Jerub-baal, OR THE Pleader impleaded.  
BEING An Answer to Mr. crofton's (lately published) Plea for Communion with the Church under her present Corruptions, etc. Entitled Reformation not Separation.  
By way of humble Remonstrance thereunto.  
SHOWING, That Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, in those that (yet) join with her in the substantial Ordinances and instituted Worship of Christ, is no Schism, and that Such are unjustly called Separatists.  
In a Letter written by T. P. for the private satisfaction of a Friend, and by him published for Common benefit.  In cujus perniciem aliquando convenimus? hoc sumus congregati quod et dispersi, hoc universi quod et singuli, neminem laedentes, neminem contristantes. Tertul. Apolog. adversus Gent. 
LONDON; Printed in the Year 1662.   

A Letter Written by T. P. for the satisfaction of a Friend, in case of Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer.  
Honoured Sir;  
SChism being a dissolution and breach of Union, 'twill not be amiss, if for the better understanding of the nature of the Schism in question, we make some enquiry into that Church-Vnion whereof it is a breach: Now, from the distinct notions and acceptions of the Church, the nature of Church-Vnion will best appear.  
The Church of Christ, (even that which is Militant (for the Triumphant comes not here to be considered) is usually distinguished into 

1. Catholic.  
2. Particular.    
The Catholic Church again, into 

1. Visible.  
2. Invisible.    
1. The Catholic Visible Church is the Universality of Persons called by the Word into External Fellowship with Christ, and Communion amongst themselves, professing the true Religion, the Faith, Doctrine, and Worship of Christ throughout the world; called Visible in respect of Outward Administration and Profession.  
2. The Catholick-Invisible Church is the Collective Body of the truly Faithful, the complete Quorum of the Elect, God's Chosen ones, called out of the whole World of Mankind, into an intimate Union with Christ, and Communion one with another, not only externally by the Word, but effectually and internally by God's holy Spirit; called Invisible, no● quá Men, but quá Elect, the Man is seen, but not the Christian: The Lord (only) knoweth them that are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. The Church-Catholick is under both those considerations, called the Mystical Body of Christ, viz. 1. By League & Outward Profession under the former; 2. By true Faith and real Possession under the latter: Christ is a Common Head both to the one, and to the other.  
2. A Particular Church is a Society or Societies of Persons called to the participation of, and subjected to the Ordinances and instituted worship of Christ, under certain external Rules accommodated for Local joint-communion therein, in a particular place: Such are the English, French, Dutch Churches, and such like, including Parochial Distributions and Congregations as the Church Catholic includes them, viz. as a totum Integrale, or Vniversale, so as that nec totum recte de una praedicetur, nec una totum sibi vindicare possit, saith Junius, lib. de Ecclesia; though the Papists make a kind of Monopoly of their Romish Church, obtruding it for a Catholic, yea, the only Catholic Church in the World; and thus by a cursed Sacrilege impropriate (as I may say) the Church of Christ.  
This Distinct Notion of the Church, ariseth from the diversified Nature of her Members (the Constitutive Matter thereof) who may be considered, either 1. as Professors of the Faith of Christ, in obedience to an Externall Call by the Word; those constitute the Church Catholick-Visible: or 2. as Possessors of Christ by Faith (true Believers) in Obedience to an Internal Call by the Spirit; those constitute the Church Catholick-Invisible; or 3. as Partakers of the same Ordinances and instituted worship of Christ, in a particular place, in Obedience to a Providential Call, and in answer to an Opportunity serving thereunto; those constitute a Particular Church, so that the same Persons may be Members of the Church under that threefold consideration at once.  
Church-Vnion then must be threefold, or considerable under a threefold Notion.  
1. The First is the Union of the Members of the Church Catholick-Invisible, with Christ, and their Communion amongst themselves, wherein they are, through the Inhabitation and Indwelling of the same Holy Spirit in all, and by virtue of a true Faith, jointly incorporated into Christ, and concorporated one with another; as Fellow-Members of the same Select Fraternity, the Son of God having assumed their Persons into a Mystical, as well as their Nature into a Personal Union with himself.  
Now Sir, This Union admits of no breach, Christ and his Elect Members (the true Branches of that true Vine) are inseparably conjoined; their Persons (as well as their Nature) are eternally matched and married to Christ; the Mystical Union of the one, is indissoluble, as well as the Personal Union of the other with him. There is no fear of a divorce here; neither can the Body be severed from the Head, nor any one Member from the Body: the Members may quarrel (an Israelite with an Israelite) thus we read that Paul and Barnabas did contest and contend so fiercely, that their Paroxysm of strife ended in Separation, Act. 15.39. Yea, they may join to their breach of Society, a breach of Charity in some degree; but neither is the one nor the other a dissolution of that Internal Union whereby the truly Faithful are coupled together, one with another, and all of them jointly with their Common Head, Christ. The Vinculum Vnionis, the Conjugal-Vnion-Knot (viz: true Faith, or the spirit of grace in the Faithful) being altogether inviolable. The Holy Ghost is the Fountain-Radical of Faith, (as of all other Graces) and therefore of this Communion. One Spirit quickening & influencing both Head and Members in the Mystical, as one Soul conveys life and sense to all the Members of the Natural Body, (and hence 'tis I conceive, that Christ and Believers are said to be, not One Body only, but One Spirit (viz: in Esse Mystico) 1 Cor. 6.17.) Now this same Spirit may suspend his influences, viz: Comfortable and Augmentative, not Vital (as in the dark and solitary days of soule-desertion) and Faith may in such a case be much weakened and impaired, (viz: in its Graduals) but True Faith being the Seed of God (1 John 3.9.) is, in Esse vitali, as to its Truth and Nature (intrinsically) permanent, an irreradicable principle, Perseverance and indeficiency being its Genuine property, as well as Christ's purchase, Luke 22.32. there is a kind of Immortality in it; So that, as there is a weakness in the strongest Faith, so there is truth in the weakest; now this Union depends not upon the strength, but upon the truth of Faith; and not upon the Gradual Communications, but upon the Radical Inhabitation of the Spirit: Such a suspension then, is unfitly termed a separation, (David lost Comfort, but not the Comforter, Psal. 51.11, 12.) or if we grant (with some) that it is (a breach in tantum, though not in totum) a breach in, yet 'tis no interruption or breach of, Union, but rather a temporary intermission of (Comfortable) Communion. What though the Trees of Righteousness have their Autumn-season, their fall of the leaf (the trees of the Vineyard, as well as those of the Forest)? There is still an Indeficient principle of life in them, by virtue of their incision and ingrasture into their Common Root, Christ, the Tree of Life. This is both defensive and offensive Armour against our Arminian Adversaries, who daringly assert a Schism and Separation here, de possibilis; that is, that 'tis possible for the truly Faithful, totally and finally to apostatise from Christ, and thus, of true Converts, to become very Castaways; sad doctrine Might we receive what they obtrude for Orthodoxy, verily we might betake ourselves to our pen, and write our faith vain, all our prayers lost, and ourselves of all men most miserable. If the foundation be destroyed, what can the Righteous do? But now here is the Believers Fort-Royal, namely his Inviolable Conjunction with his Living Head, Christ; this is an impregnable bottom of Saint-stability, ground of Christian-perseverance, and guard against their total-final Apostasy: Quatenus unimur, munimur, this Unity is our Safety. By virtue of this (to speak a big word) the State of grace is equally safe, (though not equally comfortable) with the State of glory; and the Spiritual State of the weakest, equally safe (though not equally comfortable) with that of the strongest Believer; salvation being annexed to a Real Union with Christ, which is grounded on the truth of Faith, not to comfortable Communion with him, which ordinarily attends the raised degrees, and strength of Faith. Conclude we then all the Members (yea the very meanest) of the Church Invisible to be (in this sense) Invincible; 
Obeunt non pereunt,  die they must, perish they shall not, cannot,— None of them is lost.  
The second is that Union and Communion wherein all the Members of the Church- Catholick-Visible, the Professors of the true Religion, throughout the world, are by virtue of their Common Profession of One Lord, One Faith, 
Eph: 4.5.  One Baptism, Gospel-doctrine, and worship, united amongst themselves, and jointly concorporated with Christ, as One Entire Body Catholic. Now to apply this to our purpose:  
1. The Union that is between Christ and the Catholic Visible-Church, considered as a Collective Body of Professors, is also un-interruptible, admits of no breach: She (in this sense) can neither, by Universal Apostasy, fall off, nor by any Violence, be broken off from her Common Head, Christ. True, The Church hath her Moon-like waxings and weanings, gradual though not substantial Changes. ZIONS' Sun hath his Apogaeums, and Perigaeums: The Waters of the Sanctuary, their Reciprocations, they (often) ebb as well as flow; The Church's Glory is frequently (what by Intestine Corruptions and Divisions, what by foreign Combinations against her, and Torrents of persecution) clouded and eclipsed, insomuch that an ICHABOD might often seem, best to become her whom (yet) her Lord hath dignified with this title of honour, Christ-Mystical.  
But the Light of the Church (though often eclipsed) was never as yet extinguished; being continually renewed by the Auxiliary influences of the great Sun of Righteousness. The Truth hath in no age wanted either Patron or Proselyte. The Visible Church surely was very Consumptive when the whole Body seemed to be contracted to one Member, abridged in a single Elijah (that second Jerub-baal, a Champion-Zealot for the Truth) and yet even then were there no less than 7000 Non-Conformists in Israel, 1 King 19.10.14.18. God had got their Hearts, and now Baal shall not so much as have a knee. Reflect we upon the Primitive Churches Sanguine Complexion under the Tyranny and ten Persecutions of the Heathenish Heroes, when the whole earth was 
* Aug. in Psa. 118. Vid. Corn. Tacit. Lib. 5. Annal. Tertul. Apolog. advers. Gent.  purpled and scarleted with Martyr-blood: when the very name of Christian was a Crime, when he that professed himself a Christian died by a Sanguinary Law enacted to that purpose, without either self-defence or conviction; when thousands were dispatched being nominis tantum et sectae rei, guilty of a mere name (Christian). When Dioclesian that Infernal Wolf, (having upon a Hell-devised Oracle or Prophecy, viz: That if the Christians were but once cut off, the Roman Empire would wonderfully flourish) caused no less than 17000 to be massacred in one month) did most wickedly boast De delet● nomine Christiano, That he had everlastingly razed out of memory, and utterly abolished the very name of a Christian; yet could not the sword of violence ever intersect the line of Church-Succession; yea the more they were mowed down, the more they multiplied; Plures efficimur, quoties metimur, saith that Christian-Mecaenas, 
* Apolog. adver. Geut.  Tertullian. Again, who could have expected any to have appeared for the patronage of the Truth, under the Torrid Zone of Antichristian persecution? and yet behold even then, hath Christ his two Witnesses, Rev. 11. Two. though, but two; though the least number, yet a number; though a small, yet a competent number; a Quorum of Witnesses, by whose testimony the opposed Truth should be protected and established; so impossible a thing it is that Christ should ever be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a Witness. Call we to mind Modern Persecutors, That English Lioness Q. M. with her Wolf and Leopard, Brethren in iniquity; Bloody Charis the fifth, and the Duke of Alva, both which died their souls red with blood, they having destroyed, of Protestants, the one 50000 in the Low Countries, the other 18000 in Belgia in six years' time; the French Massacre Anno 1572. Even all the conflicts between the seed of the Woman, and the seed of the Serpent, since the quarrel was first begun in Paradise, which hath been fiercely pursued well nigh six thousand years: All that time hath God uninterruptedly maintained a continued Series and Succession of Persons, (notwithstanding Captivities and hostile Cruelties) Patriarches, Prophets, and all the Old-Testament-Professors; Apostles, Fathers, Counsels, Confessors, Martyrs, and all New-Testament-Saints; in and by whom the true Religion, hath been professed, preserved, and (successively though not always very successfully) propagated, kept by some, guarded by others, and (through good providence) transmitted, by all to us. 
Isa. 53.10.  'Tis impossible that Christ should want a Seed (a Church) or that Church, a Guardian and defender of the Faith: For the Church to be Christlesse, and for Christ to be Church-lesse, are equal impossibilities. The Church Militant is Christ's Sublunary Kingdom, which admits of no Interregna, or Vacancy: There is in her (though not an Infallibility) yet an Indeficiency; Subject she is to Corruption within, but not to Interruption; to Obstruction from without, but not to destruction. She is a house built upon a Rock, Mat. 16.18. and this Rock is Christ, (the Foundation, as well as Founder of his Church,) therefore she must needs be Impregnable and Invincible;— The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her: A promise ever made good to the Whole Body of the Catholick-Visible, as it is to every Individual Member of the Catholick-Invisible-Church.  
2. That the Union which is between Christ and Particular Visible Professors and Churches, (parts of the Church Catholick-Visible) may be broken and interrupted, is a truth that hath been verified in many sad experiences; forasmuch as all are not Israel, that are called Israel: Many Particular Churches and Counsels (however our Neighbours in the Church of Rome amongst the rest of their Romish strange-fire, ascribe an Infallibility and unerring Quality to them, yet) are known to have so far degenerated as to become instead of Churches of Christ, Synagogues of Satan; witness the Churches of Asia (which (though once recorded for Golden Candlesticks, Rev. 2. yet) are at this day the Receptacles of Mahometan Idolatry) Judea (that degenerate Vine) Rome (that Adulterate See) etc. But this is not only Schism, but Apostasy, being a degeneracy from the true Catholick-Apostolick Faith, and a Separation from, or, not holding of the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God, (Col. 2.19.) which is inconsistent, not only with the Unity, but with the Verity and very Being of a (true) Church; whence those Churches are deservedly called Apostatical, as well as Schismatical, and Renegadoes or Fugitives from the Faith of Christ, such as Parphyrie, Julian, miserable Spira, and such like (who have of Visible and Professed Members of the Body, become Enemies to the Head, some of them turning open Persecutors of that Faith whereof they were once Professors) are not barely called Separatists, but branded for cursed Apostates.  
3. The Communion wherein the Members of this great Corporation the Church Catholick-Visible are by virtue of their Common Profession of the true Religion, and Faith of Christ, united one with another, is subject to a twofold Schism or breach; viz: 1. A breach in the Church, and 2. A breach from the Church: The first consists in Intestine Divisions and differences, either 1. in point of Judgement, and that (principally) about matters either of Discipline or Worship (if the Error be in a point fundamental or incorrigibly persisted in, it is then Heresy, which St. Augustine calls Schisma inveteratum); or else 2. in point of Charity and Christian Love. The second consists in a degeneracy from the true Religien, and a voluntary relinquishing of a Church-state but this is (as I have said above of not holding of the Head) not Schism only, but Apostasy, a Cat holick and Universal Separation; for one that thus relinquisheth Christ's Body-Catholick, separates from it, Tanquam Membrum ab Integro, as a Member from the Whole; now as a Leg or Arm, when lost, ceaseth to be a member of the body Natural, to which it was united, even so a Professor thus degenerated, ceaseth, In statu quo, (without recovery by repentance) to be a Member of this Body Mystical. Whereas many are most justly condemned for Separatists (I shall not need to name any) who (yet) while they hold the Head, and professedly own the Catholick-Apostolick Faith of Christ, cannot be disowned for Members of the Body, Branches in the Vine, Part of the Mystical Building, the Church Catholick-Visible: Church-Communion is distinguishable into 

1. Real.  
2. Pesonal.    
There is a Real Community, and a Personal Society: now though those Separatists refuse, by way of Personal Association to communicate with that Church from which they separate, yet they continue a Real Saint-Communion and Fellowship with her in the Enjoyment of the same (Objective) Ordinances; Prayer, Word, and Sacraments, and therefore notwithstanding their Separation from a Particular, they cease not to be Members of the Catholic Church; Real Community being maintained, though Personal Society be (unjustly) denied.  
The Third Church-Vnion is that Social-Local-Joynt-Fellowship, wherein the Members of a Particular Church are united one with another, not only by the Profession of the same Faith and Religion (all the Members of the Catholic and Universal Church are thus united) but in the participation of the same Ordinances, Administrations, and instituted worship of Christ, in a particular place, where there is fitting opportunity of executing, and yielding due observance to Rules of joint-communion; which is not a thing possible for the Universal Church, now, through numerosity and multitude; though once it was, viz: when the whole Catholick-Christian Church consisted of about but 120. Members in all, Act. 1.15. Now  
This Comunion may admit of a twofold breach, viz. 1. Schism in the Church, 2. Separation from the Church (as the breach in the Church- Catholic before): The first is a breach either 1. in point of Judgement and Opinion; or 2. in point of Charity and Christian Affection, (the too too frequent issue and result of the other) 'tis chiefly the former (I presume) that Sr. Augustine calls Dissidium Congregationis, Church-dissention; the latter he calls Odium Fraternum, Brother-hatred and disaffection; both sad Church-Rents: What, when Lot and Abraham (Brethren) are at strife, when Brethren fall out by the way!  
Separation from the Church, is either 

1. Partial.  
2. Total.  
1. Negative.  
2. Positive.    
1. A Partial Separation; when we decline Communion with the Church in some Ordinances, but join with her in others; as in Prayer, but not in hearing of the Word, or in both those, but not in the Saerament. 2. A Total Separation is an Universal declension of Communion with a Church in every Ordinance.  
1. Negative Separation; when we withdraw from Communion with some Church, not joining with any other, but continuing in hopes and expectation of the happy amendment of that Church from which we withdraw, with a purpose of returning to her when reform. 2 Positive Separation; when we do not only decline Communion with a Church, but divide into several Parties, Combinations, and new Conventions, as (probably) 'twas amongst the Corinthians; One saying I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollo; a third, I am of Cephas, etc. (1 Cor. 1.12.) embodying in several churchways, setting up Altar against Altar, and Threshold against Threshold.  
Separation from the Church, may be Culpable or Inculpable, Lawful or Unlawful (and that more or less) according to its Grounds and Causes: Now the only lawful Grounds or Causes of a Total-Positive Separation, are usually reckoned three, viz.  

1. Intolerable Persecution from Persons.  
2. Damnable Heresy in point of Doctrine.  
3. Gross Idolatry in point of Worship.   
These are the Grounds of our just Departure from the Tyrannical, Heretical, Idololatrical, Church of Rome: O happy Divorce! may the Lord perpetuate it! that we may never say a Confederacy to her again, 
Isa. 8.12.  but upon Gods own Terms of Accommodation,— Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them, Jer. 15.19. Again, when the Corruptions of a Church are such, as that one cannot communicate with her without sin avoidable; That seems to me, to be a just ground, though not of Positive, yet of Negative, though not of Total, yet of Partial, Separation; and Non-Communion in such a case, can be no sin, therefore no Schism. How can Non-Communion be sin, there, where one cannot communicate without sin? unless men will impose or suffer to be imposed upon themselves, a Necessity of sinning; that which true Piety abhors. I am not alone here, or without the suffrage of the sober-Learned, (a sufficient protection against the brand of Novelty) who say that if a Church be either no true Church, 
See Dr. Cawdrey, in his Treatise Entitled, Independency a great Schism.  or so extremely corrupted, that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it, without sin; Separation in that case is no Schism; but they are the Schismatics that give the Cause of that Separation: Then let the World Judge who in England may most deservedly be branded for Schismatics.  
On the Contrary, Culpable, Faulty, and sinful Separation from the Church (the Schism in question) is (as I think it is generally described) a Causeless Separation from Communion with, and participation of Christ's instituted Worship in, a true Church.  
Sir, This premised, we shall easily discover what Church-breach, Schism, or Separation, it is, that Mr. Crofton chargeth upon those in the Church of England, (and amongst those myself) who under the present Providence (though they join with her in the Instituted Worship, and Substantial Ordinances of Jesus Christ, therein administered by, as Prayer, Hearing of i Word Preached, Singing of Psalms, etc. yet) do not, cannot, communicate with her, in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer; as being guilty of a sinful Practice, etc.  
1. 'Tis not a breach of the first Union, viz. That wherein the Elect, God's Chosen Ones, are by a true Faith or the Spirit of Faith un-interruptedly indwelling in them, conjoined one with another, and all of them with their Public Head, Christ; for this (as is declared) is an utter Impossibility; which none but an Arminian Spirit will deny.  
2. 'Tis not a Breach of Communion with the Catholick-Visible Church, and her Common Head, Christ, by virtue of Outward Profession, (which is called a Catholic and Universal Separation); for this were not only Schism but Apostasy, (as hath been said) not only a Breach of Church-Vnity but a Voluntary forfeiture of a Church-State; an Imputation which my Creed will acquit me from; while I professedly own the true Catholic Doctrine of Christ and 〈◊〉 Apostles, the Orthodox Fathers, Counsels, Confessors, Martyrs in all Ages, and the Reformed Churches.  
3. 'Tis not a Breach in the Church; either, 1. in point of Judgement and Opinion; nor 2. in point of Charity and Affection. 1. Not in point of Judgement and Opinion; for, as for Erroneous Principles, according to that light God hath given me, I abhor them: Church-rending Divisions, I shall not willingly or wittingly be accessary to; never forgetting (what Luther said of Caspar Schwenckfield) that Church-Incendiaries may kindle a fire here, which may burn themselves to all eternity, hereafter; But if a Dissent in Judgement about matters of Worship or Discipline (yea and (perchance) in Doctrinal points too, at least Nonfundamentals) from our present Church-Pilots, be a Schism, I shall not busy myself about either Vindication or Excuse, under the Censure; but sure I am, either Mr. Crofton himself is in this sense a Schismatic, or else justly may he be branded for an Apostate. 2. Nor in point of Charity and Christian Affection: Mr. Crofton is no competent Arbitrator in that case; God himself is best able to judge, who at this day walks charitably, who not: for my own part, I have Charity for all Church-Members, (understand their Persons, not their Corruptions); The Law of Piety, and the Law of Charity God himself hath married together, and whom God hath joined, let no man separate.  
4. The Breach or Schism (then) charged, must be a Separation from the Church of England; not 1, Total, since I communicate with her in those Parts of Christ's instituted Worship and Ordinances, Prayer, Hearing, etc. Nor 2. Positive, whilst I turn not Conventicler, and embody not into a Party or Convention set up against her, Altar against Altar, Threshold against Threshold, etc. But 1. Partial, and 2. Negative, viz: mere Non-Communion with her in her Liturgy or stinted and Set-Forms of Common-Prayer. This is the Schism and Separation charged, This is the Crime and great Article of Endictment. What, and is Mr. Crofton turned Accuser of the Brethren?  
Sir, Two Things I equally dislike, Separation on the one hand, and Superstition on the other, (and what sober Christian will not?) they being destructive, the one to the Unity, the other to the Purity of the Church) and the latter not more than the former, (understand I pray you sinful Separaiotn); Schism in the Church, is a Rent and Wound in Christ's Body, a Crucifying afresh of the Son of God: The Schismatical Rending of the Church by Anabaptists, and such like fanatics in Germany, cost Zealous Luther no little grief and lamentation. God forgive those who are known to have been too too guilty of such Sectarian-Cruelty here at home: 
1 Cor. 1.13. Zech. 13.6.  Is Christ divided? was a sad Interrogatory: What, Christ wounded in the house of his friends! that's sad! The Voluntary Rending of Christ-Mystical is a sin, nothing inferior (in my mind) to that of the Jews Crucifying of Christ Personal, forasmuch as that it reacheth both Head and Members.  
That than which inclineth me to this attempt is, not Consciousness to myself of any Schism or (sinful) Separation (though I perceive you are ready to espouse mine Acculers quarrel in case of non-satisfaction to your enforced request) but the prevalent sense as well of your importunity, as of mine own innocency.  
This Epistle (possibly) may seem to be with the City of Myndus, liable to upbraiding, the Porch being too big, but neither is the premised Introduction larger, nor the subsequent discourse more brief, than (I judged) expedient.  
Mr. Croftons' Grounds and Reasons, urged for Communion with the Church of England in all Acts of worship (and consequently in Common-Prayer) therein administered by; and against Separation or withdrawment from the same; are all reduced to four Positions, or Argumentative Propositions; from which (Premises) he infers, partly the Lawfulness, partly the Expediency, and partly the indispensable Necessity of the former, as the sinfulness and unwarrantableness, (the Schism) of the latter: And those Positions he calls CONSIDERATIONS, which come now to be considered.  
CONSID. 1. 
Page 4.  Communion with the Church-Visible in all the Acts (I had rather say Parts) of Solemn Public Worship, is an Essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Lords day, and positive indispensable duty of every particular soul, called by the name of God, to be only superseded by a real inevitable necessity, with assurance to any, that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. This is the Major-Proposition of Mr. Croftons' great Doom-Argument. The Assumption must be this.  
But Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer (commonly called, Divine Service) is Communion with the Church-Visible, in Solemn and Public Worship: and then the Conclusion must be,  
Therefore Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, is an Essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Lords day, and a positive indispensable duty, etc. and by consequence Non-Communion, etc. must be a breach of duty, and therefore, a sin, viz: SCHISM.  
REMONS. Honoured Friend, My Answer to this, shall be threefold. Viz: 

1. By way of Concession.  
2. By way of Distinction.  
3. By way of Retortion.    
1. By way of Concession.  
That the Church of England (That is the Community of Christians in this Nation, concorporated by Baptism, professing the true God and Jesus Christ, and subjected to the Word and Sacraments, etc.) is a true Church, cannot in justice be denied; Her Primitive Constitution being by History (Times Index, and our best Intelligencer touching Antiquity) known to have been Apostolical, administers to me no occasion of doubt in the thing: But whoever were the Seminary Founders thereof, (whether Simon Zelotes, or Joseph of Arimathea (Christ's Immediate Emissaries) or Aristobolus, or Augustine the Monk,) 'tis not matter of Faith; only let none despise-his Birthright, as Esau did his. O what a happiness is it that our Native Land should be a (thus) Consecrated Soil; and that we should be by birth (in this respect) Sons of the Church, (Visible Church Members:) The Inroads of Popery into this Island, since the Sun of Righteousness first risen herein, have been both various and violent, (and what they may further be, God knows) but God hath safe-kept his English-Ark in the midst of that Deluge; the Rock of Ages, hath hitherto been her Ararat; By no Antichristian Inundations, was she ever as yet (totally) overwhelmed; Popery spoiled her Beauty, but did not destroy her Being.  
Mr. Crofton turning Confessor, hath acknowledged this Churches (present) Corruptions as well in Things (viz: Worship and Ordinances therein administrable by) as in Persons, both Ministers and People, Visible Members, (the Integral Parts thereof): But a True Church is one thing, a Pure Church another; Here is the New-Creature, Hereafter (only) the Pure-Creature. Now the question is not about Church-purity, (alas! Adulterate Mixtures and Innovations in the Worship of God, are a too too plain confutation of this now) but Church-Entity, the Truth and Being of the Church, (which our English Donatists (Mr. Crofton may know whom I mean) having (formerly) well nigh confounded, did (like their Progenitors) most sacriledgiously monopolise the Church of Christ in this Nation, confining the Formality (and therefore the Truth and very Essence) of a Church, within the narrow compass of their Confederate Members, as if it had not been possible, for their Ark to contain a Cham, or for Tares to grow within their Enclosure; (God will I hope, humble them for it). Truth, we must needs ascribe to the Church of England, while She professedly owns the Faith of Christ, and the True Religion: For the Truth of Religion proves the Entity (or Being), as the Power of Religion the Purity of a Church: while She owns the Head, she must not be disowned for a Part of the Body (the Church Catholick-Visible); while She separates not from Christ, we have no warrant (totally and positively) to separate from Her: She may be Christ's Spouse (viz: Visibly and Professedly) though not a Chast-Virgin-Spouse; a Wife, though an Adulteress; retaining her Affinity, though not her Virginity. Corruptions in the Church are either  
1. Personal. or 2. Real.  
Real, again, either or 

1. Substantial and Intrinsecal.  
2. Circumstantial and .    
The latter is Mr. Croftons' own distinction (though possibly he and I may differ in the application of it).  
Personal Corruptions in Scandalous Professors, or Visible Church- Members, (Ministers (as well as others) the Hophnies and Phinehas' of our age) defile a Church: Corruptions Objective and Real, though only Circumstantial and , (in Outward Rites and Ceremonies, or corrupt Modes and Methods of Administration, as the Antiquated Jewish Vestments, Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Supper, etc.) adulterate a Church. Corruptions Substantial and  (which are Church-wasting Corruptions; the very Vitals and Intrinsecals of Religion, being by them destroyed) do (ipso facto,) actually divorce a Church from Christ; those are the steps of Church-Apostacy, when the Wife becomes a Lewd-Woman; (Single Fornication in the first; Adultery in the second; A Bill of Divorce in the last:) The Church of England is too truly chargeable with the two first, but not with the last, as is the Church of Rome, she having not (as yet, I pray God she never may) with her degenerated from a Christian Church, into an Antichristian See; nor her Members with hers, from Professors to Persecutors of the Faith, not holding the True Head, but setting up ANOTHER NAME; being in Doctrine (damnably) Heretical; in Worship (grossly) Idolatrous; in both Antichristian. The Essentials Constitutive of a True Church, are 1. the Head; 2. the Body; 3. the Union that is between them: which three concurring in the Church of England; Christ being her professed Head, she being Christ's professed Body, and the Catholick-Faith being the Vnion-Bond whereby they are coupled together; She cannot in justice be denied to be a True (though the Lord knows, far from a Pure) Church. Vid. Jun. lib. de Ecclesia. Herein I agree with Mr. Crofton.  
2. By way of Distinction.  
Two things are here to be distinguished; viz.  

1. Communion with the Church-Visible.  
2. Solemn and Public Worship.   
1. There is a twofold Communion; viz.  

One by Profession.  
Another by Participation.   
1. Church-Communion by way of Common Profession of the same true Religion, Faith, Doctrine, and instituted worship of Christ, (by virtue whereof all the Members of the Church- Catholic Visible throughout the World, are concorporated and embodied, one with another, and all of them with Christ as a Public Head, Catholic Faith being the ground of Catholic Communion, the main Ligament of the great Body Mystical) is not only a Duty, but a Privilege too, indispensably necessary to salvation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, is a severe Maxim not more known then true; no Salvation (ordinarily) without the Church's Line of Communication. The Church is God's Enclosure, (Cant. 9.12.) his Nursery planted with the Trees of Righteousness; without whose Pale and Boundaries all that die do perish: Ah, my Dear Friend, Let me rather be a Myrtle in the Vineyard, than a Cedar in the Forest. 'Twere better England should be unpeopled then unchurched: A Church-lesse People is a Christlesse People; and if Christlesse then Hopeless, Ephes. 2.12. Christ is the Head of the Body the Church, Coll. 1.18. No Union with this Head without Communion with this Body: Christ must be professed, or (else) never possessed; no Saint-State without a Church-State; no Call by the Spirit without a Call by the Word first; so that no Word, no Life: 
Rom. 10.13, 14. — Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved;— Worship is necessary to Salvation:— How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Faith is necessary to Worship:— How shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? Hearing is necessary to Faith:— How shall they hear without a Preacher? Preaching is necessary to Hearing: so that, without Worship there is no Salvation; without Faith, no (true) Worship; without Hearing, no Faith; and without Preaching no Hearing; therefore (a primo ad ultimum) the Word preached is necessary to Salvation;— no Word, no Life; (ah! may this (loathed) Manna never fail from amidst our Brittish-Israel!) Thrice miserable are they whose Sun sets, where the Sun of Righteousness never risen,— with healing in his Wings. Solomon (the great Sophi of the World) hath long ago read the Destiny of such; Where there is no Vision, 
●●eunt pere●●t.  the people perish, Prov. 29.18. a sad Exit! There is Visio Salvifica in the Church Militant, as well as Visio Beatifica, in the Triumphant: There be no true Saints who are not (in this sense) SEERS. This is the first Communion, wherein I am chargeable with no Breach, while I profess myself a Christian: All Professors throughout the World, are in this respect Communicants.  
2. Communion with the Church Visible, by way of Participation, or actual Enjoyment of the Ordinances, and celebration of the instituted Worship of Christ in a particular place (the Communion in question) is (I grant) a Duty obliging semper, but not ad semper: To explain myself; A Particular Church (such as is the Church of England) having her rise (as such) not from a Common Call by the Word only, (for the Catholick-Visible Church hath her rise from that) but from a Particular Providential Call, (for so I may term it) whereby Persons (whether Natives or Foreigners), are called to inhabit, reside, or live, there, where there is fit Opportunity of enjoying the Public Ordinances, and celebrating the instituted Worship of Christ by way of Social-Joynt-Communion; as Providence, Opportunity, or necessary Occasions, shall vary, the Obligation to joint-communion must vary also. Mr. Crofton cannot deny that there may be many Members of the Universal Catholic, who (yet) never had opportunity of associating themselves with, or of joint-communion in the Solemn Public Worship he speaks of, in a Particular Church; and many have had it, who have been deprived of it, as Merchants and Mariners, professing the true Religion, who in pursuance of their Secular Callings, are distanced from a true Constituted Church, some of them living in Spain, others in India, others in Turkey, etc. or such as through sickness are kept from the Enjoyment of Public Ordinances, etc. We cannot say that Communion with a Particular Church, in such Persons under that providence is an Indispensable duty, or Non-Communion, Schism, unless we also say (which were very hard) that they are bound to an Impossibility; Providence gives a Dispensation (as it were) in case of Necessary and Inevitable Non-Communion: In a word, Where Opportunity is serving, Violence not obstructing, Corruptions not barring, no Necessity hindering, there joint-communion in Solemn Public Worship is an Indispensable duty; otherwise, That which gives a Call, gives also a Discharge, viz. Providence.  
Those that disclaim all Church-Fellowship out of a peevish petulancy, slighting all opportunities thereof, are justly to be disclaimed as Self-out-lawed; such as the Vagrant Seekers, etc. led by the Ignis Fatuus, the wildfire of their own deluded Fancy: Surely Communion of Saints is no Article of their Creed, the maintaining of which should be in our respective Capacities, every one's endeavour. But to proceed.  
Sir, I own an Obligation lying upon me, whereby I am bound to communicate with the Church of England (whereof I profess myself a Member) she being (as is acknowledged) a True Church (notwithstanding her many Corruptions,) in these Parts of God's Real-Solemn, Public Worship, wherein Violent Impositions, Prevalent Corruptions, or some or other Inevitable bars necessitate not a withdrawment and Non-Communion; and if I should not, I should greatly sin. But what does this make for Communion with her in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer? Yes, (says Mr. Crofton) 'Tis an Act of Solemn Public Worship, etc. and therefore matter of duty: That is (next) to be tried.  
The Second Thing to be distinguished, is, Solemn Public Worship.  
Religious Worship may be said to be Solemn and Public in respect of a threefold Community or Solemnity: viz: 

1. Personal, In respect of Persons worshipping.  
2. Local, In respect of the Place of worship.  
3. Real, In respect of the Matter and Constitution of worship.    
1. That Worship which is celebrated by a Plurality or Society of Persons, wheresoever convented, is Solemn and Public in respect of Persons; now our English Liturgy-Service may (I confess) in this respect pass for Worship Solemn and Public, and so may the Popish-Masse-Service too.  
2. That Worship (properly) is in respect of Place, Solemn and Public; the particular Place whereof, as well as the Worship itself is appointed of God: Now the Jewish Worship celebrated in the Temple & Tabernacle, was in this respect (as shall appear by and by) the only Solemn and Public Worship in the world.  
3. That Worship, whereof God is the Author as well as the Object; the Word, the Rule, as well as the Matter; The Catholick-Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; That Worship which Christ Himself (the Church's Lord-Regent and Lawgiver) did appoint and institute; which the Apostles (His Seminary Disciples) did, by virtue of Authority derived from Him, commend and command; which the Gospel (the Christian Churches Directory) doth Licence and Warrant; which hath been by a Continued Series and Succession of Christian Professors (Faiths Defenders) from Christ and his Apostles, uninterruptedly maintained, and at length through the Current of Sixteen hundred years, happily (as to substance at least) transmitted and conveyed to us, is in respect of Matter, Authentic Constitution, and Reality, the only Solemn Public Divine Worship in the Christian world. Now to apply.  
1. Communion with the Church-Visible in that Worship, which is in respect of Matter and Authentic Constitution, Solemn and Public, namely, That which was instituted by Christ Himself, the Churches Public Head; preached and pressed by the Apostles, the Churches Public Guides; recorded (as the only Evangelical Worship) in the Gospel, the Churches Public Rule; and (in conformity to this Rule) observed and performed by the Primitive Christians for the first two hundred years, the purest Ages of the Christian Church, This and all other Churches Public Example; is (I readily grant) an Essential Part of the Sanctification of the Lords Day, and a Positive indispensable duty, to be upon peril superseded or intermitted, upon no less Warrant or Authority then that which imposed it, (with this assurance that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice); In Conscience whereof, I own myself obliged to join with some Society in a Particular (True) Church (a Part of the Church Catholick-Visible) while opportunity serves, and no Real Inevitable Obstruction hinders, in all the Parts of Real-Solemn-Publique Worship (Prayer, Praise, the Word, the Supper) wherein no Violent Impositions, nor any Real Impediment may bar but that I may communicate, nor Prevalent Corruptions necessitate a declension or withdrawment, but that I may without sin. As Saint-Communion is matter of Faith (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) so joint-communion is (Caeteris Paribus) matter of Duty (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉); That which all the Professed Members of this Spiritual Corporation (the Church) are bound in their respective Capacities to maintain: Church-Vnity and Uniformity should be the Joynt-endeavour of all, but so as that the purity of the Church be also endeavoured, and (much more that) her Truth and Being, be not destroyed. I am no Divinorum Desertor Castrorum (as St. Ambrose describes a (real) Separatist) no Camp-Fugitive or Assembly-Forsaker; no, God knows I detest and disown the Principles and Practices of such as (wilfully and willingly, unnecessarily and peevishly) forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some (too too many in these late times) hath been in all Ages. There is a twofold Christian Scope; one Primary, viz. God's Glory; the other Subordinate, viz. the Christians Own Good. The Glory of God is or aught to be by a Gospel-Law (1 Cor. 10.31.) the Terminus Reductivus of all our actions: To glorify God is a Natural debt, due from the Man as well as from the Christian, and from an Angel as well as from a Man; the whole Host of Heaven are God's Tributaries herein. The Christians own Happiness is to be pursued next and in subordination to this. Now, neither is the Crown-Revenue of Heaven so much enhanced, nor the Catholic Benefit of Christians so much advanced, by Solitary Worship, as by the Joynt-Services of Professors. 'Tis well worthy of our Observation, That Christ gave that Portion and Measure of his Spirit to his Disciples when assembled, which he never gave them whilst apart, (the richest Donative that ever he bestowed upon the Sons of Men!) Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4. great encouragement to Saints joint-communion! Vis unita fortior. Now  
2. This Real-Solemn Worship and Indispensable joint-communion therein, is not confined to any one Particular place more than to another, under the Gospel; not to Rome, more than to England, nor to a Cathedral more than to any other Church; nor to any Church or Chappel, or any such Fabric and Structure in the World, more than to the open Fields; nor to a Public, more than to a Private house, in itself: The house of an Obed-Edom may receive this Ark: The Church's Chamber-Worship (Act. 1.15.) was true Solemn Worship. My Friend, mere Conscience of the Truth constrains me to speak: They miserably err, who restrict the truth and reality of Solemn Worship to a Public place, a material Church and Structure (which yet none that I know, but a few peevish Sectaries can dislike) as if Locality, which is but a mere natural Circumstance, were Intrinsecal or Essential to Gospel Worship: And what if those Places thould chance in process of time to become the Receptacles of Jewish, Popish, Idolatry? where would their Solemn and Public Worship then be? But (more Argumentatively) where were Material Temples or Churches in the days of the Apostles (other then that of Jerusalem, and the Jewish Synagogues)? where were they for the first hundred and fifty years after Christ? when Christians did celebrate their worship in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Burial Places of Martyrs, (whence (probably) 'twas that their places of Assembly were called Martyria, and the Temple of Jerusalem, Martyrium magnum); and this was the reason why Persecuting Emperors made it their first business and care to bar and banish the Christians from those places: yea, 
* Lib. count. Valent.  Tertullian tells us, that in his days (viz. about two hundred and sixty years after Christ) the Christians had no other Meeting-places (Churches) then simplices domes, poor despicable Cottages, which were (saith he) antris & latebris quam Templis similiores, more like unto Caves, or Corners, than Churches: And 'tis probable, that there was not a Material Christian Church, till about or after the times of Evaristus and Dyonisius, Bishops of Rome, well nigh three hundred years after the birth of Christ; Parochial Distributions being begun by the one, and furthered by the other. Sir, you may please to consult 
* De Rer. Invent. lib. 4. c. 9 lib. 5. c. 6.  Polidor Vergilius and 
† De Orig. Temp. c. 6.  Hospinian (both expert and learned Antiquaries) in the case. Now, were Christians all that time, because not Templars, therefore no true Worshippers? Was there no Solemn Public Worship performed for so many hundred years (the purest Ages of the Christian Church)? But further; When I read of St. Paul Sermoning, of Lydia converted, and of Prayer wont to be made by a Riverside, (Act. 16.13, 14.) Of St. Paul a private House-Preacher eighteen months, and that in a house adjoining to a Synagogue (Basils' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Act. 18.7.11.) Of St. Paul and his Followers, their Chamber-Communion in the Word, the Supper, (doubtless there was Prayer there too, Act. 20.7, 8.) When I read of the whole Catholic Christian Church (a Conventicle consisting of about 120 Persons) convented & worshipping in a privateroom (Act. 1.15.) I am sufficiently warranted severely to condemn all such as limit Solemn Worship to any Particular place, as if its Solemnity consisted in its Locality.  
The Jewish Worship was the only Worship that ever could be called Solemn and Public in respect of Place; for God himself (not Men like ourselves) determined upon the Place as well as the Matter and Manner of his worship in the Jewish, which he did not in the Christian Church; the Jewish Sacrifices and Oblations being limited first to the Tabernacle, and after that to the Temple; the former whereof was built according to Gods own Instructions and Platform, namely, the Pattern shown to Moses upon the Mount; the latter was Gods own Choice (Deut. 12.5.11. 1 King. 8.29. 2 Chron. 7.12.) by Solomon through Divine Instinct dedicated to him, and by a miraculous Signal of favour and acceptance (2 Chron. 5.13, 14.) owned by him; and thus 'twas said, In Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship, John 4.20. So that the Place of worship, was indeed a Part of worship, not only a Circumstance, but of the Substance of worship, amongst the Jews; God having stamped Sanctity and Sacred Solemnity thereupon, (Mr. 
* Altar Worship. page 77.  Crofton himself bearing me witness.) But under the Gospel, and in the Christian Church, Locality is a mere matter of Indifferency; Local Liberty being a great part of Evangelical Liberty, Mal. 1.11. Mat. 18.20. John 4.21, 24. Act. 10.35. 1 Tim. 2.8. Christ having Over & Corp●re, both as Man, and as Prophet, by his Preaching, as well as by his Coming abolished Sanctity and Peculiarity (as of Time, so) of Place; the Typical Use of Temple and Tabernacle ceasing in him as Antitype, and Local Liberty being preached by him as Prophet, John 4.21. Insomuch that Two or Three (wheresoever) met in his Name, have the Solemn promise of his presence (now) Mat. 18.20.) whereas if the Solemnity of his worship were tied to any one place, his presence and the Concomitant blessing of his worship should be tied to that place also. Who would have thought that 
* Vid. lib. 3. De Cultu Sanctorum.  Bellarmine that great Light of the Romish Firmament, (the chief Atlas of that Orb) should have been so much in the dark, as to think that, Prayer, or (any other part of worship, performed in a Material Church, etc. is of more Efficacy, then if it were celebrated elsewhere? as if Stone and Timber did contribure virtue to our devotion; or Prayers Efficacy depended on Locality! I wish there be not many Bellarmine's in this respect, foolish Superstionaries! that cry, The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord, 
Jer. 7.4.  etc. like their silly, blind Pharisaical Progenitors. But Sir, You and I are taught of God, assured by Holy Record, that Prayer, or any other part of Divine Worship, in what place soever performed, will be accepted of God, through Christ, so he be but worshipped according to his own Canon, viz.— In Spirit, and in Truth, John 4.24. Let none then presently conclude from a necessary declension of Local Society in a Public place, a breach of Real Community in True Solemn Public Worship, which may (indeed) be maintained in any place indifferently. Yet  
3. The Church of England (while she holds the Head (Christ) and professeth the True Religion,) being a True Church (a Part of the Church Catholick-Visible) as is acknowledged: and a Public Place, being dictated by the light of nature, and judged by men (to whose Prudential Determination the Conveniency or Inconveniency of Place of worship, as a Natural Circumstance, is left, though it be a mere matter of Indifferency under the Gospel, and in it self) to be fittest for Public joint-communion, and therefore (though not sanctified) yet prudentially sequestered and devoted thereunto; I must needs own myself called to communicate (and in answer to that call I do communicate) with her, and that, in the Place of Public Assembly, in all the Parts of Real-Solemn Divine Worship, wherein I may without either let or sin. And thus Sir, 'tis my known Practice (which you are no stranger to) to join with the present Assemblies in Prayer, (though not their Common-Prayer) Praise, or Singing of Psalms, Hearing of the Word, all which are Substantial parts of True Solemn Divine Worship; what? and yet a Separatist? Judge how little I deserve that name, while this is my practice, and I exhort you and others to the like; Only give me leave to tell you, that what was Reverend Beda's advice to him that should chance to read the Books of that Heretical Bishop Julian, I desire (and it may be so will you) to improve in the hearing of ours,— Ita carpat botrum ut spinane caveat, Take of the Cluster, but beware of Prickles, be sure they be of Canaan's Grapes; I would not willingly be starved, but God keep me from being poisoned; Take heed of Choking, chew before you swallow; a Proselyting Romanist (a Seminary Priest) will tell you otherwise; once swallow his Church's Infallibility, and any thing will go down then; there is no room left for dispute more, no need of the true Balance of the Sanctuary. But I have not as yet laid finger upon the soar; therefore consider,  
4. That the Church of England's Liturgy or Common-Prayer (the great apple of strife, etc.) is a Part of this Real-Solemn worship of God, and that Communion with her therein (the thing urged) is (therefore) a Positive Indispensable duty, I must take leave (at least till I see more cogent Arguments for it then have as yet been pleaded by the best that ever undertook the patronage of it) utterly to deny. This I know would seem strange to many, (what, a Convocation-Master-piece! the Summum quod sic of the Wit of men and Angels! the Monopoly of Divine Service! the Prayers of the Church! etc. and yet no Part of True Solemn Worship!) but that it is written for private satisfaction, and by way of private Apology. Sir, 'tis a fixed Principle with me, which I should not fear to publish to the world, (had my tongue the liberty of mine Accusers in the case, viz.) That there is no True Divine Worship whereof God is not the Author as well as the Object, the Alpha as well as the Omega: What is not Instituted Worship, is none of His Worship, but mere Will-Worship, for God will be worshipped Desuo, his Soul loathing all that Service (though (possibly) nicknamed Divine,) wherein there is more of the Creature, than of Himself, (more of Man than of God); What Reason either from Scripture or Common Light, can persuade me otherwise? Now, can Mr. Crofton say Bona fide ('tis not a matter to be dallied withal) that Liturgies or stinted & Set-Forms of Prayer, were ever Instituted by Christ, Practised by the Apostles, Intended in the Gospel, or observed by the Primitive Christian Church, in the best and purest ages after Christ, (whose Practice in the case was to be a Leading Case and an Imitable Example to all succeeding Churches) In a word, Can he prove England's Common-Prayer part of Christ's Instituted Worship? Let him produce Authentic (either) Precept or Precedent for it, (which will be a hard matter for him to do) else surcease his censure; for what other can it be then a mere Humane Ordinance, Super-erogatory Worship, Arbitrary Service, even Scripture-bitten Will-Worship, one of the (justly condemned) Commandments and Ordinances of men, Col. 2.22, 23. What is Will-Worship if this be not? Yea, but the Matter of it is good, (this is the ordinary plea, but) so is a great part of the Popish Missal, (with which it so much symbolizeth, (especially their Litany, the first Edition of ours); and so of the Turkish Alcoran: But will that prove it a Divine Constitution? Now, the Question is not, whether it be Divine Matter, or not, but whether a Divine Constitution or not? and therefore I join Matter and Constitution together: The Matter proves not its Legitimacy, unless such a Frame, Method, Composure and Constitution of Worship can be proved Jure Divino, to be Christ's Own. Prayer is Christ's own Institution, (I communicate with them in that) but here is my Crime, I join not with them in Prayer in such a Dress or Form, which (though I neither question the Wisdom that composed it, nor the Authority that imposed it, yet) I professedly declare, is in my weak judgement merely Humane; and therefore I do not a little wonder that such a man as Mr. Crofton should become its Maecenas and Advocate, who cannot be ignorant of the unhappy occasion of the first introduction of such man-devised Forms and Frames into the Christian Church, administered by the prevailing Arrian and Pelagian heresies, above three hundred years after Christ; nor of the approved Testimonies of Justine Martyr, Tertullian, etc. witnessing the immunity and freedom of the Church in their days from such impositions, alleged by his SMECTYMNVAN Brethren: But the grounds of my doubts herein shall be disclosed in the next answer; however you may judge from what hath already been said, how unjustly Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, is interpreted sinful Separation, it being a necessary declension of mere Will-Worship.  
5. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is indeed a Substantial Part of Real-Solemn Divine Worship, being one of Christ's Fundamental Institutions; but the known Violence of Imposition, the Will-Worship and Superstition, which attends the celebration thereof in the Church of England, (so that I cannot communicate with her therein without sin) does warrant and necessitate my (present) Non-Communion and Withdrawment, this being clearly Mr. crofton's alleged case of Real Inevitable Necessity. Thus then,  
Though the Church of England be a true Church (so that a Total Separation from her is unwarrantable) and therefore Communion with her in all the parts of Real-Solemn Divine Worship, wherein I may join with her without either let or sin, be a Duty, yet, her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, appearing to be no part of Real-Solemne Divine Worship, but a mere humane Constitution; and the Supper (though a Substantial Part of Real-Solemn-Divine Worship, yet) being by corrupt Mixtures and Appurtenances, much adulterated, so that I cannot communicate therein without sin; my (present) Non-Communion with her, in both the one and the other (which is a Partial Separation) is so far from being a breach of Duty, that it is a Duty, therefore no Schism, (the thing charged) which is a Causeless Separation, etc. This may acquit me, and all men in my Capacity, from Mr. Croftons' Nickname of Separatist in the Case. But I refer you, Sir, to my next answer for further satisfaction in both.  
3. By way of Retortion.  
Communion with the Church of England may be superseded in case of Real-inevitable Necessity (ex Concessis) by Mr. Croftons' own Doctrine and Assertion; but mine (that I may put in for a Supersedeas) is a case of Real inevitable Necessity; therefore (by Mr. Croftons' own Acquittance) my Non-Communion, etc. is no sin, no Schism.  
There be two things wherein I cannot communicate with the Church of England, viz. 1. Her Liturgy and Common-Prayer: 2. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, under her present method of administration; for Non-Communion in both which, I allege a Real-Inevitable Necessity,  
1. The Necessity of my Non-Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer, is grounded on Invincible doubts about the very Lawfulness of such a Constitution, and those upon three Maxims (shall I call them?) or Principles, which Mr. Crofton (possibly) would term Schismatical as well as my Practice.  

Viz: 1. Ecclesiastical Constitutions that are not Useful, are Unlawful.  
2. Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that are not Needful, are Unlawful.  
3. That Constitution of Worship which is not commanded, is forbidden.   
(Which though they may seem to be very Paradoxes, and strange Positions in this age, yet I profess to you (without any censorious reflection upon either the Principles or Practices of others) they hamper me:)  
The Assumption peculiar to each of those Propositions containeth my doubt—  
But the Liturgy or Common-Prayer of the Church of England, is an Ecclesiastical Constitution, which is neither 1. Useful, nor (much less) 2. Needful, nor 3. Commanded, Ergo, etc.  
1. That Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are not Useful are not Lawful, which are Unprofitable, are unwarrantable (where, by that which is unprofitable I understand that which is un-edifying) is a Truth bottomed upon a great Canon Apostolic (in respect of which all Church-Constitutions ought to be Acts of (True) Canonical Obedience, viz:) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. 14.26. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Edification (according to the language of the Holy Ghost) is not only, 1. a Freedom from positive damage; nor 2. a Single; but 3. a Successive and gradual Benefit: For Confirmation hereof, I might produce the Joynt-determination and Vote of a whole Jury of the Orthodox-Learned. Calvin, Junius, Tilenus, Alstedius, Hospinian, Beza, Pareus, Prof. Leidens. Jus Canonicum, Perkins, etc. who unanimously conclude the same, whose several Testimonies I should here insert, but that I must shun prolixity. 'Tis observable what is left upon everlasting Record, namely, That the Ceremonial Law of Moses was disannulled because of its weakness and unprofitableness, Heb. 7.18. (that which may be urged (in my mind) invincibly against the retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church) whence I argue,  
If a Divine Law (one of Gods own making) must be reversed, disannulled, and abolished, (the Holy Ghost himself being Judge) because unprofitable, (as the Ceremonial was, Christ the Substance being exhibited) then surely (A fortiori) all Humane Laws (those of men's making, especially Ecclesiastical) which are unprofitable, are (hoc ipso) unwarrantable: I should not fear to assert this in the face of the world. Now  
That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is a Constitution unprofitable (which is the Assumption) will need no great labour to prove. 'Tis hurtful, and is that useful? who cannot witness the unhappy Consequences, Mischiefs and Inconveniencies attending it? I should say but little, if as some call Ignorance the Mother of Devotion, so I should call it, The Nursery of Ignorance: Nay what greater Schismatic this day in England? what hath more divided between Faithful Pastors & their dear People? the Service hath stopped the Prophet's mouths, pad-locked those lips which should preserve knowledge; alas! those are but few amongst the many thousand Malignant Influences of this Convocation-Wildfire: And yet, There is no hurt in it, say some; that's strangel but admit there were not, doth it any good? the Negative will prove it an Illegitimate brood; yes, may some Commoner say; and so may I say of the Popish Missal, it may accidentally profit me; but neither will Collateral nor single Benefit prove the Legitimacy either of the one or of the other: Further; Is it an Edifying Constitution? if not, cashier it for Apocryphal, 'tis an Adulterate piece: The waters of the Sanctuary must rise higher and higher; now what influence hath it in building of a man, a Church-member, up in his most holy Faith? were this to Edify? In a word; It must 
* Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. Sect. 32.  Manifestam utilitatem prae se far, (according to calvin's Rule,) It must conduce to the neanifest advantage of the Church of God, to her growth and gradual Prosiciency (since the riper she is for age, the riper she should be for knowledge, etc.) to the perfecting of this Mystical Building, Ephes. 4.11, 12. else (believe it) it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and if un-edifying, then unwarrantable. Now how little our Liturgy or Common-Prayer is contributory hereunto, let the Impartial judge.  
2. That Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are Unnecessary, are (also) Unlawful, (the second Proposition) seems to be firmly grounded on the Authentic Decretal and Resolve of the famous Synod of Jerusalem, consisting of Apostles and Elders (Men extraordinarily gifted, and infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost) Act. 15.28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than those necessary things: An Imitable and Regulative Example to all Counsels and Convocations in succeeding ages; for there the Holy Ghost Himself was Precedent (as I may say) it seemed good first to the Holy Ghost, and then to Vs. 'Twas His Own Visum est, and Canon.— All Peace be on them that walk according to this Rule.  
That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an Unnecessary Constitution (which is the Assumption), none 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, none of the Necessary things licenced by the Holy Ghost, appears to me from a threefold consideration, namely, Of 1. Christ; 2. The Spirit; and 3. The Gospel.  
1. All Necessary Parts of Divine Worship are by Christ (who is the Church's Lawmaker, as well as Peacemaker, the great Master of Assemblies) undoubtedly) instituted and appointed; else that might be justly imputed to the Son, from which the Holy Ghost acquits the Servant, Heb. 3.5. (which were blasphemy once to imagine,) and 'twere not a little strange, if when the Man Moses did punctually prescribe all the Tabernacle-Appurtenances, even to a Pin and Snuffers, the Lord Christ should not also be faithful over his house in describing and prescribing all the necessary Parts of his Worship and Service; as if Scripture-Oeconomicks were defective and incompetent Church-Rules without the Contribution of Men-devised, additional-traditional Forms, etc. But now the Liturgy or Common-Prayer (that Constitution) is none of Christ's either in respect of Composition, or (much less) Imposition; Ergo, etc. Most of the Matter though I grant to be Divine, yet that will not prove the Constitution (the thing in question) Divine: What need many words? For the Lords sake let either Precept or Precedent in either Christ or his Apostles, be produced for such a Frame, Contexture and Constitution of worship, and the question is decided. The Lord's Prayer is an Instance and Precedent, say some! 'Tis Authentic Common-Prayer indeed, (and that which I reverence for the Author's sake, but not idolise) but that it is a Form, needs proof; however, be it a Form, be it a Pattern, it makes nothing against me; for if a Form, then Humane Forms are Unnecessary, (that is my Quaesitum) unless men will tax Christ's Own with some defect or Insufficiency,— Frustra fit per plura, etc. Religion abhors Superfluities as well as Nature. If Christ hath accommodated me with a Divine Form of Prayer (one of his Own) I may by Authority slight all Humane Forms in the world: Again, If a Pattern, than no Precedent nor Protection to Set-Forms, etc.  
2. Where the Spirit of Prayer is plentifully effused and diffused, there Set-Forms of Prayer are unnecessary; because whatever Benefit can be imagined to accrue from Forms, all that and much more doth accrue from the Spirit: Are Forms Helps to the weak? cannot they go without them? The Spirit helpeth our infirmities, Rom. 8.26. He being the Christians Auxiliary in, as well as the Author of prayer: Are Forms Guides to the Blind? cannot they see without them? The Spirits Office is to— guide into all Truth, John 13.16. Now this same Spirit is plentifully poured out in Gospel-times, being Christ's Exaltation-Donative, Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4. Eph. 4.8. By virtue whereof the Christian hath commenced a degree above the Jewish Church: This being subjected to a Servile and Infant-state, (the Legal Constitution,) That being promoted to a Filial Adult-State, (the Evangelical Constitution of the Church); Ergo, etc.  
3. The Gospel (Christ's Canon-Law) is (as a Perfect System of Sound Words and Doctrine, so) a Sufficient Directory for Worship, able to make the man of God perfect, (2 Tim. 3.15, 16.) without Humane Contributions; Ergo, etc.  
I am not ignorant that Error hath its Advocates; 'tis pleaded, That Set-Forms of Prayer are needful for maintaining of Uniformity, etc. Good Lord! have those Patrons no better Pleas than what Adulterate-Rome may espouse for defence and insinuation of her Masse-Service, and Metropolitical Antichristian Head? Are there no Church-Ligaments? no Bonds or Badges of Church-Vnity, but what would inevitably destroy Church-Purity, if not (eftsoon) Church-Entity? Why, will men create more Necessities than the Word will warrant, and thus occasion more Sins than ever God forbade? But enough of that. Sir, With Your leave I will now conclude that our Liturgy or Common-Prayer is unnecessary, therefore unwarrantable; not useful, not needful, therefore not lawful.  
3. That that which is not commanded in the Worship of God (viz. in point of Matter or Manner) is (consequentially) forbidden, (the third Proposition) may be (in my Judgement) undeniably concluded from these three gradual Axioms, (which are indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Common, Innate, Rational Principles,) viz.  
1. There is a GOD; This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very First and Fundamental Article of our Faith; a Truth, which the Creatures may serve for Catholic Teachers, (the Universe for an University) to school us in, Rom. 1.20. Creation-works are a Revelation-Book, which reveals a God, though not a Christ; a Deity, though not a Trinity: Natural Conscience is a Bosom-Volume, wherein we may read the same; which, should a man become a tractable Disciple to, he should never die (in this sense) Atheist or Infidel. David's Fool may say in his heart, 
Psal. 14.1.  There is no God, but 'tis not said he (really) thought so; for this is a Truth, which may be read by Nature's Common Light, yea, by that of the Sun, Moon, and Stars.  
2. There is Worship due from the Creature to this God. This is a main 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Rom. 1.19.  one of the prime things which may by Nature's Light and Creature-evidence be known of God; a Principle depending upon the former. That very Light which convinceth men of a Godhead, convinceth them also of this Worship as a Natural Debt and Tribute due thereunto: Both are Common-Creed: Thus the Gentiles are not charged with Ignorance of a Godhead, nor with neglect of Natural Worship (the Thing), but with a defect in the Manner of Worship,— When they knew God, they glorified him not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AS God, Rom. 1.21.  
3. This God is to be worshipped in a way suitable to his own Will and Nature: What more Rational than this? What Heathen Socrates ascribed to his Idol-God, surely we may, and must (much more) ascribe to Our Only True God, namely, that he must be worshipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a way, manner, and method most pleasing to himself; and what Manner or Method of Worship more pleasing to God, then that which is agreeable to his Own Will, or most suitable to his own Nature? Now then to apply.  
Since there can be no true Divine Worship, which is not either suitable to God's Nature (as is Gospel-Worship, it being spiritual as God himself is a Spirit, Joh. 4.24.) or (at least) agreeable to Gods Will (as the Jewish Worship, by Sacrifices and Oblations, the blood of Bulls and Goats, etc. which had nothing at all to commend it, but the Quod libet licet, the very Will and Authority of the Lawgiver, (else how irrational had it been?) God having by way of Indulgency, accommodated the Outward Method and Manner of his Worship under the Law more to the Nature of the Jews, then to his Own; whereas Evangelical Worship is not only agreeable to his Will, but suitable to his Nature). Since the agreeableness of Worship to Gods Will, and the suitableness of Worship to his Nature, is to be measured by the Manner, as well as (if not more then) by the Matter of it, (That being the Distinctive Form thereof): And since the true Regular Manner of Divine Worship is only revealed and dictated in and by Scripture-Canon; Scripture Light directing to the Manner, as Nature's Light directs to the Object of Worship; (else what advantage have We to whom are committed the Oracles of God, over the Purblind Gentiles? who are not taxed for not worshipping of God according to the light they had, whereby they were directed to the Object of Worship; but for not glorifying of God AS God, (Rom. 1.21.) they failed in the Manner): Since (I say) 'tis so, I must needs conclude, that That Manner or Constitution of Worship, which is not Prescribed, is (ipso facto) Probihited, which is not Commanded, is (consequentially at least) forbidden. Some (possibly) will Object, What Reason, that That which is not Commanded, should (consequently) be forbidden; more than why that which is not forbidden, should be (consequently) commanded? (a common Plea in the Case): But, Dispar est Ratio, there is a great disparity, a Negative will prove a Sin, but every Positive will not prove a Duty; thus whatever is not agreeable to the Will of God is a Sin, but all that is agreeable to the Will of God is not a Duty; this is plain, a Moral Duty is the Obligatory Influence of some Positive Law: To proceed then.  
That such a Constitution as Liturgy or Common-Prayer is not commanded of God (the Assumption) is proved abundantly: Where is there ever a Deus dixit, a Thus saith the Lord for it in all the Book of God? An Ecclesia dixit, will not go down with me, who cannot put Church-Infallibility into my Creed, nor suffer my soul to become Captive to an Implicite-Faith, Infallibility is one of Gods own Crown-Royalties; He only is Infallible in point of Knowledge, who is Immutable in Being and Existence. Where is there ever one Authentic Precedent for it? Mr. Crofton (I know) doth attribute the Essential Form of Prayer to it (page 25.) which he describes to be, A calling upon God in the name of Christ; But if he understand not, in the Name of Christ, the Will of Christ, than I say, 'Tis not a Right Description of Prayer, (whose (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essentiale) Essential Form depends upon the Rule, God's own Prescript, it being a Moral Duty) no better than what may agree to the Romish Litany: But if he do understand therein the Will of Christ, I once more call for an instance in some Authentic Precept or Precedent (the only Commentaries upon Gods Will Regulative) for such a Constitution; which I despair ever to see. I might have told you, that it is a Humane Tradition, and therefore a sin against the 2. Commandment, being contrary to Bishop 
* Expos. on 2. Com.  Andrews his Modus Praescriptus; Gods own Prescribed Manner of worship: But I shall not need to go so far; let it be proved, that it is a Constitution whereof God is the Author, the Word the Rule, the Practice Apostolic the Pattern; or what can it be other than Cultus ex humane cerebro confictus? mere Will-Worship and Superstition, which (being 
† Sir France Bacon, in his Essays.  the reproach of Deity) must needs be as well (though not as much) as Idolatrous Worship displeasing to Him who with his own finger twice wrote Himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Jealous God; who therefore may justly say of such Officious Service;— Who hath required this at your hand? O that men would seriously consider (what I tremble at the very thoughts of, namely) the dreadful doom and sentence gone out against such, as either add to, or subtract from Gods own Volume, Deut. 12.32. Rev. 22.18, 19  
Thus Sir, a Conscience fettered with doubts is that which I plead as a ground of Real inevitable necessity in this case of my Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer. So that whereas Mr. Crofton pleads for Communion with her in that (as well as in other Parts of Solemn Public Worship) as a thing not only Lawful, but Expedient, yea, Indispensably necessary, I question all, viz: not only the Necessity, but the Expediency, yea the very Lawfulness of it, it being in mine opinion upon the accounts aforesaid, none of the Real or True Worship of God, but mere Will-worship and Contrivance of Men, so that I cannot communicate therein without sin; For To him that esteemeth a thing unclean, to him it is unclean: And he that doubteth is damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for what is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14.14.23. And what though my Conscience be Erroneous herein, yet doth it lay upon me a Negative Obligation in the case, Ligat, though not Obligat; Though an Erroneous Conscience obligeth me not to do what it commandeth, yet it obligeth me to refrain from what it forbiddeth; this is the determination of Learned Casuists in the Case: Conscience being the Queen Regent-Faculty of the soul, Gods Own Representative therein, must not (at least in matters of Indifferency) be controlled; For 
* Ames. de Consc. lib. 1. cap. 4.  Quicquid dictat, dictat sub ratione Voluntatis Divinae. Better it is that I should not at all communicate, than to communicate with a Reluctancy of Conscience; for in such a case, what is an Indifferency to another, may be Iniquity in me; Mr. Crofton should rather pity than censure such a One; what must all be cut off that are not skilled in his Shibboleths? His Invective against Church-Yard-Loyterers, 
Judg. 12.6.  (Page 24.) might well have been spared in a time, wherein Vineyard-Labourers are so few.  
2. The Real-Inevitable Necessity of my Withdrawment from, or Non-Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, under the present Modes and Methods of Administration in the Church of England, is grounded upon the 
* Constit. and Can. Eccles. An Dom. 1603. Can. 27.  Imposed Gesture, the Superstition and Corruptions which attend it: (which who can be such a stranger in our Israel as to be ignorant of)? Though I could go near to approve of the gesture of Kneeling, being lest Arbitrary, and commended or practised only as an Outward Badge of more than ordinary thankfulness, under the reception of an Extraordinary Blessing, and not as an Act of Piety, Necessity, or Worship: And though I shall not (at this time at least) go so far as some, namely, to assert that the Consecrated Bread purposely set before Superstitious Kneelers (Protestants), and the (supposed) Transubstantiated Bread purposely placed before Idolatrous Kneelers (the Papists) is the same, In Esse Ad. rabili; yet two things I shall say: First, A Papists Idolatrous Kneeling. before the Bread (supposed to be Transubstantiated, is (in some respect) more Excusable, than a Protestants Superstitious Kneeling before the Bread (being only) Consecrated; for his Creed doth (though not Justify, yet) in part excuse his gesture; Did I believe that the Sacramental Bread, is no sooner Consecrated, than really Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, I should think, I should greatly ●●n if I did not forthwith exhibit Worship thereunto, since (as the O thodox-Learned generally grant) there is Adoration and Worship due to Christ even as Man, viz: by virtue of the Personal Union of his Humane with his Divine Nature. Secondly, The gesture of Kneeling at the Sacrament, etc. in the Church of England, having Necessity placed in it (else why is it imposed, and not seft Arbitrary?) yea and holiness and worship too, (as its 
* The Archbishop of Spalleto: Dr. Burgess: Dr. Mortoun; Paybody, etc.  learned Patrons inform us), and so becoming a dangerous piece of Superstition and Will-Worship, I am warranted to withdraw, and refuse Communion with her therein, by a Supersedeas of Mr. Croftons' own grant, viz: in case of Real-Inevitable Necessity; with this assurance, that God will have mercy and not sacrifice. The Sacrament is a Privilege, but Superstition is Sin; now I may often warrantably wave a Privilege, but never am I warranted to commit the least Sin; and therefore for fear of Poison, I deny myself Food. Alas! Mr. Croftons' Instances in Stinking Fish, etc. Pudled water, etc. An Unclean Vessel, etc. yield not the least satisfaction to me; what if there be poison in the dish, though never so well garnished? My Dear Friend, The case is very hard; but what shall I do? If I must die, let it be by famine, as soon as by poison, If I must be forty years without a Passeover, (even as long as the Israelites were in the Wilderness without theirs) The will of the Lord be done: I had rather be in the Wilderness without it, than go back to Egypt for it, while I know that I am in the way towards Canaan; not so getting St. Bernard's Maxim, Non privatio sed contemptus damnat; The want of a Sacrament is my Affliction, but the Contempt of it only (under that want) is my Sin; only my prayer is that God would forgive them, Who make the Lords offering to be abhorred. Thus Sir, I hope you are by this time satisfied in the case, namely, That Non-Communion with the Church of England, in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, as also in the Lord's Supper under the present method of Administration, in those who yet join with her in Prayer, Praise, The Word Preached (Parts of True Solemn Divine Worship) as you and I do) is no breach of duty, but a duty; (the one being no True Divine Worship, but Will-Worship; the other being though a Substantial Part of Worship, yet Adulterated and extremely Corrupted Worship) therefore no SCHISM, which was the thing charged. Now give me leave before I conclude this, to produce my Warrant and Protection in the case, from the Church of England's own Canon and Constitution; namely, the 9th made in the year, 1603. Entitled Authors of Schisms in the Church of England censured; the words whereof are these, viz: Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion of Saints, as it is approved by the Apostles Rules in the Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new-Brotherhood, accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine, Government, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, Profane and unmeet for them to join with in Christian Profession, let them be excommunicated, Ipso facto, etc. Now 1. I separate in case of Real-Inevitable Necessity only, therefore not contrary to the Apostles Rules; 2. Mine is not Positive Separation, therefore no Combination in a New-Brotherhood; 3. I am not only a Professor of the same Faith, (which is all the Canon seems to require) but a Partaker in the same Ordinances, (though not in all) with those who are Conformable, etc. and therefore that very Canon which censureth Schismatics, protecteth Me.  
Now Honoured Sir, Though I persuade myself that your request is satisfied in the case touching Non-Communion, etc. Yet cannot I satisfy myself unless I give a brief touch upon Mr. Croftons' other Considerations; and before I come to them, assoil what is objected from the High Places amongst the Israelites; (A Recocta cram with him, and an ordinary Allegation with all that are of his persuasion in the case in hand).  
Do men complain (saith he) as they have cause, 
Page 39  That some Roman Rites were retained, when this Church was reform, let them consider, many pious Kings of Judah, have their reforming-Governments stained with a— But the High Places were not taken away, but the People went thither to worship, yet I find not that any God-fearing Israelites who loathed those Relics of Idolatry, ever barred themselves because thereof from God's Altar and Worship.  
Ans. 1. The Retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church, is (God knows) a just cause of Complaint, since by reason of them, the condition of the Christian Church, is become more intolerable than was that of the Jewish Infant Church; the Jews being subjected to Divine Impositions, the Christians (oh, sad!) to Humane Presumptions (the Arbitrary Laws and Lusts of Men) witness Sr. Augustine. Ad Januar. Epist. 119. c. 19 Item Epist. 118. c. 2.  
2. If the Retention of Jewish-Popish Ceremonies in the Church of England at first, (when Reformation was but Early) was a just cause of Complaint, how much more grievous must the Reduction of them after Sacred and Solemn Expulsion be? the First compared to that of the last 20 years, being as the Twilight to a clear Sunshine: It St. Augustine complained of the intolerable burthensomness of Ceremonies in his days, (as in the places before mentioned) what cause have we to complain, etc. in our days? For if the first Introduction of them into the Roman Church, was a Reduction of Judaisme, how like does the Reduction of them into the English Church, look to the Introduction of Romanisme? what? and not complain!  
3. Mr. crofton's alleged case of the Israelites, and their High Places, etc. is (alas!) infinitely wide of Ours; (and therefore I marvel that a man of such Parts as he is, should once plead the thing): For,  
1. Though the High-Places of old were, even under Reforming Governments, both retained and frequented, (which I deny not) yet what makes this against me, who dispute not about the Retention, but about the Restitution of a piece of Superstition and Will-Worship? When did any one of those Pious Kings of Judah, first reform, and then restore the High-Places spoken of? Can Mr. Crofton instance when the high-Places were restored by the King, and frequented by the People, after sacred and solemn expulsion of them (to use his own words) by Both? O, but Retrogradations in Religion are dangerous! Let me rather sojourn in a Wilderness, then return to Egypt; Alas! this is our Case: Who can be insensible of the Retrograde Motion of England's Sun? Our high-Places are restored after sacred and solemn Expulsion; 
2 Kings 18.4.  a blasted Nehushtan reintroduced: Ah! this is the Spot in our Moon: 'Tis happened to us according to the true Proverb, 
2 Pet. 2.22.  The Dog is turned to his Vomit, and the Sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the Mire.  
2. The Israelites were confined in their Sacrifices and Oblations to God's Altar, (viz. at first in the Tabernacle, Leu. 17.3, 4. and afterwards in the Temple, Deut. 12.5, 6, 11. from which it was not lawful, but upon extraordinary occasions, or by divine Inspiration, to separate;) God having determined upon the Place, as well as the Manner, of his Worship in the Jewish Church: No wonder then, if the God-fearing Israelites did not bar themselves from God's Altar and Worship, notwithstanding those Relics of Idolatry, since they should have in so doing transgressed a Positive Law. Now will Mr. Crofton argue from hence, against the Practice of Christians, amongst whom the Place of Worship is a mere Matter of Indifferency, Local-Liberty being a part of Gospel Liberty, (as hath been cleared above)?  
3. Though the High-Places were originally devised by the Idolatrous Israelites in imitation of the Heathenish Groves, yet the use of them was changed by the God-fearing Israelites, who (even the Priests and Levites themselves being of the number, 1 Chron. 16.39.) performed Religious Worship in an Idolatrous Place: Now will Mr. Crofton infer from the Israelites worshipping in an Idolatrous Place, a necessity of Communion in a Superstitious Worship? My Friend, I distinguish between Presence and Communion. The Devout Israelites were present in an Idolatrous Place, but did not therein partake of Idolatrous Worship: Now, What does Mr. Crofton plead for? Is it my Presence only in the Church at the time of Divine Service (as it is called)? or is it Communion in that Service? To be plain with you; The former I could give, and yet refuse the latter, but so, as That also shall be the fruit of cogent Necessity, (not of Choice) hoping in that case for Naaman's Dispensation, 2 Kings 5.18, 19 (it that sense be received) Presence is a Civil, but Communion a Religious Act, so that should I in Obedience to a Penal Law, or out of Necessity of hearing of a soulsaving Sermon, give my Personal Presence in the public Congregation in time of Common-Prayer, knowing that an Idol is nothing in the World, 1 Cor. 8.4. let none conclude from my Presence in the Place, Communion in the Worship, (or rather Will-Worship): Naaman's Servile presence in the house of Rimmon (being granted) would not prove his Communion in the Worship of Rimmon, 2 Kings 5. Elijah could look upon Baal's Prophets Sacrificing, and condemn them, 1 Kings 18. God-fearing Israelites did frequent the High-Places, but that proves them not Communicants in the Superstition or Idolatry of those Places: Their Practice then herein, are but weak Premises to Mr. Croftons' Conclusion. Once more;  
4. The disparity between the case of the Israelites, and that of ours, lies greatly in this, viz. There the Worship was good, the Place only bad; but here the Place only is good, and the Worship (being mere Will-Worship) bad: So that Mr. Croftons' Inference drawn from the Jewish Practice, in that case, against Non-Communion, etc. is (with me) a manifest non sequitur.  
CONSID. 2. Communion with the Church under many and great Corruptions, is not inconsistent with Zeal, Care, and Contest for Reformation.  
Remons. 1. That the Reformation of the Church is a Duty incumbent upon every Man and Member thereof, to be pursued within the Verge of their respective Places and Capacities, by all Just and Lawful Means, is a Truth here supposed, and hereafter (Page 28.34.) asserted by Mr. Crofton himself: Certain it is, that every Church-Member ought to be in this respect a Church-Reformer: And according as his Capacity shall vary, whether in respect of Power, Interest, Office or Opportunity, etc. accordingly doth his Obligation hereunto, vary also.  
2. Mr. Crofton had done well to have stated the question aright the Ecclesia Reformanda, & de Ecclesia Reformata: The Question with us, is not, Whether Communion with the Church under many and great Corruptions be consistent with Zeal, Care, and Contest for Reformation thereof? Who will deny that? But this, Whether Communion with the Church of England under many and great Corruptions be consistent with due and constant endeavours of reforming, after sacred and solemn Expulsion of the same? Nay Sir, more particularly yet, 'Tis this (and I would Mr. Crofton had well considered it, viz.) Whether Communion with the Church of England (not under, but) in those very Corruptions which (he says) we are by a Duty-Obligation bound (in our Capacities) to reform, be consistent with due and constant endeavours of reforming the same? More particularly yet, Whether Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer (That (once) Exploded Will-Worship and Corrupt Constitution) be consistent with that Tie, whereby we are bound to constant endeavours of Reformation? The Question thus stated, who cannot but resolve into the Negative? Especially, if he consider, that the Liturgy and Common-Prayer is not a Luxurious Branch, which ought to be lopped off, but an Adulterate Plant, 
Math. 15.13.  which ought to be rooted out, as being none of those Plants which our Heavenly Father hath planted; so that the Reformation herein obliged to, must consist not in an Alteration, but in the outer Ejection and Abrogation of such a Constitution, (but such as is to be endeavoured only in our several Places and Capacities, and by Lawful and Warrantable Means: Schism and Sedition, Faction, and Rebellion I am taught of God to abhor, as well and as much as doth Mr. Crofton himself.) Now then, If I be bound to contribute by all lawful endeavours, what in me lies, & in my capacity, to the Reformation (that is, to the Extirpation) of such an Adulterate Constitution (viz. the Liturgy or Common-Prayer), how inconsistent with such a Tie must my Communication in that worship be! Were not this to plant what I am bound to root up? and to build what I am bound to destroy? Or if I should after sacred and solemn Ejection thereof, re-embrace or countenance or communicate in it, were not that to return with the Dog to the old Vomit? to rebuild our (once) demolished High-Places? and is this to reform? Connivance is to Mr. Crofton (Page 28.) an Argument of Affection; and Communion is to me an Argument of Connivance: Ah! 
Rom. 14.22,  my Good Friend, Happy is he that condemneth not himself, in that thing which he alloweth. How can I countenance or communicate in that Worship, whereof I am bound constantly to endeavour the Reformation? Yes, saith Mr. Crofton, very well, while the Matter is good, the outward Mode or Method only bad: This is his Recocta Crambe, but he must prove the Whole Frame and Constitution good, which as yet he hath not done, else 'tis but a mere evasion. Now let me ask, What is it that he is bound to reform? Is it the Matter of the Liturgy, & c.? Or the Outward Mode only? or the Constitution and Whole Frame of such a Worship? the Whole Frame and Constitution, surely, a piece of Adulterate Worship, else why was it ever wholly exploded and ejected? But This Reformation is to be endeavoured only in our several Places and Capacities: Truth, Buth the Negative Part obligeth ad semper, thus, Though I cannot go on, yet I am bound never to go back; my Progress may be obstructed, but my Regress is not the reby warranted; If my Sun be hindered in its Course, let it stand still, rather than go, one, much less, ten degrees backward: My Positive endeavours may be ad extrinseco obviated, so that I can not reform, but the Moral Obligation cannot be violated, so that I must not retreat; the Negative is the least that I am in the case obliged to: Now, If by Mr. crofton's own Rule, (Page 28.) Error cui non resistitur, approbatur, the nonresistance of Error (viz. when 'tis in our power to give a stop) be an Allowance of it, and Connivance be an Act and Argument of Affection, what must Personal Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer, be? surely an Act and Argument of, Connivance in, Allowance of, and Affection to it: And how inconsistent this is with his alleged Zeal, Care, and Contest for (and due uninterrupted Endeavours of) Reformation, etc. let the impartial judge. Sir, I need not to tell you that I am under no Obligation from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, (I never took That, more than the slavish Engagement, which you well know); who then can imagine that I should once plead That? But had it been my sad Lot to be, either through a Precipitant Zeal (the Predominant humour of former Times) entangled, or by the circumventing Persuasives of Covenant-Zealots, inveagled, into such a Labyrinth, and yet free, yea, forward with Mr. Crofton and other Reverend and Worthy Presbyters, to swallow down Common-Prayer, and to proselyte others to Communion therein, I should have owned myself a perpetual Debtor to King and Parliament for a Release, whose Wisdom judged it fit to open a door of Liberty by disannulling that Oath. But I go on.  
Reformation and Separation (saith he (whereof Voluntary Non-Communion is the Privative Part) though confounded, 
Page 30.  yet are in themselves vastly different, inconsistent, and destructive each to other.  
Ans. 1. Separation from the Common-Prayer, is an Act of Reformation, being a Continuation of Reforming Endeavours in this juncture of time, wherein Scrupulous Weaklings, are loath to contribute to the maintaining of That by their Practice, which after Solemn Ejection, is returned and retained by Power. 'Tis Negative Reformation; an Act of Primitive Zeal; whereby those Persons refuse to conform to, what they cannot (positively) reform; the same Principle obliging them to decline and disown it, when (after Expulsion) restored, that at first obliged them (and possibly Mr. Crofton too) to that Expulsion; 'Twere strange if it should be otherwise.  
2. Separation sinful, and Reformation, are indeed inconsistent, and destructive each to other: Virtus stat in medio: Reformation (which supposeth (hurch Entity) is an Act of Virtue, equally opposite to those Extremes, Superstition and Separation (the Scylla and Charybdis, the two Rocks, upon either of which, the Mystical Ark (the Church) is in danger of being split) the one being destructive to Church-Purity, the other to Church-Vnity (as hath been said), so that, That very Principle, which obligeth to Reformation (be it Conscience, or Conscience under such or such Enforcements, etc.) doth ipso facto oblige to an Equal abhorrency and detestation of Both: And thus, Schism, I abominate, 'tis a thing my Soul loathes, I desire to keep the Unity of the Spirit, in the Bond of Peace (Mr. Crofton wrongs me if he thinks otherwise), for I am sufficiently apprehensive, how near, Church-Rents border upon Church-Ruine. But now, That Separation only is Sinful and Schismatical which is Causeless, and not warranted by the (often mentioned) Case of Real-Inevitable-Necessity; which will acquit me from such an Imputation, who communicate with the Church of England in Prayer, Praise, the Word, Parts of True Divine Worship, but decline, and modestly refuse Communion with her only in those two things; viz: 1. Her Liturgy and Common-Prayer; 2. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper under the present Method of Administration and Appendices; the first appearing to be no part of Christ's Instituted Worship; the second (though for substance a Part of Christ's Instituted Worship, yet) being by Superstition and Adulterate Mixtures of Pharisaical Leaven with the Sacramental Bread, etc. so extremely corrupted, that I cannot communicate with her therein without sin; I cannot partake of the Sacrament, but that I must partake of the attending Superstition too; I cannot celebrate the Death-memorial of a Crucified Lord, but that I must by sin crucify that Lord afresh, and thus Commemorate his Death with his Death. I must add,  
3. There is a Separation Passive, whereby Pastors are separated from their People (their Charge) and a breach made upon their joint-communion; Hereby judge who are the greatest Schismatics; Those who are separated, being by a Violent Interruption at first driven away, and by Prevalent Corruptions (at least in the Things just now mentioned) kept away, and barred from Communion, etc. or, Those who cause that Separation: This is a Penal Evil, the Condign punishment of our Laodicean Neutrality and lukewarmness in the work of Reformation; there have been in former times too too many Jehu-like Reformers, who have made Religion to stoop to a Carnal Interest, to Secular and Selfish Ends and Aims; this hath kindled a fire in Heaven, which nothing but Prayers and Tears, etc. can quench; for This, 
Psal. 78.21.  A fire is kindled against Jacob, and anger also is come up against our Brittish-Israel: 
Isa. 43.28.  Ah! for this hath God profaned the Princes of the Sanctuary.  
I cannot (saith he, page 31.) without trembling consider the Circumcised Sects in the Church of Corinth are charged to have left the Head, by leaving the Body, 
Col. 2.19.  etc.  
Ans. 1. This is a strange Argument to be urged against his censured Non-Communicants, unless they be proved to be (such as by his own confession, those whom the Apostle there taxeth, were, viz:) Circumcised Sects, or guilty of such Corruptions as will amount to a— Not holding of the Head, the thing there charged upon those Circumcised Sects, and as justly chargeable upon all Judaizing Christians, who contend for the Introduction and Retention of the Antiquated, Jewish Rites, and Ceremonies, in the Christian Church: 
1 Joh. 4.3. Qui negat Christum in Carne venisse, Ive est Antichristus. Tertul. lib. de carne Christi.  for this is (virtually) to deny that the Son of God is come in the flesh, He being the Body and Substance presigured and shadowed thereby; This is Real Antichristianism; Enough to turn a Bethel into a Bethaven! Now who in England are most Criminal herein, who most exposed to the Apostolic Censure, let an Altar and Organ, and other Romish Relics and Jewish Popish Ceremonies, witness: Ah 
* Judg. 6 32.  Jerub-baals are rare in our age. Is this Reformation? Yes, such another as was that of King Henry the Eighth, when he had renounced the Popish Jurisdiction, but retained the Ceremonies; whom Luther, (that great German-Reformado) upbraided with a— He hath killed the Pope's Body, but saved his Soul: Yet  
2. That the Church is God's Ark of Salvation, and therefore not to be totally and universally forsaken, upon peril of inevitable Ruin, is a received principle with me. The Church is both an Ark of Safety, and an Ark of Plenty; It saves both from drowning and starving: Noah's Ark saved from the Deluge, all that were in it, and none but those: The Ark under the Law contained in it three things, viz: Aaron's Rod, the Tables of Testimony, the Pot of Manna, Heb. 9.4. This Ark represented the Church; Aaron's Rod, Discipline; the Tables of Testimony, the Word; and the Pot of Manna, the Sacrament: Where is either Soul-Safety, or Soul-Plenty, to be had but within the Verge and Limits of the Church? This is the only Ark that can land us safe at the Heavenly Haven, the Land of Rest; so that Universal Separation must needs forestall Salvation: But enough of that. Generalia non pungunt.  
CONSID. 3. 
Page 37.  Scandal is an Argument of no strength, when pleaded to supersede, or condemn a Positive duty.  
Remons. 1. Who denies that? But Communion with the Church of England in her Common-Prayer (it being none of Christ's Instituted Worship) is not as yet proved to be a Positive duty: What Communion hath light with darkness? 2 Cor. 6.14.16. But 2. Scandal is an Argument of strength, when pleaded in matters of Indifferency (by his own confession, P. 39) now such I hope he will grant (which I cannot as yet do) our Liturgy and Common-Prayer to be, unless he say as a Reverend Bishop (one of the greatest in this Nation) once upon occasion said to me; who when I humbly desired to know wherein the weak were to be indulged, was pleased to resolve it into Things Indifferent; and I assuming that a Liturgy or Common-Prayer is a Thing Indifferent, replied, 'Tis not Indifferent when imposed: And then, sarewell Christian Liberty, for there is nothing Indifferent (in Actu exercito, or) when imposed. But Right Reverend Fathers, etc. what a woeful case is this? You tell us, that in things Indifferent we are to indulge the weak; and yet by reason of your Impositions, you leave nothing Indifferent; far be it from You to render that Necessary by Your Law, which (you grant) should be left Arbitrary by Gods Own: There is an Indulgency (you grant) allowed us by the Law of God (Rom. 14.13, 15, 21. 1 Cor. 8.9, 13.) and yet how are we abridged of it by the Laws of Men? Is this Charity? or is it Sacrilege? Now 3. Why may not Scandal accrue from Mr. Croftons' Communion in, as well as from his Conformity to the Common-Prayer? May not a weak Brother hereby suffer in the tortures of a Scrupulous Conscience, being racked between his own doubts and the Offenders Practice? Or, may not this administer to him an occasion of sinning, either in his condemning of that which may be Lawful to Mr. Crofton, seeming Unlawful to him; or, in doing what yet he condemns or doubteth of, being animated thereunto by Mr, Croftons' Practice? Or, may not this tend to the hardening of men in sin? And is not this Real Scandal, being Factum quo alius deterior redditur? (Amandus Polanus, Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 3.) I dare say many Nonconforming Ministers, who have judged a set Form of Prayer to be Lawful in itself, and therefore a thing which might be used without any trespass upon either the Law of Piety (the Word), or the Law of Purity (Conscience), who yet would have totally declined it upon the account of the Law of Charity, fearing lest they should destroy him (or them) with their meat, for whom Christ died, Rom. 14.15. Now 'twere strange if this were an Argument strong enough against Conformity, and yet an Argument of no strength against Communion. But Scandal in this case is Offence taken only, not given? This is as Common as the Prayer itself, but 'tis assumed gratis. However 4. Admit it were scandalum accep 'em, an offence taken, and groundless: Shall there be no Indulgency showed in that case? What shall we think of the Christians in the Primitive times? the weaker had no cause or ground to be offended with the stronger about their Indifferent use of mean, Christ having purchased for them an absclute liberty therein; & yet what strict laws are by St. Paul enacted, against the scandalising of such? and is it nor his own Personal Resolve in the case, to become a perpetual Debtor to 〈◊〉 Bell, rather than a Debtor to the law of Charity? (1 Cor. 8 13.) This was my Reply to that Reverend Bishop, when he was pleased to assert, that the weak are not at all to be indulged, where there is no cause or ground of offence; (and if there be any real ground of offence, how can they be called weak?) strange Diocesian Doctrine!  
CONSI. 4. I am not without the Caution and Conduct of the seber Godly, Learned Promoters & Purjuers of a Perfect & Complete Reformation. Remon 1. 'Tis strange Mr. Crofton should argue from Communion amongst Distinct Churches, against the present Non-Communion of Particular Members of one & the same Church; since that which is between the other Reformed Churches, and this of England, is a Communion, not by way of Participation or Joynt-Fellowship etc. but of Profession of the fame true Religion only, which I have here owned, and asserted. 2. There are indeed Liturgies used (though not imposed) in some of those Reformed Churches, But (though they are not Mala peruse yet) this proves them not Authentic more than the Priests and Levites Sacrificing in the High Places (1 Chr. 16.39.) proves those Lawful; why then may they not be looked upon as Spots in their Feasts? God conniving at those in Christians, as He did at Polygamy amongst the Jews, which yet he did not approve of. 3. Mr. Croftons' Instance in the Primitive Non-Conformists is wide of that of the Modern; for our Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer, were a Relapse and Return into (I am loath to say) an Egyptian darkness, after a Noonday Sunshine of the Gospel; and that (by Mr. Croftons' own grant) after Sacred and Solemn Ex ulsion thereof; now Promoters of Reformation, are no Patterns of a Retrogradation; ah! this may humble England's declining Sun! lengthened Shaddowe: (Jer. 4.6.)! 'Tis Low Water in the Sanctuary! out English Ark is retarded in Her Voyage Heaven-ward! Wind bound by Ser-Forms, etc. saint Gailes of the Spirit! persuaded I am, were those Worthies now alive, they would be loath to become Baal's (either) Advocates or Adherents. 4. What does Mr. Crofton think of the thousands of Non Conforming Ministers in our days, who (in my mind) deserve the name of, Church, as well as any Papal Conclave, or, Prelatical Convocation in the world: But however 5. I must not draw every Example into a Rule, Judaizing Peter I must not pattern by; Mr. Crofton and his Liturgy-Communicant-Fellow Presbyters. I respect and reverence; but he he a MOSES, be he an AARON I have no warrant to follow him any further than he is a Follower of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.1.  
Now Dear Sir, The good Spirit of God be your Convoy to guide you through the Syrteses of this World in a strait course Canaan-ward, that you may not split upon the Rock, either of Church-rending Separation on the one, nor Church-Adulterating-Superstition on the other hand, till he at length land you sale within the Veil.  
T. P.  
FINIS