A PLEA FOR THE NON-CONFORMISTS'; TENDING To Justify them against the Clamorous Charge of SCHISM.  
By a Dr. of Divinity.  
With two Sheets on the same Subject by another Hand and Judgement.  Vexatio dat intellectum. 
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1674.   

A PLEA for the Nonconformists; tending to justify them against the Clamourous Charge of Schism.  
§. 1. IT was doubtless one of the greatest infelicities which ever befell the whole body of people in these three Nations (considering them as universally professing the Doctrine of Christ), that in the year 1662. the Settlement of the affairs of Religion, with relation to Worship & Government, was made to no more universal satisfaction, but that some thousands of Ministers, many of whom (their greatest Adversaries being judges) were men of no inconsiderable worth and usefulness, took themselves obliged rather to lay down the public exercise of their Ministry, then to do what was by Law required of them, if they would preserve it; and that such a rigid interpretation was at that time in practice, put upon the Act of Uniformity, as they were not only incapacitated to hold, or take Live, but also to Preach occasionally in the public Temples. Whether the Act will necessitate any such sense, may deserve the second thoughts of our Superiors.  
§. 2. Whether this was Originated in the anger resting in the bosom of some Churchmen at that time, who had been Sufferers: Or in their zeal to continue some Bishops the repute of Martyrs, who had suffered for the rigorous enforcing of some of the things now enjoined, or in the desire of some of that filthy lucre, which ariseth from pluralities of Live, Dignities, sine curare; or in their desire to propagate some Doctrines, to which they knew the persons who would be ejected, would be no more friends, then are the Articles of the Church of England (as interpreted by King James, former all Professors of Divinity in our Universities, very many eminent Bishops, and once and again by the whole Parliament of England), or from one, or all of these causes is uncertain to be determined; a better Original is hard to fancy, while the things required, are by our most knowing Eccles. Superiors granted not necessary, antecedaneously to the Superiors command.  
§. 3. Nor could they ever have been made necessary (as is now said) by the King and Parliament of England, had they not been suggested to them as things that in themselves might lawfully be done: Nor (probably) would that suggestion have prevailed with our civil Superiors, (who in things merely lawful, know sufficiently that they are to govern themselves in their commands by Prudence, had they not been also told that the Numbers both of Ministers and People that would refuse, were very inconsiderable. Their persons and circumstances very invaluable; that if once the things were enjoined, the Generality would do them, notwithstanding all their pretences of Conscience, etc.  
§. 4. How true these suggestions were, quickly appeared to our Prudent Statesmen, which made the then Lord Chancellor (a sufficient friend to Conformity and a Prudent Person) before ever the Act took place, send for some very valuable persons, and propound a Medium to them that they might yet abide in their stations (foreseeing the gap would be made) the Parishes only providing some who might read the Liturgy; but this was too late, and the Act would not, when it came out, admit any such thing.  
§. 5. With that rigour the Act was pressed, is sufficiently known, and how soon after fortified with another Act against private Meetings; and with another (when that but a probationer for a few years was expired) more severe than the former; nor did there want those in all parts of the Nation, that executed all the Acts with severity so far beyond what those Acts Authorised, that they saw need of Indemnity for their actions by further Acts of Grace and Favour. How many Godly Ministers and People, were, during these years, not only publicly reviled in Pamphlets and Pulpits, but Imprisoned (and how many died in their imprisonments) spoiled of their Livelihoods, driven from their Habitations and Trades, is but an unpleasant story to reflect upon, and with how little success as to the bringing them to conform is abundantly known.  
§. 6. In the mean time it pleased his most Excellent Majesty (as a tender Father of his People, and he who considered his interest lay not in the Division and Ruin of his People, but in their Peace and Freedom to attend their several Trades, Professions and Callings (the King himself, as Solomon saith, being nourished from the Field) to inspect the state of Ecclesiastical affairs; and hearing so many Cries from his People, with the Advice of his Counsel to direct means for his or their better information, about the numbers of Ministers and People dissenting; for which purpose Letters were directed in the ordinary course from the Archbishop to the Bishops, who by their Registers were to inform themselves, and then his most Sacred Majesty of the Number of dissenting Ministers, etc.  
§. 7. How imperfect the information must be in this method is obvious enough to every one; the Return could only be made of those, who being possessed of Live, Aug. 24. 1662. left them for not Subscribing, into which number came not a 5th. part of Ministers dissenting. 

1. None came, which 1661. were turned out to give room to others, who had a praevious Title to their Live, and were not possessed so soon of any other, which were very many.  
2. No Congregational Ministers, who had no Legal Titles to Churches.  
3. None that foreseeing they could not conform (the Act being out) did choose rather to resign their Live than abide a turning out.  
4. No young men, not possessed of Live, though ready for them: To say nothing of Anabapt. etc.   To advantage this imperfect account, the Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity tells the World of but an hundred Ministers, that hindered all Uniformity.  
§. 8. But our Wise and Prudent Statesmen quickly saw through these Fallacies, and from their more perfect information of his most Sacred Majesty, and the melt of his own bowels towards the distresses of his People; the sound of which, came almost from every Court of Judicature, and corner of the Nation, his most Excellent Majesty and his Privy Counsel took a fuller estimate of the Number both of Ministers and private Christians dissenting from the public modes of worship.  
§. 9 Upon this, it was that his Majesty (conceiving himself empowered thereto by his Prerogative, and a liberty reserved to him by the last Act against Conventicles,) was pleased to issue out his Gracious Declaration for Indulgence, date, Mar. 17.  
§. 10. What Power his Majesty had, or what was reserved by that Act, to him, we are no Judges to determine. It is enough for us, That as his most Sacred Majesty hath asserted to himself such a power, so the denial of it to him, hath been by no public Act made known to us, much less his Majesty's recession from it, Disputes betwixt Kings and Parliaments, we think, are not to be determined by private Persons without the doors of the Palace and Parliament-House, nor meddled with by the Subject, till the matters in difference (if any be) be agreed by themselves, and by some public action notified to the People. We know for the King of England in civil things, to suspend the execution of an Act which he hath found inconveniently practicable till the Parliaments meeting, and further agreeing in it, is no more than hath been done even during this Parliament, and possibly to all may not appear unreasonable.  
§. 11. Upon this foundation we stand, and practice, Preaching to our People in places distinct from the Parochial Churches. What can we do less? May we, having this liberty, sit still, and live without the public worship of God? Thus indeed a very great number of the People of England (possibly not inferior to the N. Contempt) yet we have rarely heard of one of them Indicted, Presented, or Prosecuted, when our Brethren were in their fullest career against the new Recusants, at least, not comparably to those of their Brethren, who they knew were every Sabbath day (if not with them, yet somewhere strictly worshipping God, and either Preaching Christ, or hearing him Preached. Surely our eager Men should rather have bend their Bows, and made their Arrows ready against these Atheistical livers, than against the Servants of the Living God, though of a little different Livery; different too, not in the Cloth, but in the insignificant Fringes and Laces of forms and ceremonies. What though they could say (which we know in truth they cannot) that Christ (amongst the Nonconformists) was Preached of envy and strife, yet had they been of St. Paul's Spirit (from whom they pretend to derive, though indeed Christ, amongst the Noncon. had been Preached of Contention, and not of Sincerity. (Yet a little charity would have commanded them to judge as Paul, Some out of good will Preached him.) But however they being (as St. Paul saith, Phil. 1.16, 17, 18. Set for the defence of the Gospel, should have said after him, What then? Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence, or in truth Christ is Preached, and I therein do rejoice, and will rejoice: We shall only say, had they been of St. Paul's Spirit, they would have said so.  
§. 12. We take it to be a confessed Principle; That every individual Member of the Church-Catholick Visible, is bound in duty both to God and his own Soul, to join himself to some particular Society of Christians, with which he may enjoy all the Ordinances of God, so as may be for his Soul's advantage. What shall therefore these indulged Ministers and People do? How shall they live up to this piece of the Divine Will? Shall they join with the Parochial Societies in their Temples? They have professed to the World, that the business is so stated by the Act of Uniformity, that they cannot do this without doing what they judge sinful. If they could, neither would the Ministers 1662. have parted, together with that public exercise of their Ministry, with the livelihoods also of themselves, their Wives & Children; or exposed themselves to Excommunications, Imprisonments, Fines, Banishments, and all manner of Reproach and Obloquy, or their Families to the Charitable Baskets of Christians. Neither would more private Christians have suffered so much in most of these kinds, as they have suffered in vain.  
§. 13. It must therefore be in Congregations, locally separate from the parochial meetings. Accordingly, having first obtained his majesty's Licenses they practice. Presently they hear a great Outcry of Schism, and sinful separation from true Churches, Gathering Churches out of Churches, and we know not what, nor do we believe they do, that clamour at this rate.  
§. 14. But the truth of this clamour must be a little examined; for the Non-conformists have got very little by his Majesty's favour, by escaping the hands of men, to fall into the hands of the living God. We remember when David was in his great strait, 2 Sam. 24.14. he acquiessed in this. Let me fall into the hands of the living God, for his mercies are great, and let me not fall into the hands of men. We think we may (in this case) say the same thing, and that with some advantage (which David had not, for his heart smote him for a known sin, our hearts as yet do not condemn us for any such black thing as a sinful separation; and we do believe those that thus clamour do not well understand what they say. Let men rather call us Schismatics, sinful Separatists, so we may worship God as his Word, and our own Consciences tells us he should be Worshipped purely, and in Spirit and Truth, rather than we not Worship God at all, or so as our Consciences shall continually fly in our faces.  
§. 15. But certainly God's Word hath laid us under no necessity of sinning; let us therefore challenge our confident Accusers to the Law and to the Testimony. 'Tis worth the while to examine whether this great cry be not Vox et praeterea nihil; A clamorous scandal & nothing else, which we are the more advantaged to hope that it will prove by a noted passage in a great Churchman, Mr. Hales his discourse of Schism. It is this, Schism is one of those Theological Scarecrows, with which, they who use to uphold a party in Religion, use to fright away such as make any inquiry into it, and are ready to relinquish or oppose it, if it appeareth to them either erroneous or suspicious.  
Not that Schism, truly so called, is of no graver importance, but that which generally by Schoolmen and Casuists, and very many (and some of those Learned) Divines (though like Elias, men subject to like passions with other men) is no more, is as evident as the shining of the Sun at Noonday, to any one who knoweth any thing of Books, or of the World.  
§. 16. The Greeks, say those of the Latin Church, are Schismatics, and they (because they are the most ancient Church) seem to have best right; but the whole Latin Church requites them with the same-name of Obloquy. The Papist so call the Protestants, but they requite them with the like term, saying, They that gave the cause of the separation, are the true Schismatics. Amongst the Protestants, the Lutherans so revile the Calvinists; nor are the Calvinists behind them, Amongst the Calvinists. The Episcopal men so call the Presbyterians; the Presbyterians so call the Independents and Antipaedebaptists. Thus we have called one another Schismatics round. Let us therefore leave these pitiful, uncharitable, Boyish Revenges, especially seeing in vulgar use lately, the term hath had no further significancy than to speak persons not of our mind, and for a name to brand such of our Brethren with, who are a little more inquisitive than others into the things of God, and is of the same import amongst Protestants; that the word Heretic is amongst Papists, that is not one of their mind; and leaving terms of reviling to the Women at Billingsgate, we will fairly state the Case, and argue it as coolly.  
§. 17. The Question is this, Whether the Nonconforming Ministers, and people meeting ordinarily together for the Worship of God, in Assemblies and places locally distinct and separate from the meetings of the Parochial Congregations, because the said Ministers may not Preach there, nor the said people enjoy there all the Ordinances of God without the doing of some things which their Consciences upon Arguments which they judge highly probable, do judge sinful, be what the Scripture calleth Schism, or be in any right Reason A sinful Separation; these persons in the mean time not condemning all Parochial Societies as no true Churches, nor in other things behaving themselves uncharitably towards them, We must profess ourselves to believe the Negative of this Question, in which are two folded together. We affirm then 

1. This practice is not what The Scripture calls Schism.  
2. Nor what right Reason, concluding from any Scriptural principles can call A sinful Separation.    
We do grant there may be a sinful Separation of Christians from a Church, which the Scripture doth not call Schism, that maketh us distinguish these two things, nor shall we discourse the former. 

1. Because it is a plain Dispute about a Term.  
2. Because the eminently Learned Dr. Owen hath made it good, that a Separation from a Church (though it may be sinful) yet is not that which the Scripture calls Schism; and we observe, that his very Learned Adversary, upon the point, grants him this, and pleadeth for no more than an Analogical application of the term Schism, to express the sin of unnecessary separation from a Church, which we will not contend about.    
§. 18. We say therefore, let it be so, or so, it is of no great consequence; all grant there may be a sinful separation from a Church, and if the separation be not sinful, we are sure they Nickname it that call it Schism. If it be sinful, whether it should be called Schism, or by some other name, we think signifieth very little to the Consciences of any intelligent Christians.  
§. 19 Mr. Hales still keeping the dialect of the Schools, calls this sinful separation, Schism, and gives us this description of it.  
Schism, is an unnecessary separation from that part of the Visible Church, of which we once were Members.  
Like a wise man he speaks, Multa paucis, remembering the Canon about Definitions. So then according to him to make a Schism.  
1. There must be a separation, and that not from the whole Visible Church, (that is Heresy or Apostasy) but from some part of it, of which we were once Members.  
2. Secondly: It must be an Unnecessary separation that is where the Union might have been kept, without sinning against God, we desire no further advantage than this Description will give us, let our case stand or fall, as it will abide, or not abide this test.  
§. 20. Hence we argue, Where there never was an Union, or there is no separation; or if there be a separation, it is necessary, because the Union could not be kept without sin. There is no Schism but in the cases of the Ministers and People. Either there is no separation, or there was no Union (which indeed supposed there could be no separation) or not more than a necessary separation; Ergo, No Schism, no sinful separation.  
§. 21. To make good which, Separation being a term of motion, before we can strictly speak to the parts of the Argument, we must inquire for the Term, from which this Motion, or Separation is pretended to be. The Author of The Doctrine of Schism, p. 40. tells us this roundly.  
'Tis a great and dangerous Schism, both against the Church of England and particular Churches.  
We will not quarrel with the Zealous Author for the propriety of that English,— a Schism against the Church— because in the close of the same page, though he doth not at all mend the matter (as to the poor Nonconformist, whom he was wont to own as Brethren) yet he amendeth his English, telling us:  
If you consider the Church of England as a particular Organised Church, 'tis a Schism from but as part of the Universal Visible Church only as the N. Con. use to term it, is a Schism in it; and not only so, but p. 57 It is a Schism from particular Parochial Congregations: For Mr. Candry (he saith) hath observed There was and is another Church-state in our particular Congregations.  
§. 22. Here now is a double term, from which this motion is pretended to be. 

1. The Church of England.  
2. The Parochial Churches in England.   To let our Author know what we hold, we do believe a Catholic Visible Church, which we take to be well described in the 19th. of the 39 Articles of our Church.  
The Congregation [or whole Body] of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's Ordinance in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same.  
Of this the Church of England is a part doubtless, and from the Church of England in this sense we do not know that any have separated, but such as have renounced Christ and the Gospel, or the Word and Ordinances necessary to Salvation, which would be plain and desperate Apostasy, with which, we hope our Brethren will be more modest than to charge us. From this our Plea is, we make no Separation, and therefore cannot be charged with a sinful Separation. But saith our Author, You make a sinful separation in it. We are not troubled at words that signify nothing, what is the meaning of this? Do we not Own Christ, his Gospel, the same points of Faith, the same acts of Worship; where is the Separation then? Can all meet in the same place? It may be we do not pray by the same forms, nor beware the same habits, nor use some of those rites some others of our Brethren use. Do our Brethren then always when they pray, use the same forms of words? Do not they take a liberty in the Pulpit? why may not we? Do other parts of the Catholic Church use the same forms? why else are not they Schismatics? (for as yet we are only considering the National Church of England as a part of the Church Catholic Visible:) Is there any form, any habit, any rite or ceremony commanded by Christ, and omitted by us: if there be not, where is the Schism? It seems the term Schismatic, is their privilege to use that can first get it out of their mouths; if we divide in no command of Christ, why may not the Non-Con. call their Brethren Schismatics, as well as they call their Brethren? Doth an humane Law create a difference? Let it be queried whether that can give a rule to Schism or no. What is the business then, how do we then make a Schism in the Church of England, considered as a part of the Church Catholic Visible? Do we break Charity with our Brethren? do we Revile them, or Reproach their Persons or Societies. Let them bear the blame who do it, we plead not for them; in the mean time, let not all other Non-Con. be called Schismatics for their sake. We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by those three famous Authors of the Friendly debate, Ecclesiastical Polity, and of Knowledge of & Communion with Christ, have they rendered reviling for reviling, though the Masters of Morality have so treated their Brethren, as if Veracity, Comity, and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues. When the Author opens himself a little plainer, and tells us what he meaneth by a Schism in the Church of England, considered as a part of the Church. Catholic Visible, we shall better understand him.  
§. 23. But he saith, we sinfully separate from the Organical National Church of England; and indeed this he must mean or nothing, by what he said before; for it is not possible to separate sinfully from a National Church considered only, as a large part of the Church-Catholick Visibles, while they keep in the profession of Christ and his Gospel, and in the practice of the same Acts of worship with them, and in the same Doctrines of Faith, unless they fail in love, refusing all kind of occasional Communion with their Brethren, condemning them as no parts of the Church of Christ. The worshipping of God by different phrases and forms of Prayers, in different habits of Vestment, by different rites and ceremonies, & c. will not do it, for these are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholic Visible; Christ left no Liturgy to his Catholic Church, nor any such rites and ceremonies, and habits; nor was ever the Catholic Visible Church uniform in them; our Brethren themselves confess these mutable things, wherein several parts of the Catholic Church differ each from other: These things proceed from the Church, considered as Organical, not as a part of the Catholic Visible Church; for then the major part of all particular Christians must consent to the imposition of them.  
§. 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church, it is possible we may have separated from it, for we never knew there was any such Creature; and at last our Author doth confess that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree, That the Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to a National Church; he should therefore first have proved that there is such a thing under the Gospel as A Stated, National, Organical Church; and we should then have tried whether the same Arguments would not have served the Papists to have proved a Catholic organical Church, and that something better than they serve our Author, because they have found out a single head for it, which we find our Author, p. 43. at great loss to find for his particular National Organical Church.  
§. 95. He knows not whether he should fix it upon the King, for he is to be considered as a mixed person: Or The Archbishop of Canterbury, because he is Primate of all England, or all the Bishops and Pastors. That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governor of the National Church of England, is our of doubt to all Protestants, but such a one as will not claim Authority to any one strictly called Ecclesiastical act, neither to Preach, nor administer a Sacrament, nor Ordain Ministers. Are we discoursing of such a head think we? The Archbishop of Canterbury indeed may do all these; but may he execute any acts of Discipline in the Province of York? must the Archbishop of York be taken in. Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads; yet that is better than 26. for so many must be, if all the Bishops make the head; and that yet is better than 9000 heads as must be, if the Pastors of all Parishes be the Head. In short, none of these can by an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction influence the whole body; and what kind of head is that? The King indeed (as Political Head of the Church) may influence the whole with his commands, relating to Ecclesiastical affairs; but surely we have no Arçh-Bishop, Bishop, or Pastor, can Excommunicate from Dan to Beershaba. Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point, at last tells us, It is not material, for it is a certain Vanity to say, 
43.  Because I cannot find the the Head, I will deny the Body. Is it so? can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head? It is not the body we are discoursing of, but an Organical Body: We may know our Mother (as our Author saith) though we do not know our Father; but we must know we had a Father, and that Father is, or was a visible Creature, or else he could not be known.  
§. 26. Well, but what is this same National Organical Church of England. He p. 42. gives us this Description of it:  
It is a community consisting of professed Christians united in the same Doctrine, Government and Worship, according to the 39 Articles, and Homilies, her Liturgy, and Canons, and Laws, and divided into Parochial Assemblies, for the more convenient Worship of God.  
And p. 45 Schism from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from, or dissolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governors, Worship, Members, or Assemblies.  
We can neither allow his descriptis on of the National Church of England, nor yet of his description of Schism, or sinful separation from it, and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reason, either of them can be made good.  
§. 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church, we deny the description of it, for Non eus, non potest definiri; Now we do believe that under the Gospel there never was, nor can be a stated National governing Church, unless what is indeed sometimes, though far from the sense we are now speaking to, and perhaps not so properly called a Church, according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Messengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation, in an Assembly for deliberations, advice, and determinations in some weighty emergent cases, to obviate which, we put in the term stated, for this is only an Occasional National Church, or Synod, which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ, and meets and acts at the pleasure of the Prince, the Supreme Political Head.  
§. 28. When we speak of a Church, we understand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious usage of it, applicable to no body of people, but such a one as the Scripture calleth so. So that if there be any such body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church, we must either find it in the New Testament, or at least find some directions there for the constitution & ordering of it, some Commissions given for a succession of National Officers, but we find none of this; we find indeed a general commission to Ministers to go and Preach and Baptise; but this referred as well to the Heathens, as to professed Christians. If any will say that the Apostles were General Officers, and from thence will argue for a succession of them, it will better serve the Papists to prove an Universal Organical Church, than it will serve any to prove a National Organical Church; and we think that is what our Brethren will not be very free of granting. If any urge the Example of the Jewish National Church, which was Organical, they will be also obliged to find our Saviour's directions for the Hereditary descent of an Highpriest, or the Election of one into his place. We always thought the Jewish H. Priest was a type, and Christ the Antitype, whose coming abolished the type, besides that that also will prove an Universal Organical Church, for the Jewish High Priest governed the whole Visible Church, which God in his days had upon the Earth; besides we must have found some rules and laws left us by Christ for this High Priest. Finally, who so will erect a stated National governing or Organical Church in England, must find us an Officer clothed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michael's Mount in Cornwall to Carlisle and Berwick. Such a one we suppose there neither is, nor ever was in England since the reformation.  
§. 29. But if we could allow such a Creature of God as a National governing Church in England, we should have put Governors (being certainly one of the Essential parts of such a Church) into the description of it, as well as into the Notion of Schism from it. Nor should we have so straitened the Notion of it, as to necessitate all the members of it to be united in Doctrine, Worship, and Government, without saying how far they must in these things be united. Whether in every point of Doctrine delivered in the 39 Articles and Homilies, so far as to approve and embrace all. And in every point of Government, according to the Canons; or in every mode, rite, or ceremony according to the Liturgy; or if not, in what, and how far they must be thus united? And for the Laws (as distinguished from the Canons,) we should have left them quite out, being but civil constitutions, about the affairs of the Church, not properly Laws of the Church, or in the more intrinsic matters of it; but Impetus cuncta male ministrat, this is the unlucky effect of long Definitions, and too great eagerness to prove all Nonconformists Schismatics. The Author should have done well to have considered what he, as well as we long since learned at the University. 

1. Definitiones debent esse breves. It is the length of this description that spoils it, and makes it by no art defensible.  
2. Debet constare ex attributis preoribus & notioribus simpliciter, had this been thought of the 39 Articles, Homilies, Liturgy, Canons, Laws, had been quite left out; nor certainly did our Author consider what would follow upon this description.    
§. 30. Let us but a little show what inferences follow his Description of the National Governing Church of England. 1. All Arminians without bail or mainprize must be Heretics. They are none of the Community of professed Christians in England, united in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles; will they tell us they are? Let us ask King James, once the very learned Head of this Church. He tell us.  
That Arminians was an Enemy to God, 
Reg. Jacobi Dec. contra Vorstium, p. 12. 14.  that his Disciples are Pests, Heretics, Arrogant persons, Sectaries, Atheists.  
That the very Title of Bertius his Book, concerning the Apostasy of the Saints, required the fire. Shall we be judged by the Parliament (they make the Laws put into the description of this Church) they confirmed the Articles: We find them Anno 1628. crying aloud, We Claim, Protest, and avow for Truth, the sense of the Articles of Religion, which were established by Parliament, 
Mr. rushworth's Collections, p. 650.  130. Eliz. which (say they) by the Public Act of the Church of England, and by the general and currant exposition of the Writers of our Church, have been delivered to us; and we reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians, and all others wherein they differ from us.  
Shall we ask the Professors of Divinity forty years since and upward in either University: They jointly agreed these points contrary to the 39 Articles (one Dr. Baro only excepted), and we know who was the first Doctor of that Divinity, knowingly created at Oxford, and the Professors course compliment to him at his Creation, after he had defended one of them. Hujus te Theologiae creo Doctorem, meaning the Arminian Divinity, whence ever after to his Death, possibly, he took the liberty to Profess it as the Doctrine of our Church; yea, and they must be Schismatics too, though not from, yet in the National Church, and that's the worst sort of Schism, because that which the Scripture chief, if not only, taketh notice of.  
2. Those who will sing no Psalms, must be Schismatics too; for surely, that's an act of Worship in the Church of England, and owned by her; yea, and those that do not ordinarily conform to all Rites and Ceremonies, and Forms in the Liturgy, do they approve of them? The worse, they still (according to this description) make a Shisme in the Church. Quaery: Whether none of the Conformists do this? I could tell him of some, nay One (and he no mean One neither) that openly told the People, singing of Psalms was one of the Idols of the Church of England; there were three Preaching, and keeping the Sabbath were the two other.  
§. 40. Now if the Author could have been content to have described the National Church of England, the number of professed Christians in it united in the same Doctrines necessary to Salvation, and in the same Acts of Worship; the Definition had been shorter, many of these had been included, and we had all been agreed. But to be sure to make all the Nonconformists Shismatick, he first Describes a thing not in being, and which never was since Christ came, and then describes it in such a manner as if he could create it, would do very many of his own friends far more hurt than us.  
§. 41. In the mean time, we must freely yield him such a National Church as we before described, and the King the Supreme Head of it, not in a capacity to Preach or administer the Sacrament, or exercise any act in it strictly an Ecclesiastical by Divine institutions, but to Protect it, to enjoin the fulfilling in it what God hath commanded; to do as much (in it) in short, as any King of Israel and Judah (as a King) might do, and to make rules and constitutions about it. But we deny that our Meetings are any more Schisms, in, or from this Church, than the Meeting of Christians to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship, is a Schism from that part of this Church, which meet for that end in London.  
§. 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution, 
Doctrine of Schism, 55.  which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen; let Mr. Cawdry, or who will say so, Dolus versatur in Generatibus. What is the difference, did Christ constitute theirs? We trust he hath constituted ours, that is, by the Rules given in his Word. Were theirs constituted by Parliament? (that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution; Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Archbishop, the Parliament afterwards, or Custom rather might confirm them). Doth it then make a Schismatic to departed to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom? How else are we of another constitution? Is not the same Doctrine Preached, the same Sacraments administered? the same acts of Worship performed? Where's the difference? In the Modes, Rites, and Ceremonies only; And these all of humane institution. This is that which the Church of God never before called Schism, & which the Apostles never thought of. Do not we agree in the same Government? That concerns us not yet, while we are clearing ourselves only from a Church, which the Author must show us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed  to his Church. In the mean time, as to the National Church of England, we deny that we are guilty of any Schism, either in it, or from it; so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches, and our (pretended) separation from them.  
§. 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry, and quoted by our Author, ch. 9 p. 57 these he calls Parochial Congregations: We are (he saith) guilty of Schism from them; we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches.  
1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholic Church, and so capable of the name of the whole; thus we were indeed united to them, as we were united to the Catholic Church, and united still to them as unto that; owning the Lord Jesus Christ, his Word and Ordinances, and professing a subjection to them: But this is not the other state he speaks of, by which he can mean nothing but a governing state.  
2. Secondly therefore; These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly, or more imperfectly Organised, furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order, or not so furnished, or so walking. The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book, called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists: That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered, lay in two things; the latter of which he delivered thus. Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches, 
Advice to Conformists, etc. p. 72.  or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from.  
We have read over the Book; and good Reader, at thy leisure, do but read over that Pamplet, the second chapped. particularly the 13, 14, 15. pages, and see whether this Author hath, or no, dealt ingeniously with him, p. 14. He speaks of these Societies, as parts of the Catholic Churches, and saith, 
Short Reflections, p. 14.  In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish, yea, Family of Christians, is a true Church: But he indeed concludes, that out of such particular Churches, it must be lawful to gather a Church, for all particular Churches in the world, are gathered out of the Catholic Visible Church; even Heathens, when converted, must be of the Catholic Visible Church, before they can form a particular Church: In this state, and no other, must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister, unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governors, which we think is a contradiction.  
P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them, as Ministerial, by which (he saith) he underst and's a competent number of Christians, who have either first chosen, or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor, he might indeed have spared this Notion; I do not remember I have met with it in any Author, but Mr. Rutherford; and the truth is, if it be a single Minister, I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them, than as he is (so far) an Officer of the Catholic Church, and they a part of that vast body. He considers these people  
Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances, or as at present living without some Ordinances, or having them so unduly administered, as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians, whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no:— He adds, we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duly sent, able, painful Minister, regularly administering the Ordinances of Christ, so as people may communicate with them without sin, and pressing forward to that perfection in order, which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them, may not separate without sin. He did not indeed say, but I dare say for him, he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England, and he hints it, when he saith, This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion, and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches. Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches? Reader, judge in his 15. page, He tells us; There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical, and furnished with all its affairs, and walking in all points of Gospel Order.— He adds, such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England; and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches, from which causeless, and unnecessary separation is sinful. Indeed, he says, How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches, avowed so by Presbyterians, he was yet to learn.  
And his Answer is, for any thing I see in his remarks, yet to teach him, and I believe will so continue. For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order. He I am sure will tell him he means no more, Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church. The Word, Sacraments, and Censures of Jundical Admonition, Suspension, and Excommunication, which they cannot do till they have Officers. I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justify a single Minister in Suspending, or Excommunicating, but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry. I do not think he believes, but that there may be more Ministers (if the Parochial Society hath more than one) or others chosen by that Church. And if any will contend that the body of the people must join with him in those acts (though he reserves his private judgement in the case) yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication, because he understands not to what purpose Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church, who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him: He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church, that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu, without the consent of the body of the Church. But was this to say, Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches?  
1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholic Churches, and so true Churches.  
2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense.  
3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense.  
What pitiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schism, thus to represent his Adversary? Indeed from the Author's discourse it plainly appears, That he did not believe.  
1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister, or faithful Minister, were true Organical Churches; but only true parts of the Catholic Church he grants them.  
2. That no Parochial Societies as such, were true Organical Churches.  
3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers, yet if they never chose them as their Pastors, nor submitted to them as such, They were not true Organical Churches; or those who had not so submitted, were not true Members ever united to them.  
§. 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies, had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor, believing him able and faithful, and professing to press after a perfection in order, & they afterwards found the contrary, that he proved negligent in his work, lewd in his Life, corrupt in his Doctrine, unfaithful in his Administrations; and there were no visible hope of a Reformation, that in this case they might peaceably and charitably withdraw from that communion, and join with a better. These seem to be that Author's principles, which amount to this, that all Parochial Societies, either are no true Governing Churches, or the parties concerned were never united to them; or if they were once united to them, yet their secession from them was just and necessary, and therefore could not be a sinful separation.  
§. 45. Now what says the Author to this? Will he say that Parochial Societies are all, True Governing Churches. Surely he will not say so, if he own Episcopacy; for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocese; that Government belongs only to him, that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates, according to this Model; surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church; do they say so? we say so too. So we are agreed, and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches. Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor, or none that resides with his Flock, are true Ministerial Churches. Surely this in the first part is a contradiction, to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister. And the second part, contrary to our Author's judgement (if consistent to itself,) for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary, 
Doctrine of Schism, p. 85.  and that as he tells us, by the Law of Nature, and so Divine, the cohabitation of the head with those Members, must be necessary too by the same Law.  
§. 46. No, but he will say, They were united to them, those of them that were true Ministerial Churches: And 2. Being united, they have no just and necessary cause of separation. These are the two things to be tried; for the trial of this issue we must inquire.  
Quest. What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church.  
The Author seems not to think mere cohabitation doth it, though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine (which I do not understand) that the Members of a Church should cohabitate. I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together, that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place, and be able mutually to perform the duties of exhortation and admonition one to another; yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical; besides many questions would arise, as How near they must live? Whither none may live betwixt them? What if a Jew, Turk, or Pagan hires an House betwixt them, & c? What the Author doth say, I will candidly transscribe, as I find it in his Doctrine of Schism, ch. 13. p. 89. They were Baptised unto these particular Churches, 
Doctrine of Schism. chap. 13.89.  as well as into the Universal, and the known Laws both of Church and State, oblige their Consciences to communion with them,— Their ordinary attending upon the public Worship as they generally do, or have done, concludes them by their own consent, etc.  
Here now are three things brought to prove the Union, 

1. Baptism,  
2. The Laws of men.  
3. Their own consent implicitly, by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples.   Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it.  
§. 47. That men are Baptised into a particular Church, and by it made complete Members of it, is what I cannot yield. Baptism indeed admits into the Universal Church. If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more, I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions; besides that, hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptised in that Parochial Society wherein they live; when at years of discretion, Baptism indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church, but makes no Union with it.  
2. As to the second, it can have no truth in it, till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ, that Christians should be Members of that particular Organised Church, where their Superiors in Church or State will command. As this is no civil thing, but Spiritual, and such wherein the Souls of Christians, as to their Eternal concerns, are highly concerned. So neither is it a thing indifferent; but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case, and we will say more. We think, though God hath expressly no where told Christians in his Word (which had been almost impossible) what particular Church they should be of; yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judge, and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction, Holiness, and Eternal Salvation; not expecting he should work miracles for them. God hath no where told every Man, what Woman he should Marry; yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives. Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher, and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives.  
3. The last therefore is all, for which there can be any pretence, consent indeed will do it. And we will grant, that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit. Explicit when Christians have either first chosen, or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent, able, faithful Minister to be their Pastor, to administer the Ordinances of God to them: Or more Implicit, when though they have not first called him, nor so explicitly declared their consent to him; yet they have ordinarily and statedly walked with him in the fellowship of all Ordinances. But here must be considered  
1. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt desiring, consenting to, and accepting of one as a Minister of the Gospel to Preach to the Parochial Society, where a Christian lives, as it is a part of the Catholic Church; and consenting to such a one to be his or their Pastor, in order to a Church Organical, It must be a consent of the latter Nature. I may consent and desire one to Preach to the people in the precinct where I live, and yet have no thoughts of consenting to him as my Pastor.  
2. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt an occasional hearing, and it may be receiving the Sacrament with a Minister, and a slated ordinary fixed doing of it. If a Christian, that is of a particular Church at London, goeth down to York, and be to stay there 6 or 9 months, and ordinarily hears and receives the Sacrament there, while he is there; this will indeed prove his owning the Church of York as a true Church, & having communion with it, but not that he is a Member of it. Suppose many Christians, who were formerly stated Members of Churches, but for 10 or 12 years' last passed, have not been able to walk with their Pastors and Brethren in all Ordinances, meeting in the same place to worship God, have in the time ordinarily, or often heard a Parochial Minister; nay, sometimes received the Lords Supper. This indeed proves their Charity, that they looked upon that Society as a true Church; but it doth not prove them Members of it, nor their consent to such a Membership; no, not to such a Minister as their Pastor, though it may be, they consented to him for the good of the place where they lived, as a Preacher of the Gospel to them. If indeed they were of no other stated particular Church before, and did ordinarily join in Sacramental Communion with such a Minister, it goes far to prove an Union by implicit consent, and we think such cannot plead, They were not United.  
§. 48. It is true, these Notions about particular Churches, Worship and Government, especially the first and last, were very dark, and little understood by many good men, Anno, 1641. and no wonder if it be considered. 

1. How very few Books were then wrote of them, on the Presbyterian side.  
2. And how penal it was made to have, or read them, and how little hope before that time appeared of reducing any thing had been said to practice.   Some of our Congregational Brethren having had more rest and freedom, and opportunity of exercise in N. England and Holland were better studied in them. As also our Brethren of Scotland. This for a few years occasioned great animosities. Yet I could never read, nor hear quoted that even than any judicious Presbyterians ever granted: 

1. That all Parochial Societies were true Organised Churches.  
2. Nor that living in a Parish did more than give the Christian a liberty to claim admission into that Society.    
But some few years passing, and men's heats abating, and peaceable converse each with other, better advantaging them to understand one another, than at first they did, they began to be far more clear and unanimous in their Notions, and more charitable in their practices.  
§. 40. I cannot speak for all, but I can speak for a very competent number so many (as in one County) would be persuaded to meet in 1657. & 58. They agreed in the following Character of a person fit for Church-fellowship in all Ordinances and Privileges.  

I have by me, also the Scriptures affixed to prove this.  

1. One that is endued with some competent knowledge in the principles of Religion.  
2. Whose life & conversation is free from all gross and scandalous evils, both of Omission and Commission.  
3. Who maketh such a profession of Faith and Holiness as may give unto the Church a probable hope in the judgement of true Christian Charity, that there are some seeds of some spiritual work of God in his soul.  
4. Who professeth a willing subjection to the Gospel, and all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, and so giveth up himself to the Lord, and his Church, to walk in all duties of Obedience and Love, according to the Will of God.   To which they added, and then subscribed.  
We acknowledge such Churches to be true Churches, as consist of such persons coming together as are here described, and such to be true Ministers as are called by, and unto such a people. And we further acknowledge such to be Churches, and their Ministers to be true Ministers, though some bad with the good agreed to the call of those Ministers, or to own and embrace them; and although there were some disorder, and failing in the Ordination, and coming in of such Ministers.  
By this, these Presbyterians judgements easily appeared, what Parochial Societies they judged, True Churches; and also what they judged necessary to make up the Union of a Member with a particular Organical Church.  
§. 50. I think I can from a Friend also, assure the Author that the person whom this Author doth somewhere declare not only a Presbyterian, but one of great judgement and Worth (as indeed he was) I mean Mr. Brinsley of Yarmouth, was the man drew up this Writing, recommended it to his Brethrens; himself agreed in it, and they also, and made it a great foundation for an Agreement betwixt them and their Congregational Brethren. For my own part, I am much of his mind: We say many of the Ministers and people he reflects upon as Schismatics, neither were actually thus united to Parochial Societies, nor we in capacity so to be, because formally Pasters and Members elsewhere.  
§. 51. But the Author thinks the Law forbidding Ministers to Preach in the Parochial Temples, hath dissolved this Relation. In this we differ from him, and desire a better proof of it, both de facto, than he hath given us, and de jure, Then solomon's putting Abiathur from the Priest's Office, who had deserved to die (as Solomon tells him first;) but more of that by and by. I do not profess strictly to Answer the Author's Book about Schism: It is directed against an Author able enough to speak for himself; but something I must say to this and some other passages, only as they come athwart me in maintaining the Negative part of my Question, and justifying myself and others from the clamour of Schism. Therefore in Doctrine of Schism, p. 75. I find these words,  
What if a man hath a mind to be Friends with him, (that we desire, for we are for peace, etc.) and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded [discommissioned he should have said, or unordained as to] their Ministry within the Church of England; and that those Churches were not dissolved by having new Pastors, [he forgets the Bishop, Curates he should have said] no more than the Kingdom, when the King dies; and yet certainly the King and People are as much constitutive parts of a Kingdom, as Pastor and People of a Church; who will say, that considers what he saith, that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor. Afterward he tell us the Opinion of Dr. Gouge, then of Mr. Baxter, as to the removing of Abiather; and lastly, p. 77. That he hath thought hitherto, that the distinction of the Office, and of the exercise of the Office had gone uncontrolled amongst Presbyterians; and though the Ministers of Christ depend not (not upon the Christian Magistrate for their Office) and he cannot degrade them, yet quoad Exercitium, as to the Exercise of it in his Dominions he might, and that he had power to silence such as are judged unmeet to Preach; and in this Mr. Baxter confirms him, etc.  
§. 52. He will at least (ex abundanti) grant that man hath no power to say to those, Do not preach, to whom Christ and his Church hath said, Go and Preach; it is some relief yet, that he will in any thing suffer us to acknowledge Imperatorem coeli. The Ministers were not put out of Office, 1662. then; Only forbidden to exercise that Office within the Kingdom of England; but where was this prohibition? The Law only saith, in public Churches and Chapels. But the Churches he saith were not dissolved any more by having new Pastors, than the Kingdom is dissolved when the King dies [he should have said by having a new King.] The Question is, whether the Churches were not dissolved by the removal of their Pastor. We think not: so he saith, Are we not agreed? the Governors were in being; the Governed in being; only the Governors were in Prison, and for a time could not exercise their Office in their Churches. But if the Governors were discommissioned, unordained, surely the Governing Church was dissolved as the Governing Kingdom; (so far as the Governors' act by commission) is by his leave dissolved at the death of a King, as we all know.  
§. 53. He asks who will say That a particular Church is dissolved upon the Death or Removal of the Faster. I answer any one that understands sense, if there were no other Governor, and he be not in being, surely the particular organical Governing Church is dissolved, the body is not necessitated to part, but at liberty, whether they will agree to the next Pastor, yea or no; his Friend Mr. Candry hath said so.  
Mr. Hooker had said, If the Church be not a Church without Officers, 
Cawdrys Answer to Mr. hooker's Survey, chap. 8. page 133.  then as oft as the Officers die, the Church dyeth also. That is an Authoritative Governing Church; and indeed, for any to say a Church is a Ministerial Church, without a Minister, or a Governing Church without a Governor, is a piece of sense I cannot understand.  
§. 54. But to return to the Case of Abiathar, which is brought to prove the power of Magistrates, to put Ministers as well out of their Office, as out of their Preferments, Possessions, and public Temples (all which is granted and excluded the Question.) I have nothing to do with any man's Opinion in the case. Let us fairly debate and understand the case, and see whether it will conclude for the Author, yea or no. Aaron was God's undoubted Highpriest, immediately constituted so by himself. His Sons were also ordained by God to succeed him. Aaron had four Sons, 1 Chron. 6.4. Nanab and Abihu, (these Leu. 10. died before their Father) Eleazar and Ithamor. By God's special order Eleazar was made the Highpriest instead of Aaron, Numb. 20.26, 28. Eleazar died, Josh. 24.33. Phinehas his Son succeeded him, Jud. 20.28. Here the Scripture leaveth us. The next High Priest we read of, was Eli, for his neglect to correct his scandalous Sons, God threatneth that he would cut off his Posterity from his Altar, 1 Sam. 2.33, 35. and raise up unto himself a saithful Priest: This was the known will of God, declared to Eli by two Prophets; his Sons Hophni and Phinehas died before him. Ahilub is by Divines concluded to have succeeded him; he is called Ichabods Bother, 1 Sam. 14.3. That is Elies' Grandchild. Ahiah succeeded Ahilub, as is plain from 1 Sam. 14.3. Ahimelech succeeded him, as is plain, 1 Sam. 22.11. Here God's Vengeance on Elies' Family began to appear. Saul slays him and all his Father's House, 1 Sam. 22.16. only v. 20. Abiathar escapeth and fleeth unto David, and was with him in all his troubles by Saul; but in the mean time it would be enquired who was High Priest for Saul at Jerusalem? and this the Scripture saith not, (possibly he little regarded the Ecclesiastical Order instituted by God.) But it is a greater difficulty how the H. Priesthood came out of the line of Eleazar, Aaron's Eldest Son, into the line of Ithamar the Younger Son of Aaron? Nor doth the Scripture resolve us, nor Josephus, who assureth us, Eli was of the Family of Ithamar, and the first of it, but says only, He took the Priesthood, of whose Family Abiathar was the last. 
Josephus, v. 62.12.  This Abiathar was one of those, who during David's life, and contrary to his Will, proclaimed Adonijah King, 1 Sam. 1.25. which was no less than High Treason. Solomon calling him to account for it, spares his life for the kindness he had showed to his Father, telling him he was worthy of death, but confineth him to Anathoth, (where he could not execute the Priest's Office) 1 King. 2.26, 27. So saith the Text, He thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord; and it is added, That he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, which he spoke concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh: yet 1 King. 4.3. In the rool of the Officers we find Zadock and Abiathar were the Priests; so that it seems he was a Priest still, Whatever is to be understood by, He put him out of the Priest's Office: 'tis certain, 1 King. 2.35. he made Zadoc in his room, who was of the Sons of Eleazar, 1 Chron. 24.3. We cannot understand from Scripture, but that the High-Priesthood ought to have been in the Family of Eleazar; and it is like the disorderly times of the Judges altered it. Solomon restoreth it, and in doing it, fulfilled what he knew was the will of God about Elies' Family. It is not improbable but David had done it before, but for Abiathars' peculiar Service to him in his troubles. Now we have the case,  
1. Solomon knew that Abiathar was of the younger House from Aaron, whereas the High-Priesthood truly belonged to the Elder.  
2. He knew also God had declared his Will to root out the House of Eli.  
3. This Abiathar had committed the highest crime; Solomon might have put him to death, but for his kindness to his Father as to life he spares him, but thinks fit to send him far enough from the Court, and the place where the High-Priests Office was to be Executed at Jerusalem, and to confine him to Anathoth, where he could not execute the Office of the Highpriest; and so he was in effect turned from the High-Priests Office.  
4. And Zadoc, to whom that Office was due, is invested with it: But Abiathar remains a Priest still, & is so called after, and joined next to Zadoc; but the High Priesthood could not truly belong to him, but to the Elder House from Aaron; and besides, God had declared his Will, that this should be done; he is said to have done it, that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, and he that did it was a man inspired by God, and a Penman of Holy Writ. What will follow from hence think we? therefore Kings and Magistrates may remove  
1. The chiefest Priests from their Preferments, Dignities, and their own Courts.  
2. That in case they have deserved death, and the Magistrate thinks fit to show mercy, but yet to punish them with Banishment to remote places where their flock cannot come; he may thus in effect turn them out from their Pastoral Relation.  
3. That in case he finds them no true Ministers of Christ, he may forbid them to Minister.  
4. That if God from Heaven by a revelation, or by any plain Scripture commands them to turn true Ministers out of Office, they may do it. I can see nothing more, let the Author make his best of this.  
§. 55. But he had thought the distinction of the Office, and the exercise of it, had been uncontrolled by the Presbyterians; and that they had granted, that though the Magistrate could not degrade them, yet as to the exercise of their Office he might, and that he had power to silence such as he judged unmeet to Preach. Presbyterians can (without the help of this Author's Logic) distinguish betwixt the Office and the exercise of the Office, and make one distinction more between the exercise of the Office in public places, (undoubtedly in the Magistrate's disposal,) and in their own private Houses, or in the private Houses of others. They do believe it in the power of the Magistrate, though not to take away their Office, or Relation to their Flock. Yet to hinder the exercise of it, and that they ought to obey him, commanding them to forbear the exercise of it in public places belonging to the Magistrates; and accordingly have generally been so obedient, though the Law so far, be not so plain, that any are prohibited to Preach, except such as are disabled, which is the case of very few. They know Paul Preached in his hired House at Rome, Act. 28. and in the School of Tirannus, when the Jewish Rulers forbade them the Synagogues; the Office not taken away, nor to be taken away, they conclude the Relation attending the Office abiding. But hitherto we have only justified our first Plea. It is no separation, because there never was an Union, nor could be of very many of us to a Parochial Ministerial Governing Church. And considering it only as a part of the Catholic Church, we are in all points one with it.  
§. 56. But we will suppose that this is not the case of all our Brethren; but some have been United to the Parochial Societies, wherein they lived, and implicitly consented to be one body with them, by not only hearing the Ministers there, but receiving the Communion with them. What shall be said for them? We say they are not sinfully separated.  
1. Are they separated? They now indeed meet for worship in other places, and that statedly; but do they condemn the Ministers or Churches, from which they are come? do they not own them as true Ministers, and such Churches as true Churches? Do they not pay to the Ministers, & love the Brethren? where's the Schism then? For when men have said all they can, Schism is a sin against the command of Love to our Neighbour. It is no command of God, you shall be of this Congregation or another, other than it falls under general precepts, commanding us to use the best means for our Souls. Now cannot I love my Neighbour, except I dwell in his Family, or choose her for my Wife, or him for my Husband: Besides, it is most certain, I am bound to love my own Soul in the first place; and as an Evidence to that, I am tied to use the best means I can (not contradicted by God's Word) according to my own Conscience (which certainly must judge for me in my highest concern) for the Salvation of it.  
§. 57 I am ware of what this Author hath said, That a man may not departed from a Congregation to which he was United, either to enjoy the Ordinances of God more powerfully, or purely, or perfectly administered in another, convenient enough for me to join with. This is the substance of what he hath said and quoted from others as their Opinion. But this will never enter into my thoughts. Let them speak plainly to this. Is it not the duty of every Christian to use what appears to his Conscience the best and most probable means for his Salvation? The light of Nature as well as Scripture will evince this. Now I would fain know of any person what it is under Heaven, (except the bare Word and Sacraments) that God hath appointed as means for the Instruction, Edification, and Salvation of my Soul, but the gifts of his Ministers or People, (with which, in order to these ends) his holy Spirit works not miraculously, but in a national orderly way secundum quae nactus est, Organa. There is nothing more evident than that in Ministers, there is a great diversity of Gifts, and as much a diversity of Wills, Humours, and Fancies; and also a great variety of people's Capacities. There's nothing more evident than that our Ministers parts, method of Preaching, etc. is really more fitted to the Instruction and Edification of some people, than the Gifts and Methods of others are; as we say every good Man makes not a good Husband for every good Woman; so it is demonstrably true, that every able and good Minister is not a fit and good Instructor for every good Christian; they possibly understand not his language, nor cannot learn his method (possibly 'tis Cryptick, and requires a Scholar to understand it. Shall these people be perpetually staked down in the case, that let their Souls be never so much concerned, they must not ordinarily join with another Minister, and hear him, though their habitations be convenient enough for it? or must these persons (possibly to the loss of their Trade and Livelihood, which in Towns lies much upon their habitation) be forced to remove into that other Parish; where hath God required any such thing?  
§. 58. Besides that, I understand not much those of my Brethren that are so Zealous in this point. In my little deal in the World, I use always to be afraid of that Tradesman, whom I perceive using arts to tie me to his Shop; and upon that Workman that I see endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself. I fear always, they have no good meaning toward me; and I should fear myself, that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry. I should suspect myself of Pride, or Self-interest, or some other scurvy Lust or Passion. If I think none so able as myself, 'tis Pride; if I would have them to fill my Congregation, it is Self-interest. If I would save their Souls, so may another, and possibly be a better instrument for it, at least he is more likely, if sound in the Faith, able, and painful, because they have a more fancy to him. In short, I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel; I thank God, I can say, that as I never denied any Christian desirous to leave me, my Licence to do it; so I never had an ill thought of any that did it; but said with myself, The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge, the lesser my account will be: And that which much confirmed me in this, was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved, because their work and charge was so great; which if well considered, would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory, and rather make us rejoice. I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now, and I can say, I dearly love them; and should think I did not, if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry, and join with any other of sound faith and holy life, under whom they should think they could profit more than by me; and I do think this the duty of every Minister. I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schism doth import.  
§. 59 But lastly: Supposing such a departing from a Church, to which we are united, be to be called Separation; yet it is not sinful (in the judgement of all Divines) if it be necessary, or if it be not causeless; now possibly this may be the case of many. I remember in the case of Marriage, Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce; Divorce, they say, can only be for Adultery; but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases; in short, in all cases where it appears; there ought to have been no Union, had it been known; as suppose, 

1. One had Married another (through deceit) of his or her own Sex.  
2. His very near Relation, as Mother, Sister, etc.  
3. or 3dly.   One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage, etc. I think the same is to be said in this case. Let us try a little: Suppose Christians by an error, had chosen a man to be their Pastor, and ordinarily heard him, and communicated in the Lord's Supper with him, whom at last they found to be no Minister. And when they discover it should leave him: This I hope were no sinful separation. If any shall say it is, he should complain and have him orderly removed. We will suppose the case so, that it could not be obtained: Of this the late times gave us some instances. 2. Secondly: Suppose Christians, by an error, and through ignorance, had done the like to one, whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine, suppose some points of Popery, Arminianism, Socinianism, which they in their Consciences judge false, and makes a trade of this. Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister, not being able to get this removed? 'Tis plain, they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor. 3. Suppose Christians by an error, have so chosen and joined with one whom they then judged of a very sober life, but they find him a notorious Drunkard, Swearer, etc. Such a one ought not to have been chosen, but doth factum valet here; must they not leave him? If any say they may have him removed, I desire to know by what Law of England? if he be neither Jew nor Schismatic. I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases (or very few) of Deprivation. 4. Suppose Christians by the like Error, to have chosen one, who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock, and to that end cohabiting with them, the thing of the Law of Nature (saith our Author) and that is Divine for Members of the same Church; but they find, he rarely comes near them, or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them, possibly once a month, hardly more, seldom or never administering other Ordinances. In this case may Christians departed to another, yea, or no? will any say No still? then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for aught I know.  
§. 60. But lastly: Must it appear demonstratively, or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably, (that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge) sinful to Communicate with a Church, before he separates from it. If any say Demonstratively, let him prove it: will any say it is enough, as to his practice? if it propably appears so; then why are we so boldly called Schismatics before our probable Arguments be made appear to us, to have no probability to? But They are the people, and have said Wisdom shall die with them. We must be Schismatics and sinful Separatists, and for no other reason, but because they say so.  
§. 61. Once more. If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Church to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united: Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united, unless at least commanded by the Governors of the Church, for the public good: If any say No, he will, I hope, give us a Reason; is not the Minister United? Doth not he break the Union, yea destroy the Organical Church by removing, which private Christians do not? I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schism, from Parochial Societies, than grant us the consequence, to the prejudice of, if not himself, yet of so many of his Friends, One of them he must do, if I understand sense. Will our Author think to excuse this, by saying, It is no Schism in them, because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion (which he said before, for people's removing from one Parish to another)? It lies upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine, and in the same acts of Worship, though they differ in the words and syllables, and forms (of mere humane constitution) be of a different communion from their Brethren, otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate, and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren, not separated from them.  
§. 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author, That themselves with us had separated from Rome, which yet they, or some of them acknowledge a True Church: Therefore we might separate from a True Church. The sum of his Answer is 

1. That the Presbyterians do not acknowledge it so, to whom he spoke.  
2. This was a current Argument of the Presbyterians against the Independents.  
3. He meant such true Churches as our Parochial Congregations.  
4. They prove the Communion of Rome is corrupt; we only say theirs is.  
5. Many do hold the Church of Rome truly a Church, not a true Church; true as to the Essence, but not Morally true as to her Doctrine and Worship.  
6. We did not separate from Rome, for we really were never of them; we reform ourselves without separating from Rome.    
Notwithstanding all these Answers (except the last) which I shall show weak enough. Thus much we have gained.  
That it is Lawful in some cases to separate from a body that is Metaphysically a true Church, that is truly a Church, which is all was intended to be gained. That the general Notion of the Truth of a Church, should be no more a Medium to prove us Schismatics, now let us examine his particular Answers.  
§. 62. The Presbyterians do not acknowledge Rome a true Church, and therefore he argued ad homines. Indeed I find Mr. Caudry, to his Adversary granting something of the Truth of a Church to Rome, crying Viderit ipse, but he is not the mouth of all Presbyterians; did ever any know a Presbyterian, Ordaining a Minister the second time, because he was the first time Ordained by the Church of Rome? yet he was there ordained to offer Sacrifice, but also to Preach the Gospel, which makes them afraid of it; or Baptising any that turned Protestants from Papists. Till he had known this, he should have forborn this Answer, it may be that many of them will grant she hath something of the Metaphysical Verity of a Church. A rotten House, and falling, but yet an House still, and we think Christians from such a Church may withdraw.  
§. 63. But this was an Argument against the Independents. Produce a place where they ever said, It was unlawful for Christians to departed from a Church that had the least of truth in it. But he says he meant such as our Parochial Congregations, this is a general: what doth he mean by such? 4. They prove the Communion of the Church of Rome corrupt; we only say it of theirs. And he only says that we only say it. We think that many have proved that we cannot Communicate or Minister in it under some present circumstances, without what we judge sin. Who shall determine betwixt us as to our practice? Hath this Author made, or can he show us a strict Answer to Calderwood, Gillespy, and Dr. Ames? and yet much more is to be said in our case, than they could speak.  
§. 64. Many do say that the Church of Rome is Vere, but not Vera Ecclesia, (that will not do) we can show him vera, that is true as well as, Vere Truly; but his meaning is, True in Essence, not Morally True; what is the meaning of that? Not true in her Doctrine and Worship. This kind of truth admits many degrees. We would fain know of our Author to what degree of moral truth that Church must be arrived, from which he judgeth it sinful to separate; for we shall find that divers of his Brethren and Fathers have acknowledged a great degree of moral truth in the Church of Rome, from which yet they separated, and we believe died in their separation from it. Died they as Fools died? Let me show this a little: Was not the Church of Rome morally true, because an Antichristian-Church, and the Seat of the Antichrist? So indeed Bishop Downame, Bishop Abbot, and many Bishops were wont to say; but since that time Bishop Mountagne hath called their Arguments Apocaliptycal frenzies. Dow saith it is doubtful. Dr. Heylin saith it cannot be, for Antichrist must be a single man, a Jew that must kill Enoch and Elias. 
Star Chamber Speech; p. 32.  Bishop Laud confesseth therefore he hath razed out of the Liturgy, the scandalous term Antichristian Sect.  
§. 65. Is the fault in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; it may be some of us think there is fault enough there; I trust our Author himself thinks so, but neither all former Conformists, nor present Conformists believe that she differs from us in any Fundamentals. I myself have been told so within few years; the Author could not but know that Bishop Laud, Dr. Heylin, Bishop Potter, and many others have thus far asserted her Moral truth again and again, as to Doctrine. Now may not that be put for a Problem amongst those who are so Zealous in this point.  
Wither it be not Schismatical to separate from a Church upon the account of Doctrine which errs in no fundamentals.  
Yet those great men confessed the latter, and did the former. If we lose this stand, I know not where we shall find a boundary to stop us from separation, from a true Church, for any one false Proposition of Doctrine maintained in it. But what Doctrine is there, as to which we cannot show them that some or other our conforming Fathers or Brethren have not either acknowledged true in their terms, or so far true, as would make separation for it dangerous; yet all these separated from it, and died many of them in that black Schism (if it were so.) Let the Author instance, and he shall hear what we can say to it; he will I hope, spare the Arminian points. The Doctrine of Faith as an assent only to the Proposition, Justification by Works, etc. but let him instance.  
§. 66. But it may be the business is, they have acknowledged and proved her Communion unlawful as to Worship; we indeed do so think it sufficiently sinful. But have all those Conformists separated from her thought so? we think so, because we judge her idolatrous in her Adoration of the Eucharist, The Saints departed, Relics, Images, Altars, etc. and we know that many of our conforming Brethren are of the same mind with us, Dr. Brewynt, Dr. Stillingfleet, and many others have sufficiently told us so; but the question is, whether all our conforming Brethren, who have separated thus, judged her thus morally not a true Church. What meant Dr. heylin's four bowings at his taking up and setting down the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. 
Heylins' moderate Answer, p. 137.  What saith the Author of Weights and Measures, as to the point of Veneration of Images? What saith Bishop Montague, Antig. p. 318. and in his Antid. p. 30. and in his Orig. p. 40. he says the Ancient Church did Venerate Relics, Antid. p. 44. but I will enlarge no further till I have particular instances given.  
§. 67. We see it was the judgement of these men, (and they were learned men) that we may separate from a Church that hath a great degree of moral truth. But it may be they thought they did not separate because they and their Forefathers were really never of them, but reform themselves. But were not our Forefathers Baptised into that Church? Did not the Laws of England once tie us to them? Were we not United to the Governors' Worship, Members, and Assemblies of that Church. Did not our Forefathers show their consent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions, etc. This is all our Author saith for our Union to the National and Parochial Church, or Churches of England.  
§. 68 Again, they have proved it, he saith, that Communion in that Church is corrupt. How? Because we cannot communicate with it without sin. How have they proved it? Demonstratively; so as the Adversaries cannot deny it? Nothing less, they do deny it, and yet dispute it, but so as we probably judge it sinful. We grant this is proved, and so we think we have proved it too, though it may be more sinful to communicate with the Romish Church. But we know Magis & minus non variant speciem. But we think we ought not to do the least sin.  
§. 69. But we do not say it is sinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances. Why do we not communicate with them so far as we can without sin? Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledge so much. But Communion is either stated and fixed, or Occasional. They conceive themselves obliged, statedly and fixedly, if they can, to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of God. For occasional Communion, they neither have denied it, nor shall deny it to their Brethren in such actions wherein their Consciences will allow them so to communicate without sin, as occasion offers itself; they acknowledge many of their Ministers, and of their Churches, true Churches, true Ministerial Churches; they many of them hear them Preach and Pray, and bring their Children to them to be Baptised (especially if any of them will abate what in that administration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally necessary, and they judge sinful?) what would the Author have more, unless a perfect communion?  
§. 70. As to which (though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men, because they never touch the Conscience, nor ad homines; because they are single Bullets, and hit but one person; yet once let me use one. Because our Author in his Doctrine of Schism, p. 28. assures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods' mind. I know not that Reverend Person; but I take him to be the same Mr. Fulwood that was sometimes Minister at Staple Fitzpane in , and anno, 1652. published a Book called, The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches, and a true Ministry (if he be not the man intended, I beg his pardon if it be he, he saith thus of the Church of England.  
For matters of Government, indeed of late we were under Episcopacy, all whose appurtenances savoured of Antichrist— and in the same page a little after— our Episcopal Courts, Service, Tyranny, etc. were very gross.  
This was Mr. Fulwoods' judgement. I think we may easily argue according to his principles. It is Mr. Fulwoods' assertion, not ours.  
From a Church, all whose appurtenances, as to Government, savour of Antichrist, 
Fulwoods' Churches & Ministry of England true, etc. p. 12.  and whose service is very gross. Christian's may, and aught to separate, so far as to that Government, all whose appurtenances so savour, and whose service is gross. But saith Mr. Fulwood, &.— Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an answer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood, we will further examine it. But there is no end of these things.  
§ 71. In the mean time I must mind the Author of too little candour, as to his Adversary who wrote the Reflections, in saying the sum of what he offered, was reducible to these two propositions. 

1. That the Conformists held the Church of Rome to be a true Church, yet did separate.  
2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches, when as he never said the latter at all, but the clean contrary, and had acknowledged, 

1. All of them true Churches, that is, true parts of the Catholic Church.  
2. Many of them true Ministerial Churches.  
3. Some of them true Organical Churches.     Besides this, He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will see these two things were not the sum of what he said, and that how little soever Reason was in those Reflections, there was yet more than this Author in his remarks was pleased to take notice of, for that Author had then insisted on their not being united to Parochial Churches.  
§. 72. To shut up this discourse, I from my Soul wish, all the Lords, Ministers, and People of England were of one heart and mind. I am not of Gravity or Learning sufficient to Advise either Conformists or Non-conformists, but shall only propose my own thoughts, and not mine alone. The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dissertations de Episcopatu, hath these passages which I shall translate. The learned may read them in the Printed Copies.  
If men were every where as solicitous for forming and reforming men, and fitting them for the sacred Ministry, to which they profess to give up themselves, the disputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more easy, and less evil need be feared from that which we judge not so good.— Here, saith he, We must begin that men may be made worthy for the work, and Parag. 4.— Here we must lay on our help— We see the Apostles in their Writings, were more solicitous about the Virtues than the degrees of Ministers,— Parag. 9 Before (saith he) we divide into parties about other things, we should jointly agree about these things. A confession of common Doctrine according to truth and piety, should be either set forth or confirmed, then exact Canons should be made about the whole life and manners of Ministers, and then a disputation about the form of Church Government should follow— Thus far he.  
§. 73. I shall conclude with delivering my Opinion, That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed, which concern Ministers Lives and Office. And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed, and those men might have nothing to do in the debate. Who are dead in Law, according to those Canons; that is, such as ought to be Excommunicated, or deprived, and who had declared, or should declare themselves contrary to the Doctrine so expounded and declared. The remaining part would quickly so well agree with other things, as we should be no more troubled with clamours of Schism and Separation; and tell something of that Nature be, I see no medium, but either Dissenters must be indulged, and Schism clamoured and never proved, or suffering for Conscience-sake must be imposed and patiently endured.  Fiat Voluntas Dei.  

ERRATA.  
PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare, r. curaes, p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians, r. Arminius, p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th. p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus, r. Generalibus, p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical, r. Juridical, p. 70. l. 2. r. one Ministers parts, p. 74. l. 9 r. he Preach some, p. 75. l. ult, r. probably.  
ERRATA, in the Two last Sheets.  
PAge. 10. l. 14. after the word Apology, I pray add this, That which is of Divine, is undeniably greater than that which is of Humane Institution, p. 4. l. 10. f. act, r. acts, p. 27. l. 19 f. page 4. l. 34. r. B. 4. c. 34. p. 29. l. 22. f. Affirmations, r. Affirmatives.   

AN Account of the Non-Conformists Meetings for Divine Worship, by, Mr. H. according to his Middle-Way, against Dean F's charge of Schism; and of the freedom of Conscience, from unuseful Laws, and the power of constraint against his Exceptions.  
HAving written four Papers which being bound together I call Mediocria, and finding in the end of one of them an Advertisement about a Book Entitled Two Points of great Moment, (which was the Obligation of humane Laws, and the Authority of the Magistrate in the matters of Religion,) by me discussed: I think it but civil to take an opportunity (while it is in my mind) of returning my acknowledgements to the Reverend and worthy Dr. & Dean, the Author of Toleration not to be abused for his respectful Animadversions, in reference (I count) to both these Points, in his Advice to Conformists and Non-Conformists. I confess myself obliged to him for it, and to requite the obligation, I will present him with two things: my answer to what he hath put in against me, and an Apology, according to my Middle Temper, for the Nonconformist in the matter above named.  
I will begin with the Last first, both because it is of most present import and it is also fit I should prefer that of the Public, before my Private Vindication. There are divers sorts of the Non-Conformists, and they have their Meetings we know, not all on the same Reasons. There are some who have been and are for our Parochial Churches, who are satisfied with their Constitution, and, if they might have freedom, would still choose them: And there are others that are in their inclinations for the congregational way only. For my part I profess myself of the former Sort, and do here declare in the behalf of myself and many others of my Brethren, that we do not go from our Parish Church or Minister, in opposition to them, as if such Congregations were not Churches; No, we are sensible when our Lord hath commanded that the Tares should not be plucked up for fear of endangering even but Some of the Wheat, what a grievous displeasure it may like to be to him, if we should go to Root up all the Wheat for fear of the Tares, which to Unchurch whole Parishes were to do: Nor is it out of Pride, Vanity, Ostentation, Faction, or Self-advantage that we do it: We could not answer a lesser Man▪ s, than a Dean's charge against us, if we did so. Two things therefore I will acknowledge, That our Parish-Churches are true Churches: And that it is our Duty consequently to desire and endeavour their Union and Prosperity. And what would any Conformist have of me more, unless it be also to join with them there in the Participation of the Ordinances, which I refuse not neither upon convenient occasion? Well! Upon what ground then shall I offer my Apology for the Cause I have here undertaken? Why I will give it very impartially. As I grant these two things to be our duty, so must I assume that which will not, and cannot be denied me, that it is the duty likewise of those who are set apart to the office of the Ministry (supposing them in every respect fit for the Work, to have a call to it, and prudent Sincerity does not at present otherwise direct) to preach the Gospel, by way of discharge of that office. We have the Apostles express authority and example for this, who when they where Threatened and Commanded by the Magistrates to Speak no more in Christ's name, they have left us their answer on record, Whether it be meet to obe● Go● or You, judg●●e. Now I must lay down this rule, that when two duties come together so that we cannot perform the one, but we must omit the other, the greater duty must take Place of the less. The rule appears in its own light, and also from Scripture. I will have Mercy (says God) and not Sacrifice. What is the meaning but that when act of Righteousness and Mercy fall in, such duties as that of Sacrifice which are less must give way. Here then is our case plainly, which of these is the greater duty? We are to seek Unity, and to Preach the Gospel. If we keep our Parish Churches, we must not Preach the Gospel: If we Preach the Gospel, we must go to these Private Meetings. Which of these is indeed of greatest concernment to the glory of God, and the People's Salvation? In General which is the greatest Matter that the Gospel of Christ Jesus be Preached: Or the Union of our Parish-Churches be promoted? In Particular, whether shall I, or any other Nonconformist who have a call upon occasion to Preach at such a time, place, or Company, do more Service unto God by going & doing it: or by refusing and going to my Parish-Church, for the sake of Unity, for which I have still other Seasons? And which is the greater Evil to have a people of a Parish divided into several places to hear the Ministers of both Persuasions Preach to them (when this too shall not hinder them being parts still, or Members of the same Church): Or that all the Preachers or Ministers in the Nation but those only who Conform should have their Mouths stopped or their Talents buried? How! when there is so many of them! So many of them truly serious and painful Labourers! So many of them that actually do so much good, and the everlasting welfare of thousands of men's Souls depend upon it? What is Parochial Union in comparison! I will appeal to the Conscience of every upright equal man, whether Conformist or Nonconformist, that fears God, to give Judgement. For the charge then of this Dean which he seems to have managed so strenuously, I answer. Schism is a Causeless Breach of the Church's Union, or a causeless separation from her Communion, the Communion of a Church whereof we are Members, or should be. Let this learned man, or any other that hath read any thing about Schism tell me, if I do not define it right by a Separation that is Causeless, for if there be a cause, the Separation will be justified, as it is between us and the Church of Rome. Now when the case between the Conformist and us is so open and in the face of the Sun, that unless we Countenance or allow of those Meetings which are Locally Distinct from our Parish-Congregations, the whole generation of the Nonconformist Ministers must be laid by, from the exercise of their office for aught I see as long as these men do hold, whatsoever becomes in the mean time of the Souls of so many multitudes: what apology, defence, or Account do we need more but this only? Is there not a cause? They are the words of David to his surly Elder Brethren, that are offended only for his being about the business he was sent. And David said, what have I done? Is there not a Cause?  
I am very sensible that there is much more may be said, or that there are other Pleas which may be made by the Nonconformist for their Meetings then this I offer. I have (I know) proposed myself a little in another Paper, towards some Catholic Healing of us, even under our stated Separations, if they cannot be helped. If they can, or if this be enough, it is this Plea I choose, as the most indifferent between the Conformist and us, the most fair and conducive to our Uniting again, if God give that Grace to the Nation. And this (under pardon) I will be so bold, as to name my Plea, Mr. H's, Plea, Of Greater Duty.  
The Church is a number of such as own, or believe in the Lord Jesus, and join in Society for the glorifying his Name in submission to his Ordinances. These Societies are either Particular, or that which consists of them all, the Church Universal. Of the Church as Universal Christ is the Head, from whom we have these Ordinances: &, when the Congregations which are Parochial, & others that meet separately from them, do both consent or unite in his Ordinances, that is, in the same Doctrine (so far as is necessary to Salvation,) and in the same Worship, required in the Word, who can deny them to be both Parts of the Universal Church Visible, and so true Churches? As for going to divers places, if there be no breach of the great Commandment which is Charity, in other respects, it is a matter of indifferency, & can be no ground to charge Schism upon one more than the other. There must be some other consideration than of the Church found out if they will accuse us of Schism: And that is not as it is Universal or Particular, but as it is National and Parochial. As it is Universal and Particular it is ex praecepto, of Divine: as it is National and Parochial it is ex providentia, of Humane and prudential institution. There are some things required to the Church ad esse, and some things ad bene esse. That which is required ad esse, is named (a due administration of the Word, Sacrament and Prayer), and we divide not in it. That which is required ad bene esse is either necessary to that been (or melius) esse, being of Divine Authority, and that is some Discipline in general, though for the Sort, I will not say which is such, or that which is accidental and accumulative from man, as to have the Supreme Magistrate Christian, and a Nursing Father to it, with his People generally of that Religion. The one of these (I say) is of God's Praeceptive (we speak it not simpliciter, but in regard to the Constitution of the Church of Christ): the other of his Providential will only. In this accidental regard as the Church is National do we acknowledge that the King is head of it, and hath his Ordinances in respect thereunto to be obeyed, as Christ hath in regard to the Universal. That the Magistrate hath Authority to Protect the Church of Christ, by seeing that Christ's Ordinances be observed in every Congregation according to their way, and in looking to the whole that they do nothing but what shall make to the Peace of the Nation, is out of question. The King here governs by his Laws, and the Laws of this Land have appointed the constitution of particular Churches to be of Parishes as most convenient to that purpose. If we consent not to these Laws we break the Union which is of Humane institution, though we preserve that which is Divine. Disobedience to the wholesome commands of our Superiors is sin, and when that separation therefore, which is a thing indifferent otherwise does become sinful through that disobedience, unless we have something to justify the disobedience, such separation, by Analogy, is Schism. And here do I verily think must the bottom of all that can be charged upon us about Schism be placed. If the Parliament should Legitimate these separate Meetings by an Act, they would immediately become parts of the National Church no less than our Parishes, and that would put an end to the Schism; the Evil chargeable upon us any otherwise, being like to be found the Fault of the Persons, not of our meetings, or of the Thing: But so long as they are against Law, it is the Obligation of humane Laws I perceive, and the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion are the points must come into Plea. These have been treated and put together in a Book entitled, Two points of great Moment Discussed. The substance whereof as to my present purpose will resolve into this Distinction.  
Laws which are Wholesome Laws, that is, for the Common Good in Civil's, and for Edification in spirituals, do bind us under Pain of Sin. Such is the law I count for Parochial Union, but there are two Cases wherein we are exempted from such Laws, and which justify the Nonobedience. One is, when that which is commanded is against a man's Conscience. The other is, when that which is commanded cannot be done, but some other Duty which is of greater Concern must be thrust out, and in this Case (I say) the omitting that which is the lesser Duty, is no sin. In this Point, ye see before, I have placed our Apology. I must add, that forasmuch as it is no Sin to omit a lesser Duty for doing a greater, when both cannot be done, but to omit the greater Duty consequently must be sin: it follows, that supposing it to be Schism to refuse Communion, when we may come to Church without sin, it must be no Schism to wave it, or not to come, when if we come we should sin, as we must, when we shall omit a greater Duty by coming. Schism is a Voluntary Departure without cause given from that Christian Church, whereof he was a Member; or a Breach of that Communion wherein a man might have continued without Sin, says that late Author of a Serious and Compassionate Enquiry, into the causes of men's contempt of the Church and the remedies. A Book two fine I count to bear a Dispute, or uphold so large a design he undertakes. I would fain know (says another) by what Authority this separating practice can be justified from the guilt of the most Horrible Schism that ever was heard of in the Christian World. A sober Answer to the new Separatists. Pa. 156. again (Page 157.) Distinguishing of a Voluntary desertion of ones Ministry, and choosing silence in case of Nonconformity. The second (says he) is the Illustration of four Cardinal Virtues, Humility, Meekness, Selfe-denial, Obedience. I cannot but quote these Passages as pleasant to my Humour, nor can I forbear Laughter at the Reading of them. Not because that worthy honest Citizen hath not read Ethics, in calling these Cardinal Vritues, whereof we know indeed there are Four, but neither of these is One of them: But for the Spirit, or present Assurance wherewith he Writes, I could never be so Confident when I wrote against Separation. Nor can I look on this Separation only from the Churches of the Nation, not from Christ's Church or Churches, that is a Schism of man's Denomination (our Parishes being of Humane Contrivance out of Question,) to be such a Horrible Creature as he makes it. The great Bear hath been led so long about the streets that the very Children are no longer afraid of it. Neither can I think it any such Virtue for a man to give over Preaching. I am mightily Flattered methinks in this Passage, who, if this good man be in the right, should be one of the most Virtuous Non-Conformists among all our Brethren. I pray God to for-give me that Virtue with my Manifold Aberations. I declare myself with the Old Nonconformist a Conformist Parishioner, though a Nonconforming Minister, and refuse not to join in the Ordinances of Doctrine, Breaking Bread; and Prayers, in our Parochial Congregations.  
Laws which are not Wholesome Laws, that is, not for the Spiritual or Temporal good of the Community (such as our Ceremonies & the like things I count be) may, I Presume, entangle the Mind and Oblige the outward Man to suffering, or to doing rather then Suffer, if they be not Sinful to us, as well as Unprofitable, but they do not (I have maintained, and must descend still what I have determined as of necessary import to tender Christians) oblige the Conscience of the Subject. And so I descend to my Proper Concernment.  
J. H. s●ith, that unless th● matter of the Princes Command be antecedently necessary in Judgement of the Subject, it obliges not the Conscience. Sir! This is a mistake, I say not so. I say indeed, that unless a Law be for the common Good, it binds not in point of Conscience, and I give these two reasons for it. The one, because the Magistrate hath no Authority from God but for our Weal, nor the Bishop but for our Edification. The other because we are to suppose the Superiors will, or intention, is measured by his Authority: And when the thing commanded is not for our Good or Edification, as it is destitute of God's Authority, it must be supposed void also of his Minister's intention. See my Obligation of humane Laws, Pa. 139. with pa. 25. But that I should be made upon this to hold therefore (and that for a Principle) that the Conscience is only Obliged from the Matter of the thing Commanded, and not from the Command of the Magistrate, is such an abuse and weakness, as the modesty of those Words [You seem to Say] will not excuse. There are a Thousand things good for the Public, which, being not commanded, are not necessary, nor Oblige any Body. The controversy between Conformist and Nonconformist is supposed to be about things indifferent, in which the Conscience is Free, and not Bound, till our Superiors Command comes. It is by the Authority then of our Superior (I say) derived from God, that the Conscience is obliged: Insomuch as that before the Command there is no Obligation: and when he commands, the matter of the command must be such as he hath Power to Command in, or it is void. It is Authoritas imperantis agnita (I have noted it somewhere) is the Objectum formale obedientiae, and answereth the question, Qûare obediss? But I am not ware (saith the kind Dean) That obedience to man in things indifferent is commanded of God in Scripture. Yes! I am ware that Things indifferent (by which we mean whatsoever is neither commanded nor for-bidden in the Word,) are either for the Common good, and so the subject matter of the Superiors Authority, and Obedience to men in such things is commanded by God in Scripture: Or they are not for the common Good, but against it, and in such matters, neither hath the Superior Authority (I say) from God to command them, nor can such commands for that reason be obligatory to the Conscience. But Obedience to them is also required in the Law of Nature for the common Good. How? Is Obedience required by the law of Nature for the common Good, to things which I suppose not for the common Good? Why, It is for the security of the Public peace, and God's own Vicegerency on Earth. I answer, The Honour of the Magistrate, and security of the Government is preserved (and the common good thereby concerned) in our obedience, when the Laws are wholesome Laws; in our suffering, when they are sinful Laws; in our avoiding contempt and scandal, when they are unprofitable Laws; in our subjection to the Authority residing in the Person under all Laws so that when he will, he can enforce them. Upon this account, there is a difference ordinarily between the Command of a Master or Parent, and the Laws of a Nation. A Command to a Child or Servant, does suppose, a do it, or I'll make you. If the Magistrate sets himself to have a Law obeyed by a particular person, the case is the same; and seeing the honour of the Governor and the Government itself is still (I count) concerned in this, that he should be able to make his Subjects obey, if he put his power out, and the thing be no Sin, Obedience being for the common good, in such a case, a man is obliged to it in Conscience: but if he do not, a Law supposes only the common good mainly to be intended, prudence to be used, no contempt offered, and the will of the Magistrate is done. When our Obedience then (I say) does indeed serve those ends he mentions (and greater be not served, or the same otherwise better served) we are obliged: But what if it serves them not? What if my impertinent Obedience shall but disturb the Peace (or the peaceable) and reflect dishonour on the Lawgiver? what if it should do more hurt than good, taking one thing with another? when it is not for the common good, I say, and then only, that we are not obliged in Conscience.  
There are a few more words here needful, because we are at the bottom. How far the Laws of man do bind the Conscience, was the question, That the Conscience is not bound at all by humane Constitutions, hath been the opinion of no few Doctors, nor mean persons: for in the Act for the Wednesday fast, it seems to have been the received judgement at that time of the whole Nation. I say these fasts (or the like appointments) are to be observed, yet shall not the breaking them, make a man to do deadly sin, except in his mind be some other malicious affection therewith annexed, as rashness of mind, despite, or such like; for so much as no positive Law of man made without foundation of Scripture, may bind any person, so that in breaking such he shall therefore sin deadly. John Lambert the Martyr. So Luther, and the Protestants I suppose ordinarily after Gerson. See Downam, see Field. They do impiously Usurp and assume to themselves, that which is proper to God; who will have their Laws bind the Conscience, and threaten Damnation to the Offenders, says that learned Dr for our Currant Doctrine; who does therefore quote also two Papists. Human Laws binds the Conscience not, Ex voluntate Legislatoris, sed ex ipsa legum utilitate & ratione. Stapleton Cont. 5. De pot. Ec circa leges Mor. Quaest. 7. Art. 2. Quamvis peccet quis transgrediendo leges humanas, non tamen ligant conscientiam: patet per simile de praeceptis medicorum, quae despicere quis non potest sine peccato, & tamen non ligant conscientiam. Gerson De vita spir. anim. Lect. 4. If you think this too large, that the Laws of Man, however, should not be made to oblige the Conscience in equality with the Laws of God, is but most reasonable; That they do oblige therefore only so far, as to the avoiding contempt and scandal, hath been our most constant determination (I think) against the Papists. Now I would willingly know here, upon what bottom such a Determination is laid; and that which offers itself, is this. That whereas all Laws do oblige only, but according to the will of the Lawgiver, it is supposed that he intends we should be obliged so far only. But I pray why do we set these limits to his will? why may we not suppose as well, that he intends his obligation with other limits, to wit, that his Laws shall bind us so far, as stands with our convenience; or so far as the hurt or damage to us, does not exceed the good we shall do the Community by our Obedience? If our Superior intends not to bind us so far, as God does by his Laws, but so far as, the supreme Law of Charity requires (See Davinants' Determinations, Quaest. 20. p. 100) why may we not suppose other limits (I say) as well as these mentioned? The truth is, there is no bottom in the business, till we come to that I have laid, which is this, that forasmuch as God hath entrusted no Authority with any to give Laws, but for the People's welfare, and this is the end therefore of all Laws, there are no Men in capacity of Lawgivers (especially a Parliament that represent the Community) but are to be supposed to intend this altogether: and consequently if a Law prove otherwise, or is against the common good, it must be supposed also, that such a Law is devoid of their intention, or is not according to their will, and so does not bind the Conscience, even upon this double ground; both because it is destitute of the Authority it should have from God, and its Authority from the will of Man also, upon the account declared. That the will of the Lawgiver should be measured by his Authority, is but meet (I hope) to be supposed: and this last ground, therefore having been but once touched in my Book before quoted, I do imprint it now more sensibly in this Paper.  
I must confess I have heard it said to me, by One or Two, sometimes thus, When a thing is indeed destructive to the public good, we will grant you what you say; but not so, when a thing is only against it, or not for it. I reply, Sirs! I pray let us come to a bottom, This is not to go to the bottom. Why shall not a command destructive to the common good bind the Conscience? If it be sin to disobey, we must not sin to avoid mischief, we must say therefore it is not sin. And why is it not sin, but because such a Command hath none of God's Authority? I must assume, so hath no Command that is not for the common good; for the Authority that any Man hath from God, is only for our Good, for our Edification. Here is the bottom, if it be firm, it must hold throughout; if not, it must not hold at all. He is the Minister of God for our good. According to the power given to us of God for Edification.  
To the Dean's Texts, I have answered, Subjection is to be owned always out of Conscience. Obedience is supposed to be required in Scripture, in matters wherein the Superior hath Authority, that is, a right from God to Command. Such matters being only what is for the public good, those Laws or Commands which are besides that end, are no Laws or Commands God bids us obey, that is, are in sensu univoco no Laws: and when 〈◊〉 obey in all others, but in those which are Laws only secundum nomen, I do obey him (I count) in all things; because those I disobey, are none secundum nominis rationem.  
It may be perhaps thought upon this, that I should have made a quicker dispatch of my Work than I do, to say that all Laws do indeed bind the Conscience (it is properer to say do bind in Conscience), but such Laws as are not for the common good are no Laws. To which purpose may Cicero and Suarez be consulted. Omnium commune axioma est de ratione & substantia legis esse, ut pro communi bono feratur. Suarez, De legibus l. 1. c. 7. You may find Authorities enough there quoted to read at your leisure. I will transcribe thus much out of Cicero myself. Principem legem mentem esse dicebant omnia ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis dei: ex qua illa lex quam dij humano generi dederunt, recte est laudata. Est enim ratio mensque sapientis ad inbendum & ad deterrendum idonea.— Constat profecto ad salutem civium civitatumque incolumitatem vitamque omnium quietam & beatam conditas esse leges: eosque qui primum ejusmodi scita sanxerunt, populis ostendisse ea se scripturos atque laturos, quibus illi ad scriptis susceptisque honeste beateque viverent: quaeque ita composita sanctaque essent, eas leges videlicet nominarunt. Ex quo intelligi par est, eos qui perniciosa & injusta populis jussa descripserint, cum contra fecerint quam polliciti professique sint, quidvis potius tulisse quam leges. The sum of both comes to this. The chief Law is the Divine reason; The Laws of Men must be agreeable to that; God's Commands are to make Men happy, by living virtuously; men's Laws accordingly, that are not for the People's welfare, are nothing less than what they are called. To these I will join Augustine, Istas leges, injustas vel potius nullas dicemus? Nam mihi lex esse non videtur quae justa non fuerit. August. de lib. arb. l. 1. c. 5. If you ask me then, why I did not go this way, I will tell you, that besides it looks not safe, fit, or civil to say, that any thing which is once passed into an Act of Parliament is no Law, there is a necessity you may perceive here, that we must come to some distinction at last: and I did choose to distinguish of the Obligation, and to show in what sense we are not obliged, rather than of the Law, and to say in what sense, it is no Law. Let Law be defined outright according to these, and, Law is the Declaration of the will of the Lawgiver, what the Subject is to do for the public good. If a Law now be not for the public utility, it is no Law according to this definition; it hath not that in it which is de ratione legis, as the Schools speak. It is a Law therefore in sensu aequivoco which agrees in the name, but not in sensu univoco, which participates of the nature or the definition. To avoid the using these terms therefore, and in regard such an Act is Law still in some sense, in the common sense and Vote of the Nation, and in some respect more than aequivocally so, because proceeding from a rightful Authority, it does in part agree in the definition, as well as in the name, and consequently in part must be Obligatory, it does appear how the distinction does as it were naturally devolve upon the Obligation: and so spares this upon the Law; seeing if we will truly explicate what we mean, when we deny such a Law to be law, this we must say in good earnest, and nothing else is our meaning, that it is a Law so far as to be obeyed for fear of the penalty (for never to resist I count in my Book is still pre-required), but not so far, as that every omission of it is sin, or that we are obliged to it in Conscience. And thus by going the farther way about, we are but brought the nearer home to the true decision we intend. Only one thing I find wanting yet in the explanation of the terms of this distinction I use between the Outward Man and the Conscience. I have been at a good deal of pains to make those received terms currant (Compare my Obligation of human Laws p. 24. with my Authority of the Magistrate p. 50.) and all I see will not serve till I distinguish also of Conscience itself, which is taken Physically or Theologically. Conscience Naturally taken is any knowledge of myself or my concernments: Conscience taken Theologically is the knowledge of what I have to do with Reference to the will and judgement of God, Judicium de semet ipso prout subjicitur judicio dei. When Divines in this point therefore do distinguish the Outward Man and the Conscience, by the Conscience we must understand Conscience in the Theological sense only. That is, we Separate not ●he Reason, Will, Understanding, or Natural Conscience itself from the Outward Man, but Conscience only Theologically taken. And the Meaning is plainly, that though a Man in Reason understands, and is Conscious in regard to his own concernment, that such a Law is to be Observed, if he will avoid this or that Penalty or Inconvenience: Yet so long as he Believes God does not Command him to do it, and that he shall incur no Displeasure from him though he omits it, this is to be Obliged in the Outward Man only, and not in Conscience; or ●n the Conscience taken Naturally, not Theologically in Conscience.  
After I had wrote this and all the rest, (only something I hereupon inserted before), I had Dr. Field on the Church accidentaly brought me. It was many years since I read him, and I had forgot every thing in him on this Subject but only his Distinction between Subjection and Obedience which I like, and ever retained. I am well pleased to find my genius agreeing so much as it does with one of so great Note and Learning; especially seeing that Tenet which Dean F. opposes as mine is that alone in effect wherein our Sentiments meet not. You say (says Dean F.) when a thing is Commanded of God, or we think it tends to the Public good, then only Conscience is Obliged: But this Obligation is only from the necessity of the thing Commanded, & because you approve it to be a Duty before, and consequently in Obedience to your own Reason, and not at all out of Conscience of the Command, or in Obedience to the King. Well! Let us then hear Dr. Field, a greater Dean, deliver his judgement: Which I will set down in his words at large for the Readers Edification.  
The question should not be proposed, whether Humane Laws bind the Conscience (This he takes up in the Negative as not to be questioned): but whether binding the outward Man to the performance of outward things by force and fear of outward Punishment to be inflicted by men, the not performance of such things, (or the not performance of them with such affections as were fit) be not a Sin against God of which the Conscience will accuse us, he having Commanded us to Obey the Magistrates and Rulers he hath set over us! For answer hereunto, there are three sorts of things (says he) Commanded by Magistrates. First, Evil and against God. Secondly Injurious in respect of them to whom they are Prescribed, or at least Unprofitable to the Commonwealth in which they are Prescribed. Thirdly, such as are Profitable and Beneficial to the Society of Men to whom they are Prescribed. Touching the First Sort of things, We must not Obey. Touching the second Sort of things, all that God requireth of us is that we show no contempt of Sacred Authority though not rightly used, that we Scandalise not others, and that we he Subject to such Penalties, as they that Command such things do lay upon us. In the Third Sort of things, it is only that God requires our Willing and ready Obedience. The Breach and Violation of this kind of Laws is Sin, not for that humane Laws have Power to Bind the Conscience, or that it is simply and absolutely sinful to break them, but because the things they Command are of that Nature that not to perform them, is contrary to Justice, Charity, and the desire we should have to procure the Common-Good of them with whom we Live. We are bound then sometimes to the Performance of things prescribed by Humane Laws in such Sort that the not Performance of them is Sin; not ex sola Legislatoris voluntate, sed ex ipsa legum utilitate, as Stapleton Rightly observed. But some Man will say, what do the Laws then effect seeing it is the Law of Justice, and Charity that doth bind us, and not the Particularity of Laws newly Made! To this we answer that many things are God and Profitable, if they be generally Observed, which without such general Observation will do no Good. The Law procureth a general Observation. Bellarmine objects, Be subject for Conscience Sake. To this we answer. First. That it is a matter of Conscience to be Subject in all things, for Subjection is required Generally and Absolutely where Obedience is Not. Secondly. We say that it is a matter of Conscience to Seek and Procure the Good of the Commonwealth, and that therefore it is a matter of Conscience to obey Good and Profitable Laws, so far as we are persuaded our Obedience is profitable. Moreover, General and Long continued Disuse is, and Justly may be thought an Abolishing, and Abrogating of Humane Laws. For seeing Lex institutitur cum promulgatur, vigorem habet cum moribus utentium approbatur. On the Church Pag. 4. l. 34.  
I must remember my Antogonist to take Notice that What he goes to oppose in me as some singular Opinion of mine, which yet is not mine, but he mistakes me in it, is Presented by this Great Dr. of the Church as the received Doctrine of Protestants: As also, that the Doctrine which in deed is mine, & this Dr agrees so much with me, does require his better Consideration.  
J. H's. Second Principle is that Human Powers may not lawfully Command or Enforce any thing against the Conscience, even in Civil Concerns. He should have said in things that are materially Civil, yet under some Consideration unto some Religious. What the Magistrate cannot Command (I say indeed) he cannot Enforce. The Magistrate cannot Command what God forbids. God forbids every Man to do any thing against his Conscience. And what hath any Mortal to oppose against this? Why, he has one Argument only, which he takes from my Concession, in the stating my Matter. I Distinguish between a Man's doing according to his Conscience, and his doing against It; and of Restraint and Constraint accordingly in the Magistrate. I grant that the Magistrate may Restrain a man from doing according to his Conscience when he is doing hurt to Church or State through his error, and may Punish him for the Evil he does: He argues from hence that he may Constrain him to do that which is Good for the Church or State, though it be against his Conscience, upon the same account. But I say, not. There is a Difference. I give my Reason. Because in the one, the Man does what God would not have him: In the other, he does what God would have. God would not have him to do Evil, because of his erroneous Conscience, but that he should lay down his Error and do Good: But God will have every Man so to regard his Conscience though Eerroneous, that he must not do any thing against it, for any Fear, or Advantage in 〈◊〉 Eaerth. Author. of the Mag. Pag. 12●…. And what answer makes he to this Reason! Why not a word. So overly a●… men ordinarily to speak at the first sight against that, which others have thought long upon. The substance of the Distinction, and so of my Detemination, I cited out of Augustine, and confirmed it with Grotius his Approbation. I might add to them the Learned Rutherford, who are Judicious mighty Men all three, but this Gentle Dean hath not Pondered the Matter. For thus he proceeds. The Law of God is the Rule of Conscience. This Law is Negative as well as Affirmative, and binds the Conscience equally in both respects. So far we are Agreed. Hold Sir! A mistake again. He forgets the known Rule in the Schools, that Affirmations bind Semper, not ad Semper, not to all times, or in all Cases: but Negatives do bind Semper and ad Semper, always, and against all Exceptions. He remembers not himself therefore, when he says they Bind equally, and so thinks not how the Decision of the Point must resolve into this Issue. In the affirmative Case I say it is true, that God requires the Man to lay down his Error, and not to do the thing, and therefore the Magistrate may Restrain, or Punish him: In the Negative case he urges likewise, God commands him the Same as to laying down his Error, and to do the thing, and therefore he may Constrain or make him. But I reply no still, the difference remains. Though in the Negative case (that is, when the Conscience which is Erroneous says they must not do such a thing) God requires this Jointly, to lay down his Erroneous Conscience (or be otherwise informed), and to do the thing, yet does not he require this Separately, that while he is so informed, he should do it: When in the affirmative Case (that is when the Conscience which is erroneous, says thou must do such or such a thing) God requires he should lay down his Error & not do the thing both Jointly and Separately; so that even while he is Persuaded in his Conscience that it is his Duty, God's Negative Command is Obligatory against that Persuasion. The reason is from what is Said, because Affirmatives do not bind ad Semper, or in all Cases, but Negatives do. This is one of those Cases. Thou shalt not do against thy Conscience, is a Negative Indispensable: Thou shalt do according to it, holds not in this Case, when the Conscience is in an Error.  
I will conclude with the History of this little I have written. There is a Book called the Friendly Debate, which when it came out was received every where with diversity of acceptation, and censure. There are many things in it I am persuaded in my heart fit to be spoken: yet do I not know, nor the Author himself perhaps know from what manner of Spirit they are spoken. It is in appearance a Spirit elated, contemptuous, engaged (if not imbitterd) against a party, and so far un-Catholick, which does through the sides of that party oftentimes make Religion herself feel, entrenching upon it almost all the way, in regard to those weaknesses and follies which Human reason is ever ready to impute to it. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the World to confound the Wise: and the things that are despised hath he chosen. Among other matters against the Non-Conformists, that Author brings this, that they observe not the Laws, the Oxford Act, and others, and that therefore they cannot be good Subjects, nor good Christians, nor Ministers of Christ. A heavy charge, and a necessary case of Conscience! Upon this occasion I presented to the public a sheet called the Case under this Title. Whether a Nonconformist who hath not taken the Oxford Oath, might come to live at London,, or any Corporate Town, or within Five miles of it, and yet be a good Christian? To this Sheet the Author was pleased to give me an Answer. That Answer drew me forth to write my Book by way of reply, of the Obligation of human Laws. To this reply the learned Debater answered no more. After the Debate, another piece comes forth of Ecclesiastical Polity, exceeding the former both in Pomp and Design, in Lustre and the Attempt; that was for asserting an Authority in the Magistrate over the Conscience to end all Disputes, which being a thing not to be endured, though but in the matter of Conformity, as the Author I think only meant, I wrote also my other Book, of the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion. Unto this Book I had no answer from that Author neither: Only having caused those few Copies which were left of the Obligation in Quires to be Bound up with this, and Printing so many on purpose of the Sheet called The Case over again, to fit and join to both, and then Entitled it, Two points of great moment Discussed, I do observe that it hath pleased this Reverend Dean to step in with these Two exceptions of his, which I have answered: and one thing more in the close must not pass unregarded, which he brings in under the head of the former of the Two.  
This Obligation (of I. H.) is only from necessity of the thing commanded. But in all other cases you need not obey only for wrath's sake, that is, no farther than you are forced; and therefore when you are got above fears you will not, or need not, regard Authority. This principle will hardly prove the Non-Conformists the only Loyalists. Besides the mistake before noted. It is nothing but want of the present knowledge, in this Dr as it was in the Debater, of the distinction I offered them out of Dr Field, between Subjection and Obedience, or the sense of it, that made them fall into so slender sort of reasoning, as this is. Though there be many cases, wherein we are not bound in Conscience to Obey: yet are we always bound in Conscience to be Subject, or never to Resist, and upon that ground is our Loyalty maintained. This I have said, I know most effectually in my first Book of the Two Points, unto which, therefore, when that which is brought to its Assistance in the Second, and this little in these Two Sheets now more is added (which I would by no means have those, who have the other be without), there is nothing besides, as I can find in my mind (unless to tell the Reader, lest he be at a loss, that there are a few of these Two Points so bound up, yet to be had, at the Golden Lion in Paul's- Churchyard) that is lacking to my full satisfaction on those Subjects,  
Vale Lector & fruere Deo gloria. I. H.