inferior Pastors (anciently called Presbyteri civitatis) and they nothing without him. Such an office will appear to be conformable as to the perpetual practice of the Catholic Church, so to the Word of God, and most agreeable to the reason of Church-government, as to the preserving of Unity, and keeping out schism, the main concernments of the Church: and therefore they must appear also highly guilty of sacrilege and schism, that not only deny obedience to the established Authority of this Office, but have endeavoured to subvert the very Function itself.   

§. XIII. Episcopal, Government is by universal practice of the Chu:  
First, the practice of the whole Church in all Ages is against them. Into this Island the Christian faith was received, if not in the Apostles times (as some think) yet in the next age at farthest (as all do acknowledge) and with that faith the government by Bishops was received, and ever since continued; neither did the Catholic Church ever know any other Government till the last hundred years. So the force of the Apostles argument, 1 Cor. 11. 16. falls upon the Contentious of this Age, and explodes their new way of ordaining Pastors, and ruling their Churches without Bishops: The Churches of God never had any such custom; yea, in some Councils they declared against it, upon occasion given by the presumption of some Presbyters, that took upon them to ordain, as in the Case of Ischyras, and some others, ordained by one Coluthus▪ who carried himself as a Bishop, but was found to be none; in Athanas. Epist. certainly the lawful customs of any national Church, are by the Apostles reason, binding to all the Members thereof: how much more universal practice? This the Adversaries of episcopal-government (whether they be of the classical, or congregational way) turn off with a light finger, as if it had no weight in it; or as if the Apostle had said nothing in alleging the customs of the Church: Scripture is the only thing they will be tried by.  
We refuse not to meet them there: but let them consider, that they come against the Established authority of their own national Church, 
Force of universal practice or Catholic Tradition.  against the custom and practice, not only of that, but of all the Churches of God, and there are bound to bring plain and express Scripture to demonstrate that Episcopacy, or such a superiority over other inferior Pastors, or mere Presbyters, is directly unlawful; for else the custom and practice of the Churches, by the Apostles rule, must be observed, so long as in force, i. e. till due Authority change them, supposing they are changeable, and that it is in the power of the present Church to change them. It were well the Adversaries of the episcopal Function, would yield more Authority to universal practice or Tradition of the Churches of God, at least in their respect to some points they will acknowledge themselves bound to maintain: As first, That Scripture is the Word of God. I do not ask upon what grounds they finally believe this themselves, but how they would maintain it against Heathen or Jew, and persuade them to it, but upon the witness of universal Tradition, which speaks to the conviction of all men upon the ground of common Sense or Reason, as abovesaid §. 2. or Secondly, That the observation of the Lord's day comes from the Apostles. How would they convince such a one as Mr. Trask was, by the places of Scripture, mentioning the Apostles meeting upon the first day of the week, or that place which names the Lord's day, Rev. 1. which might be on Easter day, the annual Lord's day: He, according to the doctrine of these men, slighting the witness of universal Tradition or practice, found nothing in Scripture express, but the commandment for the Seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath, & so obstinately held for that, till he was reclaimed by the labour and travail of our learned Bishops, and made to see how the continued and undeniable practice of the whole Church did clearly show those passages in Scripture were intimations of this practice than beginning, and that their observing of the Seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath (for they observed that too as occasion served) was but in compliance with the Jews for a time, while the Temple stood. In like manner, the universal practice of the Church, the best interpreter of Scripture (where there is not any place of it so plain as to take away all gainsaying) tells us, those passages we show in Scripture for this Government, contain so many intimations, and sometimes exercises of that episcopal power, which should continue in the Church after the Apostles, and assures us, those other instances brought by the Adversaries against that Function, cannot infer any other way of Government. And therefore we had good cause to say above, episcopal Government was conformable to God's Word which is our second consideration.   

§. XIV. Episcopal government conformable to the word.  
Secondly then, take we a brief survey of the Grounds on both sides, which yet I cannot in reason enter upon, without asking leave to suppose it possible (which never was seen in any particular) that universal Tradition or practice can be contrary unto Scripture: but yielding that, as possible, to the Adversaries, it is clear they are bound as abovesaid, to demonstrate this practice or Government, is against Scripture, and that their way is peremptorily there prescribed. How impossible it is for them to do this, appears at first sight, by their several judgements upon the passages of Scripture, concerning Church-government. Some of them look upon these passages, and think they see a classical, or Presbyterian; others of them look upon them, and are as strongly persuaded they see a congregational, or Independent way. Where's the clear Evidence then, which they pretend against episcopal Government? To examine their chief Instances briefly and plainly, for the satisfaction of ordinary Capacities, make the trial of those that are alleged for the classical way: because that pretends to more regularity, and to a better foundation than the other.  

Presbytery  Their Instances are from the mention made in Scripture, of Presbytery and Presbyters, or Elders, and the name of Bishop applied to them. We read, 1 Tim. 4. 14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: But what evidence is there in this to demonstrate, that the power of ordination was put into the hands of mere Presbyters? For first, it is a question, whether this laying on of hands was for ordination here, or for some other purpose; Secondly, when that is granted, it is a question whether the word Presbytery here, implies the office to which Timothy was ordained, or the Persons ordaining him, for both interpretations are admitted: Thirdly, admit the Persons ordaining are meant, yet never can it be proved they were mere Presbyters; for besides that, the word Presbytery, or Eldership included, the Apostles, and all the chief Rulers of the Church, (1 Pet. 5. 1. who am also an Elder, and John Ep. 2. v. 1. Ep. 3. v. 1. the Elder) St. Paul saith expressly, he laid hands on Timothy, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Neither can they in all Scripture, give one instance of Imposition of hands for Ordination permitted to mere Presbyters alone.  

Elders and Bishops.  So for the places (Alleged by them) mentioning Bishops and Deacons only, as the Ministers of the Church, Phil. 1. 1. or calling them first Elders, and then presently Bishops, Tit. 1. 5. 8. Acts 20. 17. 28. If we say, that in these and the like places, those first Elders set in the Churches, newly planted, were Bishops properly; or that the Elders or Bishops there mentioned, were of both sorts, some Bishops properly, some inferior Presbyters, the Adversaries could disprove neither part evidently: or if in the third place, we should grant them what they aim at, that these were only Presbyters, it would be nothing to the purpose, unless they could directly show the power of Ordination and Government over those Churches fully committed to them. For supposing those Elders to be such Presbyters, the name Bishop might be appliable to any of them, in as much as he had oversight of any flock: which Name was appropriated after to the more general Pastor, who had oversight of the Presbyters, and particular Flocks, or Congregations within such Precincts. And what marvel is it, if the distinction of these two sorts of Elders or Bishops, did not, nay could not appear so clearly in the beginning of the new planted Churches, and whilst the Apostles were on earth governing the Churches, as it did after the Churches were enlarged, and the Apostles gone off? Then clearly appeared, who succeeded them, and how far in that ordinary power which was to continue in the Church. For our Saviour left his Apostles with full power (extraordinary and ordinary) for the planting and propagating his Church through the World. The ordinary power they were to leave unto others after them, for continuing of his Church to the world's end, viz the power of Reconciliation in the Ministry of the Word & Sacraments, the power of ordaining and sending others, and the power of jurisdicton and government. How, and into what hands they communicated these several powers, That's the question.  

Of the first Elders set in the Church by the Apostles.  Some of the Ancients apprehend it thus, That they committed the whole power to those first Elders they placed in every City where the Church was planted, so that those first Elders were properly Bishops, having power to ordain other Ministers and Labourers, as the increase or extent of the Church required. Other Fathers, or ancient Writers, seem to apprehend those first Elders to be mere Presbyters, to whom the whole power was not committed; but that afterwards upon the increase of the Church, other special Men were entrusted with it to ordain others, as need required, and as general Pastors to rule and oversee the whole Church, with all the particular Congregations and Presbyters, or inferior Pastors belonging to it. Either way is sufficient for establishing the episcopal power and government, and the Adversaries thereof, as they cannot disprove it, if we say those first Elders were Bishops properly; so neither will they gain any thing, if we grant them in courtesy thus much, that the first Elders were mere Presbyters. For see briefly what they can say against the first, or draw from the second.  
Against the first they usually say, 1. If those Bishops at Philippi were so properly, than were there more than one Bishop in one City or Church: Answ. This indeed was absurd and inconvenient, and never suffered in the Church enlarged and established, but in the Church Nascent or beginning it might be very reasonable by way of provision for the future enlargement & establishment of that Church. So we find 12. Apostles left in the Church of Jerusalem by our Saviour, in order to their propagating and governing the Church through the whole World: And so in some great Cities, where and from which the Gospel might suddenly spread itself, the Apostles might provisionally leave more than One Elder vested with power for the supply of the Church enlarged. Secondly, If the Elders or Bishops mentioned in those places, were Bishops properly, vested with such power, than would the Apostle also have remembered the other sort of Elders between them and Deacons. Answ. But what if there were not yet in that Church Elders or Presbyters of the second sort? For no Church at first was full. Or if there were such in that Church, why might he not salute both sorts under that general name, Bishop? Thirdly: But then the Apostle did not distinctly set down the Office of the one or the other, for having set down the office of a Bishop, he presently goes to the Deacon, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. Answ. It was not the Apostles purpose in those places, distinctly to set down the Office of Elders, nor of Deacons, but the general qualification of the Persons to be admitted to those Offices. We may ask of them, Where has the Apostle distinctly set down, or described the Office of a lady-eld? They are fain to force it out of one word Ruling (1 Tim. 4. 17.) which belongs to the Preaching Elders, as they well acknowledge. In the places above mentioned, the Apostle gives, as I said, qualifications fitting the Persons of both sorts of Elders (that then were, or should be, in the Church) for the duties there hinted, teaching, ruling, do belong to both sorts of Elders, but with Subordination of the one to the other. And if they will have the word rule (1 Tim. 4. 17.) insinuate a distinct Office of Elders from the preaching Elders, without any intimation of such an Office anywhere else in Scripture, why might not we say with more reason, that the same word in the forementioned place (1 Tim. 3. 5.) belongs to Bishops of both sorts, according to their order and station, to rule or take care of the Church of God? Especially seeing we show elsewhere in the same Epistle, such a Prelacy or supereminent power of rule given to Timothy distinctly from other Elders: as Lay hands suddenly on no man, Rebuke not an Elder— receive no accusation against an Elder, &c. cap. 5. v. 19 22. Like special power given to Titus, as we see in that Epistle, besides all the acts of ordinary power exercised by the Apostles, and not communicated in general to Presbyters. And so the exhortation of the Apostle, Acts 20. 28. might generally fit both sorts of Elders or Bishops (supposing those of the inferior rank present there) that they should all of them feed the Flock according to their several stations, and in that subordination of Rule which was in the Church.  
But if we grant them, that those Elders or Bishops in the above cited places were not Bishops properly, but ordinary presbyters: 
No example or precept in Scripture for the adversary's pretention.  What can they draw from thence advantageous either to the classical or Congregational pretention, when as there is no instance in all Scripture of the Power vested in a Classis or consistory of Presbyters, or in every particular Congregation: but on the contrary where ever there is mention of the exercising of the power (for ordination by laying on hands, or for Jurisdiction in rebuking or receiving accusation against an Elder in rejecting heretics or the like) we find it always done by the Apostles, or special men appointed thereunto, as Timothy, Titus. Nor is it to any purpose to reply (as they do) These were extraordinary men, Apostles or Evangelists, and so exercised that power as such: For albeit in the office of Apostle and Evangelist there was something extraordinary, and supposing Timothy & Titus may pass under the Title of Evangelists, yet the power (of ordination and Jurisdiction) was ordinary, and to continue in the Church, and to be communicated unto others as was most convenient: What help therefore can the Adversaries have in the Apostles and Evangelists being extraordinary persons, unless they can show the power did ordinarily belong to, and was exercised by the company of Presbyters: or else demonstrate it was left in their hands by express and peremptory order from the Apostles. So that here they would be nonsuited, laying their plea only by Scripture against universal Tradition, and practice of the Church: for the Scripture story goes not down to the departure of the Apostles: Now after they were gone off, it clearly appeared by the practice of the whole Church in what hands the chief power and Government was left, viz. not to Presbyters in common, but in special hands, according to the instances and examples of the exercising that power in the Apostles Time. The Ancient Records also which continue the Church story from that Time, give us the succession of Bishops from the Apostles in the more eminent Churches, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, and this practice and succession settled before St. John the Apostle died.  

The alteration of Church-government from Presbyterian to episcopal not imaginable.  All which, as it clearly shows those several Angels of the several Churches, to whom our Saviour by Saint John did write, could be no other than such Bishops, having chief care of and rule in those Churches, & therefore more chargeable with the Corruptions prevailing in them: So doth it clearly convince that plea of the Adversaries, which amounts to a charging the first Bishops with Usurpation and invasion upon the right of Presbyters, or particular Congregations, to be a conceit altogether unreasonable; for it is beyond all Imagination, that Saint John would have suffered such an invasion, or that those first Bishops, who conversed with the Apostles and were their disciples, should make such an invasion, and immediately subvert the apostolical order pretended for the Presbyterian Consistory: Or that those first Bishops, being holy men, and many of them Martyrs (for still we find the heathen Persecutors sought chiefly after the Bishop of the Church, that the chief Pastor being smitten the flock might be more easily scattered) should be so ambitious and unjust; or lastly, that the Presbyters than should be so tame, as not once to complain of the wrong done them, or to transmit their Protestation against it to Posterity.  
To conclude this trial by Scripture; It comes to this issue: The Adversaries were bound to show direct Authority of Scripture against Episcopal Government, it being in possession, established by the continued Authority of this national Church, and which is more, by the perpetual practice of the Catholic Church; against this it was expected they should bring some places of Scripture, forbidding that power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be committed to special hands, such as Bishops properly taken: or commending it to the Consistory of Presbyters, or some instances at least of that power exercised by such a company: Whereas all they can evince out of Scripture, is, that there were Presbyters (strictly so taken, and of the inferior rank) which being granted them, we show there was a Prelacy still over such Presbyters; still there were special men, that had an inspection and rule over them; and when the Apostles went off, the practice of the Church shows the power was left in the hands of special men, called Bishops properly: So that the Government of the Church by Bishops, appears (as was said above) conformable, not only to the Universal practice of the Church, after the Apostles time, but also to the Word of God, i.e. to the practice and patterns we have there, 1. of our Saviour appointing twelve Apostles, and besides, and under them seventy Disciples of a lower rank; 2. of Apostolical practice, by which we find the power exercised by special Elders, viz. the Apostles themselves, or other choice men appointed thereunto by them: whereas all Elders had power of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments: 3. of the several Angels of the several Churches, to whom the Epistles were directed, Rev. c. 2. & 3. which is the last instance in holy Writ to this purpose.   

§. XV. Episcopacy most agreeable to the reason of Church-government.  
Lastly, The Government of the Church, by Bishops, was said above to be most agreeable to the reason of Church-government, for preserving Unity, and excluding Schism. This is very obvious in the writings of the Fathers: St. Cyprian had much to do with the Novatian schismatics of his time, which caused him to write many Epistles upon that occasion, and a Book entitled De Vnitate Ecclesiae; wherein he shows the Unity of the Church, as to the preventing of schism, stands much upon this, that there be one Bishop in one Church. St. Hierom (whom they of the Presbyterian persuasion take for their best friend, because he strives to advance the Order of Presbyters as much as he can, yet) as he denies the power of Ordination belongs to Presbyters, so he acknowledges, that Bishops were appointed over Presbyters to keep out Faction and Schism; that the people should not say, as they did at Corinth, I am of Paul, I of Apollo's— I of this Teacher, I of that. And for his saying of Presbyters, that they did anciently communi consilio, with joint advice rule the Churches, is not to be understood exclusiuè to the Bishop, for such a time was never known in the Church, but jointly with him as his Council: so were the Presbyteri Civitatis to the Bishop; and their advice was more used (and there was more cause for it) before the many Canons and decrees of Councils gave rule in most particulars what the Bishop should do: as it was by that time S. Jerom wrote: and whatever he saith for the advancing of the order of Presbyters, it is but to set them above all Deacons (even those that immediately attended on the Bishop, and, it seems, carried themselves too high) it is not to equal them to Bishops, whose Prelacy St. Jerome acknowledged, and thought it very necessary for this purpose of keeping out Schism, which the Parity of Presbyters would expose it to.  
And I would appeal to the reason of any of that persuasion, whether it were not more convenient and necessary for keeping all in order, to have one aged, grave, learned, and experienced in the way of the Church, to be the standing Moderator of the Classis or company of Presbyters, than to change their Moderator year by year, and leave the place open to every young unexperienced Presbyter, that can make a faction to advance him unto it: I have heard this inconvenience complained on by some of the new erected Classes: whereas a Bishop being such a Moderator as is fixed, and above all competition, is more enabled to keep all ordinary Presbyters in their station, and within their bounds. And then again, I would demand, whether the Apostles, who complained of Divisions, as in the Church of Corinth, and of false Teachers there and elsewhere, were not careful to provide the most reasonable Expedient in government against them? It cannot be denied; and upon this score, and to this very end of preserving Schism, it cannot be thought otherwise, but that the Apostles gave beginning to this Government throughout the Church.  
1. Notwithstanding those of the classical persuasion, bear themselves much upon Mr. Blondels Collections: whose pains might have been better employed to the use of the Church upon some other Argument. For in this it is impossible to drive out of Antiquity (though ransaked over again) any more to the purpose of the Presbyterian claim, than has been already acknowledged, and the weakness of it discovered, viz. That it seems to be the judgement of some Fathers, that the name Bishop was at first common to all Elders, and that those Bishops mentioned Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. were Presbyters, or Elders of the second rank. But what advantage is this to the cause they would establish, without proving also, that the power of Ordination and Government (which we appropriate to Bishops strictly taken) was communicated to Presbyters in common? To the witnessing of this, it is not possible to force Antiquity, no not S. Jerome alone. All that seems to speak any thing that way, amounts but to this: that they were used in the Government, and things done with their advice and counsel; & that they were more used in Ages before St. Jerome, than in his time; and there was some reason for it (as I said) because by that time provision was made in most Cases by the many Canons and Constitutions of the Church.   

§. XVI. Of the ordination of our Bishops received from Rome.  
There are some slight exceptions and allegations they make, which are fit only to take with the ignorant; as that we had our Bishops from Rome, but they desire to conform to other Reformed Churches which want Bishops. They, that cannot distinguish the Times, several conditions and concernments of the Roman Church may be startled at every mention made of Rome: but we are not ashamed to acknowledge we thence received Bishops, from whence we received the Christian Faith: both went together (same Faith, and same Government) first in the British, then in the English Conversion of this Nation; and indeed, in all Nations where Christianity was planted. In the time then of Gregory the first, Ordination of Bishops was here received with the Faith, and ever since has been continued from hand to hand in this national Church. Of this seeming prejudice more largely Tr. 2▪ c. 4, 5. But to return the inquiry upon the New Pastors of the New Churches (Classical or congregational.) If it should be demanded, Whence have they their Ordination? They cannot give any reasonable account, nor hold up their heads in the defence of their Pastors and Churches against any Romanist, much less against any true English Protestant or obedient Son of this Church, Challenging them of Schism in departing from their lawful Governors and Pastors, and taking to themselves a Power never given them.  

Of other reformed Churches which have not Bishops.  As for the Reformed Churches which have not Bishops, their defect is nothing comparable to the fullness of the whole Catholic Church, to the practice of which they ought in all reason to conform: Especially seeing those Churches had but tumultuary Reformations; and no marvel then in they were not fully regular in their constitution. Nor does the example of those Churches come home to the Case in hand; there being a wide difference between Wanting or not having Bishops, and casting them out when they have them; Besides this all the foreign Churches approved Bishops in this Church, and their most learned men acknowledged a want in their own, excusing it as proceeding of necessity rather than choice, as Tr. 2. c. 3. Nor can it justify those that divide from us to say they join with other Reformed Churches; for first they must answer for the Schism in forsaking the Communion of this Church; and as their Case is not the same with that of the Churches abroad, so cannot those Churches justly receive them, having broken the Communion of this. Therefore was it so carefully provided for in many Councils of the Ancient Church, that none should travail to any foreign Church without his Communicatory letters to testify his Communion with the Church he came from, before he could be received to Communion in the Other. And this to preserve Unity. And thus much touching the Government.   

§. XVII. Exceptions in regard of the public worship.  
Now to the usual exceptions made against the Communion of the Church of England in the point of public Worship, the Liturgy, administration of Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies used in this Church; by reason whereof they could not (as they pretend) Worship God purely in Spirit and Truth. This Assembling or meeting together, and joining in the public divine Service, especially in the participation of the Sacrament or Eucharist, is indeed the witnessing and exercising of that Communion which is and must be held between all the Members of the same Church: So they. Act. 2. 42. in such duties and in breaking of bread: So the Apostle calls earnestly for it, Heb. 10. 25. and cap. 13. 15 and insinuates the Communion of them that are in the Chu: by their eating and partaking of One Altar (v. 10.) the participation of that Altar being the Eucharist. And according to this expression, was the phrase of the ancient Church ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) to be within or without the Altar, i▪ e. in or out of the Communion of the Church, and to set up Altar against Altar, i. e. a new Communion against the Communion of the Church. Lastly, the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. 17. One Bread, One Body: the joint participation of One Bread, shows them to be of one Body, holding the Unity of the Church; and withal, it shows what a dangerous thing it is for any to abstain causelessly, or to separate from the Communion of the Church of which they are Members.  
But see in particular what they pretend as Causes of their Separation. There is indeed nothing alleged now, but has been before by the Contentious, which have disturbed the peace of this Church from Time to Time, and has been often at large, and learnedly refuted, and those that understand themselves, being not swayed with faction and passion, have received satisfaction; but because my intent is still to afford some present satisfaction to them that are now troubled, and more easy to be wrought upon, I shall briefly and plainly speak to those exceptions against our Church-communion, which usually prevail with such persons.  

Our Liturgy how agreeing with the Mass-book.  First that our Liturgy or Common Prayer was taken out of the mass-book. This is of the same seasoning with that of our Bishops deriving their ordination from Rome, fit only to distaste the weak, who are offended with any thing that smells of Rome; But as we said of Bishops, we had them from that Church, from which we received the Christian Faith, and then when we received it: so we say of our Liturgy it has no more of the mass, or public service of the Romish Church, than was received and continued from the Ancient Church, and was agreeable to the Christian faith. And to retain so much, was according to that Christian Prudence and Charity used in our Reformation, that would have no more opposition to them we were forced to differ from, then must needs. Whatever the prevailing Errors and Corruptions of aftertimes had brought into their Mass, Reformation cast out: And some of those learned Bishops and Clergy, who were chief instruments of the Reformation, and Composers of our Liturgy in that frame it had, sealed the Reformation, and their renouncing of Popish Errors with their blood: and we challenge them to show any such Popish corruption retained in our Liturgy: and might think it enough to oppose the judgement of other Reformed Churches approving it, with which they might also rest satisfied, if they did not too much value their own. But more particularly: Two things are considerable in Liturgy, Matter and Frame.   

§ XVIII lawfulness and fullness of our Liturgy as to the matter.  
For the Matter or things prayed for, or spoken there, we are assured they cannot show any one particular to be contrary to sound doctrine, or unfitting for Christian men to beg of God, and to speak in the serving and Glorifying of him. All suitable to the ends and purposes of the public Assemblies, and reason of public Worship; which will appear if we consider the Frame, which implies two things, the Order in which it runs, and the set Forms in which every thing is expressed. As to the Order in which it is framed, what could be more to the purpose of holy meetings and Assemblies? Where Christians come together First, to confess their sins in the presence of God, then to hear the promise of the gospel to their comfort; accordingly after some short exhortation, Confession is made, and then a general Absolution pronounced to all that are truly penitent. Again Christians come together to praise God; therefore psalms are read before, and hymns used after each Chapter: still concluding the psalms and hymns with the Doxology, or giving Glory to the whole Trinity, Father Son and Holy Ghost; Furthermore, They meet to show themselves Christians, and that they Worship God in Christ. Not only by concluding all their Prayers in his name, but also by express profession of the Christian Faith, according to the Apostles and Nicene Creed, to the actual renouncing of heresy against the Person of our Saviour Christ. Christians also meet to give thanks for blessings they received, and to beg what they need: accordingly there are several prayers and Supplications for the necessities of the Congregation, with Intercessions for others: So the Apostle enjoins 1 Tim. 2. 1. Lastly, They come together to hear and receive instruction, for which the Word is both read and preached: besides, a continual repeating of the ten commandments, with a suitable deprecation subjoined to every commandment. What can be more full, useful and comfortable?  
The way of Worship, which they that are gone from us use, as it is defective in many of these (as Absolution, hymns, profession of Faith, repeating the commandments of God) so what they have of Confession, Petition or Thanksgiving, is reduced or shuffled up into one continual Prayer, which, admit it be not defective in those three, yet does it not in so convenient a way as the Church of Engl. does in distinct, several, concise forms. For so it is more intelligible to ordinary capacities, because delivering every part (Confession, Petition, thanksgiving) more distinctly: also it is more for the holding up intention of the spirit, which is more dulled with one long continued Prayer, wherein those parts are confused, than if it were broken into so many several Colects or Prayers I have heard ordinary people acknowledge it, and show themselves sensible of it, complaining, not only of the defect of that Service (for they observe they hear not the Lord's Prayer, Creed, Ten commandments, as formerly) but also of the confusedness of such continued Prayer, which they could not go along with were not edified by it: whereas before they understood still what they were about, and by reason of the short expressions of the Churches Prayers, and the Responses the people were sometimes to make, they remembered many things. And much they have to answer for it, who through, ●… know not what pretence of the Spirit, or spiritual gifts, but indeed through self-conceit, or some fleshly respects, have drawn the people from that way of Worship, which was more to God's glory and their comfort and edification.   

§. XIX. Set Forms of public Prayer.  
But all those parts of public Worship or Liturgy (which I have instanced to show the fullness of that which is used in this Church) rre delivered in set forms; That they are afraid of, lest they worship God with the inventions of Man: But by this reason they should be afraid to pray their own way, lest they worship God with their own invention; or to pray with their approved Ministers, lest they worship God with their inventions; for the Form or Expression of a Prayer, whether Set, or Extemporary Conception, is equally of man's Invention: and if so, surely it is better to worship God upon a Set, premeditate, and deliberate Invention, than upon an extemporary one. The truth is, it is not for man to invent that which is of the Substance of Worship, viz. the work, act, or Duty directed upon such a due Object, for that is of God's prescribing, as Prayer: but Authority may invent something for the better managing of the work in public, or for the more convenient performance of the Worship, i. e. of the Act or Duty prescribed by God. The Apostle bids it be done in order, decently, and to edification, 1 Cor. 11. ult. That set former's may be so, we are assured by those which the Church always had, the Jewish Church had, as see Numb. 6. 23. and elsewhere; John Baptist taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer, and so did our Saviour teach his, Luke 11 1, 2. The practice of the whole Church has approved the use of Set Forms in public; and so does the judgement and practice of Reformed Churches abroad. Nay, but they will not be satisfied unless we show it to be the practice of the Church in the Apostles time, which they do not find in Scripture. Nay, but they must, according to the Rule above set, not expect the Church should show example in Scripture for every thing she Orders, but they stand bound to show it is against God's Word, if they will not yield obedience, that they may have that warrant against Authority, We must obey God rather than Man. And though we know not whether, or what Forms they used in those first Times (for all things they did are not recorded) yet is it no marvel if they did not as then use Set forms, considering the condition of the Church, small, and unsettled by reason of Persecution, or the quality of the Persons ministering in it, few, and of extraordinary perfections and gifts for the most part.  

lawfulness of set forms.  Whatever judgement these men have of Prayer in set Forms, or low conceit of them that use them: See we how Reason evinces the lawfulness and expediency of them in public, and therein commends the prudence of the Church in appointing them. 1. As the matter or things prayed for, and the intention of the spirit or affection, with which they are prayed for, is of the substance of Prayer: so the utterance or words are but external to it, and therefore Prayer without words, is Prayer truly; Now let the matter of our Prayer be according to God's will, and the Spirit and affection suitable thereunto, and accompanying our Petitions, it is indifferent whether the expression be in our own words, or borrowed; whether in Forms before composed, or upon the present conceived. Let a man prepare his heart aforehand suitable to the Forms and general Requests, that he knows are made in public, and God, who is not taken with words or varying of the phrase, will hear him, as he did the penitent Son, who thought and resolved beforehand what to confess, what to beg, I will go— and say— Luke 15. 18. and accordingly he said when he came into his father's presence. And as our Saviour prayed thrice, saying the same words, Mat. 26. 44. so let the same affections and desires of the heart return, or be present, they may again be uttered in the same form of words: And if the forms of the public Service do contain (as we said above they do in general) all the requests fitting to be made, then may they still be used for the expressing such requests and desires.  
Here, that they may seem to say something rather than nothing, they reply; That prayer of the penitent Son, though set and before composed, was his own, and so was that prayer of our Saviour, though set, and in the same words repeated; but the set Forms of the Church are not his prayers that ministers in the Congregation. If he would utter his own prayers, though set and before prepared, they would join with him; for than they conceive he prays, what the Lord has put into his mind, whether upon former premeditation, or present conception. These seem to be the most reasonable of all those that are against the set Forms of the Church: for they see Reason to allow the people to pray in set Forms of other men's making, and the Minister to pray in set Forms of his own, but not another's composing. Now if they would well examine this, they would see little Reason upon such a difference to quarrel with Authority, and abstain from the public Worship of God in his Church: For no ground in Scripture can they have of such a distinction, much less warrant upon such a pretended difference to abstain from Church Communion. Also by this reason the Minister should not use the Lord's prayer, because not of his own composing. Again, this is to place the substance and effect of prayer in Frame of Words, rather than in matter or things prayed for, and the suitable affections of the heart: both which may be found right in using Forms composed by others. For the matter of the Church Forms it is plain, there is nothing but according to the will of God, and if he that uses them prepare his heart with suitable affections, God requires no more. The prophet bids, Take words with you— and say, Take away all Iniquity, &c. Hos. 14. 2. If then the heart be prepared with such motions and desires as are fitting for Confession and petition, is it so material whence we take the words▪ either suggested to us by others, as it is there, or invented by ourselves? Surely if the people can better understand the things prayed for, and better prepare their hearts with suitable affections, when the set Forms of the Church are used, than they can when they hear the Ministers Prayer: (which they can, by reason Those Forms contain all necessary requests, better than any one man's prayer can probably do; and because the public prayers being necessarily expressed in generals, the people ought still, from those general Confessions or Petitions, to reflect upon their own particular sins, Infirmities, Wants and Desires) it is therefore most reasonable the people have the public prayers in the Set forms, with which they are best acquainted, which speaks the expediency following.  

Expediency of set Forms in public.  II. They are not Lawful, but Expedient too in public; Every particular man, as he best knows his private Necessities, 
Expediency of Set forms in public.  so he may express them in private to God as his heart suggests: but in public it is necessary that the requests of and for the whole Congregation, should be in general expressions, such as may comprehend the necessities, and concernments of all: and it is needful this be done in set forms, prudently and godlily composed, not left to the conceptions and inventions of so many thousands as minister in this national Church, and are to be the Mouth of the Congregation to God; for though some may do it discreetly, yet would many inconveniences follow through the different performance of others. 1. Want of Uniformity in the public Worship of the same Church. 2. Defect often in not putting up all the requests, which are fitting to be made, not doing all that is fit to be done at public meetings to the glory and worship of God. 3. Many Impertinencies, Tautologies in expression, sometimes unfitness, and unlawfulness of that which is spoken, such as the Congregation cannot say Amen to. A difference there is betwixt Liberty in this performance of public worship, and of preaching; for the Worship and Prayers are presented immediately to God himself; but preaching, though it treats of things pertaining to God, yet speaks to the people: To the Prayers of the Church, the whole Congregation is to say Amen: but that which is delivered in preaching, falls under trial and examination, whether it be so: For providing and delivering a Sermon to the people, they have liberty of time as they please, & of using what means & help they please: but as for the putting up the prayers of the Congregation, wheresoever there is a despising of set Forms, and an expectation of private Conceptions from the Minister, there the former inconveniences will often be run into by some, through self-conceit of Gifts, and Pride of showing them in variety of Expressions, and length of Prayers by others, through disability and weakness; yet thinking themselves concerned in reputation to follow the former, & to attempt the like way of a seeming extemporary long Prayer.  

spiritual gifts to be used, but with submission to the Chur:  Notwithstanding they plead for Liberty in using the spiritual Gifts they have, to the edifying of the Church. for to that end they are given, and the Apostle bids to use them to that purpose, 1 Cor. 14. True, but first they must observe a difference between the Gifts then, and now, and know that all were to be used with submission to the Church: The Gifts than were extraordinary, by special a●●lation or revelation of the spirit: spiritual gifts now are ordinary, from the operation and motion indeed of the same spirit, but upon use of means. Therefore they which strive to order their Assemblies according to the particular passages of that Chapter, doing in them, as then was used, cause great confusion and ridiculous deportment in their holy meetings. But secondly, if the Apostle give restraints there (as he doth) to those spiritual gifts, though extraordinary, that they be used with submission to the Church, as is thought fit for order and edification, much more the use of Gifts now ought to be limited. Else may women that are gifted, take the liberty of using them in the Church; but the Apostle saw Reason to impose Silence upon them in the same Chapter, or at least every man that has gifts may use them (as some now plead for the Liberty) to the edification of the Church: but many of those who are against Set Forms, see great reason against that too, thinking it fit (as indeed it is) that none should use their gifts publicly, but such as are called, allowed, and ordained to it by the Church; and if so, then also should they think it sit, that those, who are so allowed, as public Ministers in the Congregation, should use their gifts so, and in such a way, as the same Church sees sit and allows: for if these will plead liberty of using their spiritual Gifts against the Constitution of the Church, and that by this 14. chapter to the Corinthians, then may the other with as good Reason plead Liberty for all gifted men; for all that had such gifts (as here the Apostle speaks of, and seeks to order) might have their turn of speaking and using them.  
But they are both out of the way, and inconsequent in their reasoning from this Chapter, not distinguishing Times and Gifts, nor acknowledging duly the Authority of the Church; and therefore under pretence of such Gifts, pleading for Liberty of using them, that is, as it often proves of venting what they please in the Congregation; whereas they ought in all humility, to expect the church's approbation of their Gifts, and then know they must use them with submission still to the Church, in such a way as is thought most fit for preventing the abovementioned inconveniences, for preserving Order and unity in the Church, for setting forth an uniformity in God's Worship, and upon all these respects for edification of the people. Calvin, no friend to Popery, or sloathfulness in Ministers: but a person furnished with as great gifts as any of our Pleaders for this Liberty can pretend to, is said to have often wished, that all the Churches had one and the same Form of public Service or Liturgy, and that upon these Reasons, The holding of Unity in the Church, and the excluding of Novelty, Faction, and boasting of Gifts.  
But see whether this Pride of spirit, and self conceit (for I can call it no otherwise, when once it sets itself against the church's constitution without express Scripture) has proceeded in some, 
Lord's Prayer undervalued, neglected.  from a despising of the Churches Prayers to an understanding of the Lord's Prayer, because a Set form, and to a neglecting the use of it altogether as far below them; then to a conceiting of themselves to be above prayer itself, as needing not to pray at all. Such I have met with, miserably cutting themselves off, not only from the comfort of the prayers of Christ's Church on Earth, but from the benefit of his intercession in Heaven, and evacuating (as to themselves) the eternal Priesthood of Christ: for if they need not pray, they need not confess, nor ask forgiveness, nor beg Grace or any spiritual help, and so need not the Intercession of Christ for obtaining such mercies; for his being our Advocate 1 Joh. 2. 1. supposeth our Confession of sin, required c 1. v. 9 and his being our High Priest infers our coming to the Throne of Grace, Heb. 4. 16. or our coming to God by him, Hebr. 7. 25. And as for those that so much prize the prayers of their own conception to an undervaluing of that, which the Lord framed and taught us; let them consider how little they deserve his Intercession, when they come by him to put up their own prayers, despising or wilfully neglecting his But we knowing the perfection of that prayer, which contains all things fitting to be asked, do often use it in the public prayers of the Church, and always with our own, that if any thing needful be through our imperfection Omitted in our own, it may be supplied in the use of that, and knowing that Christ is ready to hear & receive the requests of every humble spirit, which is careful to do, and make use of what he has taught us, We therefore delight to express, or to sum up our desires often in his form of words; for as Saint Cyprian in his exposition of the Lord's Prayer, tells us, Christ when we beg his intercession using that prayer, will acknowledge his own Words, will remember the prayer he taught us. Thus much of set Forms, and Prayers of the Church.   

§. XX. Exception against Rites and Ceremonies.  
They farther pretend, they cannot hold Communion in the public Worship of God, according to the way and form of the Church of England by Reason of Rites and Ceremonies used therein. Here they are chiefly offended, at the Habit of the Minister, standing up at Creed and Gospel, Ring in Marriage, Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Lord's Supper, Bowing at the Name of Jesus. And the reason of their offence is, because they take them to be burdensome, and therefore against Christian Liberty, yea, Superstitious, and therefore against purity of Worship.  

Not burdensome or superstitious:  For the first; Where Ceremonies are burdensome for Number, it is a fault in that Church, and cause of offence and complaint, but not of separation or breaking Communion: St. Augustine in his Epist: to Januar: took notice of the increase of Ceremonies then, and in part complained, they began to be burdensome; in the Church of Rome, the number was excessive before Reformation, and gave just. Cause to complain of the burdensome observance of them; but that was not any Cause of dividing Communion, had they not been (many of them) burdensome for Weight, as well as for Number, and insupportable by reason of apparent superstition. Now the Ceremonies and Rites retained in this Church were few for number, and eased of that weight or superstition that was in any of them. The truth is, if the Pretenders of Liberty of Conscience do therefore quarrel at our Rites and Ceremonies, as contrary to Christian Liberty, because appointed and enjoined by the Church, they do daily show they use that Liberty as a Cloak for their unruly and contentious Spirits, that cannot abide the commands of Authority, but would do every thing according to their own devising, and will (when they have power) impose severely Orders and Constitutions of their own; for so they do where they can erect their new Communions: imposing Conditions of admittance into, and of Continuance in that Communion, such as they think good: but such as Christ or his Apostles never required, such as the Catholic Church never knew: as for example, their trial by Lay-Elders, and denial of Communion or Church-fellowship, yea, of the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood to him that will not undergo that trial, or is not approved by it according to those rules they please to use, but is found unanswerable to that measure of knowledge or gifts, which they expect; of which and other devices of theirs, we may say as the Apostle did, 1 Cor. 11. 17. We have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.  
But in the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England they find Superstition; and why? because such Rites and Ceremonies were derived from, and abused in Popery unto Superstition. They were used indeed in the Church of Rome (and abused too) but derived from the Ancient Church, and used by it to good purpose before Popery crept in. Nor is it a good Rule of Reformation to cast out whatever has been abused by Popery; we need not do it to the very same individual things which have been so abused, (excepting Images (as the Brazen Serpent) that had been objectively used to Superstition) for the same individual Churches stand, which I suppose they hold, were abused in time of Popery; much less are we bound to abolish all Rites and Ceremonies which have been abused only in specie, in their kind, the individual act or performance of them under that abuse being transient and not remaining. But the Rule of our Reformation was still according to Christian prudence & charity, not making more differences than must needs; & therefore retaining the use of that which Antiquity, with good reason, practised, but without the after-abuse; & looking not only at ancient practice, but the Apostles Precept, according to which the forementioned practices tend to order & decency, and as far as Ceremonies are capable of it, to edification.  
Thus much the Church has sufficiently declared by her Doctrine, & by hundreds of books written upon that argument, that she enjoins these Rites and Ceremonies cleared from all superstitious abuse, either of yielding worship to any undue ob●ect, or of affixing any sacramental Efficacy to any of them, or of giving them any spiritual virtue, either to better the duty, to which they are joined (professing the duty is good without them, though not so orderly and reverently performed) or to satisfy by such performances; or that she has any other superstitious respect in the enjoining of them, but regard only to the aforesaid precept for order and decency, which easily appears in the more solemn and reverent performance of the duty with these Rites than without them, 
use of Ceremonies significant.  and for edification, according to the nature of a Ceremony, by its signification, minding us of some duty. (To this purpose, Treat. 2. c. 7. num. 7. of Ceremonies significant.) Peter Martyr said well in his Comment on that 14. chap. to the Corinths: Ceremonies are more commendable, if they do admonish us, (Instar concionum de aliquo officio) like Sermons of some duty.  
As for example, that women should be covered in the Congregation, was not only for decency, but signified and minded them of Duty, viz. Subjection, as the Apostle shows, 1 Cor. 11. The Ceremony of the Holy kiss used in their meetings, and enjoined by the Apostle several times; minded them of that Charity which should be among Christians, and testified they had it then for each other. So the putting off the Old man, so oft mentioned in the Apostle, was the duty: and it was represented in Baptism, by their putting of Old clothes, and putting on New. Such signification has the White Vesture, minding both the People of the holy duties they come to, & him that wears it, of the holiness required of them that minister in holy Duties. 
Standing up at Creed.  Standing up at the Creed is for a more significant profession of the Christian Faith, that they acknowledge and receive it, and will, by the help of God, stand to it and defend it: The like signification is in standing up at the reading of the Gospel. 
Ring in Marriage.  The Ring in Marriage added only as a visible Symbol of that Union and Conjunction, and for remembrance thereof is it so carefully kept and worn ever after. What the cross in Baptism signifies, and wherefore it is used, is there and then expressed, when it is used, in token that the party baptised shall not be ashamed of the cross of Christ &c. 
Cross in baptism:  The Ancient Christians used to make the sign of the Cross (upon occasion) in the sight of the Heathen, to witness or speak the profession they were of; and I do not doubt the truth of those Ancient Records that tell us how God was pleased sometimes (for the conviction of the Heathen, and the approving of the Christian profession) to work a miracle at the making that Sign: and what marvel, when for the same purpose he wrought miraculously at the falling of Peter's shadow upon the sick, and at the touch of handkerchiefs brought from Paul's body, Act. 5. 15. & 19 12. He that purposely uses the sign of the cross to work supernatural effects, does it without warrant Superstitiously: So he that affixes any sacramental virtue or spiritual efficacy to it in baptism; The Church of England has no such respect, but only uses it as a bare Ceremony, for remembrance and testification of that which indeed is every Christian man's duty, viz Not to be ashamed of the cross of Christ, but to sight manfu●…y under his banner &c. And truly (considering what a pass Christianity is at among us, how the very principles thereof are so openly overthrown by sacrilege, Injustice, Atheism: that they are likely (if men go on) to be forgotten in the next age, that there may now seem to be some Cause to have the cross of Christ imprinted with fire (as they say the Ethi●pick Christians do) upon the foreheads of the Children: that they may remember so oft at least as they look in the glass, that they are Christians, and what they promised in baptism.  

Kneeling at the Sacrament.  Kneeling at the Communion, can be no compliance with Popery in the acknowledging of Transubstantiation, or Adoration of the Host; for our Church has sufficiently declared against the doctrine of Transubstantiation; which being taken away, that Adoration falls. Nor yet is their Kneeling in the Romish Church the Test and acknowledgement of Transubstantiation, or of that Adoration (which they think due to the Host) but their falling down, when it is elevated or lifted up. They do Popery too much honour, that make the devout and lowly behaviour of kneeling at the Sacrament, proper to that Religion, and do seem not to understand themselves, nor what they are about (in that application of the soul to God, and the receiving from him the greatest pledges of mercy) that think not the most humble and reverent gesture most fit for such a Duty. Their sitting mentioned, Mark 14. 18. As they sat and did eat, &c. does not speak directly the gesture they used at receiving the Lord's Supper, but their falling to, or applying themselves to eat the Passeover; and whether in the receiving the Sacrament they used the same posture which they commonly did at their Feasts (a kind of lying or leaning, more near to a prostration of the Body than our sitting) is not certain; but no question they used such expressions of devotion then, as were suitable to the present duty. Nor must our application to Christ now be after such a common and familiar way, as theirs was, when he conversed with them on Earth: They did not then so pray to him, or asked in his name, as they did afterwards, Jo: 16. 24. They know Christ then after the flesh, familiarly conversing with him, but now we know him so no more, 2 Cor. 5. 16. He is now in Heaven at God's Right Hand, we on Earth: and if we understand Him and ourselves, how, when we are admitted to the Sacrament, we are applying to God by him, and receiving from God through him the greatest benefits: we cannot but think there is cause for the greatest expression of our most humble acknowledgements.  

Bowing at the name.  Bowing at the Name of JESUS, is by the Church appointed to be done sometimes in public Divine Service, as an acknowledgement of his Deity, his Exaltation and Lordship over all, (set out Act. 2. 36. Phil. 2. 11.) and that we are his poor devoted Creatures, whom he has made and redeemed: It is a divine worship (standing in such inward acknowledgement and honour, and outward bowing of the body) given to the Person of Christ, known by that Name; and it is strange if any Christian should deny it lawful to worship and adore our Saviour Christ at any time, especially to do it when he is named, considering what the Apostle also saith, Phil. 2. 10. which must needs infer at least, that it may be done, when he is named. So here is no new Worship invented by the Church, (for the Worship then given is due to God, and prescribed by him) but the performance of it only determined, when it shall be given or expressed, viz. at the Name of Jesus, or when he is named.  
As for that precept of the Apostle, Abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. 5. 22. which they make a pretence for their declining of the Rites and Ceremonies of this Church: It gives direction for private practice in things left indifferent to our choice, in the occurrencies of life; gives no warrant against Authority, to use liberty, in things determined thereby, under pretence of appearance of evil in them, as said Treat. 2. cap. 1. For here we are still bound (according to the Rule often above delivered) to show the thing enjoined by Authority, is (not only in appearance, but) indeed evil, in itself formally, or forbidden by God's positive command.  
Again, The Rites, Ceremonies, and Practices of this Church, have not (to any judgement cleared from Passion, Prejudice, or Faction) an appearance of evil in them, i. e. of Superstition or will-worship, as they fancy ignorantly or wilfully, but of good, i. e. of order, decency, reverence, devotion, expression of the duty we are about, and of the internal worship then yielded: Of all which, there is a fairer appearance in the communion of this Church, than in the confused and irreverend deportments of their Assemblies.   

§. XXII. Touching the point of worship.  
Now to the end that they which understand not so much as they should in the points of Worship and Adoration, may better conceive what error and offence they run into by their causeless and inconsiderate fear of Superstition in many just and lawful practices of the Church: I must first tell them, that by their abstaining from the public service of God, because the Prayers are in Set-forms, by their not coming to the Communion, because to be received Kneeling; by withholding their Children from baptism, rather than they should be signed with the cross and the like, they make themselves guilty of wilful neglect of duty to God, of obed●ence to the Church, and fall into that superstition, which is called Negative: For they place Religion in not doing these, account themselves therefore godly and pure, and make such abhorring or abstinence from these, a mark of their Religion or Sect: And then, that may better understand themselves in the point of Worship, they ought to put a difference between the Substance, and the Circumstantials of Worship. 
circumstantials of worship.  The Substance of Worship stands (as said above) in a due act, (Internal, external) directed on the due object; and this is of God's prescription: The Circumstantials of Worship are seen in the decent and profitable managing of the Worship for Time, Place, Order, or the like; and in these the Church has power. 
Objective terminations of worship, and circumstantial.  Again, Worship is determined Objectively to such or such a thing or person receiving the worship, or Circumstancially, ad hic & nunc, to the time and place; The Church has no power in the first, cannot transfer any religious worship upon an undue Object; but has power in the Second, may appoint when and where, and by whom, and on what occasion the worship due to God, and prescribed by him, shall be performed in public. For Words that are heard, and Things that are seen, carrying in them a remembrance of benefits and duties, and therefore Motives of Worship to God, who gives the benefit and expects the duty, may determine our Worship to time and place, inciting us to perform it then and there, when and where we hear such Words or see such Things: and this is a circumstantial determination of Worship, not an Objective.  

Instances.  When the people heard Moses words, they bowed the head and worshipped, Exod. 12. 27. What! not the Words which Moses spoke, but they worshipped the Lord upon hearing such words as contained such Motives of Worship. In that Idolatrous Worship, Dan. 3. at the hearing of the Instruments of music they fell down &c. The Worship was not given to the sound, but at the sound to the Idol erected, the sound of that music did only circumstancially determine the Worsh●p, but the Golden Image Objectively▪ and that made the Idolatry. So when religious worship▪ (for the reason is alike) is given to our Saviour Christ, upon the hearing of his name Jesus, not letters and syllables of his Name, but the Person of our Saviour is the Object of the Worship; and the naming or speaking of his Name Jesus (which notes his Person, and withal carries in it the remembrance of that Salvation he wrought for us, and therefore the greatest Motive of worship) does determine the Worship Circumstantially, i. e. the performance of it to such a time or occasion.  
So for Things seen, which bear the remembrance of such benefits, as may give Motive of Worship, and determine it, not Objectively but this way rather than that. The Ark with the Mercy seat was the sign and witness of God's presence, (there I will meet with thee, and commune with thee. Exod 25. 22.) and therefore they worshipped towards it. Worship at his footstool. Ps. 99 5. and 132. 7. So it was called because of the special exhibition of his presence on Earth. Now the worship was not given to the Ark Objectively, but to God: only that way, or thitherward rather than other. Thus Daniel prayed towards Jerusalem— c. 6. 10. And should any (that I may speak of Rites not enjoined by this Church, yet practised by some, and no question piously) pray as the Ancient Christians did, towards the East, in acknowledgement of the light of the Gospel risen upon them; or at their coming into God's house bow themselves in sense of the great presence, and of the holy duties they come to, and of their own unworthiness; or in their approach to the holy Table bow or prostrate themselves to the ground, in acknowledgement of that special exhibition Christ makes of himself there, and in sense of his own unworthiness; what Christian that understands himself, could accuse these of superstition and Popery, or not rather approve them as significant and seemly expressions of Christian devotion?  
There is a Custom of uncovering the head at the coming in of light, if this be done with thankfulness of soul for the light of the Gospel, and desire of enjoying the light of heaven, what harm? Is it not lawful, yea Christian-like to glorify God on all occasions? for the coming in of the light is but an occasional remembrance. Let me put it to them farther; should a Papist when he uncovers the head or bows the body at the sight of a cross, do it out of hearty thankfulness to God for redemption by Christ Crucified; making the cross no object of the Worship, but only the sight of it an occasional remembrance and motive: would there be any thing in this unbeseeming a Christian? I cannot but say it concerns a Christian often to remember, and thankfully to acknowledge God's mercies upon any occasion: and if the inward worship (which stands in such due acknowledgements of the heart) may upon occasional remembrances be given, then may the outward expression also by uncovering the head or bowing the body, unless prudence out of respect of time or place forbid it, for Religion will not. And to come a little more home to those that are so ready to cry superstition: should any one of them escape a shipwreck or hazard of battle, or be redeemed out of Turkish slavery; and so oft as he hears of other men's suffering in any of these kinds, or so oft as he sees a ship safe in harbour, or looks on the Armour he wore in that battle, or on the Chain he bore in Captivity, should be so oft uncovering his head lift up his heart to God in thankful acknowledgement of the blessing, and desire of farther Protection: would there be any thing in this, but what beseems a good Christian, when as neither words heard, nor things seen are made any object of the worship, but accasionall remembrances, and motives? How much rather may this be done, when we hear that name, which carries salvation in it, see those things which mind us of the greatest mercies, and therefore may move us: and all this the more if the Prudence and Authority of the Ch: has so determined. I have enlarged this discourse to instances beyond the enjoined Rites and practices of this Church, to meet with that vain plea of superstition and Popery charged upon it, for the better countenancing of the Schism made, and the sacrilege committed in these our days.   

§. XXII. Cause of their several Error, that have divided from this Church.  
To wind up all. By that which has been said, it may appear, what is the Cause of this Error, (which carries so many such several ways from the Communion of this Church) and what the Issue of it. The Cause is their misunderstanding of the Rule by which they should be guided. First of the supreme Rule, the Scripture, which for faith and substance of worship is a set and punctual Rule, not so for other matters of practice. Secondly, of the next, and as I may say, secondary Rule the witness of universal custom, practice or Tradition, which (as unfolded above§ 2. & 13.) is the best external proof of Scripture, so also the best expositor of it: bringing down nothing as of the substance of Faith and Worship, but what is clearly grounded on Scripture, and giving clear light to those darker passages in scripture, which concern the beginnings of some practices, which were to continue in the Church, as Infant● baptism, Observation of Lord's day, Easter, Pentecost, Episcopal Government. Thirdly thein misunderstanding of the Authority of the present Church, defining in matters of faith and worship according to direct Scripture, and decreeing in other matters according to prudence: but in both having respect to, and in a due sort guided by universal consent, or Tradition of the Catholic Church, viz. the Doctrines that have been always taught, and the customs or Practices always observed therein. For let men forsake the guidance of these Rules, and what remains but the extravagancy of a private judgement? and what can follow but error upon error? and what can be the issue of that, but remediless consasion?  
Hence have we so many private interpretations of Scripture, broached instead of Catholic doctrine; Circumstantials of Worship taken for Substance, and thereupon the lawful Worship of the Church ignorantly charged with Superstition. And for matters of Practice, some will have all practices observed they meet with in Scrip: Some not all, but not any else, save what is there. Lastly, upon the like misunderstanding, they cast out the perpetual government of the Church, but cannot agree what to set up: in this, as in many other things, 
Confusion the Issue of Error, having passed due bounds.  following their private judgement, destitute of the guidance of the former Rules, and therefore upon necessity disagreeing: one destroying what the other would build; yet all pretending (for Satan is here an Angel of light) to set up the Discipline, sceptre, and kingdom of Christ, and to advance Purity of Religion. This was the pretence of all schismatics, and it is the masterpiece of Satan's cunning (as above noted, §. 8.) to set men on work under that pretence, but with misguided zeal, to purge, reform, refine a Church, and to outstrip others in that zeal, till they have brought all to confusion. But we should not be ignorant of his devices, as the Apostle warns them in a case not much unlike, 2 Cor. 2. 11. for Satan was there playing his part as an Angel of light, under the pretence and covert of severity and strictness against the Incestuous person; as he did after in the Novation schismatics.  
These his devices we might indeed have seen in those Ancient schismatics, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists: and in those more irregular of the last Age, Anabaptists, Libertines, Familists, and the like; whose Errors and Follies were well silenced by Learned Protestant Writers, but now broken out again, when that which did let (the Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority) was taken away, or so weakened, that it could not stop the inundation of former Errors and exorbitant fancies flowing back upon us from every corner, into which they had retired; and working apparently to confusion, 
Confusion & levelling upon levelling.  to a levelling upon levelling, as in the State, so in the Church-government and affairs. The consideration of the first is not to my present purpose; but as for the business of the Church and Religion, I cannot but note, How they, who first pretended to Reformation, (by Covenant obliging themselves and others, and conceiving that Cov. in such general terms, as might engage men of all sects and persuasions to join with them in pulling down what was established, & invading the means and revenues belonging to Cathedral Churches) did not or would not (I pray God they may yet) see Satan's device, by like principles and pretences, and in such general words to have still a new Reformation undertaken, and to level or pull down not only what the former had built, but what they had left standing of that which was before. The first pretenders to Reformation, would cast off Bishops (their lawful Pastors and superiors) invade their power of Ordination and Government, & have their Revenues with those of Deans and Chapters alienated; Now are there risen up men that would make it a part of their Reformation, to cast off the Ministry of Presbyters too, laying open the Office of Teaching to all gifted men: also to take away their Tithes and maintenance, putting them to live upon benevolence, if any will have them for their Teachers. And as the first had no consideration of the Cathedral Churches, no more have these of the Parochial: but as if all other Christians were Infidels or Heathens, they will gather Churches anew: the ready way to dissipate the Church of Christ, and bring in Confusion: But furthermore, as the first Reformers of these days, would have no respect to the Ancient practice of the Catholic Church, so have these as little regard (and with far greater reason) to the pattern of the other Reformation, the Scottish Kirk. Lastly, As They first cast out Set-forms, and the public prayers of this Church, so Those that came after, have cast out their Directory, will not be bound up by their Rules and Order: but as one Error begets another, and is boundless in its progress, so here from despising the Set-forms of the Church, they proceed to an undervaluing the Lord's Prayer, as below them; and some to advance themselves above Prayer itself, as needless to them, in that height of perfection they conceive themselves to have attained: and this is the chief aim of Satan's device, to bring men by a misguided pursuit of purity and holiness, to such a pitch of spiritual pride and self-conceit, as if they had already apprehended— which S. Paul would not take to himself, Phil. 3. 13.  
Nor is it sufficient to say, We are not so: If you are not gone so far, yet like Principles and Pretences, which you went on against the Government, and liturgy of this Church, would carry you so far; for what certain bounds are left to stay any, when once ye have pulled up those, that the above mentioned Rules fixed? This being done in that Covenanting pretended Reformation, the way is laid open to others more bold and heady, to run on farther.  

Self-Condemnation of the Pharisees.  But let me argue it a little with you, (you, that pretend to more regularity and order in the Classical or Congregational way, and make show of a more quiet spirit and temper) and challenge you a little, as our Saviour did the Scribes and Pharisees roundly, (Mat. 23.) for building and garnishing the sepulchers of the Prophets; and yet persecuting Him and those that followed Him: notwithstanding his Office and doctrine agreed with that of the Old Prophet. Let me therefore ask you, have ye not the book of Martyrs in your houses, and set some price on it? Do ye not there read of the ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church suffering Martyrdom for the truth of Christ? 
How it concerns these days.  And do not ye applaud them, abhorring the Cruelty of their Persecutors, and saying, If we had been in their days we would not have been partakers in that blood? do ye not also there read of Cranmer, Ridly, Latimer, with other Bishops, and many of the Clergy of this Land, suffering the flames for that truth, which they by a just Reformation had reestablished in this Church? Do you not applaud and praise them, when you read their Acts and sufferings, abhorring the cruelty of their Persecutors, and saying, If we had been in their days, we would not &c. Thus you build their sepulchres, garnish and adorn their Monuments or Memories, and now examine whether you have not done the like to those, that followed them, in the same Office, which they bore in the same Doctrine, which they taught in the same reformed Worship, which they restored, held, and Sealed with their blood; see if ye have not done more than they which slew those Martyrs: for ye have not only spoiled their Persons of all their means and livelihood, but also taken away the maintenance from the Office, and (as much as in you) the Office from the Church: a double sacrilege which the Romanists that killed those Martyrs would abhor to be guilty of.  
I speak this not to the reproach of any, but to the conviction of all whom it may concern, that they may fear the Woe our Sav●our there denounces in the like case, That all should be required of that Generation. It is just with God, when After-generations will not take warning by the former, but do the like, to bring upon them the greater punishment, and make them bear, what the former had deserved. And examine I beseech you, how far ye have consented to, or approved of the shedding their blood, the spoiling their persons, the sequestering their estates who have suffered in these days, and yet held and taught the same Religion and Doctrine with those former Martyrs: how far ye have had an hand in, or consented to that horrid sacrilege and devastation of Church-meanes committed in these days: conclude yourselves so far chargeable with the guilt of that former Cruelty and wrong done to the Martyred Bishops and Clergy in Queen Mary's days, and of that first sacrilege committed in her father's days: and that ye must answer for it (by our saviour's reckoning, Mat. 23. 35.) so much the deeper, because ye have not taken warning by the former, but done the like; and added to the guilt of Blood, and sacrilege, which lay before upon this Land, not only by your persecuting of Them, against whom ye had no other accusation, than what the Papists had against those Martyrs, their faithful and constant holding to the established reformation of the Church of England; but also by your seizing of Church-meanes, and abolishing the Office of the chief governors of the Church; a double sacrilege (as I said) which neither Romanists nor ancient schismatics would dare to commit.  

God's judgements on Schism and sacrilege.  It is worthy our nothing, how it pleased God to show his judgement upon Schism and sacrilege in the beginnings of his Church, both Jewish and Christian, to the end that his people might ever after fear to do the like. We see Numb. 16: who they were that rose up against Moses and Aaron, saying, Ye take too much upon you, ye Sons of Levi, seeing all the Congregation are holy every one of them, the very saying of these Times; and it is plain what they committed in so saying and doing, Schism in departing from their lawful governors, and sacrilege in breaking in upon, or invading the priest's Office; and the judgement shown upon them is notorious; a Fire broke out upon many of them, and a Schism or rent made in the Earth swallowed up the rest. So in the beginning of the Christian Church we find Act. 5. what a fearful judgement was shown upon Ananias and his Wife for withdrawing part of that, he had devoted to the use of the Church; That they may fear who are so hardy, as to commit greater sacrilege in taking to their private use, what others have applied to the service of the Church.  

why God suffers Error so much to prevail against Truth.  And shall I speak the Result of my Thoughts, secretly enquiring, what might be the Cause, wherefore it should please God to suffer the Church of Rome to continue in so powerful condition, notwithstanding all the Errors, and profanations taught and practised therein? I saw reason, wherefore God (whose way is in the Sanctuary. Ps. 77. 13. secret, but holy and just) should for the sins and carelessness of Christians, turning his grace into wantonness, suffer (after 600 years' knowledge of his Truth) many Errors to enter, and prevail generally over the Church, and make the word of truth more precious; to the end that they which were approved might be manifest, 1 Cor. 11. And wherefore he should for the divisions and cares of Christians, suffer the Vanity of Mahometan superstition to gain ground upon the Christian Territories, to the punishment of many, and the trial of those that were constant; But that after it pleased him to make the light of the Gospel break out, and the truth appear in the Reformation, he should suffer the Church of Rome with all her detected Errors which from the Sixt age of Christianity had prevailed) still to continue in power and glory as to the greater part of what it possessed: besides that general reason, (the lives of Protestants too much unanswerable to the Truth and light God had opened unto them) I can find no special one, unless it be the guilt of sacrilege in most protestant Churches tumultuarily reformed; casting out Bishops, invading their Office, and seizing upon the revenues of their Churches. Thus to the dishonour and prejudice of God's Truth, making it a part of their Reformation to cast out that, which the Catholic Church had always carefully observed: and was yet commendably retained in the Church of Rome. Had the Reformation everywhere (as it did in England) retained the Ancient prayers and form of Liturgy, the ancient Government by Bishops, and not laid hands on the means of the Church: the Dagon of Romish Error would everywhere have fallen before it.  
If the prevailing of Sects to the disturbance of this Church be objected against the Regular reformation of it: We acknowledge God is just, and how now covered the face of this Church with a Cloud in his his Anger, and for our sins chiefly, who should have kept the charge of his Sanctuary, and his holy things: We are ready to receive the charge of any personal failings or neglects, in the use of our power, Office, performance of our Duties according to our several stations: yet let them know they had not sufficient Authority to make Reformation of Personal Abuses; but if through our sides they strike, as they do at the Power, Office and Function itself, and because they conceive us unworthy of the means applied to the Church, will therefore take it to themselves, let them fear what will follow; and what can follow but confusion, both from the boundless course of Error finding no stay, when once it has past the due limits, and from the usual Course of God's justice punishing deceitful men with their own pretences, fears, and delusions?  
For when once the spirit of Error has forsaken the Rule, and broken the bounds of lawful Government which held all together, has raised so many humours, and empowered so many sects, 
Confusion of boundless Error.  what one way (right or wrong) can be agreed on, settled, established? It is not imaginable without changing of the Errors and destructive Principles, upon which the discord is raised, and continued. And what can be the end or Issue suitable to such proceedings and to the just judgement of God, but that after there has been Levelling upon Levelling, and every sect has had its course to the punishment of this sinful unthankful Nation, we should be exposed to the danger of some foreign power, that will impose new laws and another Religion upon this people, if a more general humiliation do not prevent it? I do not mean a Fasting for strife as they did, Isa. 58. 4. (we have had too much of that already, to the greater provocation of Almighty God) but a real true repentance, in turning every man from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands, as the Ninivites, did Jon. 3. 8.  
It was the Pretence or fear of the Scribes and Pharisees gathered together in their great council against Christ. 
Punished often with its own pretences.  Venient Romani— if they should suffer him and his doctrine, the Romans would come and take away their place and nation, Jo. 11. 48. and therefore God in his just judgement did punish them (as he threatened, Isa. 66. 4.) in choosing their delusions, and bringing their fears upon them; the Romans did come, and therefore come and took away their Place and Nation, because they took away Christ and opposed his gospel: and to make the easier way for the Romans to come in, several factions (as Josephus tells us) prevailing amongst them, ceased not in the mean time to destroy one the other. So it was the pretence, and this fear was put into the people, that if the Church of England and the governors thereof were suffered to go on, Venient Romani, the Romish Religion, or Popery would come in: and by this fear or jealousy the People were raised against their superiors, as the people were then against Christ. When as indeed by their pulling down, what formerly was well established, and by destroying one what the other builds, they make fair way for the Romish Religion, or the Alcoran, or Atheism to come in over their ruins, or through the many breaches made by several Sects: If the tears and prayers of the obedient Sons of this Church, and of those that would live peaceably in the Land, do not prevent it, by averting God's just wrath and procuring a restauration to this Church, that it may be a praise again upon Earth.  
There is hope and comfort in the next verse, Isa. 66. 5. to them that tremble at the word of the Lord. Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my Names sake, said. Let the Lord be glorified: (blessing him for the success of their iniquity, or in confidence thereof provoking him to show his approbation of their Cause and doings, by his judgements) but he shall appear (to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. The first Ejectors or Levellers of our Time (those of the Presbyterian way) who cast out and sequestered whom they pleased, and took possession, and said Let the Lord be glorified for their success: great cause have they, (now it appears what confusion follows upon their beginnings) to be ashamed of what they have done. I pray God they may, and lay it sadly to heart, and that all others, who have advanced upon their or the like Principles, may in time consider it; and not think it enough to say, the Lord be glorified, because they prosper and are become rich, but rather inquire, whether that they have done, be as to their private advantage and gain, so to the behoof of God's Church and the advancement of true Religion, and whether the Lord, to whom they have so oft appealed (by their Fasts and Thanksgivings) can indeed own their doings, as making for his glory: certainly the Lord must deny himself, which he will not do, if he own Injustice, schism, and sacrilege; he forbears a while, and keeps silence (for Causes best known to himself) and men prospering by those sins, think he is such a one as themselves, (approving their doings:) but he will reprove them, and set before them what they have done; He will appear, and they shall be ashamed.  

Exhort. to all that truly desire Purity.  If such considerations as these, prevail not with them, that do gain by the formentioned sins, yet let the word of exhortation take hold upon you, all you that have followed the Schism in the simplicity of your hearts: not engaged by any design of gain or self-interest, but only deceived with the pretence of Purity in God's worship, and of strictness of life. Do not make yourselves guilty of other men's sins; sins that cannot stand with righteousness, or that Charity which the Apostle requires so strictly, 1 Cor. 13. without which all your other supposed Purity▪ Faith or Knowledge, is nothing, will stand you in no stead. Consider sadly, how those you follow, have led you from the Unity of this your national Church, and thereby from the profession of Catholic Primitive Truth: from Obedienee to your lawful Governors and Guides, who bore the same Office, taught the same Doctrine, held the same way of public Worship, as did those martyred Bishops in Primitive Times, as did also those other in Queen Mary's days: How, I say, they have led you from this Catholic Communion, into a way of which (whether classical or congregational) we see the late and irregular beginning: it being but the product of some tumultuary Reformations made in France, Geneva, Holland, or Scotland, and by those that would be contentious here, imitated and violently attempted, to the disturbance of this Church, not without the downright guilt of Schism and sacrilege.  

which cannot be had truly in the state of schism.  Consider it sadly, and do as those Confessors did, who (being led away by the Novation schismatics under like pretence of purity and strictness) as soon as they perceived their error, confessed it, and returned to the Unity of the Catholic Church; as St. Cyprian often relates and propounds it as an example and motive for Unity. Do you so, and then may you obtain what you pretend was your aim and desire, Purity and righteousness indeed, which you cannot in the way of schism by reason it holds not a perfect Rule of Righteousness, but such as is strict in denying small things, and flying appearances of evil, but large in admitting great Offences, teaching to strain at Gnats, and swallow camels, to scruple at a Rite and Ceremony, but makes no bones of Disobedience, schism, sacrilege, and so necessarily leaves your Consciences (while ye are in that Communion) defiled with your partaking in such sins. But return into the Unity of this Church, and show your Communion with it in the public worship of God, Liturgy, and Sacrament: then may you perfect holiness in the fear of God, and with good Conscience peforme all the parts of Purity and righteousness: And do it, in God's name, according to all the Duties he requires of you, and according to all the opportunities he puts into your hands: So will your Purity and righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees; and as many as walk after this Rule, Peace be on them and Mercy, and on the Israel of God. Amen.   
The End.