A Rational Defence OF Nonconformity: WHEREIN THE Practice of NON CONFORMISTS IS Vindicated from Promoting Popery, and Ruining the CHURCH, imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of Separation. ALSO His Arguments from the Principles and Way of the Reformers, and first Dissenters are Answered. And the Case of the present Separation, truly stated; and the blame of it laid where it ought to be. And the way to Union among Protestants is pointed at.  
By GILBERT RULE, Minister of the Gospel.  Ezek. XLIII. 10, 11. 
Thou Son of Man, show the House to the House of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their Iniquities, and let them measure the pattern, etc.  
And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, show them the form of the House, and the fashion thereof, etc.  
LONDON, Printed for john Salusbury, at the Rising- Sun, near the Royal-Exchange in Cornhill. M DC LXXXIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE fierce Contentions of this Age about the Mint, and anise, and Cummin of Religion, (I mean Religious Ceremonies that men have devised and imposed) hath, in a great measure hindered people from minding, with that application that becometh the weightier things of the Law; to wit, the love of God, and of our Neighbour, and due regard to the promoting of true holiness, and the Salvation of men's Souls, the heavy Sufferings of many in England, and in Scotland, for not complying with such things, as their imposing Taskmasters did not so much as pretend to give Scripture warrant for, are too notorious to be denied, and too smarting to be forgotten: How many thousands have been put on this sad Dilemma? either to wound their Consciences, or to be destroyed by taking away their Estates, Liberties, Livelihood, and life itself. But now the Lord (in his infinite wisdom, and tender mercy to an undeserving generation) having by some late Revolutions, first broken the Yoke of the Oppressors, and made them, for some time taste a little of the Cup that they had made their brethren drink deeply of; and then graciously, and wonderfully, delivered both contending parties from that utter ruin that was manifestly impending; and made us like them that Dreamed, and done exceeding abundantly for us, above what we could think, out done our faith, as was foretold, Luk. 18. 8. He hath by this surprising providence, laid an Obligation on all Protestants (and they who are such in earnest, will mind it) to turn to the Lord from every evil way, that hath been in their heart or hand; and particularly to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; to endeavour to speak, and do the same things; and where that cannot be attained, (through want of light, and other sinful disorders of the Soul, not easily, nor soon removed, without that pouring out of the Spirit from on high, promised, Isa. 33. 15. and else where; which we should daily, and earnestly pray and wait for.) To bear with one another in Love. They who know no other way to Unity, but Uniformity, will for ever miss of their design, unless either all men were perfect in knowledge, and wholly freed from irregular passions, or Conscience were wholly laid to sleep, and its use banished out of the World.  
Toward this blessed end, peace among Protestants, sober reasoning between Dissenting Parties, may have some usefulness; even Eristick Writings, may prove Irenick, if managed, and read, with that Spirit that becometh the gospel; that is, with due love to truth and peace; and if I did not judge this book to be of that tendency, I should never consent that it should see the light. The Apostle giveth us two excellent directions for attaining this end, Phil. 3. 16. (beside the duty of forbearing one another, till the Lord clear mistakes to them who are out of the way, which he doth more than insinuate, ver. 15.) but alas, even about these ways to peace we contend, as will appear in this Treatise: Yet in my opinion, the Apostle doth there clearly hold forth, that there is a rule to which all are obliged to conform their actions, and principles, and particularly, Church Administrations: Let us walk by the same rule: In all reason, this rule must be Divine, in that it is here generally enjoined to be minded, and that by all Christians. Is it imaginable that the Apostle intendeth to oblige all the Churches to take a rule of man's making for directing them how they shall please God? Besides, Church, or humane Canons never were, or are like to be the same in all Churches; nor indeed can they of the things that are left to the Church to order at her discretion, that which is fit in one place, may be most unfit in another. Wherefore if the Apostle had aimed at these, he would have spoken of Rules, not a rule. We have then cause to think, that the way to Church peace is to take the Word of God for the rule by which all the affairs of his House should be ordered: If we would enjoin nothing, peculiar to Religion, to be observed, but what is warranted there: And would not be too busy in making Canons, for determining these things that are Extrinsic to Religion, its Rites common to it with other solemn actions, further than necessity requireth, and in these determinations, keep within the bounds of the general directions of the Word of God: If we would do all things in the Church decently and in order; and then make nothing such by our Will and Authority; but enjoin the Observation of these things, that Scripture hath declared to be such, or nature, and civil custom hath made such: If we would content ourselves with that decency and order that was in the Apostolic Church: Our Controversy would soon be at an end. It is true, even where Scripture is taken for the rule, there might be some different apprehensions about the meaning of this rule, what it enjoineth; but they who sincerely seek the mind of God in his words, and depend on him for the light of his Spirit, readily will either find what they seek, or will soberly and peaceably differ from their brethren. But when this rule is laid aside, and man's wisdom must enjoin what is fit in God's Worship, (even though they be Learned, Wise, and Holy men, and in authority in the Church, yet not infallibly guided; and much more when any of these Qualities are wanting) there can hardly he an end of controversy, it will be hard to set bounds to their multiplicity (of which the Popish Church is a fatal Witness) and hard to bring them to an end by composing them, unless blind obedience be asserted; at least as to some things: And how many things these shall be, who knoweth?  
The other Direction that the Apostle giveth in that place, is, let us mind the same things: Unity in design is very conducive to Unity in Heart and Practice: When all have one end before them, they will the more readily fall into the same way leading to that end; as when many are travelling to the same City, they will readily go in the same road; or if one take a gainer way, as he thinketh, than another, yet they will not fall out about that. Let us then all make the one thing needful, our business; let us mind serious and practical Religion; and in Subordination to that, let us mind the Conversion, and Edification of the Souls of the people under our charge: Let us set ourselves against Immorality, Ignorance, (which, alas, doth abound every where) Atheistical and careless neglect of Religion: Let us labour to awaken the people to mind how they shall be saved, and put them in mind of the hazard of resting on out side Worship, whither it be with, or without the Ceremonies that we controvert about: If we all have a true Idea of that Religion, that we should labour to instill into the minds of people, and have that impression if the weight, and indispensable necessity of it, that the Apostle expresseth, 2 Cor. 5. 11. knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men: If we were one in this, it would much contribute to oneness in things that are more remote from the essence and life of Religion. But while we mind our own things which must needs be very different) while one sort is for their Grandeur, and Riches, and Dominion, and Ease; and another is for his Ease and Applause among one sort of men: While we are for keeping up a party, for victory over them that we contend with, and for maintaining our credit, so as we are ashamed to change, lest we fall under the imputation of being once in a mistake: I say, while these different ends and motives are suffered to influence us, we must be far from agreement about any thing that hath been the Subject of our Debates, while Lust's war in our Members, Wars, and Fightings will be the product of them, Ja. 4. 1. As this purging of ourselves, from bad things might conduce to the Church's peace, so might a joint endeavour on both sides to purge the Church from bad Men; an Ignorant, Scandalous, Heady, and Unsober Ministry is a great let to peace: God will not be at peace with the Church, while such are countenanced, and good men cannot with any satisfaction behold such Scandals to Religion, and such effectual Instruments of the ruin of Souls, continued in the Church: Such Ministers are Make-bates in the Church: While some effectual course is not taken to remove them, the Church is like to have little peace, either with God, or in herself. Let all then (if they would see Religion flourish, and the Church settled in peace) contribute their endeavours to get the unsavoury Salt (that hath long made us unpleasing to God) cast out; and to oppose the entrance of them into the Holy Function of the Ministry, who are not in some tolerable measure such as the Apostle requireth, and are not in a probable capacity, by their life, and doctrine, and diligence, to do good to Souls; and let none countenance or plead for unfit persons, either to be admitted into, or kept in the Church: Pity to men's Persons, or Families, being horrid cruelty, when the ruin of Souls is the necessary consequent of such Acts: When love to the Salvation of men beareth sway with us above zeal for a Party, we will easily be prevailed with in this. If this piece of Reformation be endeavoured, all Ranks must put hand to it, the people by discovering such, where they are, and not calling, nor countenancing them, when they want a guide to their Souls: And Magistrates, by endeavouring the regulating of such Laws as do in any wise open the door to such men to enter, or protect them when they already are in places: And Ministers in their station, by rejecting such Candidates of the Ministry, as are not duly qualified, and censuring the immoralities of such as have made a shift to get into that Office, notwithstanding of their notorious unworthiness.  
In order to obtaining the Peace of the Church (which we all prize and desire) Reformation is also necessary; peace and purity will not long be separated the one from the other; personal reformation must not be wanting, if it will give hope of Peace, even from Enemies, Prov. 16. 7. much more is it the way to be blessed with peace from our Friends; without it there is no peace with God, nor Man, but such as is a Curse to them who have it, 2 King. 9 22. Isa. 32. 17, 18. Church Reformation must also truly be endeavoured by us, if we would have Church-peace; it is no token for good, when sinful Evils (Images of Jealousy, that provoke the Lord to jealousy) are in the Church, and yet all agree in these ways; none lament them, none reprove them, none take care to keep their Garments clean of the Corruptions of the Time; like those whom the Lord doth so highly commend, Rev. 3. 3. If we expect peace, we must be humbled before the Lord, for our personal and public Deviations, and be ready to confess them before the World; we must take Shame, if we expect that he should favour, and honour us. See Ezek. 4●, 10, 11. While we are fixed in evil ways, and will not be convinced; or so proud that we are ashamed to acknowledge that we have been out of the way: God nor Man can make no peace with us. Neither is this all, but we must turn from our evil ways, of whatever sort they be particularly, while Church Grievances are continued; while no effectual course is taken, and that unanimously, and with serious application, to remove Scandals, to satisfy the Consciences, and quiet the Minds of such as are grieved; how can Attempts for Peace have any success? I suppose it will not be denied by sober and intelligent Men, that there are faults in the Church (tho' some do strangely Hyperbolise in declaiming of her perfection; but they that are in that strain, of whatever party they be, do little understand the Scripture Pattern, and the Churchway that themselves own, and do not compare the one with the other) Non-residences, Pluralities, want of Parochial Discipline, abuse of Excommunication, making that which passeth for Church Discipline and censures; to be more destructive to men's purses, than to their vices; and other such things, are too grossly evil to be defended, and too well known to be denied, or dissembled. It were one good step toward peace, if there might be a prospect of getting such Enormities done away; and the affairs of the House of God managed in a way more like that of the Gospel. It might also make for our Peace, if all of us, of both parties, should put on a Spirit of meekness, and rather lament what we cannot approve, than reproach one another for such things. An unsober, and fierce Spirit hath too much appeared on both Hands; our Zeal for and against the things controverted, is no way proportioned to the things themselves. Many have not a different degree of Zeal against the grossest parts of Popery, from what they use against some of the Rags of that Whors' attire; tho' all be unjustly charged with this, yet it is too evident to be the temper and way of some: It's true immorality in Ministers, and visible Enmity against the practice and power of Religion, may justly stir the indignation of a serious Christian, but to be so affected toward all that differ from us, in the lesser matters of Religion, is a Zeal not kindled from Heaven: On the other Hand, the odious comparison that is made between Popery and Presbytery, preferring the former as more Eligible, which is frequent in the Mouths, not of the Rabble only, but of Men of Name and Authority in the Church, doth not savour of that meekness guided by a sound judgement, which becometh the Gospel: Let them who are Godly and Sober on both sides, love and esteem one another in the Lord; and we may hope for more peace in the Church, than yet we have seen. This ill temper now hinted at, should be shunned by all, and reproved where it appeareth, by them who would promote the peace of the Gospel.  
If by all the means mentioned, or other good ways, peace cannot be obtained, we must not step out of God's way to obtain it; Truth must be bought at any rate, but Peace may be too dear to be bought by a Christian: It may be impossible, it may not lie in us to live peaceably with some men; yea, or with a Church, Rom. 12. 8. Holiness is simply necessary not Peace, Heb. 12. 14. Wherefore it is to be expected, that we should yield in the matters of God (however little they maybe comparatively) as one may and aught to do, for peace sake, in his own matters; Men cannot command; their Light & Consciences, are unplyable things to worldly, or carnal Arguments; yea, to those that seem to have somewhat in them more divine, seeing the least Evils is not to be done, or assented to for attaining the greatest good: overpowering light to change our minds, or forbearing one another, till that light arise; are the true methods to compose Debates in the Church. Assent and Subscrption to what is required, while an inward dislike of it remaineth, is away to Peace in a Church; that the Lord doth not approve, and that will not have Stability, nor a good Issue.  
I have no further account to give of this book, but that it was written a few years ago, which must excuse some passages that may seem not to suit our present case: It was a doing when King James came to the Crown; the case of Protestants soon after made it appear unseasonable to contend about our private Sentiments wherein we differ, when we all were like to be undone by a Deluge of Popery. But now after the state of the Nation hath been unhinged, and is in a hopeful way to be settled, it may seem allowable, if not necessary, that each Party should put in their claim, and give the best reasons they can for their pretensions; and that with all moderation and peaceableness: And having so done, what they should leave it to them who ought to judge, what is fittest to be chosen. This I have endeavoured ut potui, non ut debui, wishing that some other person, by whom it might have been done to more advantage, had taken this Task: Some may readily dislike the way of managing this debate, following the Antagonist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but this I could not well shun. The Reverend Doctor's method not being very exact, and many things that might stumble an ordinary Reader, being brought in by him, where it could little be expected. This way I thought most useful for them who want instruction; and others, as they do not need any help that I can afford them, so they can suffer no prejudice by this manner of reasoning. I submit all that I have said, to the censure of the judicious, candid, and unbyass'd Reader, and to the Authority of the Church of Christ▪ in any of her Lawful Assemblies. If any shall judge that I have yielded too much; or, that I have condescended too little for the sake of unity, I am willing to be corrected, by any who shall bring plain Scripture, or solid reason, for what they allege.   

A Rational Defence OF Nonconformity, etc.  
THey who find themselves under an Obligation from the Authority of a Holy and Jealous God, to regard the Purity of his Worship, and keep their Consciences from being defiled with the Corruptions that Men have brought into that Worship, are at this day under most Severe Persecution, and that from their Fellow-Protestants, (which is no small aggravation of their Trouble) when the common Enemy is ready to destroy us, and the Religion that we do jointly profess: But our Brethren are not satisfied with our other Sufferings, but we are lashed with the●r Tongues and Pens, and exposed as the most contemptible and most unreasonable of Men; and that not only by the Common sort of Ministers and People, that are of the opposite Party, (whose Zeal against us carrieth them commonly to profess, that Papists are better than Presbyterians, and that Religion rather to be chosen than this. A great Token of Respect to the Protestant Religion! as if all the Principles of it, in which we agree with them, were of less value than the Cermonies, owned as Indifferent things, wherein we differ from them,) but even by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Stillingfleet, a Man formerly Eminent for his Moderation; yet in this Bock, now under examination, treateth his Antagonists with that Contempt and Severity that was not expected from a man of his worth. That poor suffering party, though they have no Shelter against their other Afflictions, but to make that GOD their Refuge, for Obedience to whom they suffer; yet may be allowed, I hope, a modest Apology for their way and practice, by which that Reproach that is cast on them may be rolled away, and their Innocency vindicated. In order to this, I have made bold to attempt the Answering of this Book (looking for his help whose Cause we plead.)  
But before I meddle with the Book itself, it is needful to survey his long PREFACE, consisting of 94 pages, wherein his main business is to fasten on the Non●conformists a most heavy Charge, as if they were Promoters of the Interest of Popery.  
Sect. 2. If any Dissenters of that Time did use the Excellent B. Jewel (whose Memory is still precious among all Protestants) ungratefully and spitefully for preaching his Opinion, in Defence of the Church-Order of England, they deserve Blame; it had been their part to vindicate their Principles by a sober and rational Defence against the Bishop's Arguments, but not to show Disrespect to a person who had so well deserved for his Learned Labours against Popery. But I do not well understand how this unworthy Carriage should consist with the Character that the Dr. doth afterwards give of these Dissenters, as to their moderation and compliance with the Church's way, when he hath a mind to expose the present Non-conformists as far degenerate from their Ancestors in the same Profession. But of this more in its due place.  
Sect. 3. He complaineth (p. 2.) of his own hard Usage on the like Occasion. His Sermon entitled, The Mischief of Separation, was indeed solidly refuted by several Non-conformists, and in that sense his Sermon was hardly used; but I never heard before, that hard Arguments were counted hard Usage from an Adversary; and if Bishop Jewel had no harder Usage for his Sermon, there was no need of this Complaint, unless it were to make his own hard Fate the more conspicuous, by so venerable a Parallel. This Reverend Author should consider, That tho' we owe and give all due deference to the Memory of Bishop Jewel, and to the Worth of Dr. Stillingfleet, for their Labours in Defence of Protestantism; yet it is neither Ingratitude nor Incivility in us to defend the purity of Gospel-Worship Worship against their Assaults: We honour them, but retain our Liberty of dissenting from them, and of owning our Dissent, when they mistake, and are out of the way. We call no man Rabbi, having one Master, CHRIST, whose written Word we make the Rule of our Faith and Worship. But one great part of the Doctor's hard Usage lieth in this, That it hath been maliciously suggested by some, and too easily believed by others, that he was put on that Work with a design to inflame our Differences, and to raise Persecution. I confess Malice to suggest Evil, and overeasiness to believe it, is a thing too common among Dissenting Parties; the Lord heal these Distempers on both hands; but the particular Ground of this Charge on his Antagonists, should have been mentioned. If any have suspected that he was put on the Work; if the work be good, that doth extenuate the fault of such Suspicion. I know no Evil in following either the Advice or Command of others to do our Duty: So that hither to there is no Ground for the heavy Charge of Malice and malign Credulousness. If any have judged his Design, that is not fair dealing, such Secrets are to be left to the Judgement of him who knoweth the Hearts. But tho' I have a great deal of Charity in reference to the Intentio Operantis; yet it is not so easy to pass a favourable Judgement on the Intentio Operis; but he endeavoureth afterward his Vindication in this, where I shall attend him.  
Sect. 4. His professed Design in preaching that Sermon, was only his just apprehension, That the Destruction of the Church of England, under a pretence of Zeal against Popery, was one of the likeliest Means to bring it [Popery] in. Here he supposeth, (if I understand what he saith) that the Protestant Dissenters aim at the destruction of the Church of England; or at least, that Nonconformity tendeth to destroy it, than which no imagination can be more groundless; nor can I conceive what should give cause to such a thought, unless it be an extravagant Idea, that some men frame to themselves of the Church of England, as if her Essence consisted in the Ceremonies, and the removing of these were the destruction of the Church: We, who Dissent from that which they call the Church of England, are far from such low and dishonourable thoughts of Her; we look on her as a Reformed part of the Church of God, professing the Protestant Religion, in opposition to the Errors of Popery, but mixing this True Religion with some humane Ceremonies; and therefore we think, that opposing of these Ceremonies is so far from tending to the Destruction of the Church, that it conduceth much to reforming of Her: But suppose the Ceremonies were good and lawful things, it is still a strange Notion, and inconsistent with the Sentiments concerning them, that our Brethren do profess, that they are indifferent things, and of no necessity: If they be so what hazard is there of the destruction of the Church, from their being laid aside? If the Non-conformists had their wish, it would infer no other Alteration in the Church, but the removal of such Accidents, which the A betters of them do, say, That possunt adesse vel abesse sine subjecti interitu; such Incoherences would not have been expected from so Learned a Pen.  
Sect. 5. It is also unfairly (to say no worse) hinted, That Non-conformists Zeal against Popery is but pretended, and that the real Design is to destroy the Church of England; we can clear ourselves of both before a higher Bar, and therefore lay little weight on such Suggestions; neither do we merely dislike the Ceremonies, because they are Popish; he knoweth that we have other Arguments against them; I hope Non-conformists show their Zeal against Popery in other things: Nor do we desire the Destruction of the Church, that these Ceremonies may fall to the Ground, but the removing of the Ceremonies that the Church may be more acceptable to him, who can make her stand in despite of the Gates of Hell. If he charge us with the Church's Ruin, because our Divisions about the Ceremonies may tend to it: For answer; Let it be considered, who giveth culpably the Rise to these Divisions, Whether they who forbear the Ceremonies, because Sinful; or, they who do violently impose them, tho' Indifferent, in their Apprehension: But this will afterwards fall to be further discoursed. I deny not, that Papists design the Ruin of the Church of England, but not as Ceremonious, but as Protestant; they do not design to destroy Her by removing what the Non-conformists scruple, but by taking away what they agree with Her in: And therefore there is no Cause to think, that the removing of the Ceremonies (which Non-conformists desire) though under a pretence of Zeal against Popery, or under whatever other pretence, should be one of the likeliest means to bring it in; which our Author feareth.  
Sect. 6. The Learned Dr. hath caught this Notion, That Non-conformists, by their Zeal against Popery, are like to be Instruments of bringing it in; and he seemeth to be very fond of this fine Conceit; runneth away with it at a great rate; is confirmed in it from the proceedings of Papists, (p. 2.) starteth a Paradox, (p. 3.) As it seemeth to unthinking People, (like the Non-conformists) that when Papists 〈◊〉 appear no longer in that Work, others out of mere Zeal against Popery, should carry it on for them; and these unthinking people are carried away with mere no se and pretences, and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery, who talk with most passion, and with least understanding against is; and more to this purpose. One may think it little Glory for the highly Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to labour in refuting such a contemptible Adversary, as he here representeth: But their Wisdom, and Learning, and Reasons for what they hold, will (I hope) find more Equitable, and less Supercilious Judges in the world; neither will Hectoring stop their Mouths, though they are ready to be silent to plain Scripture or solid Reason. He judgeth (p. 3, 4.) That East and West may meet, and the most furious Antagonists (of Popery) may become of the easiest Converts: Deus avertat omen. If we may form any Conjecture of what may be, from the Observation of what hath been, easy Conversion to Popery is liker to be found among his own party, who are tame and gentle towards Popery, and no way furious. And if any be furious against it, let them bear their blame. We applaud and practise Rational Zeal against it, but not Fury, for The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God. He cannot get out of this fear concerning many Thousand zealous Protestants: I deny not, but there is cause of Fear; for many have got sound Principles in their Heads, without saving Grace in their Hearts; and the Knowledge and Fortitude of most is very weak, and the best have Cause to fear themselves, and look to him who is able to make them stand; but I hope all the Ground of Fear is not on our side.  
Sect. 7. But now the Learned Author cometh closer to his Design, viz. To lay down Grounds of his Opinion, that he is so confirmed in, That the principles and practice of Non-conformists do tend to re-introduce Popery among us; one is, That they mistake what Popery is, being as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony, and of the Cross, as of real Idolatry: and of Kneeling, as of Adoring the Host.  
Ans. 1. The Dr. might have known, that the learned Labours of some Non-conformists against Popery, do sufficiently testify, that they are not ignorant what it is. 2. We generally know, that the Ceremonies are not Popery, but lo●k on them as a part of Popery, but are far from equalling them with some other parts of Popery, that are far 〈◊〉 re grossly evil. 3. We never counted even the nocent Ceremonies used in England (for innocent Ceremonies, we know none but those of God's Institution) so bad as real Idolatry; nor Crossing and Kneeling, so bad as worshipping Images, tho' we count both sinful, and dare practise neither: Therefore if we should come to see our Mistake in the one Case (which we expect not) yet there is no Ground for the Consequence of this alleged by him, viz. That we should suspect ourselves deceived in the other also, unless he would say that every Discovery of a Mistake that Men make about the smallest matters in Religion, will shake the very Foundation of their Faith; which I hope he will be very far from asserting, left they that have read his Irenicum in former years, and now read his Sermon, and this Defence of it, should infer that which Good Men will be far from imputing to a person of his worth, especially when he doth not deny, but rather own a Change in some things now debated, p. 72. of the Preface.  
Sect. 8. It looketh like another Ground, that Non-conformists serve the Designs of Papists, that When they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian, by their Teachers, they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is, and when they can trace it so very near the Apostles Times, they will soon believe it settled by the Apostles themselves.  
Ans. 1. Here is still a confounding of something that is Popish with Popery, a part taken for the whole, an Accident, without which Popery can well consist, and which doth subsist without Popery, with the body and substance of Popery. He looketh on his Antagonists (according to his wont Esteem of them) as very mean Logicians, when he will have them conclude the Antiquity of Popery in those things that he and we do jointly dislike it in, from the Antiquity of some Rites that were used under that Apostasy, and which we have continued among us under the Reformatiom. 2. It were still as bad a Consequence from our traceing some things near to the Apostles times, to infer that they were settled by the Apostles: For we can make it appear, that not only soon after the Apostles times, but in their times, some things were in the Church that they did not settle; as the Love-Feasts, which they reproved and abolished after that abuse of them was observed. 3. To call those things that Non-conformists Scruple, (Viz.) The Ceremonies, the undoubted practices of the Ancient Church which may be traced near to the Apostles times, is gratis dictum, a bold begging of the question: the proof of it we expect.  
Sect. 9 It will, saith he, (P. 5.) be very hard to persuade considering men, that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon, so unanimously and so universally, as it must do, if Episcopacy and the use of Significant Ceremonies were any parts of the Apostasy. Here is still the great Antiquity of these things taken for granted but not proved. But further, his Considering men, if they read and consider the Scripture, will easily be persuaded that a Church may very early and quickly degenerate, and that unanimously and universally; especially in some things that are of lesser concern in Religion. How suddenly did the Church of Israel degenerate, and Aaron with them, when Moses was but 40 days absent in the Mount, & that in matters of higher moment than what we contend about; even worshipping a Calf for God? see Ex. 32. 1. and particularly Vers. 8. And the Lord foretold to Moses their after Apostasies, Deut. 31. 16. And Moses took notice of their Apostasies while he was yet with them, and how soon they would break out after his departure, 27. 29. How Quickly, unanimously, and universally did the ten Tribes apostatise after Solomon's decease? And is not the whole History of the Church of Judah under her Kings, a witness of this? When ever a bad King arose, presently the pure Worship of God was turned to Idolatry. In the days of Joash, as soon as Jehojada was gone, how quickly did a Faction, with a Compliment to the King, turn the whole Nation to Idolatry? 2 Chron. 24. 17, 18. These Apostasies were in higher points than we now speak of; and yet, How quickly did the Church thus degenerate? And that this should not be thought strange, even in the Gospel-Church we may see, if we consider what Christ telleth us, of the Tares sown while men sleep, and growing up insensibly, and without Observation: Also the degeneracy that the Church fell into, even while the Apostles were alive, and faithfully watching over her; and that, both in Doctrine and Practice, is evident in the Errors in Corinth and Galatia; in the Abuses in public Administrations at Corinth, insomuch as the Apostle behoved, even in his own time, to make a Reformation, by bringing back to Apostolic Example, and the Law of Nature, for reforming some Indecencies among them; and to Divine Institution, for reforming their Enormities, 1 Cor. 11. 1. 20. 23. If these evils crept in under the Inspection of the Apostles, What wonder is it if Men afterwards began in some things to deviate in Church-practice?  
Sect. 10. Yea, the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2. foretelling the Antichristian Apostasy, v. 3. telleth us, That that Mystery of iniquity did then work, v. 7. This Allegation the learned Dr. putteth off with a Scoff, p. 17. but we must not therefore part with it. It is evident, that there was then a tendency among some of the Members of the Christian Church to several of these Evils, which being grown up to Maturity of Wickedness, Antichristianism was afterwards made up; not to speak of the gross Heresies that then were, and others that were foretold, Act. 20. 29, 30. The Ambition of Diotrephes was a fermenting toward Lordly Prelacy, 3 Joh. ver. 9 So was the Idolising of some Ministers among the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3. 4. So the turning aside to the Jewish Ceremonies, a carnal, gaudy sort of Religion, not contented with the simplicity of Gospel-Worship, for which the Galatians are reproved, Gal. 4. 9 The worshipping of Angels, voluntary Humility, subjection to Ordinances, touch not, taste not, handle not, Will-Worship, Col. 2. 18. Forbidding of Meats and Marriage, 1 Tim. 4. 3. and in a word, the turning the Spiritual Religion of GOD into a Carnal outward Show. All these, I say, was a working toward the vile Superstitions that afterward grew up under the Antichristian Apostasy, of which our Ceremonies are some Remains. Now, if there was such a secret working of such Evils in that time, is it any wonder that some unallowable practices should be in the Church, soon after the Apostles, and be little taken notice of?  
Sect. 11. And this is yet less to be wondered at, if we consider the defects and uncertainty of the History of the Church in Times next after the Apostles, as it was in the first Times of the Church, before the Law, which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dies inanitatis, because of the want of the Light of History. It was little better with the Christian Church at first. We have very little distinct account of her Order; and what we have, is but in some things, not so full as to enable us to pass a Judgement with Confidence of all their Practices in Church-Administrations: It is no good Argument, there is no mention of Dissent from, or Nonconformity to the Church-practices of the First Times; ●rgo there was none; especially considering that the Writers of those Times (who were glorious Lights, yet Men, and subject to mistakes and passions) would not readily give account of what might make against their own practices. And it can be made appear, that the best of the Church Guides, after the Apostles, were in mistakes greater than what we now scruple at: But the early Degeneracy of the Christian Church (which our Author thinks it so absurd to imagine) is witnessed by the most ancient History, and nearest to these Times. Eusebius, lib. 3. c. 29. relating out of Egesippus the Martyrdom of Simon Son of Cleopas, second Bishop of Jerusalem, who had seen the Lord, and was his Cousin- german, he addeth, that After that the Sacred Company of the Apostles were worn out, the Church having before been a pure Virgin, the Conspiracy of detestable Errors, through Deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine, took rooting, etc. If Heresy so soon got head, what Absurdity is it to think that lesser Evils might early prevail? This may be also proved in reference to the Rites used in the Church, how early there was a degeneracy in these, out of Irenaeus, who lived in the second Century, Epist. ad Victor. Episc. Rom. Quae varietas observantiae (pascatis, & jejuniorum) non 〈◊〉 primum neque nostris temporibus caepit, sed multo aute nos (ut opinor) qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est tenentes, in alium morem vel per negligentiam, vel per imperitiam postmodum decidere. Where it is evident, that Irenaeus imputeth such negligence and unskilfulness even to the First Age, and nearest to the Apostles, if not in the days of some of them, as made them fall from Christ's Institution in some things. The consideration of all which maketh me wonder at the Confidence of the learned Author, who saith, that So sudden and insensible a Change of the Church is so incredible, that they that think it could be, may on the same Grounds believe that other parts of Popery did as soon prevail. That this Change did soon prevail, we believe not, but that it might, we see no Absurdity in it; and for other parts of Popery, we can tell when most of them begun, and therefore are not obliged from the Antiquity of one part of it, to acknowledge the same of another; neither is there any Inconveniency in asserting, that these Mistakes crept in insensibly. Seeing the Apostle speaketh of them as a Mystery that was long working, before it came above-board. What he saith of humane Policies keeping long to their first Institution, maketh little to his purpose, both because the contrary is most frequently observed; they often degenerate, and that unobserved by the Vulgar, through the Cunning of Statesmen; and because corrupt Nature is not so apt to deviate from Humane Constitutions, as from those that are Divine. Few Politic Frames have been so often, and quickly, and easily changed, as the Religious Worship of the Jews was, in the time of the Judges and Kings. I hope by this time it will appear, that the Principles of the Church's Enemies (so he falsely calleth the Non-conformists, who are no Enemies to the Church, but to her humane Ceremonies) bringeth no such mighty prejudice on the Cause of the Reformation, as he with confidence inferreth from what he had discoursed; for we neither own such Antiquity in the Ceremonies; nor, if we did, would that infer the Antiquity of Popery in its grosser parts.  
Sect. 12. He again chargeth his Adversaries, that They must forgo the Testimony of Antiquity, and that by so doing they run into insuperable Difficulties in dealing with the Papists, which his Principles do lead through; for they can justly charge Popery as Innovation. And to that purpose citeth Bishop Sanderson (p. 6.) In answer to him and the Bishop too, We say, 1. That we do not forgo the Testimony of Antiquity; though we do not Idolise it, as some do; we will not be concluded by it against Scripture, and not often without Scripture, but take its help to search into the Mind of God revealed in His Word: It's greatest Admirers must needs forgo it sometimes, both Papists and Prelatists; and the ancient Authors themselves do not seldom disown all Authority in them or any men to determine in the Controversies of Religion: But I shall not digress into this Debate, What Weight is to be laid on Antiquity; it is enough at present that we deny, and our Adversaries have not proved (nor shall they ever be able to prove) that Bishops and Ceremonies are so ancient as they affirm them to be; what Instances he intendeth, or can give from his present Adversaries, (the Non-conformists) that they maintain such principles as destroy the Justice and Equity of the Reformation, I know not; when we meet with them, we shall consider them; mean while we profess ourselves ready to disown all Principles that can be made appear to be of that tendency.  
Sect. 13. Bishop Sanderson's three ways how Non-conformists promote Popery eventually, tho' not intentionally, which he mentioneth, p. 7. are such as to unbiased men will seen unworthy of the learned Bishop to propose, or the learned Dr. to applaud; the first is, By helping to pull down Episcopacy, at which, he saith, Rome rejoiced. But, will any say that this Joy of Rome was because Episcopacy is such an Enemy to Popery; when they have it as well as we, and when it is not to be seen in any Protestant Church as in England? yea, I must say, Except in England. Is it not obvious, that their Joy was for our Broils on that occasion, and not for the Ruin of that which they love so well? Will any deny that Rome rejoiced as much at the pulling down of Presbytery in Scotland, and the hindrance of its Settlement in England, for our Changes, Anarchy, and Confusions are their Advantage? The Second is, Their opposing the interest of Rome, with more Violence than Reason. The Third is, Their frequent mistaking the Question, especially through the necessity of some false Principles, which they will maintain, whatever come of the common Cause of the Reformation. It is not easy to reply to these; I shall only say, there is no Truth in what is here said, nor the Candour becoming a Disputant, in saying of it, without any pretence to proving it. Let not the Dr. think that the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will convince us; the Folly and Indiscretion that he is pleased next to grieve us with the Imputation of, and to back again with the same learned Bishop's Authority, (p. 8.) is another of his Arguments, which we will not attempt to answer, save with the words of Psal. 123. 3, 4. Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy upon us, for we are exceedingly filled with contempt, our Soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease, and with the contempt of the proud. What he after mentioneth of the Popish Instruments, being for the most violent courses, doth not concern us, who endure, but use no Violence: Let them look to it, who with such Violence do press their Brethren in things acknowledged Indifferent, which they think unlawful, and ruin them for not yielding. What Service this may do to the Papists, who are such Lovers of Violent Courses, let the World judge. The Jews, by indiscreet zeal, brought the Romans on them, which they designed to shun: If he will prove our zeal against Popery to be also indiscreet, we shall endure the parallel. He cannot get that Notion out of his Head, (p. 9) that was met before, That Non-conformists attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the Church, because they are against the Ceremonies. What Service this may do the Papists, may be considered: to make the Protestant Religion, which, I suppose, doth constitute the Church of England, have a Trifle (such an Indifferent Ceremony must be) for such a part of her Constitution, as with it she is overturned, they will be apt to infer, that we reckon our Religion a Trifle. Let it be considered, whether talking at this rate doth not look liker a Transport, than what can be justly charged on the Non-conformists.  
Sect. 14. Who doubteth but the Papists envy the Church of England, and wish her torn in pieces, and wish there were no Bishops in England, and that they have endeavoured to destroy her Constitution and Government? But what is all that to the purpose? Doth it hence follow, that they who dislike her Bishops and Ceremonies are doing the same Work? The Tendency (much less the Designs) of Papists and Non-conformists can never be drawn into one Channel, till he prove, that it is the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Papists aim to destroy, and not the Protestant Religion in it; and that their spite at the English Bishops, is, not because they are Protestant Bishops, but because they are Bishops. It may, with as much show of Reason, be said, That a Physician promoteth the design of his Patient's Enemy, who aimeth to kill him, whereas the Physician's Work is, to remove his Disease; both would have the Man what he is not, but there is no Concurrence between them, either in their intention or tendency of their Work. What followeth doth as little prove his point, as I shall show by brief Answers to his Questions: Did not Cranmer, Ridley, etc. suffer Martyrdom by their (the Papists) means? Ans. Yes, but not because Bishops, but as Protestants. Did not they own the same Episcopacy which is now among us, and which men by Book upon Book seek to destroy? (p. 10.) Ans. That maybe a Question, but I now suppose they did: these worthy Servants of God had Reform much, but left this Unreformed; they did worthily in their Generation, yet as men who are Imperfect, we may rather wonder, that in that time of Darkness, which they had been born in, and under the prejudices of their Education, they discovered so much of Error, than that they in that Crowd of Corruptions that they had to purge out, over-looked this.  
Sect. 15. Some further Argumentative Questions he moveth; Is all this (writing against Bishops and Ceremonies) done for the honour of the Reformation? Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us, to fill men's minds with such prejudices against the first Set●●ment of it, and to make the World believe, that the Church-Government then Established, was repugnant to the Institution of Christ; and that our Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches? But wh●ther will men's indiscreet Zeal carry them? Here's a Tragical Outcry, as if Non-conformists went about to destroy Religion, because they are not for Bishops and Ceremonies: What a strange unaccountable fondness have these Men for their Diana, who talk at this rate! If this Discourse have any Nerves, it will at once condemn all these, as the worst Enemies that true Religion hath, who have found any fault in a Reformed Church, as if it were a thing impossible, that a True Reformation should be an Imperfect Reformation. But thus it is with Men who have left Scripture-Guidance, and become fond of Humane Authority in Religious Matters. We honour the Reformers, but do not Idolise their Persons; where they follow Scripture, we follow them, (and the Apostle required no more of his Followers, 1 Cor. 11. 1.) but where they recede from the Rule we must needs Dissent.  
Sect. 16. It may very much clear us, & silence such Clamours of our Adversaries, if we consider that the English is not the only Imperfect Reformation, that hath been in the World, and that what our Author here allegeth, would equally justify all their defects, and condemn all Endeavours after further nearness to Primitive Institution. To give some Instances, How many Reformations do we read of in the Jewish Church, which no doubt were approved of God, and rejoiced in by Good Men, in so far, as they were a casting off of false Gods, and a worshipping of Jehov●h, and yet had this nigrum Theta set on them by the Spirit of God, that the high places still remained, and the People still Sacrificed in them; yet only to Jehovah. This is noted even of S●lom●n, 1 Kin. 3. 2, 3. (and it's like it was one of his first Steps of Degeneracy, tho' the want of a Temple might seem to have excused it; yet it is noted as a Fault, as Pis●a●●r observeth, and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, attamen, only, importeth no less.) It is also noted of Manesseth, in his last and best days, 2 Chron. 33. 17. and of Azariah, 2 King. 15. 5. and of Jotham, 2 King. 15. 35. and of many others, which need not be mentioned. Now is it imaginable, that none of the Godly in Judah were dissatisfied with this Depravation of God's Worship, nor scrupled to leave the Temple, and to go to the high places to worship; and if there were any such, Might not all this be applied to them? Was it for the Honour of the Reformation? Was that the way to preserve the Worship of Jehovah? Mast Reformers be charged with a wrong Way of Worship? If this had been an insignificant Declamation against them, so is it now against us. To come nearer home, Do not all the soundest Protestants rejoice in the Lutheran Reformation, as to the main, and yet blame it in some things? Were not all English Protestants glad of what King Hen. 8. did against the Pope, and in some other points of Religion, and yet they thought not fit so to applaud that Setlement, as to look after no further Reformation: Why then should it be thought in us a disgrace of the Reformation, that we desire some things to be still mended?  
Sect. 17. We thank him for his Charity, that he will not say, that we are set on by the Jesuits, but misregard his Saying, That we do their Work; a groundless and unproved Assertion. I wish there were no Ground for Recrimination▪ which I shall forbear: If his Forty Years Meditation have enabled him to prove the present Episcopacy agreeable to the Institution of Christ, and to the best Churches, we must yield the Cause, but we intent to hear his Proofs first. It is a needless Question that he asketh, Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Setlen ●ut? Seeing he knoweth that we blame the first Setlement, eatenus, tho' we applaud it in the main; and what he cited out of Dr. Taylor the Martyr (p. 11.) saith no more, but that some Holy Men discovered the Evil of Popery, and laid down their Lives in opposition to it, but had not yet come to see the Evil of some of the Appurtenances of Popery. Dr. Taylor and others rejoiced to see God worshipped in English, which had been in Latin, as by Parrots, but did not see the Evil of such a Frame of Worship, having known no other. So the same Dr. Tailor, when Bp. Bon●er was about degrading him, Swore by St. Peter, (Acts and Monuments, p. 174.) as Joseph by the Life of Pharaoh, but that doth not justify such a practice.  
Sect. 18. He now undertaketh (p. 11, etc.) to make it appear, that the Jesuitical Party had a great hand in the beginning of the Separation, (as he calleth it.) How doth this consist with what he had said, That he will not say, that we are set on by the Jesuits? That Papists did not Separate at first in Queen Elizabeth's Days, we can give no Account, knowing that Policy, not Conscience, often governeth their Actions. That Non-conformists did go along with the Church in all her practices, he largely insisteth on afterward, and there it is to be considered whether it was so, or not; and if o, what is our Concern in it. He telleth a long Story of Jesuits employed under the Disguise of more zealous Trotestants, to oppose the Liturgy, etc. and to set up a Separation; the truth of which I shall not dispute; for it hath always been the way of that active party to endeavour the Dividing of them that are not of their Communion. But, I know not what Blame that can reflect upon the Non-conformists, or their practices; I do not doubt, the same party had a hand in the Divisions of Calvinists from Lutherans, and are willing to take all occasions to divide, that they may ruin; but if the Lord turn it to Good, and to their Disappointment, and if his Servants keep his Way, while they part from the way of other Men, let the Jesuits do their worst, and let us do our Duty, there is neither harm nor blame in it. Were it not very easy for us, 〈◊〉 we had any confidence in such Arguments, to show what a hand Jesuits ha●e in setting on our Adversaries, in such peremptory cleaving to their Indifferent Ceremonies, that they will rather see the Church torn in a thousand pieces, than part with one of them; and in prosecuting Men, tho' never so found in the Articles of the Church's Doctrine, and Innocent and Holy in their Conversation, because they cannot yield over the Belly of Scripture-Light, and of their Consciences, to the Use of these Trifles: Doth not this look more like a Design of Jesuits to embroil the Church, that they may ruin her; while such measures are unaccountable, and the Admiration of all the Reformed Churches that behold our Differences?  
Sect. 19 Whether the Papers he speaketh of, and the Confession of Heath the Jesuit, and the Letter mentioned, have any thing of Truth, or be a Shame (as many such things have been in our days) it were such a wild-Goose chase to follow forth the Enquiry, as I do not hope to come to the end of it; and it were not Operae pretium to find the Truth of it. That Coleman, Hallingham, and Benson are named in the Letter, and also recorded by Mr. Fuller, and others as forward Non-conformists, proveth no more, but that the cunning Jesuits knew how to insinuate into the most Unwary, as these with Button are represented to be, by their forwardness beyond others, as appear, Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book 9 Pag. 81. & Pag. 108. Where he saith, they cut-did all of their own Opinion: And was there ever a Party, among whom some might not be found fit Tools by their Indiscretion, to be employed by cunning Artificers, for raising Troubles, without casting a Reflection of Blame on the whole Party? But our Author should have at the same time taken notice out of the same Historian, p. 76. that the Bishops in 5 Eliz. 1563. being impowered by their Canons, began to urge Subscriptions to the Liturgy, Ceremonies, and Discipline of the Church, and by so doing gave Rise to these Mens▪ and others, appearing as they did, and branded the Refusers with the odious Name of Puritans. P. 102. he showeth, that the same Canons being now, (Nine Years after) ratified by Parliament; The Bishops began to urge Subscription more severely than before, which made many Dissenters keep their private Meetings in Fields, Words, their Friends Houses, etc. And may not one rationally think, that the Jesuits might (in their own way) prompt the Bishops to this Severity, as well as the Dissenters not to yield to it?  
Sect. 20. The notions that Jesuits have of Spiritual Prayer, mentioned, p. 15. (some of them extravagant enough) the learned Dr. useth as a repreach to the Non-conformists; how rationally, let the World judge, seeing we never vented nor owned such Fancies; only we think Set Forms of Prayer unfit to be used, where Ministers are tolerably gifted to pray without them; and that all the praying that we read of, to have been either practised or commended in the Apostolic Church, was without Book, the Spirit, not the Book, helping their Infirmities, even as to what they are to pray for, or the Matter of Prayer, Rom. 8. 26. When he saith (p. 16.) that It is not improbable the Jesuits were the first Setters up of this way in England; ●nd that it was never known here, or in any other Reformed Church before this time. If he me●n Prayer without a Set-form, (if he mean any thing else, it is not to the purpose▪) it is a rash and untrue Assertion; Was ever Prayer without Book condemned by any Reform Church? Yea; Can any Reformed Church be instanced where it hath not been, and is not used? Or, let him mention, a Reformed Church that hath restrained Extemporal Prayer, and imposed a Set-form. But this Debate he resumeth afterward, and till then, we shall leave it; it doth not savour of tha● 〈◊〉 regard to the Spirit of Prayer, that is promised to be ●●ured out on the people of God, Z●●h. 12. 10. to mock the using o● his help, to pray without a Book, as a Charm Effectual with judicious People, and to je●r the zeal and warmth of Devotion that appeareth in it: Many know the Advantage of what he thinketh but a Fancy; let him abound in his own Sense, for, De gustiius non est 〈◊〉. If by means of this manner of worshipping God, the Division wonderfully 〈◊〉, as he saith, I hope it was not the Debauched nor Unserious that were so taken with that way, and therefore this Increase was no reproach to it.  
Sect. 21. He citeth the Admonition given in to the Parliament, 14 Eliz. of which he saith the Authors (Mr. F●ller's Church History, p. 102, 103. maketh Mr. Thomas Cartwright Author both of the first and second Admonition) would have neither Papists nor o●●ers e●●strained to communicate. I do not understand whether any person should be constrained to partake of the Lord's Supper, (for I suppose that is meant) otherwise than by forcible persuasions, which is the Compulsion meant, Luk. 14. 23. Brugensis saith, it expresseth vi●●●vangelij; so others, That Ordinance was never appointed by the Lord to be a Test of a Man's Profession, while he is uncapable to improve it to higher ends. But if the Admonition plead for Tolerating of Popery, (I have not the book by me, and therefore cannot determine in this) we are far from approving it. Though we think we have a Right, by the Gospel, not only to Toleration, but further Countenance for our way; yet, if we might choose, we had rather be under the severest Persecution, than have the least hand in obtaining Liberty to that Idolatry: We must not do, yea, nor wish Evil, that Good may come. What he citeth out of Archb. Whit gift, and Archb. Grindal, p. 17, 18. I look on as Invectives against the Non-conformists of the same stamp with his own; they are Parties, and therefore not to be adduced as Witnesses. Dr. Sutclife saith no more than we will say, that our Divisions give advantage to the Papists: Let them who are the culpable Cause of the Divisions look to it. The Prophecy cited out of Mr. Solden, is to the same purpose, and needeth no other Answer.  
Sect. 22. The politic, hellish Advices given by the Jesuit Contzen, and Signior Ballarini, make nothing against us at all, tho' he filleth p. 19, 20, 21. with them; for all that can be thence inferred is, That they labour to divide Protestants, and this D●vision falleth out according to their wish. Now the Division hath its Rise from the Impositions of one party that assume the Name of the Church, and the Scruples of another party. If the Church impose that which is lawful and necessary, and the other party scruple that, and so divide; in that case the Dissenters must bear the blame of the Division, and are guilty of co-operating with the common Enemy, in ruining the Protestant Religion: But if the Church, by Her Impositions, burden the Consciences of Her Members with things that She counteth Indifferent, (i. e.) Needless, and the Scruplers reckon as unlawful, and have just ground so to do; then the blame of Separating, and of helping the Papists to ruin our Religion, lieth at the Church's door; wherefore all this might have been spared. Let the learned Dr. sound refute our Principles, and then cast what blame he will on us; but till that be done, (which we expect not) let him ●ake heed where the blame will be laid, when the Secrets of Men shall be judged. It may be observed in these Advices, that the Jesuits, as their Master the Devil often doth, speak some Truths out of a bad end.  
Sect. 23. Next he cometh (p. 22.) to reproach us with the Indulgence that was granted March, 1671-2. as being procured by the Papists. If any Non-conformists had a hand in procuring Liberty (which I do not believe) to them, I think their Brethren will disown them in that Act. That Papists had a hand in it, is not improbable, both for their own ease, and to make the Difference among Protestants the more conspicuous: But was it fit, that we should forbear a necessary Duty because of their ill Design? We did not join in the practices of the Church before that, but worshipped God after his own Institution, without Humane Ceremonies: All the Change in our way on that Occasion was, that what before we had done in corners, and with hazard, than we did safely and openly; and, what fault was in this? But, One saith, that the Presbyterians suspected the kindness, and joined with the Conformists, like wise Men, and refused the Bait: Who said so, or on what Ground, I know not; we went no further from the Conformists, than Conscience of Duty had made us do before; but it had been a strange thing, if when Liberty was granted us to worship God in his own way, we had then joined with a Superstitious Worship, which we could not do before. If that Author mean, That Presbyterians were then willing to concur with the Conformists, as their Protestant Brethren, in all things lawful, to disappoint the Designs of the common Enemy, we approve of that Inclination, and think the Dr. cannot charge us with any thing to the contrary in practice: Wherefore it is without all Reason, that he dateth the Presbyterian Separation from that time, p. 23. Their building Meeting-houses, and using Separate Meetings, p. 24. will not prove it; for the one they did before, and the other was but a more public owning of what was their private practice, when under the lash of the Persecution. Defending their practice by writing, is no proof neither: If he can prove, that they do it on Principles that will justify any Separation, let them be blamed; but this, I suppose dropped from his Pen without due consideration. That they choose Ministers one after another, is as little proof as the rest; how to judge I know not, of what his credible Person informs him, Of ten Ministers coming into one City. It is a hard Case, when Ministers put to great hardships by the Five Mile Act, that it being suspended, they might not live in Corporations for their Accommodation. Let the Author of the Peaceable Design (cited p. 25.) answer for himself; I am sure, such Non-conformists as I have conversed with, never approved of the Tolerating of Papists.  
Sect. 24. Mr. Nye is produced (p. 27.) as owning, that Jesuits had a hand in our Divisions (whoever denied it) in persuading the unlawfulness of hearing the Conformists preach. Whoever broached that Principle, it was never received among the more sober and intelligent of the Non-conformists, especially the Presbyterians; it is their Corrupting of God's Ordinances, not their dispensing of them, that we refuse to join with them in; and when we cannot join in the one without the other, we must forbear both; which is by a necessity from them, not our choice; but of this he will give fitter occasion to speak afterward. What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter, p. 28, 29. 30. tho' there be Expressions of the keen Spirit of that learned Writer, which might have been a little softened, yet all that he saith, proveth no more but this; From among the Non-conformists have gone out some Sects, that by their unsound principles have given advantage to the common Enemy, which we deny not, but lament; but if this prove our way evil, and tending to Popery, the same must be concluded against the Reformation from Popery, where the Germane Anabaptists sprung up; yea, Christianity shall not escape, for did not Gnostics, and other like Heretics, arise from among Christians, even in the Apostle's days?  
Sect. 25. The Dr. (p. 31.) triumphantly appealeth to any impartial Reader, Who most serve the Popish Designs, those who keep to the Constitution of the Church of England, or those who fell into the course of separation. I hope the Judge that he constituteth, having considered his Allegations, and the Answers hitherto discoursed, will acquit us of all accession to Popish Designs; but if we should take as much pains to retort the same blame on his party, as he hath done to accuse us, it were easy to guests where the Sentence of Condemnation would fall; but I delight not in such unbrotherly work, and there is the less need for it, that day unto day uttereth speech, to discover the sidings of that party with the Enemies of our Religion: That the Papists designed to force all to seek a general Toleration, is not unlikely; but that Non-conformists did desire or seek it, is unjustly insinuated.  
Sect. 26. When I consider what he writeth (p. 33, 34.) I see cause to retort his own words on him, which he useth, p. 23. If such bold and notorious untruths are published now, what account may we expect will be given to Posterity of the passages of these Times? He doth represent the Non-conformists very unfairly, if not very falsely; as that on the Discovery of the Popish Plot, the Non-conformists seemed to be Like men roused out of a deep sleep, amazed, confounded, fearful of every thing, mistrusting all that were not in such a consternation as themselves. Were they not as vigilant and jealous over the Papists, as other Protestants even before that time? Yea; who that will see, doth not know that they exceeded their Neighbours in this; he hath forgotten what he had before so often declaimed against them, That they pretended to be the most zealous Protestants about their fear of Popery, their indiscreet zeal against it, etc. with which he besprinkles most of his pages: But now, of a sudden, they are transformed into a sort of Men asleep, having neither fear of, nor zeal against it. How doth passion blind men? Impedit ira animum, etc. Their fear and consternation on the discovery of the Plot, is as groundlessly affirmed as their sleep before it: No doubt, they were apprehensive of Danger, as all the Protestant Nation were, and still are; but what Signs of such Disorder was among them, he doth not say, because he could not; therefore a general Accusation was more apt to calumniate them by. But it may be (and it is beyond a may be) they fasted and prayed more than some others did on this occasion, and that some reckon a sign of Gild and Fear, beyond what is to be found in good men. Some (saith he) in this case pressed the Dissenters to study Union among Protestants; But were they then, or ever, backward to it on sinless terms? or, would they have had them abandon the light of the●r Consciences for Peace-sake in that time of danger? He again chargeth the Non-conformists, that Formerly they carried smoothly towards the common and innocent Papists, as they styled them, and thought them equally capable of Toleration with themselves. It were well done in the Dr. if he can make this appear against any one Nonconformist; but if it be spoken with reference to them in general, nothing can be more calumnious. It is of the same stamp that followeth, p. 34. Their trucking underhand for Toleration with the Papists; they represent, saith he, those of the Church of England, as Papists in Masquerade. Did ever any Nonconformist talk at this rate of Conformists in general, as he would have his Readers believe? And if it have been said of some, and those of no mean degree in the Church, time partly hath tried, and it is like, will further try the truth of it; I commend his Humanity, and being free of undue heat against the Papists, on occasion of that horrid Plot. If there was due heat, we require no more; but he doth most injuriously charge us with rage and fierceness in that case: I know not, that the wise and sober among the Non-conformists (if he will let it be said, that there be any such among them) did exceed due bounds of the zeal of God against such a party of his Enemies. He next fighteth with the popular Censures that then passed on many of the Clergy, which we are not concerned in. I wish him to consider, that as sometimes vox populi is vox diaboli, so also not seldom it is vox Dei.  
Sect. 27. He hopeth that the Nonconformist Ministers (whom he taunteth as high pretenders to, and self-applauders in wisdom and self-denial) would in so critical a Time have joined with them against the common Enemy, or let them know their Sense of the present state of things. Except in their Ceremonies, the Non-conformists were never backward to join with them, and much less at that time; for letting the Churchmen know their sense of things, I know not what occasion they had for that, except in their Sermons, in which they were asplain and faithful against Popery, as their Brethren were. He next falleth heavily on the Plea for Peace, and true and only way of Concord, as most Unseasonable and Divisive pieces. The Author of these Books is of age and ability to answer for himself, and yet living and writing: I need say nothing for him, only this I make bold to say, abating the vehemency of the stile, and forwardness of that learned man's genius, which sometimes run into overlashes, that another cannot so well defend as himself; for the substance of the Books, let the Dr. try it when he will, he may possibly find it a hard-enough Task to deal with them. What that Author saith in the name of the whole party, (which the Dr. taketh advantage from, p. 37.) doth not oblige the party further than they see Cause to own it.  
Sect. 28. The Reverend Dr. doth begin, p. 39 to give account of the occasion and Design of his Sermon, which was answered by several Hands, and in defence of which, this Book now under our consideration was written: I shall concern myself little about it, being ready to give all possible Charity to the design of so worthy a person, in undertaking and managing that Affair. I shall consider what is said on this occasion, no further than shall be needful to the defence I now manage of our present way. It is most injurious that he asserteth, that (by such Books as he had mentioned) the zeal of many was turned off from the Papists against those of the Church. Is there any thing in these Books that favoureth Papists? or any thing that maketh the Church of England worse than that of Rome? If withdrawing from the Corruptions of the Church be defended, this hath no tendency to lessen Zeal against Papists. He that complaineth of hard usage, (tho' without cause) should not so retaliate, as to call his Brethren, who differ from him, and give reasons for their so doing, an enraged, but unprovoked company of Men. This, and much of that nature, we resolve patiently to bear. He must give us leave to deny what he imputeth to our way, p. 40. That It is a great, dangerous, and unaccountable Separation: If his Arguments against it prove as hard as his Words, it will not be easy to stand before him; if this be to touch us with a soft and gentle hand, as, ibidem, what will his severities prove? Sure he hath forgot himself, when with the same breath he calleth us peevish and partial men, and saith, he resolved to give us no just provocation by reproachful Language, or personal Reflections.  
Sect. 29. The Unseasonableness of this makebate Sermon is objected, which he attempteth to disprove with a Flood of Words, all built on this Foundation; That the Church was reviled, run down by a popular Fury, etc. This is the usual respect the learned Dr. is pleased to treat his Antagonists with. Other men think, that a modest Dissent and withholding Communion in unlawful things, backed with solid Reasons given for so doing, was all that the Non-conformists were guilty of; and that, that needed not give such an Alarm as if there had been a Design to ruin the Church, as he fancieth; and unbiased men will think, that such a Sermon, on purpose chosen to be preached before the Magistrate, rather than before his Ordinary Hearers, doth not savour so much of a design to guard the Consciences of the People against Nonconformity, as of some other Design; what that was, may be easily guessed at, for all that is said to the contrary. I speak now of the Tendency of the thing, rather than of the Intention of the person; but I rather choose to wave this matter than contend about it, being more concerned about the Truth of what was said, than the Season of Saying it. I shall be as little concerned about the sharpness and severity of his Sermon, which is the other Objection that he answereth from p. 44. though I am sure, what I have already noted in this Preface, showeth, that such a way of treating Dissenters is not ab hoc homine alienum; but I must do him that right, as to acknowledge, that there is more mildness expressed in the Sermon than here, he being galled by the pungent Reasons of his Answerers; yet there wants not some Vinegar in the Ink that the Sermon was written with; but, I confess, that is so common a fault among imperfect men, that we must say, Veneam damus petimusque vicissim; for my part, I study to shun it, but if I be overtaken in this fault, I am willing to be admonished and corrected. We think Schism as great a Sin as the Dr. doth; and seeing he thinketh the blame of it is on our part, I judge it but consequent to that Opinion that he exposed it, (and us by reason of it) with all its Aggravations; and if we cannot clear ourselves in this matter, let us lie under as much blame as he can load us with. But withal, I hope he will remember, that if the Schism be caused by the fault of his party, all the sad imports of his excellent Discourse will return on his own Head, and those of his way: Wherefore I wish all this had been waved, and the merits of the Cause only minded.  
Sect. 30. The Expression that his Adversaries are so offended with (to wit) that he saith (p. 49.) The most godly People among them can least endure to be told of their faults; is, as I think, not sufficiently vindicated, by saying, that He meant it of them who will not hear their own Teachers telling them of the sin of Separation; as Mr. B. allegeth; for they that are so unteachable, are not the most godly of the Non-conformists: I hope there are among them who can hear Sin of whatever sort charged on them, and soberly consider what is said; and if on Enquiry they be convinced of a fault, will humble themselves, and confess, if not, will soberly clear their Innocency by Reasons. Far less is it a fit Vindication of this Assertion, to apply what he had said to Dr. O. Mr. B. Mr. A. and the rest of the Answerers of his Sermon. I hope he doth not think that Defence of Truth, or of that which one is convinced to be such, is always the Sin of not enduring to be told of faults: Neither do I by so saying refer the determining of our Debates to men's Fancies, which he hinteth, p. 47. that we call the Dictates of Conscience (I am sorry that he doth either so undervalue Conscience, or reflect on the worthy Persons that answered his Sermon.) If we cannot show plain and evident Reasons for what we say, (as he requireth) we refuse not causa cadere.  
Sect. 31. He telleth a very formal Story, p. 51, 52. of the Effects of his Sermon, of the mimic Gestures of the Non-conformists, when it was spoken of; the Truth of which History, tho' I doubt, I cannot disprove. It neither was worth his writing, nor my confuting. He thinketh it lay at bottom of many men's Stomaches, that he did not persuade the Church of England to the Dissenters. Who did ever require that? We pretend to no Authority over Her; if she would have condescended to us for Peace sake (which that Party talk so much of) to forbear imposing her unnecessary things, which we judge unlawful, that should have satisfied us. But he thinks (p. 53.) it had been unseasonable to speak of Alteration of Laws before Magistrates, who are tied to the Laws; that such Alteration is one of the weightiest things. Ans. Supposing (as he there saith) his private Opinion for Abatements, there was no need of proposing the Alteration of Established Laws; but the exposing of them that were under the lash of Inconvenient Laws, may well be forborn, before the Executors of these Laws, by a man that thinketh that Abatement should be made of the rigour of these Laws; I do not think (as he doth) that the alteration of every Established Law is a Matter of such weight as any thing that can be taken into consideration, provided the consideration about it be by such as have Power to alter it: What is more common than altering of Laws when they are found inconvenient? Our first Reformers thought not so under Edward 6. The Liturgy (and the Law for it) was altered when excepted against by Mr. Calvin abroad, and some Zealots (so the Historian speaks) at home, Full. Chur. Hist. 6, 7. p. 386. Why may not this be done now, when Dissatisfaction is become more universal? But it is a supposition that I can give no account of, that the Laws against Nonconformity (for of these his Discourse must be understood, if it be at all to the purpose) should be so looked on, as that they concern the preservation of the Church and Religion: That Church and Religion must stand on a tottering Foundation, that cannot be preserved, if those things be laid aside which are acknowledged to be indifferent. But thus it is to dote on men's Inventions; it is ordinary to equal, if not prefer them, to Christ's Institution, Mark 7. 13. Mat. 15. 6. Qui amat ranam, ranam putat esse Dianam.  
Sect. 32. But the Dr. is not content, not to advise the altering of these Laws, where it had not been very pertinent to propose it, but he bringeth Reasons able (as he thinketh) to preponderate all the Considerations that any might use for changing them; these Reasons are in number Six; the 1. is, The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters. Must therefore none be satisfied, because all cannot? Some will be satisfied, if you will but forbear imposing what God hath not commanded: Others will not be satisfied, unless you forbear also some of Christ's Institutions, such as Infant Baptism; is it reason to neglect the doing the one of these for Peace and Unity, because you cannot do the other? The 2. is, The Uncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations. If any man look on this as uncertain, it must be either because he knoweth not what we scruple at or because he thinketh us resolved to descent without reason, when the reason of our Dissent is removed; but, I hope the Dr. is neither so ignorant, nor so uncharitable: He may be well assured, that by relaxing the Imposition of humane Ceremonies, all the Presbyterians shall be gained to join in worshipping of God with the present Church; and I hope he will not say, that they are no considerable number in England. His 3. Reason is, The difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church, considering the ungovernableness of some men's Tempers and Principles. Answ. If the Discipline that Christ hath instituted be duly exercised in the Church, that will either make men governable, yea, actually govern them; or it will exclude them out of the Church, and so Factions shall cease in the Church: But it is a strange piece of Ecclesiastical Policy, on supposition that some will prove ungovernable, to obtain the making of Civil Laws for imposing those things on men's Consciences, which the Imposers count need notes, and they on whom they are imposed, know them to be unlawful. This is the way to make them ungovernable (in reference to these particular Impositions) who would tamely submit to any Yoke that is not contrary to that of Christ. But it seems the Dr. looketh on all that scruple at human Ceremonies as ungovernable Persons: And we rationally think, that his Party are resolved, that we shall either be governed by their Will, (not by the Word of God) or they will take the most effectual ways that they can to keep us out of their Church. I confess, Conscience is an ungovernable thing, except by the Laws of Christ; but it is much the Strain of some of his Party, (I am confident the Reverend Dr. doth not mean so ill) to ridicule and cry down Conscience in private persons, that they may be governed by the public Conscience, (a Soloecism in Divinity, never heard of before) i.e. The Will of the Superiors; the thing, to wit, Blind Obedience, is an old Popish Tool, to enslave Consciences; but such an express affronting of Conscience, (God's Deputy in the Soul) is a new Invention that this Age is honoured with.  
Sect. 33. His 4. Reason is, The danger of breaking all in pieces by a Toleration. Ans. Toleration is both commanded in Scripture, Rom. 14. 1. Eph. 4. 2, 3. In this last place it is joined with endeavouring after Unity, so far is it from being the way to break all in pieces, as the Dr. thinketh. It is also condemned, Rev. 2. 2, 20. wherefore it should not have been so generally censured, as a Church-ruining thing. Beside, Toleration is not that which we plead for in the first place, but that the things that grieve our Consciences may be removed, that so we may join with you in worshipping God in his own way, that we may need no Toleration; but if that cannot be obtained, our next desire is, that we may be suffered to worship God in that way that is acceptable to him by ourselves, when we cannot do it with you; neither is it a vast and universal Toleration of all Blasphenius, Heresies, and Vnpeaceableness, that we contend for, but a forbearing of such as live peaceable in their Dissent from you in the smaller Concerns of Religion. This Toleration would break nothing in pieces, but the denying of it tendeth to break all in pieces: For while Men have the use of their Conscience, they will Dissent, and serve God in the way that they apprehend pleaseth him, without men's leave, when they cannot do it with their leave. It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Uniformity, and not rather in Consent, in the main points of Religion, and loving forbearance in reference to the rest.  
Sect. 34. The 5. is, The exposing ourselves to the Papists and others, by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation. This is plain enough; yet without wronging the scope or sense, it might have been thus expressed more openly, We are ashamed to mend, l●st Men should think that we once were wrong. This Reason, if it prove any thing, will conclude against all Reformations: Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's, Azariah's, and Josiah's time; (of which before?) This will expose us to Baal- Worshippers, as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation: Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time, and in Q. Elizabeth's time, in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead, and some other things were laid aside, that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other; what could they say, but that some of their Superstitions were at first overlookt, which now you see the Evil of, and think fit to remove them? What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England? It will be hard to convince those of mistake, who think, that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists, and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them, when they see how loath they are to go too far from them. This Principle seemeth to make what we have done, or the first Frame of the Reformation, the Rule of the Reformation, rather than the Word of God: Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation, seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment, and next to nothing, compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation. It is known to them, who have looked into the History of the Council of Trent, that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy, that was so much desired, and stickled for by some. His sixth Reason is, The difficulty of keeping out priests, pretending to be allowed Dissenters: This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against People's reading Scripture; The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it: If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests, and willing to have their Company; or so unskilful, that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine, from that of a Protestant; or to admit Ministers among them, to the Discharge of that office, without Trial, and Testimonials: Or, if he suppose, that when men are allowed, by Law, to Worship God without Ceremonies; that the Law is so laid asleep, that men may do what they list: If, I say, all these things be supposed, this Reason may seem to have some weight, but without such a supposition, it is lighter than Chaff, and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet.  
Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head, That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions, and that they are necessary to keep out Popery. Enough hath been already said, to lay open the fondness of this Imagination, and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare, when it serveth a turn. After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon, he distinguisheth (p. 55.) between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity, that he meddleth with the former, not the latter, his reason is, If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church, many Ministers would change their Mind. I contract, but not misrepresent what he saith. To this I return two things, 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse, is not easily understood: But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Nonconformist Ministers and their People, according to the Maxim, Divide & impera. If all the People might lawfully conform, and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth Lay-Communion, is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds (not to say Thousands) of ministers, many of them Eminent, and most, if not all of them, completely fitted for the Work of the Gospel, and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work? Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church, how the Labours of all these may not be lost, while the Harvest is great, and the Labourers few? (unless it be thought, that the Case is not so now) and, Shall they all be rendered useless, rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born? Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls, and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with, when it suiteth their purpose? Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination, yet we cannot think so of ourselves; and that one Principle showeth them the greatest Schismatics that are among Protestants; for by it they unchurch most, if not all the Reformed Churches, and unminister all their Pastors and nullify Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them.  
Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is, That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion, that is, joining in their Service, and the use of the Ceremonies, that nothing that we yet have seen, is able to remove, as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear. He allegeth, (p. 6.) that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out, kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists: For the sign of the Cross, Mr. Baxter saith, The sin (if it be one) in using it, is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptised, but the Ministers; and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy. To all this I answer, We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old, but do not for it withdraw, it being the Minister's fault, not Ours. For Kneeling, it is our own act, and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it (which the Church will not do) or for bear the Sacrament in which it is; for we utterly deny, that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it; neither do I see how they can, and disallow other Ceremonies; for they all stand on one bottom (to wit) that they are not instituted: but more of this in its due place. For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it; he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow. His Reasons in their place we shall Consider. What he saith of the Crossing the Baptised Party, I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it, wherefore I answer, That tho' it be the Minister's Action, yet it is the Parties (or his Representatives) passion; and that Personal. It cannot be done on my Person, or my Child's without my Consent and Submission; as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me, I am culpable in reference to that Superstition: So it is in this case.  
Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh, Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon, I am wholly a stranger to, and can pass no Judgement on it; but if this be as he saith, it is no way to be justified. But he should not charge the party with this: There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men, who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike: And if we should trouble the world with such public Resentments of the same kind of dealings, and worse, that we and our way have met with, and Daily do meet with, not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party; but from Pulpits and the Press, not by the base Phamphelteers only, but famous Authors (witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery) we might write Books abundance. His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say, in that he representeth us as Depravers, Raillers, Back-b●ters, Inventors of Lies, and spreaders of false Rumours; and that of the best deserving men, if they but come short of pleasing our humour.  
Sect. 38. The Dr. next, p. 59 taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon, and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries, which I shall not stay to Consider. Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness, that he complaineth he hath received: Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man, will applaud his severe strain. And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him, I know not; but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so despised, and his Writing Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him; the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust; it is neither so. Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe; others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness. I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller, which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's. The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text, of the Dr's. Sermon, he now waveth; as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity, which I think might have passed, as Foreign to this purpose.  
Sect. 39 One of his Antagonists (p. 71.) chargeth him with changableness, in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum, about which he maketh Divers Apologies. A change in this Learned Man is too visible, and if it had been to the better, it had not been Culpable; but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Churchway, I shall not meddle in that matter at this time: Especially a change being (upon the matter) acknowledged by himself, p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over; That he had Asserted in his Irenicum, that if others cast them wholly out of Communion, then is their Separation necessary: which he would reconcile with what he here writeth, p. 47. by showing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome, and of the Church of England: for saith he, Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for mere Scrupulous Nonconformity, but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship. 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication; which he confesseth, public defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under, ipso facto, by the Canons; but that it layeth on no Obligation till duly Executed: But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema. All this is very little to the present purpose: for if we be all, ipso facto, Excommunicated, and if this Excommunication be most frequently (as it is) Executed against us, and capias issued out commonly against us; and all this for mere Scrupulous Nonconformity (as he calleth it) by these means we are de facto, put in such a Case, as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them; and therefore we must either live without God's Ordinances; or have them out of Communion with their Church. Again, he Allegeth p. 75. that he could not mean, that there was an equal reason in these cases, when he expressly determineth, That, in the case of our Church, men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it: Neither doth this help the Matter; for if we think (as we do) that we are bound, in Conscience, not to submit to all the Orders of the Church, some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God; and if for this Opinion, and suitable Practice to it, we be so excommunicated, as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church; then we are cast wholly out of the Church, and our Separation must be Lawful, on the ground that of old he had laid down. But pag. 76. He would, in that case, allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion; but not to proceed to a positive Separation. But if we make use of his Allowance, the Church, who is of another mind, putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances: What can we then do, but either live without them▪ or proceed to that, which he is pleased to call a positive Separation? We are not convinced, that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestant's abroad, for all the Letters that he mentioneth; of which, in their place: And it is a rash Assertion (which he knoweth cannot be Tried) pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom; we should not doubt of their Determination, of the unlawfulness of the present Separation. He, our Author, maketh good the saying, Quod misere volumus, id facile credimus; any man that hath seen the Uniformity, in almost all things, that is between our mode of Worship and theirs; and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England, will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly. We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England. The excellent and Pious, and Learned Sr. Matthew Hales, in his Book of Schism, hath this passage. In times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions, where Religious Assembling is dangerous, private meetings, howsoever beside public Order, are not only Lawful, but they are of necessity and Duty. All pious Assemblies in times of persecution and Corruption, however practised, are indeed, or rather alone, the Lawful congregations and public Assemblies, though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition.  
Sest. 40. He answereth an Objection▪ pag. 77. That the Publishing of this Book is now unseasonable, being a hindrance to the Union of Protestants, to which there seemeth now to be a general Inclination. He Allegeth (p. 78.) that the principles of Non-conformists hinder that Union, and lay a foundation for perpetual Divisions. He knoweth that we will not own this, and therefore proveth it (as he thinketh) On the principles laid down by some of the Dissenting Brethren; Let the constitution be never so easy to themselves, others may make use of their grounds, and carry on the Difference as high as ever. I wish he had told us what these grounds are. But it is an Odd kind of Reasoning; we will not endeavour Union with them who may be Tolerated, because they who are not to be Tolerated, will expect the same favour. The ground on which we plead for forbearance, is, our Scruple about what you confess to be no Institution of Christ nor necessary duty; we in our Conscience judge it unlawful, and can show good reason for our so judging: How this ground can be Improved by any body to heighten Differences, unless it be by the peremptoriness of them that will Impose such Things, I do not understand. He professeth to be for Union that will lessen differences, and not weaken, but strengthen the Protestant Religion: Now let any judge whether the Union that is founded on the ground proposed be not such.  
Sect. 41. He saith, p. 97. That Universal Liberty differeth from Union, as losing from binding; and it is strange, if that which Papists lately thought the best Means to bring in Popery, should now be looked on as the most effectual way to keep it out. Ans. We do not, nor ever did plead for Universal Liberty, which was that which no doubt Papists aimed at, ergo nihil dictum. But suppose, saith he, the Indulgence be at present strictly limited to Dissenting Protestants, we are not sure it will always continue so; Will not the same Reasons, as to Scruple of Conscience, suffering for Religion, etc. be extended further when occasion serveth, and Popery getteth footing on the Dissenters Grounds? Ans. Were it not as rational for us to say, Tho' we can now join with the Church of England, in her present Ceremonies, what know we how soon on the same grounds she may bring in all those of Popery? Let us forbear evil surmising, and mind our present Duty, especially seeing the way to prevent this feared Evil is obvious, (to wit) that no Indulgence be granted after, but what there is as good Reason for, and as little hazard from, as is at present: Neither do we plead for Indulgence merely on the grounds of Scruple of Conscience, or Suffering for Religion; but on other grounds in conjunction with these, as hath been a little above expressed. It is like our Grounds may be comprehended in his wide-Bellied, etc. but if by it he means all grounds of Forbearance now may be extended to plead for an undue Toleration, than all Forbearance of Christians that descent in any thing, must be unlawful, which is contrary to the Scripture formerly mentioned, and to the general Sentiments of all Christians, except Papists, whose Religion standeth by Blood and Cruelty.  
Sect. 42. Where (saith he) hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater Harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience? Witness the state of the Northern Kingdoms, compared with the number of Papists in the united Netherlands; I can soon tell him where, (to wit) under Episcopal Persecution of Protestants in Britain. If this be a mistake, these Nations have been for some Years in a Dream. Again, his Instance is wide from the purpose, for we plead not for a Toleration of all sects, and particularly not of Papists; what Toleration is in the Netherlands, themselves can best give account of. He asserteth it impossible to keep out Popery, where Toleration is allowed; and I assert it as impossible to keep in Christianity in an impure Church, where it is not allowed; and yet there is no inconsistency between the two Assertions, if we distinguish between a Limited Toleration, which we plead for, and one Unlimited, which he all along speaketh of. To talk of Toleration thus without distinction, is to walk in the Clouds, and not descend to the thing in debate, which is unbeseeming a Disputant.  
Sect. 43. He bringeth Three Arguments, p. 79, 80. to prove his Assertion; 1. Because of the various ways of creeping in under several Disguises, which the Priests and Jesuits have, and can never be prevented, where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters, and an unaccountable Church-power is allowed to separate Congregations.  
Ans. 1. This Argument Supponit falsum, which we have often disclaimed; to wit, That we plead for a general Indulgence to Dissenters; we desire it may be limited to men of peaceable Principles and Practices; to such as differ from the public way in matters not Fundamental nor near to the Foundation (and for our part, who are Presbyterians, we seek forbearance only in things that are acknowledged to be none of Christ's Institutions,) and in things that are neither against Godliness, nor the Peace of Church or State. Another Falsehood that he supposeth, is, That we plead for an unaccountable Church-power in Separate Meetings. We plead for no Power in them, but what a good account can be given of from Scripture; and what is allowed commonly to a Church as such. 2. I mentioned before a way of preventing the creeping in of Priests and Jesuits, for all their Cunning, (to wit) The due Exercise of Church-Discipline, in all the ways that shall be tolerated, especially in the admission of Ministers to their Office; and if these Foxes creep in at undiscerned crannies, if Discipline be in vigour, they may be cast out again, before they can do any considerable harm to the Flock.  
Sect. 44. Argument 2. Because it will be great hardship, when men's heats are over, for them (the Papists) only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences, when the wildest of fanatics are allowed it.  
Answ. 1. Still the old Supposition must found all his Arguments. We plead for no Toleration to any fanatics (properly so called) much less to the wildest of them. 2. There are many weighty Reasons why Papists should be denied that Liberty that is allowed to Protestant Dissenters; from the Grossness of their Heresies, the Idolatry of their Worship, the Unpeaceableness of their Principles, such as dethroning Kings, and cutting off all people that are Heretics in their Sense; their Principle of bearing down all Religion but their own. Had a Nonconformist spoke as much on the behalf of Papists, what a noise would our Author have made about it, that we do their Work, etc. His 3. Argument is, Because the diversity of Sects that will be kept up by this means, will be always thought a plausible Argument to draw men to the Popish Pretences of Unity. Ans. By whom will this be thought? Surely, by no man that considereth, 1. That Unity in Error and Idolatry is no persuading Argument to them who regard the Truths of God. 2. That our Differences are in things of the smallest moment in Religion, and managed with Christian Love and Meekness, (for who exceed these Bounds▪ may be punished by the Laws, notwithstanding a Toleration granted.) 3. That the Popish Unity is but pretended, there being more and weightier Differences among them, than among us; as the Dr. well knoweth, and hath, by his learned Labours, made the World know. His 4. Argument is, Because the allowed Sects will in probability grow more insolent upon a legal Indulgence, and bid defiance to the Settled Constitution, as we have seen already by the yet visible Effects of the former Indulgence. Ans. 1. He hath little Charity for his Brethren, in expecting such things from them, and less in making such an Observe on what is past, without any ground known to unbiased men. If he mean of any Indecency in Speech or Behaviour among the vulgar, we cannot answer for that; there is too much of it on both hands: Neither is it fit, that on such a frivolous Ground the Sober and Conscientious should be persecuted. 2. If Insolency shall happen (as God forbid) to be the consequent of Liberty to Dissenters, let the Guilty be punished by the Law. We plead for Toleration to men's Consciences, not to their Immoralities; but, Are we to expect, that the Laws of Men should work more upon them than the Grace of God? Ans. Not on their Minds and Wills to change them, but on the outward Man to restrain them. Such an Effect may be rationally expected, and is daily observed in other Cases. It is an odious Representation, as if the Use of the Liberty pleaded for were only to preach and pray, & write & dispute against one another; and as absurd an Inference, that there seemeth to be much of Sense and Reason in the Papal Pretence to Unity and Infallibility. Whatever our Author, or the by-slanders that he mentioneth may think, they who have a just Abhorrence of Popery, will think, that none of the Divisions that are amongst us, are so bad as it by far, tho' we desire neither to excuse nor extenuate them: Nor do we refuse to concur in our Station in any good way to heal these Distempers.  
Sect. 45. The rest of the Dr's Preface is taken up in expressing his condescendency to the Dissenters, in the things that they scruple, tho' he pleadeth for the Ceremonies as Lawful, (which is afterward to be debated) yet he would have a Liberty allowed, that they who scruple them, may have the Ordinances without them. If this were put in practice, it would be one step toward healing: But it seems the Churchmen are not of his mind: However, we do thankfully own his moderation. His other Condescendencies to such as scruple Joining in the use of the Liturgy, are for the most part very commendable, and might make England Happy, if they were practised. But till some appearance of that be, it will be needless for us to tell our Sense of them in particular: But his kindness to his Brethren of the Ministry doth not so well appear by his Discourse from p. 88 He is willing to gain the People, but seemeth to look on the Ministers as Competitors; his Reasons for dealing so with them it were not hard to answer; but considering, that there is little hope of seeing even what he holdeth to be made practicable, I think it needless to contend about it; only I must tell him, that tho' we be as far as he is against Laymen, (as he speaketh) or any unordained Person, usurping the Office, or doing the Work of a Minister, yet his Proposals are very lame, as to affording any Ministers at all. And then what do all his commendable yield, as to the People, signify? Would he have them have Separate Meetings, but no Ministers in them to Administer the Ordinances of God to them? This is a sort of Toleration that would neither be for our Advantage, nor the Credit of the Church that alloweth it: So that in a great many Pages he hath said nothing.  
There is nothing further to be noted in the Preface; for we wish the Proposals that he maketh, for Reforming some Abuses in the Church, p. 93. might take effect.  
Having now got through the Preface, I proceed to the Book, which the Learned Author divideth into Three Parts; the 1. is, An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Separation. The 2. is, Of the nature of the Separation. The 3. is, Of the Pleas f●r the Separtion. I shall accordingly divide this Examination, and follow him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so far as the clearing of our Principles and Practice does require it. The Name of Separation is justly odious in the Church; and it is certain, that wherever it is, some great Blame lieth on the one Party or the other, and sometimes on both; but there often is a sad and undesirable Separation, attended with bad Consequences, where yet the one Party is wholly innocent. I should here speak somewhat to open the nature of that Separation that the Learned Dr. chargeth us with, but that were to anticipate what is to be discoursed, animadverting on the Second part of his Book, and therefore I now wave it.  

PART I. The Dr's Historical Account of the Separation, Examined and Answered.  
IN his Sect. 1. he premiseth two things, in prosecuting which, his First Part of his Book is taken up. The first is, That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation, yet no such thing was then practised or allowed, by those who were then most zealous for Reformation.  

SECT. I. The Practice of the First Non-conformists considered.  
BEfore we consider his 2d. Proposition, let us try how this will abide the Test. Here are two Assertions put together, which for the greater clearness I shall consider apart; the one is Doctrinal, the other Historical: The Doctrinal part of his Proposition, is, That the present Reasons for Separation (I shall not contend about calling our practice so, not being willing to contend about words) would have held from the beginning of the Reformation.  
This I deny, and shall first give the Reason of my denial, and then try the strength of what he saith for his Assertion. The Reason that I bring, is, That our Reformation was carried on by degrees; as Rome was not built in a day, so neither was it pulled down among us in a day. King Hen. 8. began this Work, but did it so lamely, that Protestants were little satisfied. There wanted not Non-conformists then, who were all the true Protestants; many of them laid down their Lives for their Nonconformity. After him, his Son Edw. 6. a religious and zealous Prince, reform many things, but not all at once; for the Liturgy was twice Reform in his Reign, Full. Ch. Hist. book 7. p. 386. once in his First Year, and again in a Parliament held in his 5, & 6. Years; and again, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; there were also some Alterations made in the Rubric, 1 Jacob. 1603. saith the same Author. And it is known, that several things unreformed in Edw. 6's Reign, were after taken away; as may be seen by comparing his Injunctions with what afterward was practised in them. We have mention of Coming to Confession in Lent, Art 9 of High Mass, Art 21. Prayer for the Dead is expressly enjoined in the form of bidding of Common Prayers; all which were afterward removed, name and thing; yea, these very Injunctions gave people Hope of a further Reformation; for they were only intended till a Parliament should be called. And Art 27. People are enjoined, not to violate the Ceremonies not as yet abrogated; which gave the people confidence, that such Superstitions were not to be continued as a Burden to men's Consciences, but were used for the present supposed necessity.  
Sect. 2. The Case is far otherwise with us; we are put beyond all Hope of Relief; a Yoke of Humane Ceremonies wreathed on our Neck, without any probability of being loosed from it: For after the King's happy Restauration, than there was the fairest opportunity that could be wished for Condescendence and Accommodation, the Ceremonies having gone into Disuetude for 20 years, and the Nation being more generally against them than ever before, by the Light of the Word, that had for so many years been more freely and fully held forth than before; and when a great number of Ministers presented a Petition for Peace, to their Brethren then commissionate to Reform the Liturgy, and used the strongest Reasons, the most earnest Obtestations, and the greatest Condescensions that could be, to obtain either a taking away of what was grievous to their Consciences, or, at least, a forbearance in them, (all which may be seen at length in the Book itself;) yet nothing was to be obtained, but Impositions made more strict, and our Yoke made heavier than before, rather than lighter; so that there remained no more Hope for ourselves, or our Posterity; but either we and they must take up with a Worship, that, we are convinced, is mixed with some things that maketh it displeasing to God, or live without God's Ordinances, or worship God apart by ourselves. May not we appeal to God, and to all the World, That whatever our Brethren talk of Peace and Unity, we were for Peace, but when we spoke, they were for Wars? Psal. 120. 6. while they will not abate nor bear with us in one Ceremony, (which themselves declare Indifferent) for that Peace and Unity that they extol so highly; yea, for the keeping out of Popery, the reentry of which they pretend to fear by our Divisions.  
Sect. 3. These things being considered, it is very evident, That our Case is not parallel with that of the first Non-conformists, in reference to Communion with the Church, and therefore the Reasons that moved them to go along with the present way, do not conclude, that we ought to do the same; for, 1. There was then a necessity apprehended by some of the best men for retaining some of the Ceremonies that had been in use in Popery, lest too sudden and visible a Change (it being the outside of Religion that the multitude doth most consider) should have scared the people from owning the Reformation; and we know, Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit: On this Ground even the Apostles retained for a time a little of the Jewish Observations, Act. 15. 28, 29. I do not say, that there was a necessity for this, but it was then thought to be, and therefore must needs influence their minds and practice, as if there really had been such a necessity: But now it is evident to unbiased men, that there is no such necessity for retaining these Ceremonies. P●pists are so far from being brought over to us by symbolising with them, that they conceive Hope, from that very thing, of our returning to them; as hath been made appear by several passages in their Writings and Discourses, which I now stay not to rehearse: And in very deed, our Service, especially in Cathedrals, cometh so much nearer to their way, than it doth either to the way of the Apostolic Church (so far as it is recorded in Scripture) or to the way of most of the Reformed Churches; that it were no hard task to bring in Popish Worship (abating the Service being in Latin) and Discipline (for in that also we are at no great distance from Popery) among us, without being observed by the Vulgar. And the necessity is yet the less for retaining them among us, that our People have not been bred in Popery, as in those Times, when the Ceremonies were retained, and therefore are not in that hazard that they were to ●all back into Popery upon the abolishing of them; yea, it is so far from that, that the disuse of these might make Popery to be more forgotten among the people, these being some of the Ornaments by which that whorish Worship was once decked.  
Sect. 4. A Second Ground, why the reason of their cleaving to the Churchway doth not conclude for our doing the like, is, They had cause to look on their Grievances but as temporary, and knew that further Reformation was designed, and might be in a short time expected, and therefore it was Reason that they should rather forbear, for that time▪ their Edification, (I mean the external means of it) that they might have had by pure Ordinances, rather than seem to make a Breach. This Reason doth not at all touch us, who are out of all hope of such purity of Ordinances in the Church, as is pleasing to God, or consistent with His Acceptance; (I mean, from us, who know the right way; for I shall not judge what acceptance an impure worship, invincibly not known to be such, may find with God) they had not in vain essayed to make Peace with their Brethren, and been rejected with a peremptory ●leaving to the least Indifferent Ceremony, rather than to satisfy the Conscientious Seruples of those who doubted; which is our Case. Therefore we are (even by them who blame us for what they force us to) brought to a necessity of worshipping God apart from them, seeing we neither can now do it, nor hope that afterward we may do it with them. And this our Necessity is heightened, and our Case made yet more different from theirs at the Reformation, when we consider, That that was a time of Reformatio, Status convalescentiae; ours is rather status decidentiae, a time of Increasing, rather than of Diminishing the number of Superstitions, and coming nearer the Popish Modes, rather than going further from them. Instances of this are not a few; take for a taste the allowing of Plays on the Lord's day; (the zealous promoting of the Book of Sports by that party, is not yet forgotten) whereas that day was, Art 24. of King Edw. the 6's Injunctions, before mentioned, appointed to be given wholly to God in hearing the Word of God read and taught in private and public Prayters, etc. A further Conviction in this Matter may be abundantly had from a book entitled, The Advances of England toward Popery; which Book, tho' our Reverend Author labours to disparage, p. 35. of his Preface, yet agreeth so well with what men see with their Eyes, that it is not fit to be slighted; for, Tho' some be mentioned, and blamed in that Book that appeared most zealous against popery, yet it is no Rarity for Words and Deeds to clash. Quid verba audio cum facta videam? And if it be true, that the Author before his death was sensible of the Injury he had done to some, yet his Evidence that he bringeth will still be compared with what every one saw to be the tendency of some men's way. I might here allege the obligation of the National Covenant that we are under, as they were not to whom the Dr. would make our Case parallel, though I never thought, that that Bond made any new Duties or Sins, that were not such antecedently; yet the Oath of God maketh the Tie that we are under to Duty, and against Sin, more weighty, and aggravateth the sin of doing what is contrary to it; but of this afterwards. I conclude then, that the present Reasons of Separation would not have held from the beginning of the Reformation, quod erat probandum.  
Sect. 5. The learned Dr. (p. 2.) after explaining the terms of his Assertion which we have denied, proveth the Identity of Reason, in their Case and ours, by the Ceremonies, Liturgy, etc. being the same. Let all this be admitted; as they were dissatisfied with these then, so are we now; but we join not in these practices, as they did, and worship God without them, as they did not; because our Case doth not make these things appear so needful as theirs did, because we have no Hope of Reformation, as they had; beside our being under an additional Tie against such Superstitions, which they were not under. Not content with this, the Dr. thinks to prove, that we are more obliged to join in the Church's Worship, than those at the Reformation: 1. Because of the Number, Diligence, and Learning of our allowed Preachers. 2. Because the Ceremonies are retrenched. 3. Because of the Mischiefs that we have seen of Separation. To the first I answer; As what we complain of in the present Ministry, is not the Ground of our with drawing (though it is a sad Grievance, and tendeth to make the Ordinances of the Lord to be abhorred in the Eyes of the people; as the ways of Eli's Sons did, 1 Sam. 2. 17.) so neither can their Commendation by him given, be a sufficient Reason for our joining in corrupted Ordinances. I confess, the number of the present Ministers is greater than in those days, the generality of the Clergy continuing Popish; and I am far from derogating from some among them, who are learned and diligent (and ● add) pious men, and sound Protestants: But as for the far greatest part of the Parish Ministers, that the people are most edified by, or disappointed of their Edification, they are either Strangers to England, or strangely biased, who see not cause to complain of their Ignorance, Idleness, and vicious Conversation, if not of all these three. To the Second; I know not what retrenchment hath been made of Ceremonies, since the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign, but I know Additions have been made, if not as to Imposing, yet as to Use, and some Additions to the Holidays hath been imposed; but if they were fewer than they are, they are enough to corrupt the Worship of God, and furnish as strong an Argument to forbear such corrupted Worship, as if they were more numerous. A grain of Arsenic may justly make one forbear a Dish in which it is, as well as if there were two or three in it. To the Third; As he hath seen Mischiefs of Separation, and we do not extenuate them, so have we of Impositions, yea, all the Mischiefs of that kind are justly imputable to these Impositions, they being the Cause of the Separation; and, causa causae est causa causati. Our Ancestors had hope of freedom from that Yoke, as hath been said, which we have not; therefore no Inconvenience (that is not our Sin) can warrant us to join with, and in the depravations of the Worship of God, which were our Sin, as neither can such inconvenience excuse us to live without Ordinances always, as the former Nonconformists might do for a time.  
Sect. 6. In his 2. Section, he cometh to the proof of the other part of his Assertion, to wit, That there was no Separation practised or allowed by those who were most Zealous for the Reformation. He confesseth there were different apprehensions about some few Things; but denieth that they were the Things now Scrupled at; and that any Separation was made because of them. I shall not much dispute either of these, because the Cause that I defend is not much concerned in them, but standeth on a better foundation, than the opinions or practices of men: And because our case and reasons differs from theirs as hath been showed, yet shall I a little examine what he allegeth under both these heads. For the former of them; he proveth it only from Mr. Roger, Scrupling only the square Cap and Tippet; and B. Hooper Scrupling only the Episcopal H●bit, to which afterward he submitted: And Bucer and others scrupled the Liturgy till it was reform, but none after that scrupled any of the Things now in Controversy. Here is Fallacious if not false History, for with Rogers and Hooper, called Ringleaders of the party by one who was no friend to them▪ are reckoned others who had stead beyond Sea, and sucked in both the Air and Discipline of the place where they lived, and renounced all Ceremonies practised by Papists, conceiving that such ought not only to be clipped with the Shears, but to be shaved with the Razor; yea, all the stums thereof to be plucked out. Fuller Ch. Hist. Lib. 7. pa. 402. These fugitives (if it be not too bad a name for them) I understand of Hen. 8's. Reign of whom Fox, Act. and Mon. Book 3. p. 145. in the History of Hooper, one of them, they being also joined with them by Fuller. Is all this no more than two men's scrupling only some Habits? Or is not here rather a considerable number exactly of our opinion about all humane Ceremonies in the worship of God? 2. What he saith of Mr. Rogers is a very Imperfect Representation of him, for Fox, Act. and Monu. Vol. 3. pa. 131. (the place which he citeth) saith no such thing, as that this was Mr. Roger's only scruple: and Mr. Fuller (loco citato) saith the contrary. Mr. Fox is telling a story of his Dissent from a Determination of the Bishops and Clergy in the Reign of Edw. 6. for wearing of Priests Caps and other Attire belonging to that order: Mr. Rogers said, He would not agree to that decree of uniformity, unless it be also decreed, that the Papists for a difference betwixt them and others, should wear on their sleeves a Chalice with an Host upon it; which showeth his factious and resolute way of refusing that thing, on that occasion, rather than, that he did not scruple any thing else; and it hath no show of probability that such a wise and holy man, would stick at that, and not at other Ceremonies, that had as little warrant, and were more intrinsic to Religion and worship, and so less in the power of men to be Determined.  
Sect. 7. 3. We may say the same of excellent Hooper who was long at Zurick, and very dear to Bullinger, and one of those that had sucked in the Air and Discipline of the Places where they lived, and were for rooting out of Ceremonies. He was a Ringleader of these, and this his scrupling the Episcopal Habit is never mentioned as the whole of his Opnion about Ceremonies, but is taken notice of on a particular Occasion. For his after submission; it was by the force of Temptation, being in prison, and Deserted by his patron, the Earl of Warwick. Fuller ubi supra, p. 404. And with what reluctancy he did it, see p. 405. 4. That on the review of the Liturgy in the Reign of King Edw. 6. there was little or no Dissatisfaction left; at least as to the things now scrupled, is still false History; for that review was Anno 1547. Full. Ch. Hist. Lib. 7. p. 386. whereas 1550. he telleth us pa. 402. of two parties discovered, Conformists and Non-conformists, and the one against all the Ceremonies.  
Sect. 8. That there was no separation at first he next asserteth; but people (though scrupling them) complied with the use of Liturgies and Ceremonies. May be it was so at the very first, while Reformation was hopeful going on. I have already showed why we are not bound by such Examples: I shall now Apologise for the unimitable practice of the those holy men, to excuse them atanto, though not atoto. The glorious Change that then was wrought in the Church, did so affect then, & engage their zealous hearts to God's Ordinances, that they did not so throughly consider, as they ought, the sinfulness of the Ceremonies: They had got so many things reform, the evil of which was so incomparably beyond that of the Ceremonies, that these seemed as nothing to them. It is known that the limited & scant powers of our Souls, our Understandings, Affections; yea, our Senses are by some vehement Objects so diverted, as that meaner Objects at the same time cannot move them, nor be noticed by them. It was much that these men discovered any evil in the Ceremonies, but that the principles that the Reformation was built on led them to that; (to wit) That Scripture is the Rule by which the Affairs of the House of God must be ordered; but it is no wonder that they did not so fully discover the Evil of them, nor were so affected with it, as we who have had longer time and less hindrance to think on these things. I am far from thinking, that they had either less Light, or less tenderness of Conscience than we, but that their Mind and Conscience were exercised about higher Matters, which we have (through the Lord's goodness) so settled to our hand, that reforming of these is not our Work. They were employed to do the hardest part of the Work; to cast out Antichristianism; it was left to others that succeeded them to cast out of the House a little of Antichrist's Furniture, that had been forgotten, or by minding greater things, overlookt, lying in some corners of the House: So that it doth no more infer blame on us forbearing the use of the Ceremonies that they used them, while they reform the Church from Popery, than it was a Blame to Hezekiah, Jos●ah, and such Reformers, who took away the High Places that other Reformers had left, when they threw out Baal's Worship.  
Sect. 9 This may satisfy an unbiased mind, that our noncompliance with the Liturgy and Ceremonies is consistent with all that respect that is due to those excellent Persons, who in the beginning of the Reformation practised otherwise; for we owe such respect to no man, nor men, as to reckon them infallible in Opinion or Practice. Also what hath been said may take off the edge of the Dr's jeering Insinuations, That these things are now such Bug-bears to scare People from our Communion, and make them cry out in such dreadful manner, of the mischief of Impositions, as though the Church must unav●idably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three unsupportable Ceremonies. We have little Answer to this sort of Argumentation, only we say, It is not Childish Fear, but Conscience guided by Scripture, that scareth us; neither do we count these Ceremonies such as will break (tho' they defile) the Church, but they are too heavy for our Consciences to bear, and the example of men using them, can yield us no ease of this Burden. When the Dr. doth thus ridicule the Scruples of Conscience, that his opposites pretend to have, either he thinketh, that an Erring Conscience is to be cured by contempt and scorn, or that we do only pretend to Conscience in our Dissent: The former is no sign of a good Casuist, nor the latter of a good Christian; for such will not judge, lest they be judged. He stormeth much at two Expressions of one of his Antagonists; one is, That it is unreasonable, that Men should create a necessity of Separation, and then complain of the Impossibility of Union: Hath our Church (saith he) made new Terms of Communion, or altered the old ones? Ans. Though the Terms of Communion be not new, as to the matter of them, they are perpetuated on new grounds, which make them now harder to be submitted to than before, for they were brought in at first on a present Necessity, as then was thought, the Nation being Popish, and ready to abandon the Reformation, if that was offended. Now it is not so; they were continued in a Reforming time, and now fixed in a time when no such thing is to be expected, but rather the contrary: They were retained in the Morning twilight of the Reformation, but now in the Noonday of Gospel-light long shining among us, fixed in perpetuity, so that the present Prelates give a new Being to these Stumbling-blocks; especially, they are new grounds of Separation, because now they are scrupled at more than at first; and though the things were before, yet they did not such Mischief then as now; and therefore, they who continued them when thus hurtful, (though it were granted, that the hurt of them arose from the mistake of the Scruplers) do create a necessity of Separation, while they may remove these scandals, and will not. But they that scruple, cannot remove their Scruples. The other Expression is, That continuing of the Ceremonies, is, venturing our Peace in an old Wormeaten Bottom; which the Dr. against all Reason, understandeth of the Reformation, but is indeed to be understood of the Ceremonies. The Reformation is founded on Scripture, a sure and sound Foundation. The Ceremonies on men's Will and Authority, and therefore justly termed a Wormeaten Bottom. That he saith, There was no Non-conformists in K. Edw. 6. days, is before disproved; and if there had not, while we can give Scripture-ground for our Nonconformity, we need not be ashamed, tho' Martyrs and other Reformers acted otherwise.  
Sect. 10. That Dr. Ames can bring no other Instances but Rogers and Hooper, is nothing against us, who have before showed that a Party they had, of whom they were the Ringleaders. He seemeth, p. 5. to lay some weight on P. Martyr and Bucer, persuading Hooper to submit to the Episcopal Habit; I deny not but they di● so, and he at last yielded to their Advice; but P. Martyr, in the Epistle cited by the Dr. (to wit) Ep. Theolog. Hoopero, p. mihi, 1085. doth there fully declare his dislike of these things, and of all Humane Inventions in God's Worship, only that for the necessity that then was, adviseth the Use of them; as the Apostles on the like ground (as he there mentioneth) forbade eating of things strangled, etc. He highly commendeth Hooper's Zeal in endeavouring, Vt ad castam simplicemque puritatem christiana religio denuo aspir●t; and desireth, Vt omnia paulatim resecentur— quae parum aut nihil habent, quae ad solidam aedificationem referri p●ssint, & redundare potius & superflua quodammodo piis animis judicantur. And he commendeth the practice at Strasburg, (where he lived) Vbi vestrum discrimina quoad sacra sunt sublata, as being Morem candidiorem & apprime resipientem Apostolicam ecclesiam: And after he saith, Accendit hoc meum desiderium, partim quod in ritibus, quamproxime vellem ad sacras literas accedere, atque meliorum temporum ecclesiae imitatione persequi, partim quod animadverto, papae sectatores adhuc his reliquiis conari speciem saltem missae instaurare: And afterwards, Si pateremur prius evangelium & propagari & altas radices agere, melius fortasse & facilius persuaderentur homines ut hos externos apparatus removerent. And he addeth a Similitude of one that was sick, and recovered by degrees, who cannot forbear the use of some unfit things, that in health he will willingly put away. Doth not all this fully express what I have already said, That all the Ceremonies ought to have been cast out at first? That the Reformers, partly by the Church's, and their want of due light (like one in a state of Convalescency) and partly out of a design to gain, and not offend the Papists, did for a time retain these Ceremonies, with a design to have them afterward removed? And is it not plain, that P. Martyr, under our circumstances, would be a Non conformist as well as we? The opinion of this good man is yet more clear, and against the Dr. out of another Epistle, Amico cuidam in Anglia, who none that readeth the Letter, and knoweth the History, can doubt to be Hooper, p. (mihi) 1126, 1127. where he saith, De pil●● vero rotundo vel habitu, extra sacra gestando, non arbitramur esse plus quam opor●eat rixandum, at de vestibus ut Sacris in ministerio ipso adhibendis cum sp●ciem Missae referant, & sunt merae papatus reliquiae, Dominus Bullingerus cens●t non esse illis utendum; ego vero et si usui ejusmodi ornamentorum semper sum adversatus— idcirco tardior eram ad suadendum, ut potius episcopatum abdicares, quam u● illarum vestium usum reciperes; attamen quia scandala ejus generis vidi prorsus evitanda, propterea in ejus sententiam fucile cessi. He after adviseth, that he may not act against his Conscience, and showeth, that he himself, when at Oxford, though he were Canonicus, yet would never wear the Surplice in the Quire. I say nothing of Bucer, not having his Book, Script. Anglican. but it is reasonable to think that he was of the samemind.  
Sect. 11. That Mr. Bradford was a Nonconformist he cannot deny, but saith, A good man had an unreasonable Scruple. Might not we answer the same way to all his Allegations of the Martyrs and first Reformers compliance with the Ceremonies; (to wit) That good men did not scruple where it was reasonable that they should. The words that he cited out of the Act. and Monument. Vol. 3. P. 319. where Mr. Bradford calleth Martyrdom the Lord's Cognizance, and not Tippets, etc. do rather make against than for his Design; for it's plain, that he putteth Tippets, etc. in the same Rank with Shave Crowns, and calleth them Antichristian Baggage; and no reason can be given why these should be so called, except that they are brought into Religion by Man, not by God; which agreeth to all the Ceremonies. Who they were that kept secret Meetings under B. Ridley, it is needless to inquire. The Dr. guesseth, that they were furious Anabaptists or secret Papists. I know no reason for this guess; but because he is resolved▪ that there shall be no Nonconformists then, such as are now; but that there then were some excellent men, who disliked the Ceremonies, I have showed; that some of them did use them notwithstanding, I acknowledge. That any did separate, I do not undertake to prove; nor can he prove the contrary, so much as probably. I am sure, there were Principles then maintained by a Party of men, which would have made them do as we do, if their Practice had been sufficiently adapted to the Sentiments that they had about the Ceremonies, which maketh it not unprobable that some of them did withdraw; though it may be the men of more note among them, who considered the necessity of their Case, as warranting that Practice, might do otherwise; but it is no way likely, that the Church did so furiously impose these things on the Consciences of Scruplers, as we are now imposed on.  
Sect. 12. The Dr's long Harangue, p. 6, 7. to condemn our practice by the contrary practice of the first Reformers, doth either prove nothing, or it concludeth, that it is possible that such holy Men could mistake: Which before he himself had imputed to holy Mr. Bradford, one of them here mentioned by him. Their Holiness, Learning, Integrity, Industry, profound Judgement, Mortification, did not entitle them to Infallibility. Were it not easy to name many more men of all these excellent qualities, who have had their Navi? The laying such weight on men, hath been an useful tool to build up Antichristian Babel, b● taking People off from eyeing Scripture Authority in the matters of Christ, and putting that of Men in its room. Doth the Dr. thing it strange, that a dissenting Artificer (a term suited to that Contempt of Non-conformists that his Book is full of) should be in the right, when one more Holy and Learned than he is in the wrong; especially in things of that moment that the Ceremonies are of? For, I look on it as taunting, not disputing, to talk of the mighty importance of the Ceremonies to the Souls of Men; the Beams of unlawfulness in them, of which a Mote could not be seen by the Reformers; we count them of such Importance, as a tender Conscience ought to refuse them, and yet not of such mighty Importance as many other things are. We see a M●te, not Beams, of unlawfulness in them, whatever our Ancestors thought of them: Neither is this because of a dark and Jewish Dispensation that they were under, while all the clear Gospel-Light of Division and Separation is reserved for our Times, as the Author pleasantly dreams that we think; they were not so favoured with a general Sunshine of Light as we are, Popish Darkness being then but going away: But for the Light of Division and Separation, we look on it as gross Darkness, and leave it to our imposing Brethren, who cause the Division. Neither was it the Reformer's want of Zeal for Religion, but want of Light and Zeal against Ceremonies, that caused their different Practice from ●urs; they Burnt for the former, not for the latter▪ Neither is it strange, that they should have no suspicion of the unlawfulness of these things, when they went to suffer, seeing these things never were controverted between them & their Persecutors. Was it never heard of, that true Martyrs had Mistakes that were extrinsic to that on which their Sufferings were st●ted? What he citeth out of Jacob, the Nonconformist against Johnson the Separatist, p. 7. doth not touch our Case, for the Separatists that then were, went on other Grounds than we do; of which after; and if Mr. Jacob used some Arguments that were ill grounded, l●t him answer for it.  
Sect. 13. As to the Historical Account that he giveth, Sect. 3. of the English Exiles in Queen Mary's Reign at Frankford, and elsewhere, I shall not controvert it, only I shall make a few Animadversions on it, having first in general noted, That it is no wonder (nor is it argumentative against us, who take Scripture, not men's Opinions for our Rule) that they who in England were enured to that less-pure way of Worship, did cleave to it abroad, till by seeing and learning away more consonant to Scripture, they fell in with that: And it is as little to be wondered at, that some gave more pliable Ears to the right way that they were instructed in, in strange places; and others clavae more obstinately to that they had been bred with; (we know what a prejudice Education causeth) and he●c● arose those Contests that he mentioneth. If he could prove (as he cannot) that all the Nonconformity that is in England, was brought from beyond Sea, he saith nothing, unless he also prove, that it was not brought out of the Scripture. We must not reject every thing in Religion that is not of English Original, lest we by so doing throw off both Christianity and Protestantism.  
S●ct. 10. In particular, I first take notice of what he saith, p. 8. These (English Exiles) with the People in all other places, Geneva excepted, kept to the Orders established in our Church. Here is a notable Falsehood, (to wit) That all the Exiles kept to the Orders of the Church of England; himself excepteth those at Frankford; and Mr. Fuller, abovecited, telleth us of a Party of Non-conformists, before that time in England, headed by Rogers and Hooper; no doubt some of them fled from the Marian Persecution, and it is not probable they would use the Ceremonies that here grieved them, when they were under no Law to compel them. Another thing that I take notice of, is, He challengeth Mr. Baxter for saying, That at Frankford the Contest was between them who were for the English Liturgy, and them who were for a more free way of Praying; but I see not how this is disproved by him; the Confirmation of it may be rather gathered from the Account he giveth of these Debates, p. 9 (to wit) that when the Magistrates first required them not to descent from the French in Doctrine or Ceremonies, and then took off that restraint: Yet they altered the English order, and brought it nearer to the French Model; which we know doth not impose a Liturgy, nor restrain free Prayer; but at most proposeth a Directory, wherein are some set Forms, as helps to them that need them. To say, that those who laid aside the Responses, Litany, and Surplice, ●●d many other things, were still for the English Liturgy, is to speak at random. But he omitteth a material passage, (because it maketh against him) with which Fuller, Ch. Hist. lib. 8. p. 27. supplieth us, out of the same History that the Dr. citeth, (to wit) The Troubles at Frankford: That they laid aside the Liturgy, Surplice and other Ceremonies in Service and Sacraments, both as superfluous, and superstitious: wherein then did they differ from Non-conformists?  
Sect. 14. He saith, p. 9 That the Question among them was not, Whether a Liturgy, or not; but whether the Order of Divine Service, was not to be accommodated, as much as might be, to the French. This is to confess, that they did not contend for the English Liturgy, as he telleth us some others did, who were dissatisfied with their deserting of it. But I further Assert, That the Controversy was between a Liturgy and Directory, to wit, between the way of England, and that of the French Protestants, who have no Liturgy, but as other Protestant Churches had; an order of public worship, for directing unqualified Ministers; such many behoved to be in the beginning of Reformation from Popery, to the set Forms, in which they were not tied, whom the Lord had competently gifted for the Work of the Ministry: So as in the best Reformed Churches; these Directories were by Degrees disused, as Crutches are by a Lame Man, as he recovereth the use of his Limbs. p. 10. He telleth us of some resolute Conformists at Zurick and Strasburg, who were earnest with the Non-conformists at Frankford. We deny not that there were such among them, who suffered for Protestantism. What those of Frankford say p. 10. of not defacing King Edward 's Laws, must be understood of Laws for the Protestant Religion, not of those for Ceremonies; otherwise it had been protestatio contraria facto; and p. 11. Their not dissenting from their Brethren wholly at the ransom of their Lives for this Doctrine, must needs have the same interpretion, if we will reconcile them to themselves. And their extenuating, as much as might be the Alterations they had made, showeth them to be peaceable Men, that eat Offence, if possible; but doth not prove them to be for the English Liturgy; yea, or for any Liturgy.  
Sect. 15. He speaketh (p. 11.) of Knox and Whittingham, finding their (the Exiles at Frankfora's) Zeal for the English Liturgy, desired Calvin's judgement of it. I find no such Zeal at Frankford, for the English Liturgy: but the Dr. will have it so in despite of History, that telleth us of their laying aside its Ceremonies as Superfluous, and Superstitious: of which before. It was not those of Frankford, but of S●rasburg, whose Zeal for the Liturgy (if it may be so called, for they desire but the Substance of it to be retained; quitting the Ceremonies, and things which the Country could bear) occasioned the calling for Calvin's Judgement. Fuller, Ch. Hist. lib. 8. s. 3. p. 29, 30. out of Troubles of Frankford, p. 24. In giving Account of Calvin's Answer to their Desire, he representeth Calvin as biased and selfish; being throughly heated in a cause, that so nearly concerned him: It had been fairer to have refuted his opinion, than to judge his Thoughts and Motives. He saith also, that what Calvin thought most unfit, yet he thought tolerable. Calvin saith not so, pace tua dixerim, he saith, There were in it, multae tolerabiles ineptiae; not that all things in it were such: Any that know Calvin's Principles will say, that he thought some things in it no ineptiae, and other things not tolerabiles. And what he saith of the Tolerableness of these fooleries is no more, but that they might be born with for a time; because they could not be corrected primo statim die. He doth then not count them tolerable; for he approveth them that appeared against them (though he Condemneth the most unseasonable contest, that was in that Church) neque tamen (saith he) eorum Constantiam repr●hendo, qui, ut pro justa causa depugnent, in vilem contentionem trahuntur. He speaketh of these things, as not to have been tolerated, even in England, after the Progress of the Reformation. Si hactenus in Anglia viguisset sincera religio, aliquod in melius correctum multaque detracta esse oportuit. Much more to this purpose is in that Epist. which is (mihi) 200, cited by the Dr. for 164. It is true, he speaketh of his easiness, to yield in indifferent things, such as are External Rites. This must be understood of Rites common to Religion: and others, not of sacred Ceremonies; or if of those, it is for a Time of urgent necessity, not always, that they may be Tolerated. That Calvin gave no encouragement to Separation, if the Ceremonies were continued, is said gratis; and in defiance of his own Words, while he commendeth them, who stood up against them; and the Sequel proved, that Calvin was so understood by them who regarded his judgement; for Fuller, p. 31, 32. giveth us the Story of their hard usage by the other party; and of their departure from them, being Headed by Whittingham, after Knox's removal, and setteth down the Names of them, who separated themselves from the Congregation of Frankford.  
Sect. 16. He denieth (p. 12.) That Calvin was in his Judgement for free Prayer, because in his Ep. 55. (mihi 87.) to the Protector of England; he approveth a certain form, and giveth Reasons for it. It is evident, that Calvin giveth this Advice for the necessity of the Church▪ that then was, Popery being then scarce well removed, and there being few Pastors tolerably gifted for their work, and some who Laboured to sow the Seeds of Errors in Christ's newly dressed Fields, whom he calleth cerebrosos homines; I suppose he meaneth the Anabaptists. That Calvin designed no more, by this is manifest, both because at Geneva, and other Churches that owned Calvin's Doctrine, Prayer was not restrained by an imposed Liturgy; but men's infirmity relieved by some forms also; because Calvin, in the same Letter to the Protector, adviseth, that all the abuses brought into Popery, should be removed; and that by bringing back things to Christ's Institution, as the Apost. doth, 1 Cor. 11. 23. Ind (saith he) colligend● generalis Doctrina, tum de legitima reformatione & quae Deo accepta sit; igitur ad ipsum purum dei verbum redeundum nobis esse, etenim supererunt mixturae ex hominum ingenio prolatae, totidem extabunt polutiones quae homines distrahant a recto eorum usu quae Dominus in ipsorum salutem instituerat, and much more to that purpose: No Non-conformists will desire a further Reformation, than Calvin there adviseth to; however he was forbearing with some things for the present necessity, as good men then generally were. He telleth us that the Ceremonies (making no exception of the few that were retained) were lenocinia quae miseras animas ad malum perducerent: That no Admonition against the abuse of them, will hinder men to be hardened by them. He confesseth that Ceremonies should be Accommodated to the People's Capacity, but we must beware, least under that pretext, any thing be left that proceedeth from Satan or Antichirst; and compareth such a way of reforming to leaving of the High Places untaken away. He blameth leaving of some things unreformed, to 〈◊〉 the Dissatisfaction of some; and saith, that in our own Matters, such yielding is allowable, not in God's matters; and that God will be with us, if we keep his way, whatever Men think or act against us. Who ever, without prejudice, readeth that excellent Ep. will not look on Calvin, as a Favourer of either the English Liturgy, or Humane Ceremonies.  
Sect. 17. He doth very unduly represent Calvin's Judgement expressed in his Ep. to Cox and his Brethren, 165 (mihi 206.) He there mentioneth nothing misrepresented to him, save that Cox and his Party had precisely urged the English Ceremonies, and that they would remit nothing of them: But now by their Letter he perceived, that they had showed themselves magis humanos & tractabiles: Here indeed are different Representations; but not of the State of the Controversy, or things controverted: Which of them was truest, we shall see a little after. It is false to say, That he expresseth himself satisfied, that the matter was so composed among them; his Words are, Totum negotium placide fuisse compositum gaudeo; he was pleased with their peace, not with their decision. And that this was falsely by Cox, and the rest, represented to Calvin, will appear, when I shall show that their Debate made a very unpeaceable end. Calvin doth not mention Lights to be an Excuse for his Letter; but Them and Crosses, he mentioneth as superstitious usages to be abolished: Neither needed he a miserable shift to excuse any thing that he had written: His first Letter on Knox and Whittingham's Information, advising the abolishing of the Ceremonies; his second on Cox's Information, applauding their supposed peaceableness, which he rejoiced in, though he could not obtain his first desire.  
Sect. 18. That they at Frankford did compromise the matter, as he allegeth, p. 13. I do not find. Fuller saith, p. 30. That Calvin's Letter struck such a stroke, especially in the Congregation at Frankford, that some therein, who formerly partly approved, did afterwards wholly dislike; and more who formerly disliked, did now detest the English Liturgy. Our Author telleth us of Dr. Cox's setting up the Litany, which put Knox in a rage, so as he declaimed against the English Church, as far as his Wit and Ill-will could carry him. Woe to the World, if such partial and false History carry the Day! But we see what we are to think of the most ancient and remote History, when, so near our own time, matters of Fact are so unjustly represented. Fuller, u●i supra, telleth us, That Dr. Cox, a Man of high Spirit, with some of his Friends, arrived there, and, March 13. discompose the Model of their Service; first answering aloud after the Minister, and on the Sunday following, one of his Company, without the Consent and Knowledge of the Congregation, got up into the Pulpit, and there read all the Litany; and Citeth for this, Troubles of Frankford, p. 38. whereat Knox highly offended, Preaching from his Ordinary Text, showed the English Book to be Superstitious, Unpure and Imperfect. Is here any thing of Rage, or what did not become sober Zeal for God, and his Ordinances, which were interrupted in their peaceable Administration by a proud-Stranger, intruding into the Pulpit without a call from the Minister or the Church?  
Sect. 19 We are told by the Dr. ibid. from a Letter of Grindal to Ridley, that the Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox and others, which met there, for that purpose: But a more Impartial Historian (out of the Book that the Dr. pretendeth to follow), though he be no Nonconformist, telleth us what a peaceable end this Debate came to; even such an end, as a bloody Victory useth to bring to an unhappy War: And such a Peace as the Non-conformists in England at this day have under Prelatists of the same temper with Dr. Cox; and such as the poor Jews had in Shushan, when the King and Haman sat down to eat and drink, Esth. 3. 15. The forecited Author, p. 30, 31. telleth how Cox prevailed by new Recruits out of England: And Knox 's Party again by the Favour of the Magistrate, and the French Minister: And that Cox 's Party being depressed, embraced a strange way to raise themselves, and accuse Knox to the State, of Treason against the Emperor; and that in Eight places of a Book of his. The seven last the Historian saith, may be well Omitted. The first is, That he called the Emperor no less an Enemy to Christ, than was Nero. This the Impartial Historian cryeth out on; the Words being spoken some Years before in England, by one that owned no Natural Allegiance to the Emperor; that they should be charged on him, by Men of his own Religion, in Exile with him, to the endangering of his Life: And of this, he saith, alluding to Rachel's Words, With great rather than good Wrestling, have I wrestled, and prevailed. So was Mr. Knox advised by the Magistrate to depart; not forbidden by the Congregation (as the Dr. saith) to Preach: And those that clavae to him, were scattered. Here is Episcopal Peace, and here is a taste of the Spirit and Methods, by which they carry on their Cause. But further, the s●me Author telleth us, how harshly the Coxioens (it is his own word) used the other party, ejecting their Church-Officers, without taking any notice of them, or ask their consent. Also how they refused to let the matter come to Hearing or Arbitration, by which he saith, Cox's party lost much Reputation. How they reproached the other as Schismatics, when they had made the Shism in a peaceable Church. And after he telleth us, how Cox's party broke among themselves about other things, oftener than once, and that to a scandalous height. Which may be seen at length in the Author. If this be convenient in a Congregation, let any judge; it is strange that the Dr. and Mr. Fuller both, should Read these Historical passages, with so different Spectacles.  
Sect. 20. The Dr. telleth us, Sect. 4. P. 13, 14. That the Controversy was not carried out of England with them, but as Hooper in Switzerland, so they in Geneva, and elsewhere, got a better liking of their Churchway, than of Ours; that being such as the Country would bear: And it is hard to remove Prejudic●s, especially when they have such Abetters, whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them. And that is the true Foundation of our unhappy Differences, that yet continue. I have abridged his Words; but given the full sense of them. And now I shall Note a few things on this Discourse. 1. He will not allow it, it seems, that Non-conformists of old, or late, have ever made the Bible the Rule of their worshipping God: No, they are mere Consuetudinary Men, and soon taken with any new Fashion, and so Obstinate, that they will not part with any Custom, when once taken up. Thus he is pleased to picture those that dissent from him: We expected more Charity from him. 2. If Non-conformists cannot prove what they hold, by Scripture, and sound Reason; let them lie under as much of his Reproach, as he shall please to cast upon them. But if they can, I hope he will retract this rash Censure. 3. If Custom did so far Influence these men, methinks the Customs that they had first received in their native Country, should have been a sufficient Antidote against all Foreign Infection to the contrary. But their being taken with the way in other Countries, rather showeth, that their former way was built on Custom and Education; and that the Change was from Scripture Light, that they had met with abroad, which they could not resist. 4. I have showed before, that they had these principles before they went abroad; even in King Edward 6's. Time, there were not a few of that way. 5. It is strange that all Countries beside England, are so Clownish, that they cannot bear the Pomp and Ceremonies of Divine Worship here used: How then doth Popery get any Entertainment beyond Sea, even among the Swissers; which Religion will vie with Ours in outward Splendour? If the Genius of a Nation did determine men in Religion (as the Dr. insinuateth in this cas●) how is it that the Ceremonies are not used among the Protestants in France, which is the pattern for Modishness and Gaiety to England, and other parts of the World? but this is so indigested a Notion, that it doth not well become the Learning of Dr. Stilling fleet; though it be good enough for some to rant with over a Pot of Ale. 6. Whether our party or his, be more guilty of Obstinate insisting on men's Authority, in defiance of Reason, let the World judge. We are content to set aside all the Authority of men, Ancient and Modern; and to refer our debate simply to the Determination of Scripture: But men's Authority is the Argument that the Dr. in this Book doth most insist upon. I hope the Reader may by this time perceive, whether the Dr. doth truly or faIsly Assign the Foundation of our Differences, which I, with him, acknowledge to be unhappy.  
Sect. 21. He saith, p. 14. That in the English Reformation, they proceeded more out of reverence to the Ancient Church, than mere opposition to Popery (which some other Reformers made their Rule.) Here are two mistakes not to be passed in silence▪ 1. The Ancientest Church had none of the Ceremonies; they were neither in the Apostolic Church, nor in that which was near it. How ancient they were, he will after give occasion to inquire. So that England took for their pattern, the Church that was much declined both in Antiquity and Purety. 2. What can be more grossly false, than to say, that other Reformers made mere opposition to Popery with their rules. Two things make the contrary evident. 1. They did not reject all that Papists held, as, That there is one God, etc. 2. They rejected nothing of Popery, but what they gave other reasons for, than that the Papists held it: (to wit) That it was contrary to Scripture, or not instituted by Christ; and so condemned in Scripture, as vain Worship, being a Teaching for Doctrines, the Commandments of men. We make Symbolising with Papists, or other Idolaters, an Argument against the Ceremonies; but we reject them not on that account only; and so mere opposition to Popery, is not the rule of our Reformation.  
Sect. 22. He complaineth that Calvin and others, did insinuate, that the English Reformation was Imperfect. Nay, they openly maintained it; and so do we. He doth twice misrepresent Calvin's Words, p. 14, 15. That he had avowed in the Letter before-cited to the Protector, That the best Rule of Reformation, is, to go as far from Popery as they could. No such Words are to be found in that Letter; nor any thing that will import so much. He doth indeed press the removing of all Popish Ceremonies, as having been abused to Idolatry; and citeth, Psal. 16. 4. Where David saith, That he will not take up the names of idols in his mouth●, but he neither maketh this the Rule, nor the best Rule of Reformation. He knew that Scripture and Institution (which he had a little beforementioned) was the Rule, and a far better Rule than that: Tho' even that hath its use to direct us in Reformation of the Church. Again, he saith, That Calvin yieldeth to this Moderation, that such Ceremonies might be retained, as were easy, and fitted to the Capacity of the People; provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil, or Antichrist. His words are, Adeoque Ceremonias ipsas ad usum & captum esse accommodandas; sed non minus constanter affirmo, Videndum esse ne sub illo praetextu toleratur quicquam quod a Satana vel Antichristo profectum sit. Here is no advice to retain any Humane Ceremonies, but all of that sort fall under that Censure, they being not from God, and being Parts of Worship, they are from Satan, or Antichrist; but he would have all the Externals of Worship, so fitted to people's capacity, as that they do not hinder, but rather help in the inward exercise of it. And if Calvin did yield in that Infancy of the Reformation (which I think he did not, otherwise he could not blame the Imperfection of it) That the Ceremonies might be retained, it maketh nothing for perpetuating of them. The Dr. saith, They proceeded by this Rule of Moderation, taking away all the Ceremonies that were of late Invention: And he saith, p. 14. That the Ceremonies retained, were more ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church. It had been fit to have removed all that were of Humane Invention, for Antiquity can neither prejudice Christ's Institu●ions; nor warrant men's. But it is not true, that all the Ceremonies retained were so ancient, as shall be made appear in due time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Kneelling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper. Neither will it free our Ceremonies from being Popish, that they were before the great Apostasy, if it be made appear, that they were with a considerable degree of the Apostasy; yea, and a part of it.  
Sect. 23. He endeavoureth to free our Ceremonies from Popery, because the Cross is used by Papists in the Scrutinies before Baptism; we use it after Baptism; and Kneeling is not strictly required by the Roman Church, in the act of Receiving; as appeareth by the Pope's sitting, or a little leaning. For the first, What great difference doth it make, whether Crossing be used before or after Baptism, seeing it is not to be omitted, but belongeth to that Sacrament, as one of its Adjuncts? Our quarrel with it is not that it is used after Baptism, but that it is used, being none of Christ's Institutions, but of Man's Invention, and abused in the Popish Administration of Baptism. For the Second, I hope he will not deny, that Kneeling in the act of Receiving is the constant Practice, and required among the Papists; and, That the Pope, who to them is above the Laws of God, should be exempted from the Laws of their Church, is so insignificant an Argument against Kneeling, being required by them, that I wonder to see it used by so Learned a man. For his Plain Linen Garment, only used instead of many of the Popish Vestments, which was used in the time of Jerom and Austin; I deny that it is the only Vestment that they use as appropriated to Religion and religious Persons; any who read●th the Book of Canons, made Anno 1603. Can. 74. may see the contrary, the Reverend Clergy there busying themselves to order the fashion of clothes, that all of them should use. But, that the Surplice is as ancient as Hierom and Augustin, I shall not now examine, seeing it is too well known, that many Abuses were crept into the Church sooner than their days; the one flourishing in the end of the Fourth Century, the other in the Fifth. I see no cause why any man should stand amazed at the noise that is made against the mischief of these Impositions, as he saith, p. 16. seeing all that he hath said, do●h not clear them from being Men's Devices in God's Worship, and consequently vain Worship, which is a burden to any Conscience that regardeth Christ's Authority more than that of Men.  
Sect. 24. He pretendeth, Sect. 5. to give Reasons why the Ceremonies were retained by our Reformers, tho' they were distasteful to some Protestants, and like to prove the Occasions of future Contentions. These Reasons are three, 1. Out of a due reverence to Antiquity. 2. To justify the Reformation before Enemies, in that we would not break with them for mere indifferent things. 3. To show our consent with the Protestant Churches. To these I return a word or two in general, and then shall answer them particularly. ●. Why was not Scripture consulted in this weighty matter, which wise men think is a safer and better Rule of Reformation than any of the Three here mentioned? Shall we slight or cross Christ's Institution in the Worship of God, for the sake of Antiquity, or Papists, or Protestants either? I am far from thinking, that our Reformers had so little regard to Scripture; nay, that was the Weapon they always used against the Papists, tho' in reference to the Ceremonies, they did not so well consider it, as they should have done. But the Dr. and his Party seem to lay little weight on it in this Controversy, for he maketh little or no use of it through this large Book, which is somewhat strange in a Controversy of Divinity. It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to use weapons so far different from those of the Apostles; and therefore I hope they will not prove mighty through Christ, as his were, 2 Cor. 10. 4. None of these Reasons, nor all of them in conjunction, is sufficient to establish any point of Truth, or to warrant any part of Divine Worship: Wherefore they should first have proved the Ceremonies to be lawful, and then these three Reasons might well have come in as Auxiliaries to confirm the use of them; but to manage the Worship of God by such Considerations, without any other Reason was too slender a Ground to proceed upon.  
Sect. 25. Let us now consider his three Reasons in particular. For the First, Due reverence to Antiquity. Ans. 1. We reverence Antiquity as much as our Brethren do, but with these two Cautions; 1. That we prefer the first Antiquity to that which was later; the Apostolic Church, to the Ages of the Church that succeeded. If they can show us any footsteps of the Ceremonies in that Church, we shall embrace them, if not, give us leave to reject them, even out of Reverence to Antiquity. 2. We do not own Antiquity, (where there was no Infallibility, as was in the Apostles) for the Rule of our Faith or Worship. We know, the Church may err, and did very soon begin to decline; of which somewhat before, and more afterward. We reverence Antiquity so far, as not to recede from it without sufficient warrant from Scripture or clear Reason; and to reverence it further, is to idolise it, and put it in the place of Divine Authority. Ans. 2. Why are not our Brethren uniform in their Reverence to Antiquity? Do not they desert Antiquity in more things, and those of more moment than the controverted Ceremonies are? Will they deny the naevi patrum that Divines, both Papists and Protestants, have observed? They have laid aside the osculum, that then was called pacis, sanctum, vel fraternitatatis, used presently after Prayer, which Tertullian calleth Signacul●m orationis; the Agapae, that, notwithstanding of the Apostles check, 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. were used in Tertullian's time, sometimes before the Lord's Supper, sometimes after; also the Baptising (if not only, yet more ordinarily) the day before Easter and Pentecost; the Trina immersio; the Communio Infantum; the Gustatio mellis & lactis, all used in Baptism in Tertullian's time. Of the same sort are the diluting of the Wine with Water, in the Lord's Supper; the sign of the Cross used in Omni conversatione, as Tertullian hath it; The carrying the Eulogias, or consecrated Symbols, to the Sick and others; all these in the Second Century. In the Third Century were brought in Offerings and Prayers for the Dead, and Exorcism in Baptism. What a world of Ceremonies were added in the Fourth Century, is too well known. Now, all these were as ancient as the Times of the first Christian Emperors, to which the Dr. saith, p. 17. that Our Reformers endeavoured to reduce the state of the Church; if it was thought fit, and no disrespect to the Fathers, to reject their practices in some things as innocent as our Ceremonies, why not in them also, there being no more warrant in the Word for the one sort of things than the other? This is to make Respect to Antiquity to ●erve a turn, or men's own designs; which I hope our worthy Reformers were far from, whatever may be said of their Successors.  
Sect. 26. Ans. 3. If the Dr. had pleased to tell us how ancient the Ceremonies that he contendeth for are, we should have considered his Allegations; I am sure he cannot equal them in Antiquity, with the Rites abovementioned, which yet his Church rejecteth. We affirm them to be Novel Inventions, brought in under a considerable, tho' not the highest, Degeneracy of the Church; when we meet with his proofs to the contrary, they shall be answered. I wonder to hear from such an Antiquary as Dr. St●llingfleet, That purging out of these Ceremonies is a Reforming 1600 years backward; as if all the controverted Ceremonies, or any of them, had been in the first Century, in the very days of the Apostles; I suppose he will find it a hard Task to prove this. By what hath been said, it is easy to discover the weakness of what he allegeth about giving unspeakable Advantage to the Papists, by reforming 1600 years backward; for neither do we own the Ceremonies to be so old; nor could Papists have any advantage, if we reject what is unwarranted by the Word, however ancient it be. Indeed, if we should part with Scripture, and refer the decision of our Controversies with the Papists only to church-history, it were to give them advantage, if we should disown any thing so ancient, but I hope the Dr. will not advise us to that course, and therefore there is no hazard. It addeth to this unspeakable advantage in the Dr's Opinion, That when they (the Non-conformists) are pinched with a Testimony of Antiquity, presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity already working in the Apostle's Times, as tho' every thing that they disliked were a part of it. Ans. Tho' we have hitherto met with none of his pinching Arguments from Antiquity, yet we think that Allegation no such ridiculous Evasion as he would make it, seeing the Spirit of God was pleased to give us this warning; and after-Ages gave a clear proof of the fulfilling of this Scripture, by the ripening of those Inclinations that were among some in the Apostles days, of falling back to beggarly Elements; Gal. 4. 9 and subjecting themselves to men's Ordinances: touch not, taste not, handle not, Col. 2. 20, 21. into the highest of Superstition and Depravation of the Worship of God, as Antichristianism came to a height. If the load of humane Traditions were a part of that Mystery of Iniquity that was adult under Antichrist, why should we not think that these Beginnings were a part of these first workings of it, that the Apostle complaineth of? If we make any thing that disliketh us, a part of that working Mystery of Iniquity, that we cannot prove to be evil, and to have had its Rise in the decay of the Church, let us bear the blame. He saith, the rejecting of the Ceremonies gave a great check to the Reformation in France, and citeth for it Thuanus and Balduinus, both Papists, without pointing to their words, or places where they may be found; wherefore I look on what he saith as gratis dictum: And if it were true, it saith no more, but that there were two in France, that were fond of humane Ceremonies, as there are many in England. We have cause to bless the Lord, that the Reformation in France was not checked, but made very glorious Progress, was owned by many, great and small, was sealed with the Blood of many Martyrs. And that it was not universally received, we may rationally impute to the supreme Power being against it, which useth to have the Command of the Consciences of the greatest and carnal part of the world: But what the Dr. saith in prosecuting this reason, I wish he would reconcile with his Third Reason, That England retained the Ceremonies, to show their consent with other Protestant Churches.  
Sect. 27. His Second Reason is, to manifest the Justice of the Reformation, by letting Enemies see, that we did not break Communion with them for mere indifferent things. Ans. 1. Papists might have seen that, if they would have opened their Eyes, without our retaining any of their Ceremonies; (to wit) That we broke with them on weighty points of Heresy and Idolatry, and not for Ceremonies alone. Ans. 2. When we had separated from their Church, on such weighty Accounts, we were not to retain any thing that they had corrupted the Worship of God by, to please them; neither could we retain those to shun breaking with them, having already broken with them on other accounts. Ans. 3. The Dr. taketh it for granted, which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Question between him and us, (to wit) That the Ceremonies are mere indifferent things. If he prove this, he must carry the day. What Advantage the Popish Bishops (for all their Subtlety and Learning that he talketh of) could have made of rejecting of these as well as the rest of humane Ceremonies, I know not; they had a large Field to expatiate in with the People, by holding forth to them: How many Usages of the ancient Church the Reformers had rejected, that were (in the Dr's sense) mere indifferent things, as Holy Water, Cream, Salt, spital, etc. How little addition could the rejecting the Cross, Surplice, etc. with the rest, have made to their strength? What he citeth out of P. Martyr, is abundantly answered Sect. 10. for he speaketh not of Vestments used in, but out of Worship, about which, he would not have such Contentions made at such a time, but have them removed afterward. The Dr. citeth his words Indefinitely, Other Reformed Churches; but the Author's words are, Per multas Ecclesias n●n ab evangelio alienas. I suppose he meaneth the Lutheran, or rather Greek Churches; for P. Martyr well knew; That in the rest of the Reformed Churches no such Vestments were used.  
Sect. 28. Let us now hear his Third Reason, to show their consent with other Protestant Churches; and he instanceth in the Lutheran Church. Ans. 1. This Reason could not be used by the English Reformers, because they would surely rather have imitated the Calvinist Churches, with whom they agreed in Doctrine, than the Lutheran Churches, from whom they differed in considerable points of Doctrine; if they had designed to symbolise with other Churches; and had been influenced in their determination of this matter by that design, sure they would have symbolised with the soundest Churches. Ans. 2. Neither could this Reason have had any weight if they had used it, seeing there were more Protestant Churches of a contrary Practice; and therefore the Protestant Churches would have carried the rejection of the Ceremonies; whether the notes had been ponderanda or numeranda. Ans. 3. If our Reformers had designed a Consent in Ceremonies with the Lutheran Churches, why did they retain these, and not the rest used among them, which are (most of them) as little liable to Exception, as those retained, and are not by their multitude such a burden as those of the Papists? I hope the Dr. when he considereth better, will retract this Argument; for there is no Reformed Church on earth, that the Church of England showeth any Consent with in her Ceremonies. Ans. 4. I have elsewhere showed, from good Authority, That the Lutheran Churches at first had no humane Ceremonies, but what they now have, crept into those Churches afterward, as other Evils did, which Luther did not authorize.  
Sect. 29. He will not only have Lutherans, but the chief among the Calvinists, to be of his Opinion. He citeth, Calv. Ep. ad Sadol. That he was for restoring the Ancient Face of the Church: His words (which I found not easily in that long Ep.) are, Vt instauretur vetusta illa ecclesiae facies quae primo ab hominibus indoctis & non optimis deformata & foedata, postea a pontifice Romano, & ejus factione, flagitio se lacerata & prope deleta est. It is evident, that he is not speaking of Ceremonies only, but mainly of the Doctrine of the Church, that was in Controversy between him and the Cardinal: Also, that it is the Apostolic Church that he speaketh of, whose Face he acknowledgeth to have been deformed before Antichrist came to an height. He citeth also Calvin de vera Eccles. Reformatione, ch. 16. which Book I find not in the Catalogue of Calvin's Works; only among his Tractatus Theolog. I find a Supplex exhortatio to the Emperor and Diet at Spire, De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae; which I have diligently looked into, and find no such Passage in it, but much contending against Humane Ceremonies: And he apologizeth for their casting them out, by showing, Quod nihil vel primo digito attigimus, nisiquod christus pro nihilo ducit, cum frustra coli Deum humanis traditionibus pronunciat. Wherefore, if Calvin own Symbolical Ceremonies (as the Dr. allegeth) we must understand him of those of Divine Institution, or charge him with Inconsistency with himself. Oecolampadius (saith he) looked on the Gesture in the Sacrament as indifferent; so do we; therefore we think Kneeling ought not to be imposed: And when it is so imposed, it loseth its Indifferency, having a show of Adoration of the Bread. I have not Bucer's Book, and therefore say nothing to the citation out of him, but that his Authority will not prove the Opinion of the Calvinist Churches that we debate about.  
Sect. 31. Our Author, after this Digression returneth to the Historical part of his discourse, Sect. 6. He telleth us, that in the beginning of Que●n Eliz. Reign, the Exiles returned from abroad, with secret dislike of the Ceremonies, but the Act of Conformity being passed, and the Use of the Liturgy strictly enjoined, there was no Separation; some of them accepted of Preferment in the Church: The Bishops showed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching. A few remarks on this, will serve to clear our way. 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect, as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren, in that they were getting Laws made, to force them to that, which they could not persuade them to by the Gospel: but this is the Old Spirit of that party, which still createth trouble to the Church. 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment (and these he nameth; Gilby, Whittingham, are among them, whom Fuller placeth in the Rank of fierce Non-conformists,) showeth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren, as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled. 3. He omitteth to tell us, that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy, nor use the Ceremonies; which Mr. Fuller, Lib. 9 p. 76. informeth us of, that not only these fiery men (as he calleth them) but even the moderate Non-conformists, as Mr. Fox, Mr. Laurence Humphrey, refused to subscribe. 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops, that they suffered these Men to Preach; notwithstanding of their Nonconformity. Indeed there was cause for it; they were able and useful men, and the Church had much need of their Labours: Fuller saith, p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch, where no brighter Light was seen before; where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work, and how sorrily he performed it. If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation, they needed not to be afraid of Separation.  
Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us, that these Nonconformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies, and gaining Ground, they called them the Livery of Antichrist, and inflamed the People, and this was the first Occasion of pressing Uniformity with Rigour: Some were silenced; as kindness had made them Presumptuous, this made them Clamorous. Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter, p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered, by their Canons, began to show their Authority, in urging the Clergy of their Diocese, to subscribe to the Liturgy, Ceremonies, and Discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same, were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans; and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented, before B. Grindal (one of the most moderate, but pressed to Rigour by the rest) who asked them, have we not a Godly Princess, speak, is she Evil? A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain, than a Protestant Bishop. That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies, is neither to be doubted nor wondered at; so did our Lord and Master, and his Apostle Paul: It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded, that being their Commission; if they spoke Falsehood, or Truth in an undue manner, they were liable to Correction. What our Author calleth inflaming the People, others will call faithful warning of them, against what might displease God, and defile their Consciences. Any who inflameth them to unsober, or unpeaceable principles or practices, let them bear their blame. I see nothing in their Carriage, under the Bishops forbearing of them, that deserveth the Name of presumption, nor under their Sufferings, that should be called Clamorousness, as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva, how they were used. But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them, that differ from them, and reproach them, if they say they feel it: Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing. There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists, or free the Bishops of it.  
Sect. 32. He saith further, p. 19 at the end; About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated, by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers, began to have separate Meetings, where they Preached and Prayed, and had the Sacraments. Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary, the true Cause and Original of the Separation, tho' somewhat unfavourably represented; the cause of it was, they could not have God's Ordinances, without Man's Inventions, their Ministers being silenced, who administered them purely; and tho', but some of them at first were silenced, yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law, and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them; and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced, nor could they live without them: So that it was not Exasperation, but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances, that made them take that course. This account of it themselves give (as the Dr. hath it, p. 20. before the Bishop of London, whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth, unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal, charging them with lying pretences, without any Ground mentioned, and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop, charging them with Condemning the Reformation.  
Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on, is, Beza's advice to the Ministers and people; who, tho' he showeth his dislike of the Ceremonies, and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe; yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen, and the Bishops: And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments; notwithstanding of the Ceremonies; that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation: And to Ministers, he saith, that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies. In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult. How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not, not being able at present to get a sight of the Book; but some other Citations already examined, make me jealous; especially, seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself; for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately, and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops. But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them, that the Ceremonies are not of that moment, that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them. But whatever were Beza's opinion, Non-conformists of old and late, took the Word of God, and not the Authority of Men, for the Rule of their Faith and Practice: They honour such as Beza, and are ready to receive Instruction from them; but must have leave to examine all by Scripture, as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul Again, Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together, because restrained by the Magistrate: That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines; and is to be examined afterward; but he disliked their public appearance in that case, which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate. For they had hired a Hall in London (as public as any Church) for their Meetings. Christ's Apostles were private, with the Doors shut, when they might not be public, and so should we; and yet not give over Preaching and Hearing when Men forbid us: We should do it peaceably and inoffensively; but do it notwithstanding. For his Advice to the People, I cannot approve it; yet doth it not reach our Case; for he adviseth to Conformity for the present, with express mention of their Hope of a further Reformation; which we are out of all hope, that ever our Clergy will yield to. In Beza's Resolution of a Case mentioned by the Dr. p. 23. I desiderate one cause of Separation from a Church, (to wit) Imposing unlawful Terms of Communion, unless either this be comprehended under the right use of the Sacraments, that he mentioneth; or such withdrawing be not properly a Separation, but a being driven away.  
Sect. 34. He saith, this Advice of Beza's put an effectual stop to the Separation. I find no such thing in History, but rather the contrary. The same opinion he citeth of Gaulter ep. dedicat. in homil. ad 1. Ep. ad Corinth. & Zanchie ep. lib. 2. p. 391. where Gualther complains of the Lies and Prejudices against the Church of England. I wish it have not been Lies written by that party, that made him write so, and Zanchie is even for Ministerial Conformity. It is an easy thing to gather Scraps and Sentences out of men's. Writings, that represent them as speaking what they never thought; and nothing is more ordinary with this Author, than to persuade himself. (at least to endeavour to persuade his Reader) that all the World are of his opinion. It is enough to us in this matter, that the Reformed Divines beyond Seas, did not use the Ceremonies, but have condemned them, and that on such Grounds, as make them unlawful to be used, (to wit) that they are Vain Worship, Additions to the Word of God, the Symbols of Popish Idolatry, etc. and if notwithstanding of all this, any of them would persuade us to use them; their Doctrine doth hinder us to obey their advice, which we look on as an overlash of Charity to the then good Bishops of England, who were Labouring to Reform the Church from Popery.  
Sect. 35. He telleth us next, Sect. 7. of a New Generation of fiercer Non-conformists, the peaceable ones being worn out. It is not unusual for Adversaries to represent true Zeal as fierceness; but if there was undue forwardness among them, we defend not the Faults of Men; but the Truth of God, which they owned. There was a sinful fierceness among some of Christ's Disciples, when they called for Fire from Heaven, Luke 9 54, 55. but this was no Argument against their cause. We, with sad Hearts behold the scandalous Fierceness, that is among some Antiprela●ists at this day, but must not change our Principles for that And was there then, and is there now no fierceness on the otherside? If we may judge of former days by the present, we may rationally ascribe the fierceness of some of the Suffering Party, to that of the persecuting Party, as the Exciting cause, for oppression maketh a Wise Man mad, Eccles. 7. 7. for the Complaint that Mr. Fox maketh of them, which he Citeth out of Fuller, Ch. Hist. lib. 9 p. 106. If the Circumstances be considered, it will be found not to prove what the Dr. bringeth it for. We must know then out of the same Author, that the Complaint in this Letter was against some particular men in Magdalen College, who were no Representatives of the Non-conformists, that it was not occasioned by any of their Principles, or Religious Practices, but by a particular injury done by these men to Mr. Fox, as he thought: And Mr. Fox was as likely to be biased in the matter, in Controversy between him and these men he complained of, as they were: The Matter was, his Son Samuel had left the College, and gone beyond Sea, without leave either of his Father, or the College; and at his return was suspected of Popery; and for this, he was by that party, that Mr. Fox is so angry with, expelled the College. Beside all this, any who readeth that Letter of Mr. Fox's, may see a Strain, and meet with Expressions very unbecoming Old, Reverend and Good Mr. Fox, who had always professed himself a Nonconformist; though he had more Latitude about the use of the Ceremonies, than some others had: Factiosa ista puritanuorm capita; isti ter puri puritanis, and some other foul Reflections, with the odious name that Enemies gave to that Party, are very unsavoury from such a Pen: But Age and supposed Injury, must bear the blame of the peevish strain, that is too manifest throughout that whole Letter. It were a hard case, if the faults either real or supposed of some, were always to be charged on all the Party: The Dr's own Party would be black enough, if they were thus dealt with; and even the Historian, no Friend to the Non-conformists, calls this Letter such a Strain of Rhetoric, as once Tully used, pro Domo sua; and imputeth the too much passion in it to the unjust Affront offered to him.  
Sect. 36. Next the Dr. doth highly resent the Admonitions, First and Second, presented in the Name of the Non-conformists to the Parliament, by Mr. Thomas Cartwright: But I see not by what he citeth out of these Admonitions, wherein the bitter Zeal of that Party appeared: Neither that they despised the old Trifling Controversy about Garments and Ceremonies; for these were still the Grounds of their Nonconformity; though they complained also of other Grievances. Neither do I find that they said all was out of Course in the Church; they owned the Protestant Religion; but desired, that the Reformation might be more through, by laying aside some of the Remainders of Popish Superstitions, formerly overlookt. I wonder why the Dr. should startle so much at their complaining of the Liturgy, Bishops, and Archbishops, the Way of c●lling their Clergy, the Ceremonies annexed to the Sacraments; which are the Grievances by these Admonitions laid before the Parliament, with an humble Petition for redressing of them. Seeing he knoweth, that these are the very things that our Controversy is Conversant about; and, tho' all these be not the Grounds of our withdrawing from their Worship, yet all of them are such things as we are grieved with, and desire a Reformation of. That he calleth them bold and groundless Assertions, is a more bold and groundless Assertion than any of them; for, he knoweth, Grounds have been given; which it were better to refute, than rail at. It is also strange, that he saith, That these Admonitions gave the true occasion to the following Practice of Separation; when himself assigneth another Cause of it before this, p. 18, 19 and yet another that he dateth it from, long after, (to wit) the Indulgence, Praef. p. 23. Sometimes he layeth it on the Jesuits, Praef. p. 11. and indeed, he knoweth not whe●e to lay it, missing the true Cause, which is Episcopal Rigour in their unscriptural Impositions, on the one hand; and Conscientious Obedience to the Word of God on the other. That this Cause was maintained with greater Heat than Learning, is the Dr's Dialect, not seldom occurring. That they courted the Vulgar most, is like some others of his Representations; if they did, they acted not wisely: But if the Vulgar embraced Truth, while it was rejected by the great ones, it is no new thing, such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisees, Jo. 7. 48, 49. than this Reverend Author. That they pleaded the People's Right of Election of their Pastors, we own ourselves their Successors in that. Speaking (railing we approve not) against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy, is no popular Theme, but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Persuasions. But, that doth not much move us; we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness, if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace. That this will infer a Principle of Levelling in men's Temporal Estates, is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author.  
Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People, p. 26. as pleased, to think what a share they should have in the new Seignory, to wit, Presbytery in every Parish. If any had such Designs in being for that way, we blame their Intent, not their Work or Opinion. But might not we (if we were so disposed) harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way, in contemplation of the fat Rectories, Prebendaries, Deaneries, and Bishoprics that they daily have in view? but such ways of Reasoning, I reckon fitter for the vulgar, whom he so much despiseth, than for Scholars. He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people, and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany. What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others, with that of Popery in Rome, and elsewhere, Arguments one as strong as another? That others would refine on us, as we refine on the Church, is a Plea against us, that would well suit, and hath been often used by Papists, against our deserting them. If others do that which is wrong, because we do what is right, we are not accountable for that. If he can make it appear, that our Principles lead to other men's evil practices, we shall disown such Principles. I know not what Name to give his Assertion, that the consequence (to wit, the Brownist Separation) seemed so unnatural from their own (the presbyterians) Principles; for nothing can be more rashly or falsely spoken. It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this, not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren, and that he might well know that they would be far from owning. All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof, is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said, That the Church had neither right Ministry, nor right Government, nor right Sacraments, nor right Discipline. One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these; whereas they had never disowned the Ministry nor Sacraments, but found some faults adhering to them, as the Office of Bishops, and way of calling all the Clergy; and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments, which faults do not infer a necessity of Separation, further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church: And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles, even such as will divide any Church, the most moderate and indulgent, that is not of their way▪ Of which after.   

SECT. II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation.  
HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth, about the Nonentity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists, and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters, and how little that little Truth, that is in his Histories, doth make against our Cause; I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections, to prove, That when Separation began, it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists, who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church. By the Non-conformists, who opposed the Separation, he cannot mean all the Non-conformists, the Separatists themselves being also such; but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church, and others opposed it. And so it is at this day; some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God, and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them.  
Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse, I shall premise some things, that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter, and partly may render it more easy, and expedite. The first thing that I premise, is, That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth, from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part, it would conclude nothing against our Cause, for it amounteth only to this; That some good men were not of our Opinion, nor practised as we do, but used the Ceremonies, tho' they were dissatisfied with them. If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfy our Consciences, we should not be Non-conformists; for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren, is, Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word, and that in all the parts of His Worship, greater and lesser; or, may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God, and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore, if the Dr. could prove, That all men that ever were (who were not infallibly guided) did worship God by Humane Traditions, this cannot warrant us to do so. And yet this doth not infer Self-will, or pretending to be wiser, or more conscientious than all men; yea, or any men; (an Objection frequent in our brethren's Mouths, and more frequent with Papists against Protestants) for it is not Will, but Conscience, guided by Scripture-light, that we are determined by: And we are always ready to receive Light from the Word, if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us, tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice: And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice; they stand and fall to their own Master; let every one be fully persuaded in his own Mind: But we dare not be so far the servants of Men, as to subject our Light and Conscience to them. If we may retort without offence, It seemeth to us a less fault (if it be any) to seem wiser than those that have gone before us, (if differing from them import so much) than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles; from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ, in the things we now controvert about.  
Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise, is, That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England, in which these Non-conformists lived, and this new Edition of it, who now require Conformity from us, that their Example cannot, in reason, be judged sufficient to oblige us; even Apostolic Example, in some cases, is not declarative of what is our duty, as it is in other cases: Beside that, the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox, and the Doctrine of the Pulpits and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church, contained in their confession of Faith, the 39 Articles. Now, it is far otherwise with the greatest part, (I am far from charging all with this blame); who knoweth not how frequent (yea, almost universal) Arminian Doctrine is? How some of them preach and print Socinianism, and without a check from the Church? and, How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some, is too well known by them who converse in England. In the Old Church of England, pious men were cherished: In This, we know how not only Dissenters, tho' never so sober and religious, are persecuted to their utter undoing: But men of their own way, who are sober and serious, are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted, under the nickname of Whigs or Trimmers. So that, if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith, and the Temper of her ancient Clergy; the Presbyterians, with a few of the Conformists, do best deserve that Name. But this, tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church, is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her public Administrations.  
Sect. 4. I say then further, as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time, That Church was a reforming Church; even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign, they were about purging out of the old Leaven; and therefore many good men, who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church, yet cleaved to public Ordinances notwithstanding, till a better Season should appear for purging it out (tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relics of Superstition.) But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things: What Attempts have been made by Archbishop Laud, Bishop Cousins, and others, to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies, is not unknown; and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiors, which yet are not imposed, but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies, and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni, waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation, none is ignorant, who know any thing of English Affairs. The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery, not in these things only, but in greater matters, cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose; of which before. If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed, as other things of the same kind had been a little before, it doth not follow, that we should comply with them, when we see them like to grow upon us; yea, when we see them made use of, as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants, that Popery may the more easily re-enter.  
Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists, in former times, is, We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God, without the mixture of men's Inventions, as they never were: Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward, but our doing so were going backward. Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel, to be slow to entertain Moses, proposing a Deliverance to them out of Egypt, as to talk of returning back thither: Nor in Lot, to linger in Sodom, as in his Wife to lo●k back toward it. I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned, not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned, but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding, than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss; Licet magna componere parvi●. If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession, I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation; but the thing being our due, by Gospel-Right, we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free, Gal. 5. 1. I do not know, that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar, though, I am sure, it could at GOD's Bar, and so can ours.  
Sect. 6. A Third Difference is; At this time, Ministers of ancient standing, and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel, who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture, by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery; which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches; must be re-ordained, otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England, nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours: Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England, nor the Need of it ever asserted: P. Martyr, Bucer, and others that came from beyond Sea, had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England, as Ministers of Christ, without that. Neither was it ever heard of. that I have met with, in any of the Churches of the Reformation. Therefore People then might hope to enjoy God●s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely; which we cannot in your Church; and consequently, we have more cause to seek them where they may be had, than our Ancestors had. Fourthly, There never was in the Protestant Church of England, before our days, such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work, for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship, Two Thousand (some say more) in one day, before they were silenced, one, or two, or three, and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour: For, tho' there was an Act of Uniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign, y●t Non-conformists preached, and People heard them: But here such a number laid aside, and that mee●ly for Nonconformity, and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church. Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves, than was before. And, to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors, more considerable, these Ministers were silenced by the Church, (tho' clavae errante) ours only by the Magistrate, who never pretended a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority. Fifthly, We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition, (under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies) which our Ancestors were not: And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath.  
Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's, is, That the Separation that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose, was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us. It is of two sorts, that of the Brownists, or rigid Separatists, who denied the Church of England to be a True Church, but held it for an Antichristian Society, and therefore not to be communicated with. A●d that of the Independents, who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches, but thought it unlawful to join with them, because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints, that was among them. Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists; and that of the second, by the Assembly of Divines, and other Presbyteri●ns: Both these were active separation, chosen by the separating Parties, and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church, that a●e indefensible. But our Separation (if it may be so called) is passive; we are driven away; we seek the Communion of our Brethren; we are willing to bear wi●h many things that are a Burden to us, and which we wish to be reform, rather than have Separate Meetings. We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ; the Petition for Peace is a public and authentic witness of all this; but our Brethren will have no Communion with us, unless we will own the Ceremonies that they, without any warrant from Scripture, impose on us, which we cannot do without sinning against God, and wounding our Consciences; and we can and do give good Re●son, and Scripture-warrant, for this our Scruple. Let then any Indifferent Person judge, Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the public Worship of the Church, by the Authority of them who condemned these forementioned Separations. But occa●●on will be given to discourse this Matter further; wherefore I now forbear.  
Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince, That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi, running through the whole Texture of it, and that it doth not t●uch the Question in hand; but I shall take a more particular, yet transient, view of it. He saith, Sect. 8. at the beginning, The Separation being now b●g●n, the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemency against it. If the Dr. would prove any thing against us, he must show, That there was no forbearing of public Ordinances, on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists, before this, the contrary of which I have showed: Also, That it was Separation on that account, and no other, that they wrote against, the contrary of which is most evident. He may know, that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this; for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation, and can make it appear, that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice. It seemeth, by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker, that the Separation was charged on him, as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles; just as it is now with us. If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride, the two Characters given by Parker, to the Separatists; let the Guilty bear their blame: But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with, import no such thing; and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general, is not Brotherly dealing. We love not to recriminate.  
Sect. 9 He allegeth, p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood, against the Separation, Three of them were taken out of the Admonition, given in by the Non-conformists, to the Parliament. He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were, as very ridiculous men, who laid down Reasons for Separation, and yet were so much against other men's practising what they gave Reason for. If he think them such men, why would he bind us to their Authority, which is the tendency of this long Discourse? But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter: His Mistake is, In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances, to be redressed, not as Grounds of Separation. His Misrepresentation is, These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry, Government, and Worship, as wholly unlawful, antichristian, and false; for they owned the Ministry and Worship (whatever thoughts they had of the Government) as right for the substance, tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them, which they desired to be removed. It is true, Gilford saith, they make a vile Schism; rending themselves from the Church of England; but doth he not add, And condemning by their Assertio●s the whole visible Church in the World, even as the Donatists did of old time? Which showeth, that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with, but nullifying of Churches, because of some Corruptions in them▪ Gilford's words that follow, p. 29. we are not concerned in: We know, that many were the sad effects of that Separation, diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion, to Janglings. And it is not without this effect on some, where the oppressed Party is Innocent, as to the main; but that proveth not, that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies, to shun this Evil, but that they should not be imposed on us. As to Gilford's blaming them, for not coming to the Book-Prayers, this he spoke without Book, either in the heat of Disputation, in which many do overreach; or, it was his Opinion, but is not ours. I agree with Gilford, That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian; and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian; not we, who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ, but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship. That Gilford was a Nonconformist, the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove. That all Non-conformists are fallible men, and some of them mistaken in some things▪ we willingly grant. We also close with what his next Author saith, p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church, where he is by Providence placed, and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church, only with this Exception, Unless that Church require me to sin; and if I will not do so, exclude me: Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention, that not belonging to the thing then controver●ed. It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases, not yet thought on, may afford. The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard, and the Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists, d●ne in name of the Non-conformists; so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor's is,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Sect. 10. He thinketh, Sect. 9 to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies, with the Separation of the Brownists, (for if that be not designed, I know not what his Discourse tendeth to) by setting down the concessions of these Separatists, (to wit) That the Doctrine of the Church of England, is sound and saving; that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church. So far we agree. But they pleaded (saith he) that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such, as overthrew the very Constitution of a Church; in which we differ from them, as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did, of whom he saith that they held, That nothing could justify Separation from the Church, but such corruptions which overthrew the Being of it. And he saith, The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation, lay in this, and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church. For proving of this, he showeth, That the Separatists thought nothing could justify their Separation, but that which nullified the Church; and it is no wonder, for they minded nothing but an active Separation, and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed. It is true, they mention the Service, as one of their Pleas for Separation, but not barely as unlawful to be used, but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded: For, what he addeth, p. 35, etc. that the Non-conformists, when they would disprove the Separation, only proved the Church of England to be a True Church: It is no wonder that they minded no more, seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause. But, Did they ever teach, that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful? which is the one half of the Controversy that we now manage. He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists, p. 36. at the end, That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ, and such a one, as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself, cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this, without giving the least advantage against our Cause; for we do not separate ourselves, but the Door is shut against us, by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies, which we cannot use without Sin, and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these. Again, We do not continually separate from the Church, but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances, whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out; the Separatists could say neither of these. That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is, is evident; for they were men of so much Sense and Reason, as that they could not imagine it impossible, that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church, because of sinful Terms of Communion required: They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus, to refrain from the Communion of that Church, if that Communion were denied to that Member, unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, or at least consent to the tolerating of it. Such is our Case; we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church, unless we will approve, by our practice, the Ceremonies which we judge sinful; with what Face can they blame us, for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do? Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them, 1 Sam. 26. 19 They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord, saying, go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile, because he waited not on the Temple Service? And yet the Necessity that he was under, of abstaining from it, was not so great as ours: That was Bodily Hazard, ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God.  
Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion, p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted, as any that readeth and understandeth them, may perceive. What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson, and Ball against Can, is nothing against us; to wit, That the Church of England is a true Church. From p. 39 He showeth that Non-conformists held, That the Corruptions of the Church of England, were not such as did overthrow the Being, and Constitution of it, which we willingly yield to. What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists, p. 40, 41. about Forms of Prayer, and the English Liturgy, shall be examined in its due place; if the Lord permit. I know some Non-conformists have had, and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have: But as now there are, so of old there were, others that could not comply with it. What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian; if he thought them Lawful to be used (which is our Question) I know not why he should be reckoned a Nonconformist: But indeed there is nothing of that, in what the Dr. Citeth, p. 41, 42. What he bringeth, p. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. out of several Non-conformists, to show that the Ministry, Discipline, and Hierarchy of the Church of England, is not Antichristian, nor the Church-Antichrist; we are not concerned to disprove, and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing, it being wholly beside the question. Some things he maketh them say, that deserve a little Animadversion; but I will not now Digress to take notice of them.  
Sect. 12. He proceedeth, Sect. 12. To give Account of the Independent Separation, and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines, by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation. I confess there is a present Separation, that these Reasons do hold against; for that same Separation doth still continue: But he doth not prove his point, unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude, that we should use the Ceremonies, rather than forbear Church-Communion with the Prelatists. But his Reasons for what he saith, we shall attend in their course. What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists, by the breaking of Brown's Church in Middleborough; and his juggling in the Matters of God, I know not. This long Story hath either no design, which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts; or an ill design, which I am loath to impute to one of his Worth. However it be, we disclaim all concern in it. There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others, as well as among Non-conformists. That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Public Assemblies▪ a Cursed Conventicle; it may be there was cause, if Brown was such a bad Man, as the Dr. maketh him: But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with, are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissensions that followed, to the Judgement of God on them; this we are no way concerned to Apologise for: Their way was Evil, and it did not prosper: If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil, let him pass what Judgement he will on what befalleth us, but till then, Sobriety in judging is becoming. No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them, because of the Confusions, and Ruin that followed in Germany, on the Reformation. We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us; but we are not convinced, that the Things in Controversy are to be reckoned among them. Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy, at his pleasure, we can bear it: In this we are Murus Aheneus— in the Poet's Se●se.  
Sect. 13. He telleth us, p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson, the Founder, (as he maketh him) of the Independent way, who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer: He should have told us who these are▪ It is true, they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too, by denying us all Church Privileges, for not submitting to the Impositions; and force us to seek all God's Ordinances, where we can have them in his way; but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice. This Discourse against the Independent Separation, I meddle not with, and therefore pass over all that he saith, from p. 53. to 59 only touching Two or Three Passages. What Mr. C●n saith. p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation, is so far True, that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies, doth infer on them who act conscientiously, that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church, than own the one, or use the other: And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church, we must suffer ourselves to be separated from such Imposers. p. 59 Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions (a Word the Dr. is very angry with) because unordained men were not suffered to Preach, when and where they listed, is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions, when they are Excluded the Church, for not using Humane Ceremonies: In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture; no imposing in the other. That is imposed to be done, which is without warrant; yea, condemned in Scripture. Such mean ●rtifices the Dr. reacheth at, that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's Will, in the Worship of God. p. 58▪ he saith, Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience: Who ever said otherwise; or can say otherwise, unless they would first burn their Bibles? We never made Conscience the Rule; it must be guided and ruled by Scripture. What he saith of Popular Government, let them answer it who are concerned. He saith, Humorous and Factious People, will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions. (This Title of Mr. A's Book, is a great Eyesore to him) but he should consider that on the other hand, an Imperious, Superstitious Clergy, that will be Lords over God's Inheritance, in despite of the Apostles Words, will always be Imposing, and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden; as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious. He saith, the Principles of Liberty of Conscience, will unavoidably lead men into Confusion. Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions, are more like to lead Divines into Confusion, in managing their polemic Discourses. Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot, and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth? Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Public Conscience? Hath Conscience no use, but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will, or what the Act of Parliament saith? We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience, as the Dr. is; but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience, is liker to lead Men into Atheism, than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion. Let Conscience then have Liberty, where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth (which is the Liberty we plead for to ourselves) and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion, where they that profess Conscience, are otherwise sober and peaceable; and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience. It is a more innocent thing, where it is rightly dealt with, than the Dr. taketh it to be, and we think it is more to be regarded, than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church, which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it. I mean such Rules as are but of man's devising. It is false, that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants, as to the pretence of Conscience; nor they the Anabaptists. For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake, and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth: And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes, because of their Conscience.  
Sect. 14. He telleth us, Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren; with being the occasion of an inundation of Error, by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience. I am far from justifying that Toleration, which the Independants pleaded for, and which (by their means, some say) was used in our late times of Distraction: Then there was no King in our Israel. All Error should be opposed: Gross Error punished and restrained by force: But will it hence follow, that we must not have leave to Dissent, even from those things that the Church imposeth, without Warrant from the Lord? All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth, p. 59, 60, 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration. The Uniformity in Religion, that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of, is not to be understood of Words in Prayers, and Humane Ceremonies (for would they not then have first settled that way at home?) but of Doctrine, and Discipline, and Worship so far as commanded by Christ.  
Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble, from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates, that were between the Assembly of Divines, and the Dissenting Brethren: But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case: For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians, whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship, but what was commanded: They left the Church for supposed Corruptions, which were none of their personal fault, nor were they put under a necessity of approving them. We are willing to have Communion with the Church, if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin, if we should do them. But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates, p. 73, 74. The 1st. is, That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England, and did look on Separation from it as Sin, notwithstanding its Corruptions. This he thinketh he hath so proved, that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied: Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed, and with what measure of clearness, let others judge; also how inconcludent men's Authority is in God's matters, hath been showed. The 2d. Conclusion is, That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Unity of the Church, to go so far as they were able: So that the lawfulness of Separation, where Communion is lawful, is one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to: and who are the Inventors and Maintainers of the Contrary, I know not. I hope he will not blame us, when we are thrust out of the Church, that we do not lie about the Church-walls; rather than go to another place, to Worship God by ourselves. If we do any thing but what we can show Christ's command for, let him blame us. 3d. Conclusion. Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justify Separation, although it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled; provided they have used the best means for a right Information. I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion, that I shall say more than the Dr. doth; to wit, that bare scruple of Conscience, cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled, whatever means have been used for Information: For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground (and what else can be meant by bare Scruples, I know not) make an Erring Conscience; which however it may excuse ae toto, can excuse from nothing, in totum. But if our Scruples, such as they are, (and we may say, we have used the best means that we could for Information) do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled, and if by the force of rigid Men, we be deprived of God's Ordinances, unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars; I hope the Duty that lieth on us to worship God, and not live like Atheists, will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation; that it will be hard for him to disprove it, unless he retract this conclusion; by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause. I oppose to this regardlesness of men's Consciences, that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in, the Judgement of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism, who saith, That nothing absolveth from the Gild of Schism, but true and unpretended Conscience: Also, that requiring the doing of an unlawful or suspected Act, is a just cause of refusing Communion.  
Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church, in which a Man is a Member, and hath his constant Residence; otherwise it is manifestly false; for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France; but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England, if my Occasions call me often abroad. But take it in the most favourable Sense, the Assertion is not true: It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure, Exemp. Gr. Preaching: I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance, but if there be nothing else pure, or that I can partake of without Sin, in that Church, I am obliged to look after another Occasion, where I may enjoy all God's Ordinances without sinful additions; and having got that opportunity, I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church, rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity. What he allegeth out of the Assemblies Reasons, against the Dissenting Brethren, doth not all quadrate with our case; for the Congregational Men could not allege, that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians, in one Ordinance more than another; and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance, they might in all; and so had no excuse from constant Communion, if occasional Communion was lawful. But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward; therefore enough of it at present.  
Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th. That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church, and setting up Congregations for purer Worship, or under another Rule, is plain and downright Separation, as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines, to the dissenting Brethren. It is strange that this Learned Author, should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice, who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own, and he is pleading against, particularly Dr. Burgess, Mr. Case, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Newcomen, etc. whom he nameth. They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves: Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that, wherein they allowed themselves. Wherefore it is evident, that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned (for such is both innocent, and necessary, when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members) but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church, which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters, either to be practised or approved of by them, and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned; and that with good reason; for where the Church is a true Church, and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining, Separating can have no show of Reason.  
Sect. 18. He inferreth, Sect. 16. From what he had said, That the present Practice of Separation, cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists: Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines. The former I have disproved, tho' he saith, ●t's clear by undeniable Evidence: The latter, he saith, is, in effect, confessed by all his Adversaries; to make out which he citeth in the Margin, Mr. Baxter, and Dr. Owen: For the latter, no wonder he confess it, seeing he was for that very Separation, which the Assembly opposed. And the former is yet alive to speak for himself: And it is as little wonder that he should say so; for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians. I have already showed that the the Assembly might well Assert, That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical; the men that they debated against, separating or such Grounds, as either proved the Church false; or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism: But they could not understand it without Exception. He taketh a great deal of pains, p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation, and that which the Assembly condemned, is but in some Circumstances, that do not make the one unlawful, and the other not: But that it is otherwise is clear, if we consider (as hath been said) that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty, and as Terms of Communion, which had been their Personal Sin to do, as we have. If this make not a material, and pertinent Difference, I know not what can do it. But, saith he, the Assembly used general Reasons, that have equal force at all times. Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception; which they did not, nor needed not mention, because it was not the case in hand: Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time; but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion.  
Sect. 19 He saith, it cometh to the same point, whether the Scruples (on which men separate) relate to some Ceremonies required, or to other Impositions, as to Order and Discipline; if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation. Ans. 1. The Dr. than maketh no difference between a Scruple that hath ground for it; and one that hath none. If he can make our Scruple appear to be groundless, as he confesseth theirs to be, he hath advantage against us. Ans. 2. Is there no difference between having probable grounds for a Scruple, and having no such grounds? Is there any comparison between scrupling at using Religious Ceremonies, that have no warrant in the word, but are in general, at least, condemned in it, and scrupling at some pretended Corruptions, that no Scripture Condemneth? Ans. 3. If the Dr's reasoning be good, either we must bear with none that scruple, unless we scruple the same thing: Or we must bear with all that Scruple. The first of these excludeth all Christian forbearance; the last he will not allege. Ans. 4. He mentioneth Impositions as to Order and Discipline, only that we may seem Imposers as well as his party is; that is unreasonable, not only because we can show Christ's Laws for our Order and Discipline, which he will not pretend to show for the Ceremonies: But also because we can bear with sober and faithful Brethren, that cannot approve of all that we do; which his Party will not.  
Sect. 20. He mistaketh the Case when he insinuateth, That we have no more but scruple of Conscience to plead. The Dr. should not have alleged this, till he, or some of his party had answered all our Reasons of Scrupling, in many Books, neither touched by him, or any other: But now he will Knock down our cause with one blow. He saith, he put the Case as clear as possible, to prevent all Subterfuges, and slight Evasions. He supposeth five scrupling Parties, one at the Liturgy, a Second at the Cross and Kneelling, a Third at wrong gathered Churches, a Fourth at Infant Baptism, a Fifth at Preaching by set Forms, and being stinted by an Hourglass: And he saith, the Nature of the Case doth not vary according to these. If this be the Dr's Herculean Argument, we shall not need to fear his Strength so much as before. Surely the Learned Dr's parts could let him see more Reason to bear with sober and intelligent men, who dare not join with a Church in worshipping God, by Religious Ceremonies not instituted by Christ, than with Fantastic Quakers, who cast off God's Ordinances, because of an Hourglass; but that his prejudice doth, in this, darken his understanding. But the Tendency of his Discourse seemeth to be; either Church-Authority must lead us Blindfold, so as we must scruple nothing imposed; or neither Scripture, nor Reason shall limit our Fancy; but we may scruple what we will. He saith well, p. 76. (and the Non-conformists before him had said it) If they allege Grounds to justify themselves, they must do it ex natura rei, and not from the mere error or mistake of Conscience. We will most willingly join issue with him on this Condition, provided the natura rei may be judged by Scripture, as all the Worship of God should be. If he can prove the Ceremonies that we scruple, to be such as we may use without Sin; or, if we prove not the contrary, let him call us as vile Separatists as he pleaseth. If the Dr. had pleased at first to hang the matter on this Pin, and not to have filled his Book with so many Citations, to strengthen his Cause with Humane Authority; he might have saved both himself and me all this labour, that hitherto we have been at. It is no great commendation either of the wisdom or of the sobriety of his Church, that he saith, Sh● hath as much occasion (cause he should have said) to judge their (the Presbyterians) scruples unreasonable, as they do those of the Quakers. What followeth about occasional communion, is answered above. That which he citeth out of Mr. A. of the Assembies being transported in the heat of Dispute, is not so derogatory from that venerable Meeting, as he would make it: It is rare to find it otherwise with sinful men. How many things did thus slip from the Pens of several of the Fathers, that the Dr. will not approve? But we do not hereby give up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren, nor forsake the Assemblies Principles; it is one thing, not to approve all that men say, and another thing to condemn the Cause that they plead for.  
Sect. 21. Our Author doth next undertake Sect. 17. to show how we have deserted the Principles of the old Non-conformists, as to private Persons reforming Church-Discipline, setting up new Churches, and the preaching of Ministers, when silenced by the Laws. For the setting up of Churches and Discipline, he citeth several Non-conformists against it, without the Magistrate, p. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. To all which, I answer, That two things are expressly in these Citations, that make what they condemned not, to reach our Case: For, 1. They condemn private men's endeavouring a public Reformation, that belonging to the Magistrate; so it is thrice expressed, p. 81. out of Confut. of the Brownists. Now we meddle not with a public Reformation, otherwise than by our Prayers and Advice, as we have occasion, (which is there also expressly allowed by them) but content ourselves to serve God privately, when we cannot do it publicly without Sin. To this same purpose is that which is cited out of Giffard, p. 79. That tho' every one ought to keep a good Conscience, yet no private Persons are to take on them public Authority to reform. If we do so, blame us for it. 2. These Non-conformists all along speak of private Persons reforming the Discipline of the Church. Now, what is done among us of that kind, is done by Ministers, who, though in the State they are private persons, and therefore are not to meddle with matters of that concern: Yet in the Church they are public persons, and have Authority from God, to dispense his Ordinances. But I do not, by what I have said, intent to homologate all that the Dr. citeth out of these Non-conformists; several things they assert, that cannot well be defended; but I shall not digress so far, as to particularise them.  
Sect. 22. I shall only say, That had this Principle of not reforming the Ordinances of Christ by People, among themselves, till the Magistrate gave countenance, taken always place in the World, not only Christianity had not come in the place of Jud●ism, but Arrianism had extinguished the Orthodox Profession. Have we not Examples of People who were under Arian Bishops, setting up new Bishops over themselves, in Epiphan. Haeres. 73? Doth not Hilary exhort the People to separate from Auxentius, their Arian Bishop, adversus Arianos, when yet there was no Orthodox Magistrate to countenance these things? Yea; had this Principle obtained, there had been no Reformation from Popery, in most places, where now, through the Lord's mercy, it is. Say not, that our reforming of Worship and Discipline is not in things of that moment; for tho' that be true, yet it is not of no moment; without it we should either join with men in Sin, or live without the Ordinances of God. Let me here make use of the Testimony of a worthy Person, one whom the Dr. afterward bringeth against us; and therefore, in reason, cannot refuse his Suffrage, (tho' we are far from hanging our Cause on men's Opinions, as the Dr. doth) that is, the learned Monsieur Claude, in his excellent Book called, the Historical Defence of the Reformation; the design of which, is, to show, that every man hath a right to believe the truth, and to descent from Error, and to profefs this, and to reform Religion, by setting up Religious Assembles, for the true Worship of God; when they cannot have Truth, nor right Worship in that which goeth under the name of the Church. He saith, (Part 2. p. 169.) As it is ridiculous to demand of a man, in a civil Society, what personal Call he had to live, to labour, to avoid that which would be hurtful to his Life, and to have a care of his own Preservation; so it is also an Absurdity to demand of our Fathers, what Call they had to believe aright in God, and to worship him purely, and to remove far from them all that which they believed to be contrary to a spiritual life, and their own Salvation. And much more to this purpose. He objecteth, p. 170. Is not this to rend the Church by Divisions? and answereth, No; for the Unity of the Church lieth not in Error, or false Worship; it is love to the Church, to endeavour her cure, by showing a good example. And, Part 4. p. 14, 15. When it is objected, That the Protestants could not separate, because their Pastors were against it; he answereth, That many Pastors went along with them; and if that had not been, they might have chosen Pastors; all which he discourseth at length. We have an Example of setting up God's Ordinances without, yea, against the Laws of men, in the Word. It is clear from Ezr. 5. with ch. 4. 21. that the Temple was built against Law: And it is clear from Hog. 1. 2. that it was the People's Sin, that they neglected it so long, even when Law was against them; and that they ought to have done it before Haggai and Zechariah put them on it.  
Sect. 23. Next the Dr. (p. 82.) bringeth in some Non-conformists condemning Ministers Preaching, after they were silenced. It is evident to any that readeth, p. 82, & 83. that it is silencing by the Church that is there spoken of; but our restraint is by the Magistrate only, who doth not pretend to give nor to take away Pastoral power. Pag. 86. he bringeth Mr. Bradshaw reasoning against Ministers preaching against the will of the Magistrate; but in the First part of Mr. Bradshaw's Discourse, it is evident, that he speaketh only against public Preaching in such a place, in defiance of the Magistrate, and running on the Sword's point, or opposing Sword to Sword; which we are far from either practising or approving. I confess, p. 87. he is for the Ministers living privately; yet saith expressly, that he is to labour mean while privately, upon particular occasions offered, (why they may not be also sought, I know not) to strengthen and confirm in the ways of God those people that are deprived of his public Labour. If this be not an allowance of his private preaching, I understand it not: But. Mr. Bradshaw will have the People to submit to the Ministry of another in public, with the liking of the Magistrate, tho' he would have them to affect and love the former as their Pastor. How congruous this Advice is, I shall not inquire, not laying so much stress on men's thoughts of things, as to be turned out of our way by them. But Mr. Bradshaw seemeth to speak of a Case wherein the Magistrate is offended with a Minister on some personal account, and another is set over the People, with whom they may as lawfully join, as with the former; but that doth not come near to our Case, in which Ministers are restrained, because of a Scruple common to them and the People that join with them; to wit, using the Ceremonies. Would he have the People, over the belly of Scripture-light, to join with the new Incumbent in Ceremonies, and not rather enjoy the Ordinances in purity, tho' in private, from their own faithful Pastor? I cannot see how that can be gathered from his words; but if it was his Opinion, we crave leave to differ from him. Beside, Mr. Bradshaw did never advise, that some Thousands of Ministers being all laid aside at once, should deprive the Church of their more private Labours, when they were forcibly restrained in public: The Non-conformists, in former times, were not in our Circumstances.  
Sect. 24. The Dr. is now come to his Triarij, his last Argument to prove what was the general Sense of the Non-conformists in this. It is Mr. Sprint's Argument for Conformity, rather than to be deprived; to wit, That a lesser Duty should cede to a greater: He supposeth Conformity and Preaching to be a greater Duty than abstaining from the Ceremonies: And he confirmeth this (it seemeth) by the Apostles, who, he saith, submitted to the Jewish Ceremonies, rather than lose the Liberty of the Ministry. The Dr. I see, hath not kept his best Wine till the end of the Feast; this is one of the meanest of his Allegations; for the Non-conformists had an easy Answer to this Argument, that here a Sin, and forbearing a Duty, are brought in competition; which maketh an easy choice, to wit, using unlawful Ceremonies, with not preaching in public. What he saith of the Apostles using the Jewish Ceremonies, is quite out of our way, for these Ceremonies for a time were indifferent, as all acknowledge; bu●, that ever any of the Apostles used them, after the full promulgating of the Gospel, and the Destruction of the Temple, when they became not only mortuae, but mortiferae, (as the Schools speak) we utterly deny. But even what he maketh the Non-conformists answer, concerning the greater usefulness and necessity of the preaching of the Apostles, than of their preaching, maketh nothing for his Design: Nor doth it prove, that they did not think that the Apostles, Woe be unto me, if I preach not the Gospel, did reach to their Case; for it can import no more, but that if such a great necessity might warrant some things otherwise not warrantable, (as the abstaining from things strangled, and Blood, was warranted; yea, made necessary by a present necessity) their public Preaching was not of that moment; and it was only their public Preaching that was hindered by their Nonconformity.  
And thus I have got through the Thicket of his Historical Coll●ctions, and proceed to the Rational Part of his Discourse, which, I hope, shall prove less tedious.    

PART II.  
IN the Second Part of his Book, the Learned Dr. enquireth into the nature of the Separation. (I wish he had taken as much pains to find out the true Cause of it, and to get that removed); where he considereth the several Principles, on which he allegeth, That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church. I am not obliged, nor shall I endeavour to defend all these; the owners of them not agreeing among themselves, let every one stand up for his own Principle. But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in, That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion, and because of not submitting to these, she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion; and being thus excluded, they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves, when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles, I leave the defence of them to their Authors. This is to be further opened in the Third Part; where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation. He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things, as insufficient Grounds for Separation; which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books, as additional motives; there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned, as the sole ground of their practice, or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by itself. This is to set up a man of Straw, that he may get a Victory by bearing him down. Instances enough of this kind will occur in our progress. I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned, that I hold.  

SECT. I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined.  
THE Dissenters, with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church, he divideth into two sorts: 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church, lawful; but not total and constant Communion; and that they may choose Communion where there is greater purity and edification. 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful, because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful; such as the Liturgy, Cross, etc. This distinction is unhappily stated; for, 1. Non exhaurit divisum. There is a third sort, who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful, but not total and constant, and yet believe the Church's terms of Communion unlawful; and because of that Belief, cannot communicate totally and constantly with Herald We can hear a Sermon, join in Prayer, without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion, to wit, Ceremonies and Liturgy; but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances; and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications, and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere. 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing; nor total and constant, as to the lawfulness of them. One may have communion with you, and that not only occasionally, but constantly, in God's Ordinances that are kept pure; and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices, and in those Ordinances of God, that ye have so annexed those devices to, that the one cannot be had without the other. And there are some that practise accordingly; they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly, but refuse the rest of your Worship. 3. I think there are few, if any Non-conformists, that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful, and can keep occasional communion with Her, and yet separate for greater purity and edification. If any such be, they make a causeless Separation indeed.  
Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness, (which he hath not done in the forementioned distinction) and consider three things; 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties. 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation. 3. What the true state of the present Controversy about Separation is. For the first, he saith, There are three things that we cannot deny. And I say, There is not one of the three, but they are to be denied, or at least distinguished, and not admitted, as he setteth them down: The first of them is, That there is no reason of Separation, because of the Doctrine of our Church. I do cordially agree with the learned Authors, whom he citeth in the proof of this, p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England, or refusing communion with all Her Congregations, on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church, contained in the 39 Articles; for we assent to them all as true, except those about Bishops and Ceremonies; and we would not separate from the Church, because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things, if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Herald But it is not so easy to persuade us, that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England, where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught; where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed, and Principles striking at the root of it, are instilled into the Hearers; such as, That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after, that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties, that is in their own power, is but fancy; that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians, but only obedience to his Laws; that, Resting on Christ, Rolling the soul on him, are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians, who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls, do, when such a Minister is set over them? Shall they hear him? That were to sit down to a Table, where Poison is strewed over all the Meat, and it is hard, if not impossible, at the best dangerous, to pick out a wholesome bit. And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice, Prov. 19 27. Cease, my son, to hear the Instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. They who would have such Doctrine heard, but not received, may as well advise to go to the Stews, but not commit Fornication. Should they complain to Superiors, against the erroneous Preacher? But what if they get no redress, and the Heretic be countenanced and dignified, notwithstanding that all this is known to the World, by the Press, as well as the Pulpit? What if such a Case as this, or little less evil, be not rare? Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners, when they cannot have it in the public Assembly, being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly, when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block?  
Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries, that the Dr. setteth down, is, That there is no other Reason of Separation, because of the Terms of Communion, that what was from the beginning of the Reformation. A sufficient refutation of this may be seen, Par. 1. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better, we can tell, and have told of others made to the worse. It may be, Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before; he thinketh it so easy, that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do. But that is no proof. What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered. The Third Concession; That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad. I have before answered this also, showing, That though some of the Divines, (for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose) in their condescendency, have showed aversion from our withdrawing, yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles, that necessitate what they are so averse from. Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions, the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her: But it is a frivolous Argument, both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches, but of a private Writer; as also, because the Author of that Book reckoning England, among the Protestant Churches, doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions. What Durel hath said, or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution, and Orders of the Church of Engl●nd, may soon be Balanced by Testimonies, out of the same Reverend Divines, Condemning her Ceremonies as relics of Popery.  
Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on, he beginneth, Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters: He saith, some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places, where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants. And this he groundeth on some passages, wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration, that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches. But did ever any of them say, that this was either the only, or main reason of their Meetings? or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration, to blunt the Edge of that Clamour, that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching, by them, who neither could benefit the People themselves, nor would suffer others to do it; whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church, but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures, in other Assemblies? But even that reason might have some weight, ad hominem, against the Silencers of Nonconformist Ministers: I hope to give better reasons in due time and place, for the Nonconformist Ministers Preaching: But I am very free to declare, that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances, this alleged is not sufficient.  
Sect. 5. Some, saith he, Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties, and at some Seasons; but not with all. Churches, in all Duties, and at all times. And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery, as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion. But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication? And if none have, it is not Candour so to represent us: We desire not to walk in the Dark, nor are we ashamed of our Principles. We profess then, That in Parishes, where Truth is Preached, and not dangerous Error, and in those Ordinances, to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed, as Preaching and Prayer; and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies, where we have all the Ordinances in purity, as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned, because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them: I say thus, we can join with them; but not otherwise. I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion.  
Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove, that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists; which he proveth of some of the People, out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness: I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author, were sometimes dealt at Random: But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things, and understand not so well as need were, what they profess, will that ruin our cause? Is there no such blame among his Party? Do they all speak Judiciously, and Soberly, and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity. But he will (p. 103.) have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists; for what matter is it, saith he, as to the Nature of the Separation, whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful? whether our Ministry be called a false or insufficient Ministry? scandalous Usurpers and Persecutors? Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian, or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ? Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful, and theirs unlawful, is, that we withdraw, being put away by the Church, for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion: These left the Church, and would not join with her, even tho' these Terms had not been imposed; looking on the Church as no true Church. Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy, we do not separate because of these; we would join with you for all these Grievances, if you would but suffer us to do it, without sinning against God in that, which is our personal Action. I hope he will not allege, that the Old Separatists were of that principle.  
Sect. 7. But this, to wit, that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists, the Dr. will make manifest: And that, 1. As to the People. 2. As to the Ministers of the Church. As to the People, Sect. 4. he saith, We disown the Old Separation; and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons, as Members of the Church unlawful. This I own, save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term, Members of the Church; let the thing be understood, to wit, that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies; and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these, with the Church; we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among ourselves: Yet are ready to worship God with the Church, when they shall please to suffer us to do it, without these Impositions: This, I say, being understood; we matter not much, whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not. Mr. Baxter, he saith, calleth it Schismatical in the Church, to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross, and Godfathers; and the Communion without Kneeling; and that People, in this case, may join with other Pastors, that will otherwise Baptise, and give the Communion. And I say the same: What is this, saith the Dr. but formal Separation. Ans. It is nothing else. And what hath he gained by that Concession? For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England, between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters: But the Question is, Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation; and consequently who are the Schismatics? whether the Imposers or the Scruplers? I know no way to determine this question, but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause, and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used, and fit to be imposed on them, who conscientiously scruple them, so as no forbearance should be used in them, what ever may follow. If both these can be proved (as I am sure neither of them can) we were the Schismatics: If not, unbiased men will adjudge that Epithet to the Dr. and his Party. If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue, the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared.  
Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage, by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter; to wit, It may be Schism to separate from a Church, that hath some Schismatical Principles, Practices, and Persons. If these be not such, and so great, as to necessitate our departure from them, for there is such a Case supposeable; yet we affirm, That the Schismatical Principles, and Practices, and Persons in the Church of England, to wit, the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies, as Terms of our Communion with them, are such as Necessitate our departure: Or rather, they do by these drive us away. The Old Separatists, saith he, did not renounce total Communion with our Church; but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful (so do we with all the sound Christians in the World, tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity) and private Christian Communion (neither is this in the Question) and in some Acts of Worship, as hearing and joining in Prayer, and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists. Ans. They were justly charged with Separation, because their Principles would separate them from a Church, that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions; which ours do not. The Separation Materially is the same; that is, here are two Parties gone asunder, as were there: But not Formally; for their principle was, The Church was no true Church, and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities. Ours is, Unlawful Terms of Communion are required; and for our Non-submission to these, we are expelled by force. He saith, We must hold a Necessity of Separation. Ans. So we do, as things now stand▪ But this Necessity is not of our making, but of our brethren's making, and therefore they must bear the blame of it. It no way followeth, which he inferreth, that we must be Separatists: For it is an uncontroverted Truth, That they only are Separatists, who separate without just cause, which we deny to be imputable to us. The medium that he insisteth so much on, p. 104. is but a Quibble; to wit, either we are Members of the Church of England, or of no Church, or of another Church: If the first we must Communicate as Members: If the Second, we are no good Christians: If the Third, we own as formal a Separation, as ever any did. All this hath been before answered, but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us. I say then, there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If we own ourselves as Members of the Church of England, it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances, that is, her Sin to impose, and were our Sin to yield to. There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times, who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship, and the Groves, and High Places. If we should say the 2d. That we are at present Members of no Church, that understood sano●sensu, might be our Affliction, and not our Sin, for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with, or none that will let him join with them, without he sin against God, he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself: Every good Christian is a Member of the Universal Church; and aught to join himself to some particular Church if he can: But it doth not always derogate from a Man's Christianity, that his Circumstances are such, that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church. If we should say the 3d. it is true, we own a Formal Separation; but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us.  
Sect. 9 If any ask, which of these three we do indeed own? I might answer as above, Section 7. that the Question is not very material, and but about words. Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word, Members of the Church, I shall open this a little further. And 1st. I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not, nor never were (most of us) Members of the Church of England; and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her; on what ever account we separate: For he asserteth, part 3. p. 350, 351▪ that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, and saying, we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross, etc. doth speak in the name of the Church; and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholic Church: So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England. I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place. I only now consider, seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England, how he can look on us as Members of that Church, who were never so admitted into it: And if we never were Members in it, how can we be blamed for separating from it? But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it; I make no other use of it but ad hominem: And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it. But I come ad rem: The Term Church-member is a relative Term; it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church. Now in all Relatives, there are the two termini, the Things or Persons related, and the Fundamentum Relationis: That which maketh them so to be related one to another; which must be something so particular to them, that it is not common to them with all other persons or things. And this is that we here inquire after. That which maketh our relation to the Universal Church is Baptism, and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant. That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church, is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church; and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowship, or admitted to the Ordinances in it. This Right and Obligation is either remote, or proximate: A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth, every visible Believer hath; this is a part of the Communion of Saints, that they should join with one another, and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity; and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally, a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the Proximate Right that one hath, and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic & nunc to join with, and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church, is that which doth actually make him a Member of it. And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission, whether it be the Dr's Crossing, or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant, or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end; for these are but the external declarative Signs, not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation: and therefore these are but the Tokens, not the Foundation of Actual Membership. But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned, is ones being so Circumstantiated, that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances hear rather than elsewhere; which is determined by his place of residence (not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine, but a Civil Constitution; yet it hath its use for shunning confusion.) And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted, is his being a Visible Believer.  
Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church, may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man, unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions; and his right may also be superseded, and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances, by his contradicting his profession by Heresy or Scandal. Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish, is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists, wilful Deserters of the Church, Atheists, etc. So every one that liveth in a Parish, is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things: As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion, which that Church doth sinfully require: To clear this a little further, consider; that to make Actually and Completely a Member of a particular Church; beside his residence, there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person; and that either Explicite, or Implicit: The Implicit consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person, Word, Sacraments, Discipline: The Implicit consent of the Person lieth, in ordinary using of, or submission to these. Now where the Church is willing, and the Person is not, and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause, the Person may be charged with sinful Separation, where the Person is willing, but the Church is not. And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal, or by refusal, unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions, the Person is no Separatist; but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation. In this last case (which is our case) the Person is a Member affectu, but not effectu. This is (to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand) we are Members of the Church of England affectu, i. e. Being by providence fixed in England, where Christ's Truth is professed, and his Ordinances administered; we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances; yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu; because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under, to join in the Ordinances, without submitting to sinful Terms: And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinances, we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies, for the present distress, where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administered; and there we are effectu Members, where we thus ordinarily meet. And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu; for we declare a readiness whenever these unlawful bars from Communion with her shall be removed, that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies, and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast. If after all this, the Dr. or his Party, will charge us, as he doth, with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles; and Prevarication in managing of them we must bear that injustice.  
Sect. 10. He dealeth, p. 105, 106, 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion, how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful. I have ●o fully set down my opinion in this (and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things, tho' many of them may word them better) that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate; especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth, I will not defend. He taketh up part of p. 107, 108, 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies, to be Members of the Church, nor excuse them from Separation. I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs: For it is not Occasional Communion alone, but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her, when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed, that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her, and so maketh us Members so far as we can; and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation.  
Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England, and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship, because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholic principles. This he highly derideth, and laboriously refuseth, p. 110, 111, 112, 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch. It is not their (saith he) Obligation to Peace and Unity with the Church, as Members of it, that moveth, but a certain Romantic fancy of Catholic Unity. Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church; but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations: And therefore by the fault of the Imposers, we have no other way to show our owning the Church▪ as a true Church, but this Occasional Communion: Let him call it a Romantic Fancy, or what he will; we separate from no true Church, and much less fr●m that where we live, but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again, he argueth from a supposition, That if we were at Jerusalem, where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches; and one should ask us what Church we were Members of. If we should Answer, we are fixed Members of no Church, but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches. Would they take such a Man for a Christian? Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer, as he feigneth for us, for his own advantage. I should in that case join myself to the purest Church that I could there meet with (being at Liberty to choose, and not prelimitted by my habitation) if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion: And then should Answer to the Question, I am here free to join with you, or any tolerable Church, but do Actually join with you as the purest, during my abode here. When I am at home I would join with the Public Assembly, in the True Protestant Church of England; but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion, which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart, and in that Assembly I am a Member, till I can find a sinless access to the Public Assembly; where I desire to be a Member. I suppose the Eastern Christians, such as are sober and serious of them, and are duly informed of the State of our Debates, would not think me no Christian for this Answer, nor deny me Occasional Communion for it. I am sure if they did, they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel.  
Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is, p. 111. We were baptised in the Church of England, and received as Members of it: If then we communicate with it only occasionally, we renounce our membership. Ans. Wherever one be baptised, that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholic Church. If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France, and have his Child there baptised in the English way, or in the French way, Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France, tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England, and there have Education, and continue? The Dr. had not, it seems, when his Book had come this length, hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission, as a Member of the Church of England. Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion, though not by our being baptised in this Church, yet by our residence in it, and owning the same ●aith with it, and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation: But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation; for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin▪ and therefore we do not renounce our Membership; but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us. The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion, and it is no wonder, for his Party (forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing) desire none of our communion, as appeareth in excluding us, by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless, and we judge unlawful. But whatever he think of it, it is all that we can do: We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters, but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant.  
Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion, p. 111, 112. is pure Trifling, unworthy of so learned an Author; That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life: That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience, concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions, and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church. For a man may occasionally have Communion in public, when he cannot have it in private, and that often: And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church, which we would not do in a false Church, but rather be without the Ordinances for that time. Again, We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church, in any of Her corruptions; we should always abstain from and reprove those, as he speaketh. These things being considered, the difficult Case of Conscience, that he fancies, hath an easy resolution, That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined, to shun the sinful Impositions that are in public, we should wait on them there, rather than elsewhere; but when that occasion is not offered, we may join with a Church in some things corrupted, in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it.  
Sect. 14. His next Argument is, That here are no Bounds to the people's Fancies of purer Administrations, and less defective ways of Worship, so that there can be no stop to separation in this way. This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs, more than with solid Reasons, which he (but undeservedly) most severely had taxed Mr. A. for; he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over; and going to Anabaptists, and thence to the Quakers; and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church, unless they be secure, that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind, that it is impossible for them either to find or fancy any defect in it. Nothing here that hath a shadow of Argument, but it is already objected and answered; but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions. I answer; It is not only for purer Administrations, that we withdraw, but to shun sinful Impositions, which, I am sure, neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly allege. Neither is it the glaring visibility, but the real Scripture-warrant for our way, that condemneth them for departing from us: Nor will Fancied Defects in our way excuse them, but real sinful Terms in our Communion. But that some will without cause separate from us, is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you. Such a way of reasoning, from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty, is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this, had forgotten, it seems, what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith, A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity. Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem, counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for: It is incident even to wise men, Dum vitant vitia; that, in contraria currunt, it is downright for us, and against himself. What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions, as to practice. What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter, is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelessly divide the Church, if he intended it against any others, let him answer it. The sad effects of R. William's Separation in New-England, do not concern us further, than to lament them, unless the Dr. can prove, that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had.  
Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection, that he had made, I insist not on, save that I observe his usual way here also, his representing his Adversaries, as if they held, That People's apprehension of a less defective way of Worship, is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces. We think, the less defective that Worship be, it is the better; but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste: Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness, and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion, a sufficient ground of Separation: Far less do we think, that the People's apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground, unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture, or found Reason: And lest of all do we think that such apprehension can warrant us to break the Church in pieces. The best grounded Scruples can only warrant our peaceable withdrawing and worshipping God apart, which may consist with the Church's being whole and sound. He doth exceedingly wrong Mr. B. and others, in that he imputeth to them an opinion, That better means of Edification is, by itself, a sufficient ground of separating from a Church. If any have ever asserted that, let them bear their blame. It may be some might mention this as a cumulative inducement to join with other Societies; but none of us ever held, that this alone could warrant a Separation. And yet the Dr. is at a great deal of pains to prove, that neither the old Separatists, nor the New-England-men ever held such an Opinion, which he might have got us to yield to him without his spending five Pages in the proof of it; but some men labour most in that which is least necessary. I know not what name to give to the Dr's Assertion, p. 117. That this (greater means of Edification) is now the main support of the present Separation. Nothing can be spoken with less semblance of Truth.   

SECT. II. Of the Ministry of the Church of England.  
FRom Sect. 7. and forward, the Dr. debateth against Separation that is grounded on the Church's want of true or rightly qualified Ministers. Here I shall have but little Debate with him; I shall, to cut off Debates, as much as may be, lay down mine own thoughts (which, I think, are not different from those of most sober Non-conformists, especially Presbyterians) in a few particulars.  
1. We look on some of the Conforming Ministers as Persons of great worth, and excellent Ministerial Qualifications, and could live with great satisfaction under their Ministry, if it were permitted to us, without our Sin. 2. Others of them we know to be very bad men, and ill qualified for the Work that they undertake; they are Strangers in England, who have not seen this. 3. We are dissatisfied with some things in the Calling and Practice of all the present Clergy; we think the very Office of some of them unlawful, as Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, etc. and their Ordination by a Bishop alone not warrantable; their Call by Patrons, we judge such also; and their using the Liturgy and Ceremonies we look on as sinful. These things I now only assert, and shall debate them with the Dr. as they fall in. 4. Yet we deny not any of them, on any or all of these accounts, to be true Ministers, nor to have the substance of a lawful Calling: Let this be understood of Bishops and Deans, etc. as Ministers, not as in these superior offices. 5. Tho' we think a better and more edifying Ministry than that which most of the People of E●gland live under, very desirable, yet we do not think, that any defect that is in their Ministerial Call, or in the Truth of their Ministry is a sufficient ground for separating from the Church.  
Sect. 2. These things being premised, I am resolved not to take the defence of all that some have written of the defects of the Ministry, as a ground of Separation, tho' I find many things cited by the Dr. that at first view may seem to have that tendency, (a●d he improveth them with all the advantage that he can) and yet were not so meant. In the very entrance of this discourse, I meet with a most unjust Imputation laid on us by the Dr. In general (saith he) they declare, that they only look on those as true Churches, which have such Pastors as they approve; and for this, citeth not o●e Author, but Mr. Baxter. Is this fair dealing? Did ever the Non-conformists make Mr. Baxter their general Representative? or, Hath he so much as pretended to write in the Name of them all? Were it candid in us, if we should pick out some passages out of Dr. Sherlock's Book of The Knowledge of Christ, and impute those opinions to the Conformists, as their Doctrine in general? Beside, Mr. Baxter, nor no Nonconformist never made their Approbation the Rule, by which Ministers are to be judged, the having of whom maketh a true Church: But the Dr. looketh on us as a Company of silly Ridiculous Men, and is pleased often so to expose us. Mr. Baxter's Notion about true Pastors, and true Churches, I know he himself can best defend: And therefore I leave him and the Dr. to debate that Case.  
Sect. 3. He saith, Sect. 8. If the People judge their Ministers to be unworthy, or incompetent; they allow th●m Liberty to withdraw, and to separate from them; and promiseth to prove it from many passages, in several Books of Mr. Baxter's and others Still he representeth us as making the People's Judgement the Rule; and that this Judgement is sufficient ground of Separation, not considering whether their Judgement be right or wrong; or that there is a Superior Rule, by which all Judgement, whether of people or others, is to be governed. All this we disown; neither can the Dr. prove that any of us ever owned it Yea, we further deny, that we own a Power in the People to withdraw and separate from every Pastor, who is really unworthy and incompetent. But what he asserteth, he endeavoureth to prove by three Arguments. 1. Saith he, p. 122. They leave it to the People's Power, notwithstanding all Legal Establishments, to own, or disown whom they judge fit. This we deny. And the Proof he bringeth of it, is, Mr. B. speaketh against the right of Patronage, and the Power of Magistrates in these cases, for the unalterable right of the People. Mr. A. saith every particular Church hath power to choose its own Pastors. Dr. Owen maketh the depriving the people of this Right, a Ground of Separation. If Dr. Owen hath done so, let it pass for a part of the Independent Judgement, which was the mistake of that Eminent Servant of God; others are not of that mind. For Mr. B. and Mr. A's words no such consequence can be drawn from them. The People (and neither Patron nor any other) by the Laws of the Gospel, have the right of Election of their Pastors; but it doth not follow, that they ought not to bear with being hindered the Exercise of this right, for the sake of Peace and Unity.  
Sect. 4. The 2d. Argument is, The People are made Judges of the Worthyness and Competency of their Ministers. This, saith he, followeth from the former. Ans. I have disowned the former; and therefore this falleth with it. Yet I here distinguish: The the people have a discretive power of judging the fitness of the Man that is to be set over them with respect to their Souls; so as he ought not to be obtruded on them, without their being satisfied with him. But the People's power of judging is not Authoritative, nor Supreme, much less absolute, in this matter; but Subordinate to the Pastors of the Church, who have power of trying the Person Elected by the People, and rejecting him if unqualified: For the Spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets; not to the People. As for Pastors not now to be Elected, but obtruded on the people, and settled among them, tho' in an undue way, I shall not say, that it is the People's part to separate merely for the Insufficiency of the Minister, if the Ordinances be Administered, so as they can partake of them without Sin. That which can warrant withdrawing, must be a Depravation of the Ordinances; and that such as importeth my personal Action, in partaking of that depravation of the Ordinance, and not every defect or fault, either of the Minister or the Ordinance. What Mr. B. saith of people's Duty to get the best supply they can, which the Dr. taxeth him for, is not meant of d●ferting, or separating from a Parish, merely on Account of the defective Quali●●cations of the Minister; but either, of Occasional Communion with a better supplied Society; which if the Dr. do altogether condemn, he should Preach against the Throngs that resort to him, and leave others under whose particular charge they are. Or, when withdrawing is founded on other good Grounds, that people should choose better qualified Pastors, than those they leave: What he saith, himself must Explain and Defend. What Mr. B. further saith, of the warrantable Preaching of Silenced Ministers; and of the Magistrates imposing Pastors, obliging people to adhere to and own these; and forsake their own Pastors, settled among them in the way of the Gospel, come afterward to be debated; and hath in part been spoken to above.  
Sect. 5. Argument 3d. They give directions to the People, what sort of Ministers they should own, and what not. And doth not the Scripture so too? We Affirm people to have a Judgement of Discretion, both of their Pastors to be Elected; and also of the Doctrine and Administrations of their Pastors already in possession of the charge of their Souls: And yet that they are not to separate from the latter for any defect, save that which doth so vitiate the Ordinances, as that it is their Sin to join in them. And if the Dr. will not allow them this Judgement (as he seemeth to deny it, by his Sarcasm, of which, saith he, (to wit, utter Insufficiency, and Heresy) the People are admirable Judges) he must introduce implicit Faith and Obedience: And by this Doctrine, it had been a Sin in the People even to have left Rome itself; for were not they admirable Judges of the Heresy and Idolatry of that Church? He that chargeth other men's way so fiercely, with a Tendency to Popery, should take heed of giving ground for such a Reflection to be made on himself. Our Lord doth not speak with such Contempt of the People, as this Learned Dr. doth. He saith, My Sheep hear my Voice; and they know not the Voice of strangers, Joh. 10. 27. and 5. to deny this Spirit of discerning to the People of God, is to make them Sheep in a literal Sense; that men may Rule over them as Beasts. I see not such Inconsistency in Mr. B's Words, as the Dr. would make us believe; while he speaketh, p. 123. of withdrawing from the utterly Insufficient and Heretical; and p. 124. that people are not warranted to withdraw for a Ministers personal Faults, nor for his ministerial Faults, while his ministration is not utterly untolerable; if the Dr. can show either the Falsehood, or Inconsistency of these Assertions, we shall own it. He also wrongeth Mr. B. and the Non-conformists, while p. 124. he telleth us of Mr. B's outcries against the People, as Heady, Rash, Censorious, Proud, Ignorant, such as are ready to Scorn and Vill fie the Gravest and Wisest Preachers: And hence He (the Dr.) inferreth, that such are unfit to discern the Qualifications of Ministers. I ask the Dr. if ever Mr. B. said that the People were all, or generally such: We deny not there are too many that de●erve severe Reproofs for such things (and Mr. B. hath not been too sparing in his Censures of them) but is there any shadow of reason for in●erring thence, That all the People should be deprived of the Right, that Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed to them? It were as reasonable to say, that because many men Misguide, or Debauch away their Estates; therefore no man should ha●e the Power of managing his Estate. Christ hath provided Discipline and Authority in his House to Curb the Extravagancy of such persons, and to restrain the Power of Election, when it is mis-managed, as is abovesaid: And he needed not the Dr's, and t●e prelate's device to prevent this mischief, by putting the power of Election into the Hands of a Patron; who (may be) a Papist, Atheist, or Enemy to Godliness, and so less fit to choose one to take the charge of men's Souls, than any of the Persons described.  
Sect. 6. And if Mr. B. say, That the heady Persons mentioned, are commonly the most violent, and will judge in spite of the rest: Yet the Remedy that I have mentioned, is for restraining of them, and is like to do it bet●e● than what the Dr. is for, can do. Neither doth Mr. B. nor any of us, allow these heady persons to be the decisive Judges either of who of his side, or who of our side are true and sufficient Ministers: Which the Dr. might have known, and so spa●ed much of his discourse; which I shall not Transcribe. That which Mr. B. telleth of many young, rare, injudicious Preachers in England, was never looked on as sufficient ground of Separation by it s●lf; as the Dr. insinuateth. But it is a sad grievance, and these men withal imposing sinful Terms of Communion on the people (for who greater Zealots for Liturgy and Ceremonies than they) and there being many faithful and qualified Ministers laid aside from their public work; is it any wonder that people leave the one, and cleave to the other? The Ground that I have already laid down, will justify our withdrawing from the Ministers even in London, however Grave and Learned they be, and however Capacious their Churches be: For even their sinful Terms of Communion are imposed.  
Sect. 7. He allegeth, Sect. 9 That by this means Separation cann●t be kept out of any Church whatsoever. This is true if the Dr. have liberty to make our opinion to be what he pleaseth to have it, that he may the better refute it. But if our opinion be rightly understood, and if we be heard speak for ourselves; it is most false. I hope there are Churches where the Ministers generally are sound in Doctrine, and mix nothing with God's Ordinances as Terms of communion with them, that is unlawful: In a Word, There are Church●s where, tho' Ministers be not faultless, yet the ordinances are pure; or if there be any thing amiss in the Ordinances, people are not required to own it personally: From such we will not withdraw. He bringeth Four Qualities that Mr. B. required in Ministers; the want of which may warrant to withdraw from them: Tolerable Knowledge: That they be not Heretical: That they be not opposers of serious Godliness: That they be not so vicious in their Lives as to do more hurt than good. If these qualities were to be considered by a People about to Elect a Minister, it is not difficult to determine what Obligation lieth on people to shun the man that wanteth them: But it is another case, when the Qualities of a Minister under whom we are, come to be considered in order to warrant casting off his ministry. A general Determination of this I have already given; to wit, that no other qualities of the Minister doth warrant withdrawing, but such as so vitiate the Ordinances, as my personal Concurrence with them is Sin.  
Sect. 8. But to consider these Four Ministerial Qualities in reference to this Case: Two things I shall say of them in general. 1. It is either supposed, that all the Ministers of a Nation are so ill qualified; or that some one, or a few, or most of them: In the first case there is more need of separate Meetings: In the last some less need; in the Third yet less; and in the Fourth lest of all; because people's wants are more easily supplied by Neighbour Ministers in the one case, than in the other: though the need to the Soul under that one bad Minister to shun him, is as great as that of others to shun many. 2. These bad ministerial qualities may no doubt arrive at that height, and have those Aggravations and Circumstances, that they may warrant withdrawing from such Ministers; and when people cannot otherwise have God's Ordinances, may warrant separate Meetings. The reason of this, a priori, is, b●cause they may so pervert the Ordinances of God, as to make them unlawful to be used: This may without difficulty be supposed to be possible: Ignorance may be such as neither Word nor Sacraments are so much as right for the Substance. It is so clear in Heresy, that none can doubt it, as in Papists, Socinians, etc. opposing serious Religion may be the all of some men's Preaching. And even personal wickedness of Ministers (which seemeth to be more remote from this Hazard than the rest) may affect the Ordinances, as is exemplified in Eli's Son, the Priest of the Lord; their intemperance and covetousness made Non-conformists in Israel, that were not chargeable for their withdrawing: For their taking the Flesh by violence from the People, before the Fat was burnt, was contrary to the Institution of that Ordinance; in which first the Blood was to be sprinkled, then after the slaying and opening, the Fat was to be burnt: And after that the Priest was to have his part; as may be seen, Levit. 7. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And before the burning of the Fat to the Lord, the Flesh was not Holy, and so not the Priest's Portion, saith J. Martyr, in locum. This was so observed among the very Heathens (who imitated in many things the Jewish Sacrafices; That haud immolata sacra devorare, was proverbial, to express a Belly-god; such as Eli's Sons were. This was their Sin, whereby they did pervert Divine Ordinances from the Institution, 1 Sam. 2. 14, 15, 16; and it is said ver. 17. That Men abhorred the Offerring of the Lord. Some Translate it, Retrah●bant homines a Sacrificiis Domini, they shunned offerring Sacrifices (saith Vatablus) beholding the Avarice of the Priests, and when they saw that the wont rites of Sacrificing were not observed, saith Menochius: And it yet further appeareth from ver. 24. that this their Fact did affect the Ordinances, and made people withdraw from them; You make the People of the Lord Transgress, saith Elimine There is no reason to restrict this to their uncleanness mentioned, ver. 22. For Eli heard beside that, of all that they did to Israel; and no doubt his Reproof had respect to all. Some Translate ver. 24. Abigitis populum Domini, i. e. efficitis ne huc veniat populus ad Sacrificandum. So vatablus. All this considered, we must not think it absurd, to say that people may see such things in their Ministers, as may warrant deserting of them.  
Sect. 9 If this should be denied, the Clergy should be Lords over God's Heritage, to all ends and purposes, and might teach what they would, and do what they would, and bring into the Church what they would, instead of Christ's Ordinances; and the People be still obliged to hear them, and join with them in all these abominations; they might lead the People in the way to Hell, who were still obliged to follow them. 3. The People have a Right of discerning and judging, in reference to their own practice, whether their Ministers be so qualified, as that they may safely live under their Ministry: This doth neither import, that they may determine in this what they will; nor that they are not to blame, if they judge amiss; nor that they have Authority to pass a Sentence on their Ministers (that belongeth to the Pastors); nor that all of them are so qualified for this Judging, as were to be wished; yet, that they have such a Right, cannot be denied, without obliging them to blind obedience, and regardlesness of their own Souls; and Scripture alloweth it, when it alloweth People to admonish Minister's in reference to their work, Col. 4. 17. This Command the Colossians could not obey, if they had no power of discretive judging, whether Archippus fulfilled his Ministry, or not. Without this, people were obliged to cast themselves into Temptation and hazard of Soul-ruine by a Deceiver or Soul-murderer. This was both the Principle of the Primitive Church, Cyprian, Ep. 68 Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini a peccatore praeposito separare se debet. And it was their common practice, (tho' I confes● sometimes on no sufficient grounds) they separated every where from the Arian Bishops and Pastors. The Magdeburgenses, Cent. 4. 1, 10. p. 746. tell us out of Ruffinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, that when Foelix B. of Rome had communicated with the Arians, the People of Rome separated themselves from him; and that when he taught, none of them came to Church: Also, ibid. p. 772. That Moses refused to be ordained by Lucius B. of Alexandria, because he was an Arian, and a Persecutor, but went to the Exiled Orthodox Bishops to receive Ordination. I may here put the Dr. in mind (using it only as Argumentum ad hominem) that an eminent light of their own Church, Bishop Jewel, giving reasons why the English Bishops went not to the Council of Trent (a formal Separation) was, because of Pope Pius' Simony in getting the Chair, and managing it with Murders and Cruelty. Full. Ch. Hist. lib. 9 p. 70.  
Sect. 10. 4. Breaking the Peace and Unity of the Church, is a matter of so much weight and consequence: And the Sin of it (on whatever side it lieth) of so deep a Die, and so great Aggravation; that the greatest caution is to be used, that we do not separate for imagined, but real; for small, but very great; for uncertain, but very Evident want; not of every ministerial quality that is desirable, but of such as is necessary for the Ordinances being so Administered, as we may partake of them without Sin. If People do mistake in any of these, and run into Separation without sufficient grounds, thinking that fault of a Minister true, or great, or evident, or intolerable, which is not so; we do not plead for this practice: But we must not, to shun that inconvenience, say, that it is in no case lawful. I know no Truth but it may be abused by men of Corrupt minds, as well as this. I know there are faults in Ministers, which render them in the secret Judgement of God, and to the Jealousy of good Men, no Ministers of Christ, but of Satan; which yet will not warrant Separation from them, while they have Ordination unrepealed by a Church Sentence of Deprivation, and Administer God's Ordinances, so as the partaker of them is not involved in Sin. Gildas said of some Pastors in his time; Apparet cum quem vos sacerdotes— sciens ex corde dicit, non esse eximium Christianum: And O inimici Dei, & non Sacerdotes: O li●●atores malorum, & non pontifices traditores, & non sanctorum Apostolorum successores; Impugnatores & non Christi Ministri. When we can apply all this to a Minister, the Church ought to cast him out, as unsavoury Salt: But till that be done, private Persons ought to withdraw from his evil Deeds; but not from the Ordinances while they are pure. I know this hath been, and is, a Controversy in our Neighbour Church of Scotland, and hath given rise to much disquiet, much Confusion, and many Persecutions there: I shall not much dip in it; our Case being more clearly Stated: and our withdrawing from the public Assemblies, being founded not on personal faults of Ministers, but on sinful Impositions in Worship. I have not met with one judicious Writer of that Nation; nor one Minister that I remember of in private discourse, who denieth, in thesi, that it is lawful to partake of the Ordinances from a Minister, merely on Account of his personal faults, where the Ordinances that we are to partake of are incorrupted; but they state the Controversy upon some Specialties in their Case. One or Two little Manuscripts I have seen, that in Thesi and with as much Confidence, as little Reason, deny the lawfulness of hearing a scandalous Minister. To these, I only oppose this one Argument; Our Lord Commanded the Jews to receive the Ordinances from the Priests of that time, who were most of them very bad men, Matth. 8. 4. Luk. 17. 14. and what Christ bid them do, we may lawfully do in the like case. The Exceptions made against this Argument (that I have met with) are very Light, as that the Priests were not so bad as ours. 1. This is said without all Colour of Reason. 2. Let them show what degree of Scandal in a Minister will warrant such withdrawing, and what not. Again, they object, That the Ordinances could not be had, but from these Priests. Ans. If it had been unlawful to partake with them, Christ would rather have had no Sacrifice offered, than that People should sin in going about it. He that preferreth Mercy to Sacrifice, would never prefer Sacrifice to shunning of Sin. And, beside this, if the hazard of want of Ordinances could infer the necessity of joining with these Priests, so may the hazard of a sinful rending of the Church, persuade to join in the Case in hand. And further, where the Ordinances can, without any sinful circumstance, be had from better hands, I am far from advising any to attend the Administrations of bad men: But in that Nation they had better grounds of their practice, to wit, Subjection to Prelacy, required of them; and that their faithful Pastors were turned out, and others put in their Place. But I leave this Debate, as not being my present Work.  
Sect. 11. I now come to say a word of each of Mr. Baxter's four Ministerial Qualities; in particular, 1. Knowledge and Utterance: The Ordainers are the Authoritative Judges of these; and the People are not without very great and manifest cause to question what is in this done, by the Guides of the Church; yet must they see with their own Eyes, and lament the defects of this kind, that they evidently see, but not separate, while the Ordinances are not intolerably depraved, tho' there be considerable defects. The Dr. never heard, that the Apostle bid People turn away from their Minister for want of Utterance; neither was such a Command needful, Nature and Reason injoining, That if a man cannot speak audibly and intelligible, People should not come to hear a noise, so that they cannot tell what is uttered. His declamation against People's judging of a Minister's Knowledge, is out of the way; we do not make them Triers, as he supposeth, neither give them Authority; and we think, (for all his scorn) that tho' many cannot well discern a Minister's Knowledge in Controverise, yet most can tell whether he understandeth the plain Truths of the Gospel, when they hear him discourse of them. If men, by prejudices, or want of due application of their minds, (as the Dr. speaketh) mistake about these, I shall hardly call them very good men; as he supposeth they may be. The Second Quality is, That a Minister be not Heretical. Except Taunts and personal Reflections on Mr. B. I see not what the Dr. answereth to this. We do not say, That People's thinking a man Heretical, when he crosseth their humours, is a good ground to separate on, as the Dr. would have it thought; neither is it needful for discerning this, that all the People be Learned Divines, or have read Epiphanius and Binnius, as he talketh; but we think, they that diligently read the Scripture, and pray for spiritual Understanding, may discern when manifest Error against the Foundation of Christian Doctrine is taught; and where they find this to be the way of a Minister, may withdraw from him. I wish the Dr. would speak more plain, that we might see his mind more clearly than we can do by these jeers: Doth he think there are none Learned among the People? or, Doth he think that none of them that want Literature can discern Truth from Error, in any Case? or, Doth he think, dangerous Error being discerned to be ordinarily preached, People should attend on that Preaching, instead of the wholesome Food of their Souls, and not seek better means, unless the Bishops will give leave? If he be not positive in all these, he saith nothing against Mr. B. nor Us, in this matter.  
Sect. 12. The Third Quality is, That Ministers be not Opposers of Godliness. That is not to be understood of what people will call so without cause; nor of suspected malignity; nor of open opposing of it in the man's private actings, by word or deed; nor of close hints in Sermons against it; nor breaking out sometimes into more open maligning of it: But when this is manifestly the ordinary strain of his preaching; we say, in that Case people may withdraw from a man; for here the Ordinance of Preaching is wholly inverted and turned against that which it was appointed to promote. There is as good ground in this case to desert a Minister, as there is in a besieged Garrison, for the Soldiers to desert their Commander, when he turneth the Guns that are on the Walls, from the Enemy, upon the Town. The Dr. rejecteth this, as before, by tart Reflection on Mr. B. which whatever it may be, ad hominem, is nothing ad rem. If Mr B. hath sharply reproved some for Censoriousness, Pride, Divisions, etc. and these will count this opposing of Godliness, Doth this peevish mistake of theirs prove, that there can be no such thing really committed by a Minister; or if it be, that it should not be resented by the Hearers? Or, if Mr. B. sometimes speak at this rate, is this his ordinary Doctrine? or, when men make Railing their ordinary Doctrine, Should people sit and hear that, as God's Ordinance for their Soul's edification? The Fourth Quality; That Ministers be not of a scandalous Life. Of this the Dr. saith nothing, and I shall say little more than is already said. We do not hold, That personal faults in a Minister, where the Ordinances are incorrupted, is a sufficient ground of Separation from him. But it cannot but be a sad Grievance, and make people wait on the Ministry of such a person with less comfort and satisfaction, and may warrant people that regard the advantage of their Souls, to lay hold on the first opportunity that they can get, to live under a Ministry that is more like to be blessed.  
Sect. 13. He chargeth the Non-conformists (without exception) Sect. 10. with insinuating, that the whole body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such faults as the people may lawfully separate: A most false Assertion, and unjust Charge. Not one Nonconformist that ever I read or met with, hath said or written this, or words to this effect, but they do generally disclaim it: But the Dr. undertaketh to prove it by some particulars. 1. They make Conformity itself to be a very scandalous thing, and then tell the people over and over again, That it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests, especially where the Scandal is so notorious. I am astonished to read this, from the Pen of one whom I am loath to have an harsh thought against. We do indeed think Conformity a Sin, and being open, it cannot but be a Scandal; and we think, that in some it arising from a regardlesness of knowing what is right, becometh yet more scandalous; but none of us ever thought, that a mistake of this nature in men, otherwise sober and conscientious, was a very scandalous thing; or, that it was such a scandal, as by itself could warrant Separation. But let the Dr. tell us of any one of our way, that ever held this general Thesis, That it is no Sin to separate from scandalous Priests, when the Scandal is notorious. I am sure Mr. B. (whom he only citeth on this occasion) teacheth the contrary oftener than once, particularly Christ. Direct. p. 718. and his looking on Conformity as Sin, and an aggravated Sin, and the pressing of it as that Sin which they charge us with, to wit, Schismaticalness, do no way prove what the Dr. asserteth. When Mr. B. saith, p. 133. Can you wonder if the people choose more faithful Pastors? It doth not make the Clergy's Conformity the true Reason (nor the main Reason neither) of Separation; yea, nor doth it import an Approbation of Separation, (tho' he doth elsewhere show his Approbation of it) but only showeth how you tempt the people to it.  
Sect. 14. Another Argument to prove his charge, is Sect. 11. That we count most of the present Ministers of the Church of England Usurpers, and that from such we may lawfully separate. Ans. We deny both parts of his Assertion, whatever Usurpation some of them may be guilty of. We know most of them have the (tacit at least) consent of the people, a post facto; and therefore, however they might be guilty of intrusion in their entry, in their continuing in their places they are no Usurpers. Neither do we own it to be lawful to separate from every Minister that is an Usurper, merely on the account of his Usurpation. To clear this, I shall lay down our opinion about this, in these few Assertions. 1. The regular way of entering into the Ministry, is by the Election or Call of the People over whom he is to have charge, and the potestative Mission or Ordination of the Pastors of the Church: This will fall in afterward to be debated. 2. It is consequential to this, That whoever do not enter this way into the Ministry, are in some degree or other Intruders into that Work. 3. Though the express Call of the people, and their free consent, be needful to the more orderly Entrance of a Minister among them; yet if they implicitly show their consent, and they being prelimitted by the Presentation of a Patron, or Commands of the Magistrate, if they consent, that is enough to the substance of a Call, and maketh the Minister that so entereth no Usurper. The reason is, because he is only to consider the Will and Consent sufficiently declared, not the motives nor considerations that influence their will. Indeed, if the man had any hand by undue means, to influence them to consent against their Duty and right Reason, he is, in so far, guilty before God: But this doth not nullify his Call, which consisteth in the people's consent. 4. There are three sorts of Usurpers of the Ministerial Office or Work. 1. Such as fall upon that Work, without a Call from a people, or Ordination by Ministers. 2. Such as do it upon a people's Call, but have no Ordination or potestative Mission by those in Authority, the Church for that end. 3. Such as have Ordination, but take the Charge of a particular Flock, wholly without consent, or against their will. The two former sorts usurp the Office; the third usurpeth that particular Charge that he hath no right to. 5. The Presentation of a Patron to the Living; the Civil Laws of men, injoining or owning a man's entrance into a place; due Ordination, Institution, and Induction, and what else men please to devise, can never make him the Pastor of such a particular people, without their consent some way had; but without it he is still an Usurper. This doth follow, from the people's right of choosing their Pastors, which is to be afterward discoursed. 6. It is lawful to Separate from usurping Ministers of the first and second sort, because they are no Ministers; they have only the name of Ministers, like those that called themselves Apostles, and were not, Rev. 2. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny this. 7. When a Minister is obtruded on a People against their will; and so is an Usurper of the 3d. Sort; if there be no other cause of separating from him but that, I think (under correction of the more Wise and Learned) that they should rather cede of their right (with a Salvo) than break the Peace and Unity of the Church, or disoblige the Magistrate; and therefore they ought to give their consent. By this means, their right that Christ hath given them is not alienated; it being by them on that occasion Asserted; and the Rending of the Church is prevented.  
Sect. 15. Let us now hear what the Dr. will say, to make good against us his charge of our separating on this Head. He saith, They have a Legal Establishment, and Law and Usurpation are contraries. Ans. Establishment by a Civil Law, and Usurpation of a Civil Office are contrary. Also Establishment by the Gospel, and Usurpation of a Church-Office are inconsistent; but Establishment by a Civil Law, and Usurpation of an Office in the Church, are very consistent one with another: Because the Office of the Ministry is no institution of Man, but of Christ; and he giveth Laws to regulate that, and other affairs in his House; and hath not left these to be ordered by the Laws of men. I thought the Dr. had been for Episcopal Government in the Church, not for Erastianism. Mr. B. is cited, p. 134. asserting, That all that come into the places of Ejected Ministers, the people not consenting, are Usurpers; that the Magistrate's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church, without or before the People's consent; nor will it always oblige the People to consent, and forsake their former Pastors; nor prove them Schismatical, because they do it not: For disproving of this, the Dr. first leaveth it to others, to judge of the dangerous Consequences of this; an Act being passed by King and Parliament for removing of some Pastors, and putting in others. And I desire that these others, who judge of this matter, may consider, that the ordering of the Ministerial Call, and the fixing a Religion between Pastor and People, do fall directly under the Cognizance, and Laws of him who is the Head and Lawgiver in his Church, even Jesus Christ, and under the Laws of men only, as the Civil Peace may be concerned therein; and let them also consider, that we by owning or disowning a Pastoral Relation, which the Magistrate hath passed an Act for or against, do manage our principle, and order our practice with that peaceableness and caution, that the Magistrate may as little as possible either know it, or be offended at it; and if we be Convicted of a Transgression of the Magistrate's Law, we patiently suffer the Penalties: Let them, I say, Consider these things; and withal Consider, that to differ from the Magistrate in Principle and Practice of Religion, was the Lot of the Primitive Christians; and then let them judge (if they be Impartial Men) whether any such dismal consequences as the Dr. insinuateth, are like to follow.  
Sect. 16. He objecteth next, On those Grounds when Solomon deprived Abiathar, and put Zadock is his room; any part of the People might have pleaded they never consented to Zadock's coming in— The Question is, whether it belonged to the King or the People. Ans. There is so little shadow of Reason, or affinity to the question in Hand in this Argument, that it is no small Derogation from the understanding of so Learned a Man, once to mention it; for the choosing of a Highpriest belonged neither to King nor People; but the Succession was fixed in one Family by the Lord; and it was neither in the Power of the King nor People to choose any, but the nearest Heir of that Lin●. Wherefore what Solomon did in this Case, was no more but to inflict a Civil Punishment on Abiathar, to wit, Exile from Jerusalem (where only the Office of Highpriest could be Exercised) and Confinement to Anathoth: And this was done for his Accession to Treason against Solomon: And Solomon's putting Zadock in his place, was no more but obeying the Commandment of God, who had promised the Priesthood to Phinehas; whose nearest Heir Zadock was: And it is the opinion of many Divines, that Abiathar's right to the Priesthood was not so good as Zadock's. Another Argument like the rest he hath, p. 135. is, That it follows that a smaller part of the People may disown the Public Acts of Parliament, and choose other Governors in opposition to those Established by Law, and they may do it in one case as well as in another. Which makes me wonder (saith he) at those who dare call them Usurpers, who enjoy their places by the same Laws, that any men do enjoy their Estates. This is a Confounding of things most disparate one from another, a taking away all distinction of Civil and Church power. We utterly deny his consequence, That because people, notwithstanding of an Act of Parliament, may adhere to their Pastors; therefore they may choose other civil Governors (for of these he must speak, or speak nothing to the purpose.) They may not do it in the one case as in the other; because the one case is regulated by Christ's Law, the other by men's Law. But I now smell out a mistake in the Dr. that maketh such Choler and Zeal against us, That we count them Usurpers of their places, that is their Benefices: Let him no more fear that; we own their Title to these, to be as good as Men have to their Estates, both being disposable by the same Law: But all that we have said, is about their Usurping the Charge of Souls: Of which we Assert two things, 1. That there is no necessary Connexion de facto between a good Title to the one, and to the other, though de jure (I mean, divino) beneficium sequitur officium. 2. That the same Law may give a Title to an Ecclesiastic Estate, which giveth Title to other Estates; but another Law and not that, must give a Title to having the charge of Souls, and must make a Relation between Pastor and People: And the reason of this Difference I bring from that famous saying of Constantine the Great, to the Churchmen, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Sect. 17. He hath yet another Argument; to wit, That this overthroweth the Reformation, for the Papists had the very same Plea, that these Men have now, to wit, that the Magistrate had no Power to dissolve the Relation between them, and their former church-guide. Ans. If the Dr. will say, that the Popish Clergy had no otherwise forfeited their Title to the charge of Souls, than by the Magistrate's Law, than their Plea, and ours were the same. But I suppose he, as well as we, will fix that forfeiture on another Foundation; to wit, their Heresy and Idolatry, that they led the People into, warranted the People to withdraw from them, as none of Christ's Ministers, and disobliged the People from owning any further Relation to them, as their Pastors: And this not only warranted the Magistrate to protect those that did break off from them; but to suppress them, who should have done so, and would not, If he will not own this, he doth more to overthrow the Reformation, than all that he can charge Non-conformists with can amount to. We are far from questioning the Magistrates Power over Ministers, to inflict civil Punishments on them; if he do it on good Grounds, he is approved of God; if otherwise he must answer to him for it: But our Magistrates do not own any power of inflicting Church-censures by themselves; whatever some Flatters do on their behalf. The Objection from the Old Non-conformists, I have answered above. By what hath been said it will appear, whether he saith truly, p. 137. That not one word of our Plea, but might equally serve the Papists.  
Sect. 18. What followeth, p. 137, 138, and 139▪ of the People's Power of choosing their Pastors, and the Nullity of their Title to that Charge without the People's Consentt, he Dr. it seems thinks that Recitasse is Refutasse, for he saith no more to disprove it, but Asserteth, That it layeth a Foundation for all imaginable Disorders, and Separations; which we deny: And enough I have said above to evince the contrary. He maketh another of our Grounds of Separation to be, the Persecution of the Prelatists, and their having a Hand in silencing of Ministers: This we disown. Indeed their Persecution for our not submitting to their Impositions, is a Bar by which we are forcibly kept out of the Church; but it is not the motive that determineth us to leave the Church; we are willing to wait on God's Ordinances even Administered by them that persecute us, if they will suffer us to do it on sinless Terms. And if Mr. B. (whom he only citeth in this matter) mean any thing else, I cannot answer for him.   

SECT. III. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church.  
AFter Examination of other Pleas for Nonconformity, the Dr. cometh Sect. 13. to examine that which he confesseth to be the most colourable Plea that hath yet been used; to wit, their imposing of unlawful Terms of Communion with them. And this I look on as not only the most colourable Plea; but is the causa sine quo non, that without which no Separation can be made from a True Church, which is sound in the Faith, without Sin; and as the very Foundation of that Cause that I now plead: and if the Dr. can beat us out of this Hold, we shall become his willing Proselytes. Let us hear then how he taketh this Plea from us.  
Sect. 2. His first assault is by a distinction, which is really true, but very ill managed, tho' by amost Learned hand; but the Dr. being Master of so much Learning, as few men are, doth, I suppose, sometimes make him consider less what he writeth, than they find need to do, who move in an inferior Orb. His distinction is, between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such as are only fancied to be so through Prejudice and wilful Ignorance, or Error of Conscience. That there are some Terms of Communion with a Church really sinful, and others that are not so, tho' they be fancied by some to be so, I think none ever doubted; and therefore the Dr. might have better employed his pains (to say nothing of his Ink and Paper) that he hath taken to prove this by a multitude of instances. And I grant, that when the sinfulness of the Terms is only fancied, the Sin of Schism, that followeth on that apprehension, lieth not on the Imposers, but on those that separate: Only I must add an Exception of a Case in which it may lie on both; that is, when the thing imposed is unnecessary, and is made a ground of Separation by the mistake of persons otherwise orthodox and sober, and who pretend to no other cause of Separation: If the Imposers will not yield in that case, (that is the wiser to the more wilful) they show not that moderation, nor love to Peace that they should. If the Quakers could be gained by forbearing preaching by an Hourglass, (the Dr's. instance) I would think it hard to lose them for that, for whom Christ lost his Life.  
Sect. 3. As the Dr. manageth this distinction, it is hard to tell what to make of it; for he confoundeth two things that are most distinct, yea, different; to wit, Terms of Communion plainly sinful, and Terms of Communion in themselves sinful: And in the other Lemma of the distinct on, he hath set nothing in opposition to plainly; for fancied to be sinful through Prejudice, wilful Ignorance, Error of Conscience, are all opposite to those that are sinful in themselves. He should then have told us, if Terms of Communion imposed be sinful in themselves, but not plainly, but only obscurely so; what censure he would pass on them that could not comply with them; also what degree of plainness he would require about the sinfulness of imposed Terms of Communion, that it might be lawful to Separate, rather than yield to them. My opinion is, that if Terms of Communion be imposed, that are in themselves, and really sinful, and if the sinfulness of them can be known by diligent searching of the Scripture, and depending upon God for Light and Guidance, tho' there be not such plainness as the Dr. had above called glaring Evidence, that all the world may see, they that are conscientious aught to withdraw from any Church whatsoever, rather than submit to those Terms. There is an Ambiguity in the Term that he useth, In themselves sinful; for I know, that it is their usual Plea for the Ceremonies, (the imposed Terms of Communion now under debate) that they are things in themselves indifferent. This may either be understood, that they are in their general nature such; which we grant; Habits, and Postures, and Gestures importing neither good nor evil, as such: Or as considered under the circumstances that they are clothed with, as they fall under our debate; and so we think them sinful. Now, the Dr. should have told us whether he meaneth of Terms of Communion, that are things imposed, which are really evil, under the circumstances with which they are imposed; or Terms of Communion, which are things in their general nature evil: We think the sinfulness of Terms of Communion, even in the former, and not only in the latter sense, may warrant our withdrawing.  
Sect. 4. He telleth us, That the Magistrate of Church may lawfully determine and impose Time and Place, and suchlike circumstances of Worship; which we grant, (tho' we think it inconvenient to be rigorous in these Impositions, or too frequent and universal in them; but about these, our Question is not conversant:) Therefore, if any Separate from these Impositions, he saith, the Sin of Separation is on their part: This we do not deny. We also grant his Hypothetick Proposition that followeth; to wit, If other things be as much in the Magistrate or Church's Power, they sin who separate, because of imposing of them. His reason of this is not so clear; to wit, Where there is no plain prohibition, men may with ordinary Care and Judgement satisfy themselves of the lawfulness of the things required: And there is no plain prohibition, he saith, of the Liturgy and Ceremonies. We deny the imposing the Liturgy and Ceremonies to be as much in men's power as is the determining of Circumstances of Time and Place, and suchlike. We deny also, that men, with the best Care and Judgement, can see the lawfulness of every thing imposed in the Worship of God, (for of such things we now discourse) that is not plainly prohibited: For, What if they be prohibited, tho' not plainly? It is too great peremptoriness, to take upon us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak in Scripture; if He expects Obedience from us (the Dr. was in this strain also in his Ir●nicum;) if we have any hint of His Will, tho' never so obscurely, so as we can understand that it is the Mind of God, we are obliged to obey it. Again, we deny, that want of either obscure or plain Prohibition is good ground to satisfy us about Religious Ceremonies, that they are lawful, though imposed by men: It is enough, that they are not commanded nor instituted. Will Worship is condemned in Scripture; and, Can it be denied, that what is not commanded, tho' it be not plainly forbidden, is Will-Worship? And, What Argument will the Dr. bring against most of the Popish Ceremonies, but that they are not commanded? Where is the plain Prohibition of them?  
Sect. 5. Further, we say, That the Liturgy and Ceremonies are plainly enough forbidden, though not in particular, yet in general terms. The Traditions of men in God's Worship, are plainly forbidden, Mat. 15. 7, 8, 9 Mark 7. 6, 7, 8. Gal. 4. 9, 10, 11. Col. 2. 20.— which Scriptures, and other Arguments proving them to be forbidden by God, have been so fully managed against his Party, without any Answer, as may let the world see, that neither Ordinary Care nor Judgement hath been wanting to find▪ out the lawfulness of such Impositions; and yet we cannot find it. I shall not now repeat what I have elsewhere said to this purpose, but intent to answer what the Dr. will please to say in defence of these his Lawful Impositions.  
Sect. 6. The Dr. is at some pains to prove, that the prohibition of these is not in the Second Commandment: But if he would have convinced us of our Error, he should have proved, that they are neither forbidden there, nor elsewhere, by giving satisfying Answers to all our other Arguments; but he is pleased to insist only on our Argument from the Second Commandment, and to that as he is pleased to frame it, he giveth an Answer, such as it is. I observe some mistakes in his treating of this Argument; 1. That he expecteth that the Liturgy and Ceremonies should have been forbidden in words, if they be forbidden; that is, that they should have been expressly named. Will he forbear no Sin, but what is named in one of the Ten Commandments? What will he say of Fornication, Incest, Rebellion against Kings, etc. May be he will say these are forbidden expressly in other parts of Scripture. Ans. So are humane Inventions in God's Worship; as hath been showed: And beside, it were impertinent to deny Fornication to be forbidden in the Seventh Commandment, because it is not named there, tho' it be in other Scriptures: Even so it is here; yea, I suppose the Dr. will not think, that whatever is not named in Scripture as a Sin, is no Sin; mispending the Sabbath day in sleep, idleness, play, etc. advising or commanding one man to murder another, and many things of that nature, are not named in Scripture, and yet comprehended under general prohibitions.  
Sect. 7. 2. His Question is very absurd, How shall we come by the sense, but by the words? He must mean the words of the second Commandment. And then I answer, That we could never by this way know the sense of the seventh Commandment, Fornication is a Sin: Nor by the words of the sixth Commandment could we know it is a Sin, to say to our Brother, Thou fool. Wherefore hath the Spirit of God written so much more Scripture holding forth Sins and Duties, if we are only to look to the bare words of the Ten Commandments, for learning the preceptive or directive part of His revealed Will? His Commands are exceeding broad, Ps. 119. 96. and therefore we are to look for more understanding from them, than the words by themselves can afford us. Ezra and the Levites read the words to the People, and gave the Sense, Neh▪ 8. 8. It is our Duty also to read it, and inquire into the sense of it. One useful means of coming by the sense of the Commandments, is, to consider how they were expounded by Christ, enlarged on by the Prophets and Apostles injoining and forbidding things of the same nature, with what the words of the Commands do express; and in general, we must compare Scripture with Scripture, if we would understand the meaning of the several parts of it. It is strange, that the Dr. and his Pa●ty should deal so unequally; they take a great deal of Liberty to impose things on the Church of God, from a very general Command, Let all things be done decently and in order: Which words they practise upon at their pleasure, devising Rites for the Worship of God, and bringing This to warrant them, tho' they can bring no such sense out of the words, as that Crossing, Kneeling, etc. are lawful: But if we scruple any of their Inventions, we must be obliged to give words of Scripture, where they are expressly forbidden.  
Sect. 8. In the Third place; When his opposites allege certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments, he asketh, Whether they be divine or humane? I again ask him, Whether doth he own them as sound, or reject them as fallacious? But to his question I answer; They are by men collected out of the Scripture, and therefore have Divine Authority, tho' the frame of them be Humane; as the Dr's Sermons (I do not mean that at Guildhall) are divine. Truths, and of divine Authority, tho' of humane frame and composure. 4. One of these Rules is, That where any thing is forbidden, something is commanded. We choose, after the generality of Divines, rather to express it thus; That in every Negative Precept the contrary Duty is commanded: And in the Affirmative Precept, the contrary Sin is forbidden. His Answer is, There is here a Command to worship God without an Image. A Logician would say, this is still a Negative Command, for here the matter of this Precept is expressed Negative. All Protestant Divines agree, that the matter of the Second Command is the m●dus of Divine Worship, Divine Worship itself being commanded, and what is contrary to it forbidden in the First Commandment. Now, though this preceptive proposition of the Dr's, Worship God, be set down affirmative, yet the manner how God is to be worshipped, is set down negative; and therefore he hath yet given us no Duty commanded in the second Commandment, but only the way of worshipping God by an Image forbidden, (which he shuneth to say) or we must seek for some other way to express the affirmative part of this Commandment.  
Sect. 9 We may then conclude, that it is enjoined in this Command, That we should worship God in the way that He hath prescribed to us in His Word. This is elsewhere commanded, Exod. 25. 9, 40. and the contrary is severely reproved, Isa. 66. 3. jer. 7. 31. From all these places it is evident, that God is to be worshipped according to his own Institution, and no otherwise: And I hope the Dr. will not descent from the generality of Divines, who hold, that all Sins and Duties held forth in other places of Scripture, are reducible to one of the Commandments. And to which of them can this duty of worshipping God by the prescript of His Word, be reduced, if not to the second? Hence we conclude, that the affirmative part of the second Commandment is, that we ought to worship God in the way that He himself hath prescribed in the Word. And if the Dr. can make it appear, that the Liturgy and Ceremonies are prescribed there, whether plainly or obscurely, directly or by consequence, we shall own them. 5. Whereas we say, that it is a prohibition comprehended in the second Commandment, That we must worship God by our own Inventions. He saith, No Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God, but such as God Himself hath somewhere forbidden; but He hath no where forbidden the Liturgy and Ceremonies. The meaning of this must be, a general prohibition of humane Inventions is not sufficient; but notwithstanding, that they are generally forbidden, Men may devise, and bring into God's worship, and impose on others what they please, if that in particular be not forbidden by a particular precept wherein it is named, or otherwise particularised. What a mad exposition of the second Commandment is this? He might as well say, when it is said, Thou shalt not kill, I may, for all that, kill any man I please, if there be not a particular command not to kill such a man. Are there particular prohibitions of the several Ceremonies that were used in Popery? or, Must the Bible have been made so voluminous, as to mention every circumstantiate Case, otherwise we will take no notice of its general Precepts? Is not this stretching and forcing of Scripture to defend a bad Cause, which he below chargeth us with?  
Sect. 10. The Dr. (as conscious to the insufficiency of this shift) cometh in the Fifth place to excuse the Ceremonies from falling under the second Command, by telling us of two sorts of humane Inventions forbidden in it, and no other. 1. Such as go about to represent God, and so to disparage Him: For, he saith, the reason of the law, to wit, the spiritual and invisible nature of God, extendeth only to these. Ans. 1. It seems then, worshipping God by or before a Crucifix, is not here forbidden, for that doth not go about to represent or disparage God, but only to represent CHRIST as Man. The same may be said of all the use of the Images of Saints in the worship of God that is among the Papists; that is, they are all innocent by this Doctrine: For, if these be not forbidden in the second Commandment, the Dr. will find it hard to refute these practices from Scripture. If such a passage had dropped from the Pen of a Nonconformist, how would the Dr. have improved it against the whole Party, as doing the Papists work for them; as he hath charged them on far less grounds than this is? Ans. 2. Seeing other ways of uncommanded Worship are condemned in Scripture, as hath been showed, what reason is there to say, that this way of it alone is here meant? This is to expound Scripture ad libitum, and amplify or restrain it as our fancy or interest leadeth us. Ans. 3. I deny not the spiritual and invi●●ble nature of God to be a good Reason of this Law; but I deny it to be either the sole reason of it, or the reason of it that is expressed in the Law itself; which is, that He is a jealous God, and will punish the corrupters of His Worship. Now this Reason of the Law doth evidently extend to all ways of worshipping Him that He hath not enjoined, making bold to worship Him in any of these ways, being a derogation from that sovereignty that He hath over Men, especially in His own Worship, which hath a nearer dependence on His Institution than other things have.  
Sect. 11. The other sort of humane Inventions that he will exempt from the scope and sense of this Commandment, is, Such as relate to the manner and form of Worship, supposing the Worship itself to be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. Ans. 1. I desire to know of the Dr. what difference he maketh between the manner or form of Worship, and the way of Worship; when he supposeth the way of it to be agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law; while yet the Controversy is, whether the manner and form of it be so. This is a subtlety that I cannot reach; but Words must serve to palliate a bad Cause when Reason cannot defend it. Will then the Dr. say, that the way of Divine Worship is enjoined in this Command, but not the manner and form of it? I hope he will not deny; that the object of worship is fixed in the first Commandment, and also the way of it, so far as by that word is expressed, the duties of natural worship, the inward affections and actings of the Soul on God, that are requisite in His Worship. Wherefore, if he will (with all Divines, except Papists and some Lutherans) allow this to be another Precept, and not a part or explication of the first; he must say, that here is appointed all instituted worship; that is, all the means, manner, external forms and ways, by which the Lord will have us to worship him; to wit, that we should make nor devise none of them to ourselves: And this he was pleased to express by the most absurd and most common way that Men had devised to themselves to worship God by, to wit, Images; as, in the rest of the Negative Precepts, he useth to express all the sins included in it, by one that is more notable than the rest. Ans. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny, that most of the Popish Ceremonies, as Oil, Salt, spital, etc. are forbidden in this Commandment, (or, if he do deny it, let him tell us where they are forbidden, or whether they be forbidden any where, or not) but they pertain to the manner and form of worshipping God, as well as our Ceremonies do. Further, let him tell us whether it is possible there should be any Superstition in the manner and form of worship; and if there be, where is it forbidden, but in this Commandment? Or, let him give us any reason why Humane Inventions, relating to the manner and form of worship, are not forbidden, as well as these that relate to the way of it. A Reason indeed he pretendeth to give, Otherwise (saith he) all Use of men's inventions, as to preaching, reading, interpreting Scripture, would be forbidden; and then this interpretation of the second Command would be unlawful, because it is a mere invention of Man, as much as Liturgies and Ceremonies. If this be to reason like a Divine, or to quibble like a Sophister, let the Reader judge; for the Invention that men make use of in preaching, etc. is the act or exercise of their faculties, whereby they find out the mind of God: The inventions in God's worship, that we ●ow debate about, are Objects found out by Men, not commanded by God. If Men devise unrevealed Objects in Reading, Preaching, etc. we condemn them in that, as well as in devising ways of worshipping God: And if the Dr. mean, that this exposition of the second Commandment is an invention of Man, that is, the exercise of his inventive Faculty, whereby he findeth out the Mind of God; he speaketh wide from the purpose, when he compareth that with things that men devise to worship God by: If he mean, That the Interpretation is only devised, not warranted; let him prove that, and we shall reject it.  
Sect. 12. I hope, by this time, the impartial Reader may judge whether we stretch and force Scripture to condemn Liturgies and Ceremonies, as the Dr. saith; or he doth so to defend them. That he imputeth to us, blinding and fettering our minds by Education, and reading but one sort of Books, and taking things for granted, which we ought not, we resolve to bear patiently, and must accept of these, instead of better Arguments, to refute our Principle. His instance of the deniers of Infant-Baptism, proveth fully, that the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposer's side, (tho' they separate from us, because of our using it, without considering imposing it on them. Who of them have been excommunicated for not using it, as we are for forbearing the Ceremonies?) If men will separate, because the Ordinances of God are imposed on them, let them answer it; we scruple only the Ordinances of Man: Neither did we ever say, that the blame of separation doth in all c●ses lie on the Imposers. And we confess, that where imposed Terms of Communion are scrupled through mistake, they that separate on that scruple do sin. And we yield also to him, that not the pretence of Conscience, but sufficient proof of the unlawfulness of the Terms of Communion, is a good ground of Separation; and we still desire that the matter may be put to that issue.  
Sect. 13. He proceedeth next to set ●orth the principles of them who hold all Acts of Communion with the Church of England unlawful; of them he hath little to say, their mind (as he saith) being easily discovered; and we are not concerned in that opinion, and therefore shall not insist on it. Only I see not on what grounds the Dr. nameth the Author of the Book called Jerubbaal, as one that is against the lawfulness of hearing the conforming Ministers preach; for that Author 〈◊〉, p. 12. of himself and others, whom Mr. C. had charged with Schism, because they could not communicate with Her in the Liturgy, that they joined with Her in the instituted Worship and substantial Ordinances of Christ, as Prayer, Hearing of the Word preached, singing of Psalms, etc.   

SECT. IV. The Dr's stating of the Question Examined, and the Question truly Stated.  
THE several Principles of the Dissenters having been examined● the Dr. now proceedeth to state the Question about Separation. Some think this should have been done before examining of the Principles on which men separate; but the Dr. must use his own method, and we must follow him, in examining what he saith. He giveth us, Sect. 15. his Concessions, which I shall say little of, save to make a Remark on one or two of them. And, 1. His third Concession is, He can allow different modes of Worship in Cathedral and Parochial Churches, in public and private Administrations (these being allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live:) but, What is this, saith he, to the denying of constant Communion with our Churches, to the choosing of new Pastors? It is true, these are two different things; the difference is, the one is allowed by the Church, the other not so. But consider the things in themselves, and abstracted from the Church's pleasure, and there will appear to be as little Uniformity between Cathedral and Parochial Worship, as between their Parochial Worship, and that used in the Meetings of the Dissenters. Now we gladly would know of the Dr. or any of his Party, seeing the Church can yield so far to Parochial Assemblies, as not to tie them to the same Modes with Cathedral Assemblies, because they cannot go to the expense of it: And seeing the Church dispenseth with crossing in pr●vate Baptism, why may She not condescend so far to the Dissenters, who cannot for their Consciences use these things, and so shun this Breach in the Church, this denying of Communion with their Churches, and choosing of new Pastors? Are the Consciences of men so little to be regarded? or, Is it fit the Church should be so imperious over her Members, as that She will indulge men's Purses, but not their Consciences; She will dispense with the sign of the Cross for Her pleasure, but not for people's consciences, when they can show good reason for what they think and make conscience of? This is wholly unaccountable, and very inconsistent with those high pretensions, that our Brethren make of regard to Peace and Unity.  
Sect. 2. Another remark I make of his 4th. Concession, That the Church alloweth a different mode of Worship to Foreign Churches set up in England, because they break not off Communion with the Church of England, as they do who were Baptised in it. But why may not the Church be as kind to her own Members as to Strangers; if the Ceremonies be necessary, why should the neglect of them be permitted to any? If unnecessary; why should they be forced on men's Consciences, to the Rending of the Church? The breaking off of Communion that he talketh of, may be prevented by this Condescendency; and therefore it is most unreasonable to charge us with that as a Sin, which we are under a Necessity to do for shunning the wounding of our Consciences, and sinning against God; and which they might as easily prevent by showing us that Favour that they show to others. I take notice also of his 6th. Concession, That it was no sinful Separation to keep up the Exercise of True Religion under Arians, against the will of the Magistrate: But what is this to our Case, where true Doctrine is taught? It is very much to our Case; for the reason why the Orthodox might Worship God apart from the Arians— was because it had been their sin to join in corrupted Worship; though we do not equal the owning of the Arian Doctrine, and using the Ceremonies; yet we reckon the one to be Sin, as really as the other; and we may not commit a smaller Sin to enjoy Communion with a Church, more than we may commit a greater Sin for that end. And we are not obliged to live without the Ordinances of God, when we cannot have them with the Church without Sin, more than the Oxthodox were, who lived under the Arians.  
Sect. 3. Tho' the Dr. it seems had designed this Section for stating of the Question, upon which his whole Book is founded: I see no formal Stating of it (Concessions are but preparatory to the Stating of a Controversy) except that, he saith, he had told Mr. B. that all our dispute was, whether the upholding separate Meetings for Divine Worship, where the Doctrine Established, and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God, be a sinful Separation or not? This is no sufficient stating of the Controversy between the Prelatists and Dissenters about Separation. Two things in it are not sufficiently clear; and some things needful to be minded in our present Controversy are left out. The First thing that is not clear, is, That he will not allow any fault in Doctrine to justify Separation, but what is in the Established Doctrine; that is, either that which is contained in the Church's confession of Faith, or is settled by Law. But it is evident there may be such faults in Doctrine, as may make them that regard their Souls Health, withdraw from a Church which are not here comprehended; that is, when gross Errors are commonly taught, contrary to the Doctrine contained in the Public Confession of Faith, and which is Established by Law: That this is a Case supposeable; yea, that it ought to have been supposed with reference to our Controversy, appeareth in that it is most common in England, for Ministers who have subscribed the 39 Articles, to teach Doctrines quite contrary to them; as I observed above: It is no rarity for unconscientious men, to subscribe to whatever is imposed, rather than lose a Benefice; and mean while to Hold and Teach what they please notwithstanding of such Subscription. Now if a Church should become so corrupt, that Heresy is commonly taught, though the Orthodox Faith be Established; ought not People to withdraw from that Church? Or if many teach dangerous Doctrine contrary to established Truth; ought not People withdraw from such Teachers? Especially when there is no way to get this unsound teaching removed, or restrained.  
Sect. 4. Another thing in the Dr's State of the Question is unclear; to wit, That where the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be right, there should be no Separation. What he meaneth by these is a Controversy itself; and he is at a great deal of Pains to clear what he meaneth by this Term, Part. 3. p. 334. whither I refer the Debate with him about it. But, what if any part of Worship be unlawful; call it Substantial, or Circumstantial, or what he will? Or what if something be Annexed to the True Worship of God; which is sinful; but yet so peremptorily imposed, as none shall worship God without it? I ask the Dr. whether in this case we may separate, though we scruple not any part of that worship that he is pleased to call Substantial Worship?  
Sect. 5. Some things are also left out by the Dr. in his Stating of the Controversy, which were needful to have been minded. As, 1st. To clear what he meaneth by Separation. I have above showed, that sometimes they that are charged with Separation, are merely Passive in it; sometimes they are Active: The First is when the Church casteth them out, because they cannot submit to her Impositions. The Second, when they take offence at something in the Church, and therefore leave her; but are not cast out by her, but have free and peaceable Access to all her Ordinances: In the first Case (which is ours) if they causelessly scruple at the Impositions, they may be charged with Ignorance, or Error of Conscience, or Peevishness, and Wilfulness; but how they can be charged with Separation, I know not, more than a Banished Man can be blamed as a Fugitive from his Country. And if they have good cause to scruple the Impositions; I see not how any blame can be fixed on them at all. 2. He should have showed whether by Separation he meaneth casting off all ties to have Communion with that Church, more than with another Church that professeth the true Faith; as a Man, or Company that live in Holland, have no more Tie to Communicate in England than in France, etc. or a present forbearing of Communion, because of sinful Terms, with owning an Obligation to communicate with this Church, when these Bars shall be removed. In the one case all relation to that Church in particular is cast off; in the other not so: It is but a suspending the Exercise of Communion as a Church-member; not a disowning it, or casting it off.  
Sect. 6. He is defective in mentioning no other alleged grounds of Separation, but false Doctrine Established, or wrong substantial parts (as he calleth them) of Worship. He knoweth little of the Controversy that he manageth, if he knew not that other grounds are alleged; and therefore it had been fair to have fixed the Question on them; whether it be lawful to separate on such and such grounds. It is true, his question may include all the grounds that can be alleged, beside the two mentioned; but that which is the main Hinge of our Controversy, should have been mentioned, in stating of the Question. 4. It being confessed on both Hands, that there is a sinful Separation; it should have been one part of his question, where the Sin of this Separation is chargeable; whether on the Imposers, or the Scruplers of those things that cause the Separation? But he is willing to set his Church beyond all imaginable blame, and to put the Question only, whether the Dissenters have any blame, or not? 5. It should not have been omitted; to inquire whether the Grounds alleged for Separation lie in things really Evil, or only fancied to be such? And again, whether the Evil of them be such as will bear the weight of Separation.  
Sect. 7. I shall then endeavour to state the Question more fully and clearly than the Dr. hath done. There are indeed divers questions, on which this question about Separation doth depend; and therefore our Controversy cannot be represented in one single question, to which an Affirmative or Negative Answer will suffice. It is then, 1. A great part of our Controversy, seeing the Liturgy as to the Frame of it, and Ceremonies are by the Clergy thought indifferent, and so unnecessary, That God may be acceptably Worshipped without them, and the Dissenters think them unlawful to be used, and are able to make it appear by good reason, that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think; whether they should impose these on the Dissenters, and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences. 2. It is a part of our Controversy, and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth; whether to worship God by the Liturgy, and with the ceremonies, be a Worship acceptable to him; or such as he will reject. If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship; yea, lawful to be used; all our other questions will cease. 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship, as the Non-conformists believe; and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church, as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church: The question is, whether we should choose to use them, or forbear the Ordinances with the Church? 4. It is yet another question; supposing the unlawfulness of using them, and impossibility of joining with the Church without them; whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God; or keep separate Meetings, where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions? I deny not but several other questions may fall in, while we are debating these; but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly, though not so fully, comprised all the Controversy in this question; whether we ought to worship God, only according to the Prescript of his Word, or may do it by the Traditions of Men?   

SECT. V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion.  
HAving Stated the Question, he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters: And 1st. against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty, wherever Occasional Communion is lawful. 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful. He insisteth on the 1st. Sect. 16. etc. There was here also need of clear stating of this question; which I have done above; and here resume it briefly: Occasional Communion is either in some Duties, or in all Duties; and so is constant Communion. I hope he doth not mean, that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances, as Preaching, Prayer, etc. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances; because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances, and not to others. The Question than is, whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Public Assembly, and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin; and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin, set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end: whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Public Assembly, where there is no Sin in their joining in. To make the thing plainer by Instances; we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists; and do not shun to do it occasionally; but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments; and sometimes even to their Preaching, by their second Service at the end, as well as the first at the beginning, that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments; and but seldom other Ordinances, in purity; and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity. Now the Question is, whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Public Assembly, rather than in our private Meetings. The Dr. is for the Affirmative; we are for the Negative.  
Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion; I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us. 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication; all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto, on our Nonconformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth; though he labour to palliate the Matter, Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us; yea, most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name; and Prosecuted with such Severities, that we may not be seen in Public: It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion, and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion. 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use, can neither satisfy the Laws of the State (which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters) nor of the Church: There is no Law for hearing of Sermons; but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments; from which they have excluded us by their Impositions. Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them, which themselves lay so little weight on, while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion, so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be? 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances; we think ourselves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the Word in those Meetings, and from those Pastors; than in the Assembles, which we are so necessitated to leave, or rather are driven from, for a time.  
Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion, the Dr. undertaketh to make out. 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Gild of Separation. 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him; we bring other Grounds to clear ourselves of the Gild of Separation, that he layeth on us: Neither do I see how that by itself could do it. If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion, we cannot satisfy the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church, by Communion with her now and then. It is no wonder that the Presbyterians (as he saith) were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren, because they saw no just cause of their denying constant. Communion; which if we cannot show in our case, we are indeed faulty. I have above showed how we are Members of the Church, and how not: And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member, but I hope it will not be denied, but that, with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it, will show that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church; and it may excuse from the tantum, though not from the totum of Separation, as I believe it did in the Independants, compared with the Brownists, in reference to the Presbyterians, which the Dr. instanceth. For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administering or receiving the Sacrament, and yet Preaching, What Evil is in it, or in other instances of this nature, will be charged on his Party, who deprive us of the Ordinances of the Lord with them, by their sinful Impositions; and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise, by their Persecutions; many things of that nature are our Affliction, and their Sin; but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship.  
Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking, and come to attend him in his second; to wit, That constant Communion is a Duty, where Occasional Communion is lawful. This he manageth, Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this, as it is here set down; to wit, joining with other Parishes in a Journey, at a Lecture, etc. but I am willing to understand it, with the Dr. of Communion with a Church, whereof we have been or should be Members; and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions; where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties; for his opinion in this, he bringeth two Arguments; the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church. This he enforceth, by proving this Obligation; which none of us ever denied; but do with more reason retort all that can be said, on that he●d, on themselves, who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity; they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies: ●or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity; but the Dr. should have proved, 1. That our coming to their Sermons, as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it, and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication, and C●pi●ndo's, would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Unity. 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God; it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away, to desert these Meetings, and wait on so much of their Administrations, as they should be pleased to allow us. Our Hearts do not reproach us, as this Learned Author doth, That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists, that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done, with a good Conscience: He meaneth toward Communion with the Church.  
Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument, and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it, is built on a mistake; to wit, That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments. If Mr. B. or any other, are of that opinion, I know not why they should be Non-conformists: If I were convinced of it, I should not deny constant Communion with the Church, whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere; only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth, p. 159. when they speak of some cases, where joining with the Church, would do more harm than good. Was ever Schism, saith he, made so light of? And the Peace and Unity of Christianity valued at so low a rate? Ans. Yes, to wit, by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony, for the Peace that they so much talk of; but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force, to the dividing of the Church, the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers, and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls. Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians, than these men do, if you believe their deeds, and yet value it more highly, if ye regard their words? He asketh, p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies? Ans. We read part of that Service-Book daily in our Assemblies; to wit, the Scriptures therein contained, we read them out of the Bible; but for using the Book, or any part of it, as in that composure, we find no obligation on us to that; both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church, more than Preaching of the same Doctrine, and praying for the same things, is counted by them; also, we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service, as a humane device, that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship. A●d lastly, because having once par●ed with them, in the matter of worship; we think we should take our Rule for managing our Worship, from the Scripture, rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
Sect. 6. All his Arguments, Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake; to wit, that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful: If that were true, Communion with them sometimes for peace, might well infer constant Communion, for the same good design. Neither do I say, that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies; however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere, then where we are Members of a Church. I look not on our Lord's Communion with the Jewish Church, as only Occasional, but Constant, so far as the Wo●k that he was sent into the World for, did permit; but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship, as the Dr. allegeth, p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication, as other Jews were, is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground; and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it; and therefore his bare asserting it, should not have been thought enough to set it off. All that the Scripture saith of this, is, That he walked in Solomon's Porch, Joh. 10. 22, 23. Did none of the Jews more than this, at that Feast? Is it not to be thought, that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings, and other religious Observations, on account of the want of Institution; and defended the Nonconformity of his Disciples to these Observations; would himself observe a Religious Solemnity, that had no other warrant nor foundation, but what those other things had, which he condemneth? It is then rational to think, that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse; as the Apostles after did, when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated, and not fit to be observed.  
Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument, Sect. 19 from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule; let us mind the same things: To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty; for, saith he, from hence appeareth evident, that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Uniformity, and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Unity. This Argument is but lamely proposed, and this Scripture but weakly improved (by what the Dr. saith) to prove his design. Two things, it seems, he would infer from it; to wit, Uniformity, and Study of Peace. I first ask him, whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined; so as to study the one, is to study the other also; and neglecting the one, is, to neglect the other? If he say they are not, why doth he here conjoin them? Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle, without Uniformity? If he say they are, it is easy to prove the contrary; for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches, though not Uniformity; but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within herself; to wit, between Cathedral and Parochial Service; and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism, nor breach of Unity; or, will the Dr. say, that the Apostle here injoineth Uniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church, except in Cathedrals? I confess it is like he did not mind their Uniformity, for he knew no such distinction of Churches, or Officers, on whom it dependeth, under the New Testament.  
Sect. 8. I ask, Secondly, what sort of Uniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here enjoin; if in Doctrine, instituted Worship, Holy Conversation, and such like: I grant it to be our Duty to study it; But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer, in the same religious instituted Ceremonies; yea, or in all the same Circumstances, let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing; for we deny it: And it is generally held, that the Ancient Church (which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolic practice) was very various, and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs; as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers, Lib. 2. p. 148.— but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum, p. 65, 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church, that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches, without any censuring of those that differed from them, or if any, by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far (as the Dr. and others now doth) how ill it was resented by other Christians. A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said: But, O quantum mutatus ab illo— We deny that Uniformity (such as that our Brothers use to plead so hotly for) was any part of the Apostles meaning; and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text.  
Sect. 9 I do, in the Third place, readily acknowledge, that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians, as far as they can attain, by their understanding of what is their Duty; and as far as they can lawfully do, to study Peace and Unity, as with all men; so with the Church of which they are Members. But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty; for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies, we have not attained so far: We see not the lawfulness of the use of these, much less of the constant use of them; and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way. I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text, to persuade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church, by not pressing us with these things, nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church, because of them; for they have attained so far, they know them to be indifferent, and so unnecessary: They and we agree in this Attaintment; why then do we not walk by the same Rule, in laying them aside, and minding the same things; to wit, the Unity of the Church, and not our own Enriching, Grandeur, and Dominion over our Brethren? But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching, 1. That themselves hinder, by their Excommunication. 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances, that their Violence hath placed us in, as hath been showed. 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity, while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts. So that the Apostle's command in this Text, doth not at all reach our case, and how far it reacheth the Imposers, let them look to it.  
Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text, even supposing his own Exposition of the Text, I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it; nor in his Refutations of them; yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text, which may seem to make against our cause. And, 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith, That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge; supposing which, they should jointly practise what they know; and bear with one another in what they differed about. To confirm this, (if i● be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Critics, which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deaneries to furnish them with vast Libraries) this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters, gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum & perfectioris vitae, say Menochius, Estius and Tirinus. In eo quod revelavit Deus; saith Zanchius: Who, though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissensions in the Church, as the Dr. a●le●geth, p. 176. yet doth downright make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge; and his applying it against Dissensions doth not say, that he presseth Unity in men's Devices; but in God's Truth, and Institutions, which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend. Also Bullinger in loc. (not cited by Mr. Pool) Idem sentientes, & concordibus votis, calculis, & studiis progrediamur, agnitaque veritate provehamur. Let the Dr. show us one Interpreter, that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Church's Peace by Uniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy: I think himself is the first that hatched that Opinion.  
Sect. 11. The Dr. here, against Dr. O. discusseth three Points; the first is, Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions, or of different Practices. He endeavoureth to prove the latter, because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision, and maketh a digression concerning himself; he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end; and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law, that People should not listen to them, because they made Divisions among them, and divided them by different Observations. This is to expound Scripture by our fancy. It is evident, that the Apostle is speaking of Justification, which the Concision Thought must be, by the Works of the Law: And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness; but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth, even in that great point, waiting till God should instruct them. I see nothing that he saith to prove, that it was meant of different Practices, but rather of different Opinions, that divided the Church: But whether the one or the other, it proveth not, that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace, but rather bear with one another for that end.  
Sect. 12. Next he enquireth, Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance. I think the Question should rather be, Whether it was a Rule of God's making, or of Man's making? Whatever the Rule were in particular. Tirinus saith, Regulam hic intelligit a Christo & Apostolis ejus praescriptam. Zanchius, Doctrinam quam modo tradidit, summam doctrinae Chr●stianae, tum de d●gmatibus, tum de moribus. Doctrinam fidei, say Estius & Menochius. Grotius saith, Etiam qui de ri●ibus & circumcisione aliter sentiunt, interim s●iant, evangelij praecepta, quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda. If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule, he will gain much by this Scripture, otherwise nothing at all. We are content to follow a Divine Rule, for attaining Peace in the Church; it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church, by injoining to hold to the same Rule; but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules, but they that make Rules of their own, and will tear the Church in pieces, rather than these should not be observed. The Third thing he enquireth into is, What influence this Rule hath on our Case. He saith, It obligeth to go as far as we can: This is confessed. But then we say, It is a Divine, and not Humane Rule that must show how far we can, (i. e.) ought to go. He saith, When we can go no further, we must sit down quietly, and wait for further Instruction, and not divide the Church. Ans. When the Apostle speaketh, ver. 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake, I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge, which should make them not over-drive them, (as our Brethren would do with us) than what is their Duty. I am far from saying, that it is men's Duty to break the Peace of the Church, but I am sure, two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope, to enjoin such doubting Christians; 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light, to join with them that they differ from, either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple. 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them, unless they thus sin against Light, that they should live without the Ordinances. None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel; and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth. The Dr. saith, p. 171. This Rule, in order to Peace, requireth the observing of such things, which although they be not particularly appointed by God, yet are enjoined by lawful Authority, and not repugnant to the Word. I wish the Dr. had proved, that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God; we deny it. It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God, but appointed by Lawful Authority; but let us see a general Rule from the Word, for what we scruple, and that will satisfy us: Or, let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus, or religioso, that God hath not appointed. It is most falsely asserted, p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience, about abstaining from Blood, etc. the Governors of the Church, (he hath now changed the stile; it used to be, the Magistrate) by parity of Reason, may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve: For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion, he must prove, 1. That ordinary Church-governors have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases. 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides, and those by the Apostles; these were necessary, and the Apostles Decree found them so, and had its Rise from this necessity. The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent, and to have no necessity, but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them.  
Sect. 13. He saith, p. 173, in answer to another of his Opposers, That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches, which are not extant in Scripture, as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expressly said to be given in all Churches, not to any Church in particular. 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture, is false; for it is extant in this place. 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station, is no prudential Rule of Order and Government, as the Dr. hinteth, but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of, or inferred from Scripture, tho' they be not, in terminis, extant there. But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these.   

SECT. VI The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered, in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians.  
FRom Sect. 21. and forward, the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism, against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful; to wit, in partaking of the Ordinances with them; who deny them (tho' true Churches in some sense) to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of, and therefore must keep separate Meetings, which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches. He aimeth I suppose, especially at the Independents; I am not of that Persuasion, and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are. Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians, I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book; but I shall answer his Arguments so far only, as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice.  
Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments, I shall show two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church, and that of the Independents. 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we; and consequently, more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church, than is to bring us to it; for we withdraw, as they also do, because of the Liturgy, Crossing in Baptism, Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper, observing of Holidays: If the Church will either remove these, or bear with us in them, we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion. But besides these, they separate, because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members, want of a right Discipline, faults in the election and ordination of Ministers: Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not, they would still separate, as they do from the Presbyterian Churches, where these are not. 2. They separate, because these are used; We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to Communion. They separate, because the Church is polluted with these; We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them. If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these, we think the fault of other men (I mean in things of that nature) no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church; so that, in effect, they go away from the Church, We are driven away by the Church.  
Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church, is, It weakeneth the C●use of the Reformation. This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines, and he beginneth with Calvin, whose words (too long here to be transcribed) do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful, because of lesser Impurities or great Faults, while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted. But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church, because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her: yea; he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it; for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions (even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181, 182.) and being anathematised, for not complying with these Corruptions, a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome, which is parallel to our case. But (saith the Dr.) he doth not mean indifferent Rites. Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites, but sinful Ceremonies. And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of En●land with that of Rome, as ●o causes of Separation, yet here there is a likeness; the one rejecteth some of her Members, because they will not sin with her, and will force her Impositions on their Consciences; and so doth the other. Another Author he citeth is Daillie, giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome; and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them. And, what need was there to mention them, when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on? But Monsieur Daillie saith expressly, if the differences had been such, as we might safely have yielded to, then Separation had been rash and unjust. So say we, for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship, as we cannot to that which is greater, to wit, idolatrous Worship.  
Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus, who saith, If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church, beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism, and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion, they had still continued in Her Communion. Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England, for these and suchlike faults: We refuse the use of these, and because of that, the Church casteth us out of Her Communion. And if Amyrald us say, That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema, we leave him to his own Sentiments in that, but are of another opinion. It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies, when they are compared with these Romish Abominations; but when we consider them by themselves, and compare them with Scripture, we cannot think so of them. The Dr. further urgeth us, with the Answers given by Claude, Paion, and Turretine, to the Book entitled, Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes: That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies; this is both false and inconcludent: It is false; for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had, to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church, because of their Ceremonies. One of the chief Objects (saith he) that presented itself to our Fathers, was that of the great number of the Ceremonies; which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship, making it look partly like Judaisme, and partly like Heathenism: He saith, It was, without doubt, a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and much more to that purpose. What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head, I know not, for I have not seen them. This Argument is also inconcludent, because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery.  
Sect. 5. One passage he citeth, p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine, that no tolerable superstitious Rites, that do not infect the Conscience, are sufficient grounds of Separation. And the Dr. addeth is parenthesis, (as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by f●lse Doctrine.) To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent; for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation: And I deny not, that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable; to wit, where men will use them, and do not impose them on others: They that are left to their liberty, may well tolerate others in the use of them; but I do not so well see, that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience; for Superstition is Sin, and no Sin is tolerable in that case. To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer, That it is absolutely false; and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof; for, (that I may not deny, as he asserteth, without reason) 1. A Superstitious Ri●e is one of the Traditions of Men, in the Worship of God, and that the Scripture doth simply condemn, without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition. I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisaical Washings were enforced with, but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness, Mat. 15. 6, 9 but of this afterward. 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Ri●e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will, make it to defile the Conscience, as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine? If this Doctrine were true, men might impose what they will in the Worship of God; they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used, or Papists either, if they keep but orthodox mind, and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites, but only sic volo, sic j●beo. To what purpose he citeth le Blanch, showing the impossibility of reunion with the Papists, I see not, but that many Names of Authors make a show, and it argue●h great reading; for he saith not one word of the ceremonies; and we all know, that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England, but those of Rome itself, yet Reunion with them is impossible on other grounds.  
Sect. 6. It was needful, that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations, home to his purpose, which every Reader could hitherto hardly discern how it should be done: Wherefore, p. 185. he telle●h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us, if we had nothing else to justify our Separation from them by, but the things that we now scruple. And he telleth us, how we would be laughed at, all over the Christian world, and how the Papists are hardened, seeing no end of Schism. To all this I answer, 1. I know Rome, and some others too, will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing; but as long as we can show Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do, we are unconcerned in their censures. 2. That there is no cause, for their triumphing, appeareth, because the Dr. and his Party, (who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion) have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us, as to make them triumph. 3. If by the Christian World, he mean the Protestant part of Christianity, (for the rest, we are less moved by their Judgements) I hope they will not laugh at us, who scruple nothing, but what most of them have condemned, as Additions to the Word of God, and Corruptions of His Worship; for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done. 4. If the Papists be hardened, as seeing no end of Schism, they are to be blamed; for we can show them, and others, a good end of it; to wit, ordering the worship of God by his Institution; or, at least, imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church.  
Sect. 7. His Second Argument is, Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Union among the Protestant Churches impossible, supposing them to remain as they are. This he proveth, because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies, yet these Churches are thought true, and fit to be united with, by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton, 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies. So doth the Confession of Poland, and that of Ausburg, and Strasburg; also Crecius, and the Transylvanian Divines. Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated. We allow no Separation for these Rites; and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned, disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons, nor injoineth using of them. We do not separate because the Church useth them; but She driveth us away because we cannot use them. What he citeth out of Amyraldus, p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them, I have said somewhat to above. I deny not, but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremony, that is built on it; but I cannot assent, That the best Doctrine can justify an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship. He citeth Davenant, giving three Reasons that may hinder Union; and the first is, Tyranny over men's Faith and Conscience; let but this be removed, and our Separation is at an end; for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of, and can prove their sinfulness of this blame. That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we, he supposeth, p. 198. but doth not prove; the Calvinist Churches have not; and if the Lutheran Churches have, that is, impose them with such rigour, we cannot but, eatenus, condemn them: Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them, as he insinuates; we can have Union with them as Sister Churches, but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship.  
Sect. 8. His third Argument is, that this will justify the ancient Schisms that have always been condemned in the Christian Church; and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others: But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour, to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him, by setting aside (from their Pleas for Separation) Ceremonies, Liturgy, and Holidays, which are the things we insist upon. I say no more on this Argument, but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis, asserting, That these are common to our Church, with all other Christian Churches, for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church, and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false, for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithet, great degeneracy of the Roman Church; I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy, whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Universal Bishop, or, may be, in the Council of Trent: But he shall never prove, that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church; nor that they were used by all Christians, even before the greatest degeneracy. For the Second Part of his Assertion, it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it; for he cannot be ignorant, that these are not continued in all, nor most of the Reformed Churches, but disowned in their Confessions, and by their Practice. But some men's confidence, or pretence to it, runs highest, when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb.  
Sect. 9 I come now to his Fourth Argument, Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless. He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages, by showing the evil of Schism, p. 197. reproving Mr. A. for making too light of it, p. 198. and exposing him in a mimic lo●g Oration, in the excuse of it, p. 199, 200, 201, 202, 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism, p. 204, 205, 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation. All which I shall pass by, as not against the cause that I maintain, and only briefly answer his Argument, (if either his Party, or any pretended to be on our side, will not keep within that Boundary, let them answer it) That Separation will soon be at an end, if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture, and if People refuse nothing, so as to separate for it, but what they can show Scripture-ground, that it were their Sin to own it or do it.  
Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church. To enforce this Argument, the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths, but such as none of them, nor all of them, conclude against withdrawing from the Church, when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed; as, 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty. 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity, but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles, as a sufficient reason for it. What is all this, to make up an Obligation to sin against God, rather than separate from the Church? But a fourth thing he insisteth on, may be, will help him better. He telleth us of three cases, wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation; to wit, Idolatrous Worship, False Doctrine, men's making indifferent things necessary to Salvation. That this is not a sufficient enumeration, I prove; 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are. May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their Communion, tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation? and wherever we must sin or separate, Separation is allowed by the Scripture, which tieth us to live peaceably with all men, if possible, and so far as in us lieth: It is not in our power to sin, for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus. 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent, as so dangerous to the Soul, that Separation is, no doubt, rather to be chosen than the use of them; and yet he doth not take notice of their being looked on as necessary to Salvation: Therefore I conclude, against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book, that we are not obliged to prove against his Party, either Idolatry or false Worship, or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation. It is enough, if we prove, that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you, and that it is unlawful for us to use them; for hence it plainly followeth, that we must either live without the Ordinances, which were our Sin; or meet apart, for worshipping God, which is our Duty, as your Impositions and Severities have stated us.    

PART III.  
IN this Third Part of his Book, the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England, and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church. The Dissenters, as they are of different persuasions, so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways. I shall not take the defence of them all; but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book, I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth, and fix upon what I shall own.  

SECT. I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters, considered.  
I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the public Assemblies, as divided into three sorts. 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England; 2. Some that are Grievances to us, that we dare not own nor approve, but desire a Reformation of them; yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the public Assemblies unlawful, nor can justify Separation: 3. Some that not only are Grievances, but do justify; yea, make necessary some sort of separation; and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish. Of the first sort, I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first; want of governing Power in the People; and the Constitution of a National Church, as it is scrupled at by some.  
Sect. 2. For the second sort, they are not a few, neither can I promise to name them all. 1. We are grieved with Prelatical Government, and taking away of that parity of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church. This we cannot approve, and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the public Exercise of their Ministry, than own it. And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise; yet, because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church, by the people, I see not that we should withdraw from the public Assemblies, merely because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church; except our owning them, by submitting to their Jurisdiction, is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church. 2. Depriving people of their Right of choosing their own Church-Officers, is also matter of complaint; but we must bear it, rather than separate for that, from a Church. 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church, or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline, we lament; but it not being people's work to mend it, nor the Abuses their personal action, it is no just ground of Separation. 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse; but being extrinsic to the Ordinance, we should not separate for that neither. 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers, and in their personal Conversation, their Pluralities and Non-residences, and several things of that nature we complain of, and the insufficiency of many of them, but do not separate for these, while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of. 6. The Surplice, and other superstitious Habits, worshipping toward the East, bowing to the Altar, and suchlike, we dare not approve nor practise; yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church, we do not separate on account of them. The lawfulness of these I do not now debate; nor is it needful at all to do it, in reference to the point of Separation, that the Dr. chargeth us with; yet they being things wherein we descent from our Brethren, I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for.  
Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England, which not only are matter of Grievance, but do necessitate us (and justify us in it) to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed; and they are of two sorts: 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her, tha● She requireth of us; without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God; as that we must worship God by the Liturgy, that our Children, when baptised, must be signed with the Cross; that we must Kne●l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper; that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed, out Christ never instituted. These things we think unlawful to be done; and the Church, tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves, yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them, and excommunicateth and persecuteth us, if we will not use them; and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts, doth necessarily follow; not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances, which we cannot have with our Brethren, but because, if we would do so, they would still persecute us, if we come not to the Liturgy; if we have not our Children baptised; if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year, and especially at Easter; if we do not observe the Holidays. A second thing that layeth a necessity on us, to have Meetings apart from them, is, their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers, whom Christ had sent to his Church, and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations (upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day.) We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel, and administer the Ordinances of God, and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations, and to own their relation to them. It is true, this by itself considered, need not hinder our Communion, and that ordinarily with the public Assemblies, for things might be so managed, as no clashing needed be; but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by ourselves, and the sinful Terms of Communion imposed, putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in public. These I now but propose, but intent to dispute them as they fall in, in the Doctor's Discourse.   

SECT. II. Of Parochial Churches.  
IN the beginning of this third Part, the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation, to Four Heads, 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church. 2. To the Terms of Communion with it. 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters. 4. To the parity of Reason, as to our Separation from Rome: Under the First he ranketh, 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution. 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful. 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation. 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors. About these Four last mentioned, he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book; and a very small part of it upon the Second Head; which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on, and lay most weight on; but it is easiest going over the Hedge, where it is lowest.  
Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches, because it is Separation from those, that is most Conspicuous. He saith, the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them. I have before disproved the Truth of this, and also given reasons, why the practice of them who did so, is not binding to us. He saith, Since the Congregational way prevailed in England, the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it; at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches. Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches, because of unlawful Terms of Communion, before the present Congregational way was either known, or prevailed; and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way (I suppose that he meaneth by it) is a mistake; it is true, indeed, the restraint (he will be angry if I say Persecution) that they are under, maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independent; because they cannot associate for Discipline; but we have not quitted our principles for that.  
Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches; or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them. But I cannot pass our Reverend Author's Ingenuity, in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over men's Consciences is a good Ground of Separation; which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies: They impose on us Terms of Communion, that they can pretend to no other warrant for, but their own Fancy and Will; and they exclude us, because we cannot yield to them: If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men, let any unbiased Person judge; and if it be so judged to be, we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession.  
Sect. 4. Our Author, Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question: whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place; or divers assemblies, that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship, be to be reckoned divers Churches. This Question is stiffly debated on both sides, between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren; the reason of their so much concern in it, is, the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship; and so maketh that the highest ruling Church: The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop; and so maketh a Diocesan Church, to be the lowest ruling Church. The Presbyterians go a middle way; they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether a Congregation should be called a Church, or only the Combination of more Congregations, for the Exercise of Discipline; they find the word used both ways in Scripture (and the Word itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth any Convention, Civil or Religious) as, 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth, with their Officers, are called the Church; and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily, that might bear each of them that name, of Church. When the Apostle forbiddeth, that their Women should speak in the Churches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he must mean the Churches in Corinth; for it is not to be thought, that he would particularly have mentioned their Women, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth, where they were likest to usurp that Authority. The Dr. saith, p. 235. That it doth not once fail, that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number, they are the Churches of a Province: Here it faileth.  
Sect. 5. But leaving the Word, let us understand the thing; which I shall set down in a few Assertions, 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body; whereof Christ is the head; to wit, his Universal Church; which if it could so meet together as to be taught, and ruled, ordinarily, by the same Officers, there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel; till the increase of Believers made it needful to divide into several Compani●s, that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers. 2. The several Companies of Believers, with their several Officers (each of which in Scripture-sence, may be called a Church) are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place, for partaking of God's Ordinances. We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of People's living together, that so they might usually meet together. 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors, and Elders have ruling Power within themselves; for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders, and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop; for at Philippi, Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons; a plurality of which were in that Church, tho' in one City; where our Brethren acknowledge, that more Diocesans than one could not be. 4. The Church power in single Congregations, is not Independent, but is to be subordinate to the power of them, associate together. This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth, being there also called a Church: If there were not divers religious Assemblies, ordinarily they could not be called Churches; if they were not Associate, they could not be called a Church; and wherein they could be Associate, except in the Exercise of Government, is not easy to guests. 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers, as their Convenience of meeting together for that end, giveth them opportunity: Hence particular Assemblies, lesser and greater Associations, have their Congregational, Classical, Provincial, and National Presbyteries, or Assemblies, for the Government of the Church; the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Ecumenical Synods could as conveniently, and duly assemble, all the rest should be subordinate to them, seeing every one of them should make a part of these.  
Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers, and frequent clashings of them, in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable; therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies. And tho' I am far from the opinion of them, who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation; the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author (whom I now dispute with) yet in this particular, it not only may, but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government: This being no essential part of Church-Government, nor instituted; but a Circumstance of it, determinable by necessity and conveniency. On the same Score, where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with, it might act Independently, and be blameless. 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches, as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily; yet is not this meeting together, but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers, that maketh one particular Church: For, 1. One Congregation may increase to that number, that one place cannot contain them; and yet continue one Congregation, till they be regularly divided: Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches. 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large, as all the People cannot always travel to one place; the Pastor or Pastors of the Church, may well have places more convenient for some of them, where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them, sometimes; as in Chapels of Ease; and yet they all continue one particular Church. 3. It is a frequent case with Families, that but a part of them at one time, can leave the House, to wait on public Ordinances; and the rest at another time; yet are they one Congregation. 4. In a time of Persecution, where the Flock is but small, and might easily be contained in one House, the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such, as it may be needful, that but a part of them should come together at once, and that by turns; as we are necessitated at this time to do: This doth not make divers Congregations. All this considered we are little concerned; whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Church in a City, or more? Whether those called Churches did meet in one place, or not; as long as the one Party cannot prove, that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by itself; nor the other, that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one, and over their Presbyters.  
Sect. 7. Before I part with this discourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches, I take notice of his confident Asserting, p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government, so suddenly from its first institution; even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon, yet this change could not be. The same thing he had asserted before, and I have answered it, Praef. S●ct. 9 His further considerations to enforce what he had said, are not weighty; to wit, That Government is so nice and tender a Point, th●t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it, would certainly have complained. This he enlargeth upon: But I answer, 1. It may be they did; that they did not, is not proved by the silence of History: A Negative Argument here is not concludent; especially considering the Lameness of the History of the first Centuries; and what we have of it, is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation. 2. He doth not consider, that Men might Sleep, while others were robbing them; as Christ foretold, Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church (which then was no Lordly Dominion, but a painful Ministry, or Servi●e; and made unpleasant by the cross Humours of them that needed it most) was not then so ●ice and tender a Point, to honest and well-meaning Presbyters, as it is now to our aspiring Churchmen; they were Men of another stamp; they were willing to lie by, if the work were done; and they might think, that others might do it better than they (this is not to justify them, but to take off men's wonder at this) and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily, by degrees, wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves, who were not so foreseeing as they should have been; nor so tinctured with Ambition as they; though other ways good, and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this, when we consider, that this thing was not done suddenly; but by insensible steps, in the space of three or four Hundred Years. Cyprian (whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter) lived in the third Century, & even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was settled. What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities, that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters, shall be answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the next Section; where it is more proper: Also what he here saith against popular Election, is to be considered in its place; because I would not confound Subjects so divers.   

SECT. III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful.  
THE Second Plea for Separation, that the Learned Dr. considereth, is, the unlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy; which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be, 1. Primitive; 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ; 3. That its Discipline, as exercised in England, doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches. All this he manageth, Sect. 8, etc. I might shun this whole Debate, having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation, except in so far as we are required to own it. But because we look on this Episcopacy, as unlawful to be used or owned, I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it: This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Author of, No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops, etc. and the defence of that Piece, under the Title of, Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times; which might supersede all that I have to say, and shall make me say the less, referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books; yet, lest there should be an hiatus in this Discourse, I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Doctor.  
S●ct. 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government, (which the Dr. disproveth, p. 242, 243.) being singular, himself can best defend it; wherefore I leave it, and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned, first asserting a few things that may clear our way. 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel, it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church, as distinguished from her Servants, the Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work, 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues; those are the Magistrates Gifts, and do not cross Christ's Institution, whatever inconvenience may be in them. 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them. Nature maketh it necessary, that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion; and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency, whether for one meeting, for a Month, or Year, or during his life, and therefore the Church may determine in that: Yet we must add, That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or making a moderator constant, having been, of old and late, the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy, and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way; so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation, we think it highly inconvenient. 4. Neither do we deny, that among Ministers, the wiser, graver, and men of more Holiness and Experience, should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified: It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren; yea, we deny not, but some of Opinion for parity of Power, have overborne their Brethren, through their loftiness of Spirit; an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian; it is not men's Corruptions, but their Principles that our debate is about. 5. We deny not, but the Name, Bishop, that in the Apostles times was common to all Elders of the Church, began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator, who also was called Primus Presbyter▪ and that this priority, for as small as it was, was too much affected and taken notice of, even in the Apostles times. Diotrephes (who is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jo. 3. 9 i e. affected to be Primus Presbyter) had a great mind to that dignity; but this was, when ●ew of the Apostles were now alive. It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about, but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority. 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places, and was snatched at in other places; while yet the ancient Order of Parity, among the Pastors of the Church, was in most places retained. 7. Though we deny, that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church, for the first Three Hundred Years, or that it was general in the fourth Century, and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government; yet it is not men's Authority, but divine Institution, that we are determiend by, and lay the stress of our Cause upon; and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversy, but the Scripture.  
Sect. 3. It might have been expected, that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame, as he doth, in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates, should have proved the Divine Institution, or at least, the lawfulness of that Office, and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it. This were the way to satisfy men's Consciences; but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier, though not so persuasive a way, to wit; to refute Mr. B's. Assertions about Episcopacy, and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question; as I hope shall appear in our Progress. And I have often observed, that the confidence of our brethren's Assertions in this Controversy is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments.  
Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear, and sure procedure in this Controversy, if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert; and the Foundation on which they build it, as to the thing; some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops, denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them, that they make it little or no more, but a Presidency: So the learned and Pious Usher, who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party. Grotius also goeth this way, de Imper. sum. potest. circa sacra, p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church, and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren; yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves, but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church, who are to be their Counsel. Our Author, Iren. p. 309. saith, that both Jerom, and Ignatius agree, that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution. Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Dioceses; neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters; nor being liable to their censures: So the generality of our High Churchmen. Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocese; and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates; others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute, or delegate to none but Christ; some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel, and administer Sacraments in his own Person, and that this, he should be constantly exercised in: Others, that his Work is to rule, and that he need not trouble himself with other Work, unless he please. Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority; not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only, but of Government and Discipline, to others; yea, to Laymen; that by them he may Excommunicate, and judge Ministers and People: Others think that he hath no power to do so; so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be employed in Civil Government, others allow it. Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church, and that really, and not seemingly only, as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter (who yet are not the Church) of whom they must proceed to a Mock election; others think those that come in this way, to be none of Christ's Bishops. Some own Diocesan Bishops, who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy, as it is stated among us, in Metropolitans, Primates, Archbishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, Chancellors, etc. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter; others deny this; many School men are on both sides; it was debated at the Council of Trent. In all these things, I observe very much Confusion, and want of a distinct Idea of that Office, that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren.  
Sect. 5. There is as little agreement, or distinctness among them about the Foundation, on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth: Some of them are for i●s divine Right, as being instituted by Christ: But this Plea they find so hard to be managed, and to have so ill success, and to be so little the way to preferment, (as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate) that most have laid it aside; others, that it is of Apostolic institution; being not commanded by Christ, but prudently settled by the Apostles. Others, that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church, af●er the decease of all the Apostles. Others, that it is wholly indifferent, and may be received, or not, as is thought most expedient in several times and places; and some of these say, this is to be determined by the Church: Others, by the Magistrate. This Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum asserteth; but is very uncertain, whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter. One of the most Learned of our Adversaries, Dr. Hammond, holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy, but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion; to wit, that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church, appointed by Christ, or ordained by the Apostles, were Diocesan Bishops, and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament, and their Office but a device of Men, or a constitution of the Church. This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham, on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion, from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity.  
Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren, being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England, the owning of which is required of us; that we may judge aright of it, we must have a true Idea of it, and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ, practised in the primitive Church with general approbation; or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon. The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it; First, The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to, and distinct Office from, other Presbyters, as appeareth not only from the power he hath, and they have not, and acts of Church-power reserved only to him; but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter. And yet further, because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates, or Curates, and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters, People and Flocks in the Diocese. Secondly, The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters. Thirdly, He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters. Fourthly, He may delegate this Power to whom he will, whether Men Ordained to the Ministry, or any of the people; so that by this Delegation, a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People. Fifthly, This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate; the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the King's Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly, They are not chosen to this Office by the Church, but by the Magistrate; and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops. Now if our Brethren cannot show us such a B●shop as this in Scripture, or Antiquity, all that they say from either for an Episcopacy, is short of the thing in question, and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy, unless they prove this Episcopacy.  
Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered, and I think never shall; and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others; yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground, I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it. The first shall be, ad hominem, against our learned Author: By this Author's Doctrine, there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters, was Instituted, Allowed, or Exercised in the Church; Ergo, according to him, it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfy one's Conscience about the lawfulness of it. The Antithesis I prove, If such a ground there be, it must lie in one of these three (if any asserters of it can add a fourth, we shall quit this Argument) either Christ's appointing it in Scripture, or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office, or the practice of the Church, showing us what was Christ's allowance. But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy, all the three being denied by this Author to be able to satisfy the Conscience in this matter. For the first, he denyeth such an Institution, asserting expressly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel; this is the basis of his Irenicum. The second, he never had the confidence to assert, neither is the least hint in all the Scripture, that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them, and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power. For the third, he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain, from the Defectiveness, Ambiguity, Partiality, and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times, Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ, practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times, or any way allowed.  
Sect. 8. Our second Argument is, There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church, that are mentioned in the Bible, neither in their Name, nor Office, nor Power, nor Work, nor Qualifications, nor Respect or Obedience due to them, nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered; whence I thus Argue: If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church, he would have hinted some thing about this distinction; but this he hath not done, Ergo, etc. The first proposition I prove, first, Because this was needful for these distinct Officers, that each might know his work: And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to choose and ordain qualified Men for so different Employments: And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations, that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter,— and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop; that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation, nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them, nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters, all these belonging to the Bishop. 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture, among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church, in their Names, Qualifications, Work, and Office, as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2, 9 Also between Preaching Elders, and those that are only Ruling Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can show us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, let them do it: I hope none of them will say, that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop, lest it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he, either by affording him more respect or maintenance: I suppose our Bishops will rather part with the Patrimony of this Text, then with their Titles, Grandeur, and Revenues.  
Sect. 9 The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before, for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture, and we can show an identity in them; And first, for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus, Bishops. It is a groundless fancy of some, that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia; for this is said without any show of proof, to serve a turn. Besides that, they are called the Elders of the Church, not Churches, as (even in the prelatical Style) Diocesan districts should be called. And it is called the Flock, not Flocks, and the Church of God, not the Churches of God, that they were to take heed to; and the haste that the Apostle then was in, considering the short time, and long journey that he had before him, was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts. This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned, as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters. Also it is most clear, Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where showing how Elders must be qualified, a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications, for a B●shop must be Blameless; if they were not one, this reason should have neither force nor sense, which were Blasphemy to aver, it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning.  
Sect. 10. In the next place, Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter, many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them (how consistently with their other principles I inquire not) and they that assert such a distinction cannot show the least foot-step of it from Scripture. Thirdly, for their power, if Bishops ordained, so did Presbyters, 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any allege that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops, they must prove it: If Bishops had rule over the people, were over them, so were Presbyters, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people, admonish them, and watch for their Souls; (I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in) and the same persons in both places are the people's Rulers, and are over them. Fourthly, Their Work is the same, as is clear both from the places last cited, and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. Where taking heed to, feeding, and over-seeing, in the Greek, acting the part of Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church. 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction, 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons, they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church, are set down by themselves, 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly, for Obedience, Reverence, Maintenance, or any thing else, that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter, there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered; a Man must then put force upon his reason▪ or be strangely swa●ed by prejudice, who can persuade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament, that is above the Presbyters of the Church, or hath jurisdiction over them.  
Sect. 11. Argument third. The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church, without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop, or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced; Ergo, no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church. The consequence I prove, first, Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ, and not tell us of them all: Let our brethren, if they can, give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this. Secondly, The consequence can yet less be questioned, if we consider that not only an Officer is left out, and the Church left without a hint concerning him; but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church, that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World, and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend: He who can believe this, his Judgement must be under the power of so strong a Bias, that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow; the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop; some say, they are reducible to Apostles. With what face can wise men allege this? Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary, and temporary, appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel, and planting Churches; and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer: Diocesans have their limited charges: Some allege they are reducible to Apostles, not as being absolutely such, but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had. But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office, or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostles, but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church. Secondly, They should prove that Christ's instituting Apostles, did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office, as should be afterward thought convenient. What may not men devise in the Church, that take on them thus to add to, or diminish from Christ's Institutions, and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests?  
Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers, Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops, and this with as little ground as the former, though some learned Men have so dreamt, as Estius, and Doctor Hammon. Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant, but the absurdity of this fancy will appear, First, If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters, which is an indecency unsuitable to the Apostles Exactness, if my Lord Bishop we●e here meant. I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles, and are extraordinary Officers, because they are named always next after the Apostles, which Argument will as well hold here. Secondly, The work of the Bishop that we speak of, which discriminateth him from the Presbyter, is not to Teach but to Rule: Therefore others, as Calvin, by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers, and instructeth them and others in the truth, and defendeth it against Heresies; such as are Divinity Professors in Universities; others understand Catechists: But it is evident that it cannot, with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop, who is least employed in Teaching of any part of Churchwork; some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps, 1 Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond; both of them also make him to be meant by Government; and the same two Authors, in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer. They would be sure to find him somewhere, but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found. Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words, would use such repetition? When so Learned Men are put to such shifts, it is a sign the cause is so weak, that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by. That they are not meant by Teachers, I have already showed; neither are they meant by Helps. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius, significat, curam rei alicujus gerere: This is said without Book (be it spoken with due respect to that great Critic.) I find Authors cited for its signifying, to take hold, undertake, uphold, help, correct; but none for its signifying, to take charge of a thing. The place he referreth to, Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping; and among all Critics and other Interpreters, he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word, either here or in that place: but Men will say any thing to serve a turn. Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government, not only because they are among the last, and so the most inferior of Church-Officers; but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule, and not Teach (though it is too much their practice, yet they will not aver this to be according to Institution) as this Officer must do, he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher. I conclude, If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church, we might have expected he should have, if not clearly, yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind, set him down in some of these Cat●logues, which is not done.  
Sect. 13. Argument fourth. The power that we read of in the New Testament, was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone, but by the Church-Guides in Common; Ergo, there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament, and if we have no warrant there, our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable. That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances, leaving to our Brethren, if they can, to bring Instances to the contrary. First, Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common, 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place, that Presbytery is meant of the Office, for both it is a harsh phrase, the hands of the Office; and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament, yet is never used for the Office, but for the College of Presbyters; the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius; others say, That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles, who are called Presbyters: This cannot be, for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles, equal in Authority with himself, had concurred, but might well do it, when, he as chief, and the ordinary Pastors as subordinate, did join in this Action, for (it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text) the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often, but when the Church was constituted, acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors; and there was good reason for this, to wit, both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolic power was not always to continue among them, and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations, which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone.  
Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication, which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Elders of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man; he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop, but to a Company of Men, 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan, vers. 4, 5. That they should purge out that old leaven, vers. 7. That it was their part (not a single persons part) to Judge the Members of the Church, vers. 12. That they should put away the wicked person, vers. 13. and speaking of this Sentence, 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expressly saith it was done by many, and ascribeth the power of forgiving (i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication) to them, not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan, or about the Apostles Interest in this Action, it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging (which implieth Authority) exercised by a Community. A Third, Instance of this is, 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle. This is not to be understood as some take it, of Noting the Disobedient Person in an Epistle, that they should write to Paul; For First, The emphatic particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle, to wit, that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write. Secondly, The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used, is Note, or set a mark on him; to Signify, or give Notice, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient. Thirdly, He telleth them what should follow on this Note▪ set on the Man, and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted; to wit, that they should have no company with him; this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle, while no Sentence was as yet passed against him, but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him. If then Church-Discipline, in the Apostolic and best times of the Church, and especially while the Apostles being yet alive, might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates, the Evangelists, was yet exercised usually in Common, and not by a single Bishop; we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church.  
Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought, but I shall not now insist on them, having maintained some of them against this learned Author, in my Animadversions on his Irenicum. Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument, as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgement and Practice of the Primitive Church, that succeeded to the Apostles. This may the more heighten our scruple, that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church; if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop, but much to the contrary, they ought not to blame us if we cannot with them own such an Office in the Church. The first Testimony that I bring, is that of Jerome, who giveth his Judgement of this matter, not Obiter, but of set purpose, as that which was his settled Opinion, and that oftener than ●nce. In his Epistle to Euagrius, where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent, that preferred Deacons to Presbyters, i. e. saith he, to Bishops, but showeth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same, for which he citeth, Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5, 6, 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth; clanget tuba Evang●l●j, filius toni●ru, etc. and so citeth, 2 Joh. ver. 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath showed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest, he telleth, that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty, Greatness or Meanness; the difference of Cities where they are, sive Romae, sive E●g●bij, sive Constantinopoli, etc. they are ejusdem meriti & Sacerdotii; and showeth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus, about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons, saith nothing of Presbyters; because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop; that is, they are the same. What may seem to make against our cause, in this Epistle, is, that he saith, quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum, which he saith was, ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens, Christi ecclesiam rumperet; which was done, saith he, in Alexandria, a Marci Temporibus. This may well be understood of a Moderator of their Meetings, who had power of Convening the Presbyters, lest every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure; and so breed confusion; and it must be so understood; not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction; unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle. Another passage is, quid enim facit Episcopus prae●er, Ordinationem, quod non facit Presbyter: Which cannot be understood of Ordination, or s●le Ordination of Presbyters; for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter; which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse; but Ordination here, must be, ordering of their Meetings; which is the part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderat●r. One might also allege, that in the Writings of this learned Father, a passage, Obiter set down, is not to be taken notice of, in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of h●s Discourse, tho' they be ●n●●nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings, and cited also by Dr. Stillingfl●et, Ireniou●●, p. 278. Itaq●e ut simpliciter fatear, legi haec omnia, & in me●●e mea plurima conservans, accito notario, vel mea, vel aliena dictavi, nec ordinis, nec verborum, interdum nec sensuum meinor.  
Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom, comment. in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject, and asserte●h the same opinion as before, Idem ergo (saith he) Presbyter qui Episcopus, & antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cephae (alluding to the Schism mentioned, 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular, as some fancy) Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur; postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, toto orbe decretum est, Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, ut Schismatum semina tolerentur; and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, he citeth many Scriptures, as above; and showeth, that Bishop denoteth the Office, Presbyter the Age. He citeth also, Heb. 13. 17. Ibi (saith he) equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur. And after he showeth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter, to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate. And in conclusion of that discourse, making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth; saith, videamus igitur qualis Presbyter, sive Episcopus, ordinandus sit. What Jerom saith, toto orbe decretum est, is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council, for no such Decree can be produced; but that this Remedy of Schism in many places, began then to be thought on; and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in; it being then about the end of the Fourth Century, when Jerom wrote. And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's, but of Man's inventing; and accordingly it succeeded; for it proved worse than the Disease, bringing in Tyranny, and overturning Christ's Institution; and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it, as Jerom saith; Man gave a Being to it, and Satan improved it to carry on his designs. The omnis eccle●iae cura, that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa, which, he saith, was the way of the Gospel; and therefore either we must make Jerom say, That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution, and contrary to Apostolic practice, which will make the way of the Primitive Church, and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times; and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy; or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church, not of the solitude of it in one Man, excluding the rest of the Presbyters, that he had a special inspection, though he might not exercise Discipline by himself.  
Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom, is Ep. ad Heliodorum, Fol. (mihi) 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter, and showing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist; they have claves Regni Coelorum & quodammodo diem judicij indicant, and then addeth, Illi (Presbytero) si peccavero, licet tradere me Satanae. Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop. And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time; which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae. There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose, Ep. ad Demet. Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit; quos interdum abjicit; in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum & Clericorum censura desaevit; which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days, into the Hands of Presbyters, and not into the Hands of Bishops only, whatever Priority they had above the other. It is worth our Observation, that several Popish Writers (as zealous for Prelacy as ours are) confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose, that they find no way to Answer, but to Condemn him of Error in this matter. And Bellarm. de clericis, lib. 1. c. 15. confesseth that Sedulius & Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam, In Comment. in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom, because he was a Presbyter, and no Bishop, I hope they will allow us the like liberty, to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them, who themselves were Bishops; and then let them reckon their Gain, when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll.  
Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly. Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications, and other Censures, saith, they are done in the Assemblies, and that president probati quique seniores. Clem. Alexandr. Stromat. lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores: Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century. Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common, and every Assembly had its precedent, with power of Discipline. Ambrose who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century, when no little Deviation had been made from the right way; yet showeth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction; for a Sentence passed by Syagrius was disliked, quia sine alicujus fratris consilio. But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause, was approved, quia cum fratribus, & consacerdotibus participatum processit, Ambros. Ep. ad Syagrium: And even Cyprian, as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy, as that age could bear, Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance. I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine, as a Witness of this Truth, Ep. 19 ad Hieron. Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus, Presbytero major sit: He maketh the Bishop Major, not Lord over the Presbyter; and even that Majority, was but by the Custom of the Church, not divine Ordinance, and a custom that had now obtained, was not always. Also, lib. quaest. come. he proveth from, 1 Tim. 3. B●shop and Presbyter to be one; and saith, qu●d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter, and this Oneness he further showeth, because Bishops (such as then were; to wit, in the beginning of the Fifth Century, when the Order of the Church was much changed) called the Presbyters, Compresbyteri, but never called the Deacons, Condiaconi, Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office, but Deacons being distinct from them both. The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom, in 1 Tim. 3. homil. 11. Inter Episco 'em atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil; quip & Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est; & quae de Episcopis dicuntur, eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt; sola quippe ordinatione superiores ill● sunt. Bellarm. saith that Primasius, Theophilactus, and Oecumenius on that Text, teach the same things, and almost in the same words: And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century; the last in the Tenth or Eleventh. The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this, is not worth taking notice of; to wit, Chrysost. meaneth, that Presbyters have jurisdiction, as Bishops have, but only by Commission from the Bishop: This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse, which is to show an Identity of them, as they are in themselves. What he allegeth out of this Citation; that a Bishop may ordain, not a Presbyter, the learned Father's expression will not bear; for Ordination must signify either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have, whereby they are put in their Office, to be different; which he doth not allege; or that the difference between them was only in order, or precedency, not in Power or any Authority; or that it was by the Ordination, or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution; but it can never signify the power of ordaining; for then Christ (who was sufficiently a Master of words) would have said, potestate ordinandi, not Ordinatione.  
Sect. 19 I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations; which though they be not concludent in themselves, being but humane Testimonies; yet may abate a little of our brethren's confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops, to have always been the sentiments of the Catholic Church. The, 1 is, That Lombard and most of the Schoolmen deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters, lib. 4. dist. 24. litter. I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons; because the primitive Church had only these; and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment; the rest were after appointed by the Church. And ibid. litera M. he showeth that the orders of Bishop, Archbishop, etc. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamens, Horum autem disoretio (saith he) a gentilibus introducta videtur. Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited, deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy. The 2 Consideration, is, That the Waldenses, Albigenses, Wickliff and his Followers, and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrines that the Protestants now profess, were of a Parity among Presbyters, and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops. This is confessed by Medina, and is not denied by Bellarm. and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this; it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis, that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders, Priests and Deacons, and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest, Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent. 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State; for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops, where their Religion was suppressed. The third thing that I offer to be considered, is, The observation of Spanhemius, a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church, in his Epitome. Isag●g. ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt, whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches; whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii, as Tertul. de pudicitia, c. 25. or only a reverence to their age, and their conversing with the Apostles, and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition.   

SECT. IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered.  
I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple, on the forementioned grounds. I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned; to wit, to show That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church. And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches, in the times of Cyprian and Augustine, and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general; I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations, 1. That his phrase is ambiguous, that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours: I wish he had showed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth in both. I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is, that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations; if he will show us that in the Primitive Times, let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity. 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to, is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence; some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption, some make it of more than 1500 years standing; but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that. Cyprian lived in the Third Century, Athanasius in the Fourth, Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth, and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time; yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that height that is now in England, even at that time, we deny.  
Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken, he layeth down two Observations. 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them, that but one Bishop was to be in one Church. I am little concerned in this, though I see no rule for it, except a Canon of Concil. Cabilonens. which was but Provincial, and very late, under Pope Eugenius, about Ann. 654, yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters, (which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times.) What needed more Bishops than one, seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline. When Mr. B. proveth the contrary, he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sense, and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City, that every Assembly for worship had one, if not more. The Dr's. Argument that he seemeth to glory in, p. 246. is of no value; it is, That if more Bishops than one could be in a City, the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented; this is either a great mistake, or somewhat else; for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery, the bare setting up of two Presbyteries, and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms; and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them, retaining the same Principles of Faith, and about Church-Order and Discipline, there had been no Schism: It is most false that these Schisms were merely about the plurality of Bishops in a City. The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus, who opposed the election of Cecilianus; the pretence was, that he had been ordained by a Proditor, and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office; Cecilianus being Tried, and Acquitted, both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils, Donatus and his party set up another Church, an Eldership, and People, in opposition to Cecilianus, disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus, and his Party, in admiting the lapsed upon repentance, and admitting the wicked as they alleged to the Sacraments. So that it is plain, that the Schism lay in this, That they set up another Churchway and Order, and consequentially to that, set up another Bishop and Presbytery, not beside, but in opposition to that which was before, and that without sufficient reason; upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome, and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds. Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus, and nullifieth his Church-Power, because post primum secundus esse non potest; but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop, or meeting of Presbyters under a Precedent without the Authority of the Church, or good cause for so doing. It is evident then, that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth, and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City; as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles, they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way; all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word, to wit, that all these Citations prove no more than this, that where a Church was settled, and sufficiently furnished (whether you take it for a single Congregation, or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a Precedent) it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church, whether of the one, or the other sort mentioned.  
Sect. 3. His second Observation is, That in Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop, there were several Congregations and Altars, and distant places. I contend not about the word Diocese, supposing that one Precedent of an Assembly of Presbyters, with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches; call that District by what name he will, the matter is not great: Our question is not about the Name, but the Power by which that District was ruled, whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters. But it is well known that Diocese, which now signifieth a Church Division, did in those days signify a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great, who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14▪ Dioceses, where all Africa was but one; see for this Heylin, Cosmogr. lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocese did often Signify a Parish or people of a Parish; neither do I contend about the word Altar, supposing the Dr. meaneth, places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated. Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ, the Christians were blamed by the Heathens, because they had no Altars; the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century, and not then neither, but figuratively: But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect, borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church.  
Sect. 4. For his Observation itself, I shall not contend about it, tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it, No Evid. for Diocese, p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold, unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power, or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocese. What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose, I shall mind, and no more: The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth (tho' all were true, the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear) will not prove Superiority of power in one Man; neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers, either to provide Ministers for them, or to Baptise them, or do other Church Acts for them in their need. This proveth neither Extension, nor Solitude of Power; far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra, in which were many Bishops, prove him to have been a Metropolitan; the Empire was divided into Provinces. If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country, it will not prove that they were under his Charge. Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him; the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them, and all their Churches, or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them; and so that he was more than precedent in their meeting, when they came together about the Affairs of the Church. These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity, by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoke of Domination.  
Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop, Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira; and these of Maraeotis. And 1. Epiphamus saith, that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches, especially those of Maraeotis. Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute, and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them; That this was an Act of Charity, not of Episcopal Authority appeareth, because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches, not a part of Athanasiu's Church, and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis, which Athanasius saith were subject to him. Next, Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria, which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it, but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria; but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village. Ans. Maraeotis or M●ria, as Ptolemy calleth it, is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉; I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake, which it seems had then few Churches, and Christians, and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline, with these of Alexandria, being very near to it; their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them, but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters, of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator. Subj●cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself, because men have set up such Bishops; but it cannot be made to signify the same in the Dialect of these times, unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops, which is not done by such an Argument as this; wherefore I deny the Drs, third Consequence that he draweth from this passage, p. 254. to wit, That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria, so that the whole Government belongeth to him. There is not the least shadow of reason for such an inference; his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meeting in Divers Assemblies, I meddle not with, it is nothing against us, whether it we●e so or otherwise.  
Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth, is out of Theodoret, which he saith, is plain enough of itself to show the great extent of Diocesan Powe●; he saith, he had the p●storal charge of 800. (he should have said 80) Churches, and that so many Parishes were in his Diocese. The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony, but without cause; for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century, and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ, and which had been kept more entire in former Ages. 2. It is much suspected by learned Men, that Theodoret's Epistles are not genuine, and the Dr. doth not deny that Heretics had feigned Epistles in Theodoret's name, as Leontius saith, which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true. 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches, but that he had been Pastor in them; the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him, and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase; the other hinteth no more power than is consistant with a party, every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth. 4. But whatever be in that, this showeth the extent of Theodoret's Power, as to place or bounds, but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power, and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop.  
Sect. 7. Before I proceed, I shall return to examine the Doctor's Allegations for Diocesan Power, p. 230. which I above referred to this place. He asserteth, That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian: This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it; to wit, That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him, and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place, as Bishop, and dischargeth the like to be done for the future. Lucian saith, that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance; but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop, and several Passages to this purpose. To all which, I. A. by denying the Consequence; Cyprian as I cited above, did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters: Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all? But it was solely in them; even so, that the Presbyters (especially that some of them, as the Dr. himself states the Case) might not do it without Cyprian, doth not prove that the Presbyters, and whole Church, were under his Government. It amounteth to no more but this, that in a Presbytery regularly constituted, especially, where they have devolved the Power of calling, and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed, and constant Moderator, it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline, without the rest, and particularly, without Consulting him whom they have so chosen. Beside, I will not deny but Cyprian showeth too much Zeal in this Cause, and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far, as afterward many did: He was a holy and meek Man, but such may be a little too high. To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus, commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage, that the Dr. citeth, showeth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed; in that not only some Presbyters took it on them, without a regular Meeting of the whole, but even Deacons meddled with it, which was out of their way. His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church, is wholly out of the way; for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power. That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop, proveth as little as the rest; for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings, and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office, which was not from the beginning. Cyprians appointing some to visit, when he could not do it by reason of Persecution, neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their Work by Delegates when they are at ease; nor doth it prove that these did any thing without the Presbyters; that Cyprian citeth tu es Petrus; and whatsoever you shall bind, etc. was to very good purpose, when some Martyrs invaded the Discipline of the Church; and i proveth, that as Christ gave the power of the Keys to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, not to the People; so he had given it to Cyprian and the rest of the Presbyters, not to the Martyrs. It had been well if tu es Petrus had never been more abused. He saith indeed, that the Church hath ever been governed by Bishops, but the Dr. must prove that he meaneth, by Bishops alone, as they are distinct and separate from the other Presbyters: The rest that followeth, that the Bishop is to govern, and give Account to God, that he is in the place of Christ; that a Church is a People united to a Bishop, do all agree very well, either with a Congregational Bishop, or Minister; or a Presbyterian Moderator, acting in parity with other Presbyters; and yet these are the Herculean Arguments from Antiquity, that men make such a noise with.  
Sect. 8. I now proceed with the Dr. to the third Thing, that he had undertaken; to wit, to prove, That such an Episcopacy as is practised here, and was so in the Primitive Church, (this Last he supposeth that he hath proved) is no devising a new species of Churches, nor repugnant to any Institution of Christ. To prove which, Sect. 11. he bringeth some of Mr. B's Concessions, which I neither yield, nor will vindicate. He bringeth also some Arguments of Mr. B's to prove that the ordinary governing part of the Apostolic Office was settled in all Ages: Wherefore, I must, for a little, leave the Dr. and Answer these Arguments of Mr. B's: But first, I take notice, that it is a Mistake in the Dr. and Mr. B. too, to call the governing part of the Apostle's Office ordinary: For 1. That is, to suppose the Thing in question; to wit, that it was continued in the Church; that they governed, and preached, is true; but that Officers that after were employed in governing, or preaching, can claim that power as succeeding to the Apostles in any part of their Office; and without other warrant we deny. The Apostles governed, and preached by another Commission from Christ, than men now do; and that both, as to the manner of it, the one being immediate, the other mediate; and as to the matter of it, their Commission warranted them to do many Acts in governing, and preaching, that others have no power to do, as giving Authoritative rules to all Churches where they came; ordaining, and censureing every where, going up and down to Preach every where, without a call from any Church, without being fixed any where; this power no Man can now pretend to: Wherefore I say, that Minister's Te●ch and Rule the Church not by virtue of Apostolic Office, or any part of it committed to them, but by virtue of another Office, distinct from that of the Apostles which they receive by their Ordination. 2. It is evident that the Apostles governing Power was not ordinary, because there was an ordinary governing Power in the Church even in the Apostles times, distinct from that of the Apostles, and exercised by other Men; tho' in subordination to the Apostles governing Power. The Presbytery did then Ordain, they did also Excommunicate, as was above showed, and the Apostles directed them so to do; and sometimes concurred with them, and sometimes they acted without them.  
Sect. 9 Let us now hear Mr. B s. Arguments, 1. We read (saith he, Christ direct. pt. 3. Question, 56. p. 831.) Of the s●●l●ng of that form (viz. general Officers as well as particular) but we never read of any Absolution, Discharge, or Cessation of the Institution. Ans. 1. If this Argument have any force, it will pr●ve the continuance of all the extraordinary Offices that ever were in the Church, Prophets, Evangelists, Workers of Miracles, etc. For we read not that ever they were discharged. Ans. 2. It is enough to Abolish and Discharge that Institution, that this Office was settled in the persons of some Men, immediately by Jesus Christ himself; and after their decease, He neither put others in their room immediately by himself, nor gave the Church any hint that such a thing should be done; but instead of that, he hath given sufficient direction for propogating other Officers in the Church in all Ages. Argument 2. If we affirm a Cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of Mutabillity, as settling one form of Government for one Age only, and no longer. Ans. I hope Mr. B. will not say that a change in God's Works, yea, or Institutions, doth argue mutability in God, are not all the Old Testament Institutions now changed? Were not Prophets, Evangelists, Men gifted with divers tongues, etc. His Institutions, and yet now ceased, and no other proof can be given for their Cessation then what we give for the ceasing of Apostles. Neither do we say they are ceased without proof, that they were by immediate Commission from God; that that now cannot be pretended to, and that the Lord hath hinted no other way of continuing such an Office in his House, nor that it should be continued, is abundant proof of this Cessation. Argument 3. We leave room for audacious Wits, accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastors, Sacraments, etc. and to say that they were but for an Age. Ans. There is not the least show of reason for this: for their Gospel Institutions have more abiding Warrant then Immediate Commission given by Christ to some to Administer them. Argument. 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World, Ma●h. 28. 20. Ans. 1. If this Argument prove any thing, it proveth too much; to wit, that only General Officers have that promise which I hope Mr. B. will not say. Ans. 2. It was spoken to General Officers, but the promise is not made to them alone, but to all that should be Employed in the work of Teaching, and Baptising. And these being particularly here mentioned, will prove that there shall be Teachers and Baptizers to the end of the World; but not that there shall be General Officers, as the Metropolitans, etc. that Mr. B. dreameth of to the end of the World.  
Sect. 10. The Dr. to improve these Arguments of Mr. B●. to his purpose, joineth with him the consent of the Ages, succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave successors in the care of Government of the Churches. Aus. Who doubteth of that; but the question is, to whom did the Apostles commit this care? we say to the Pastors in Common, he saith to Diocesan Bishops, this we deny that it can be proved, either from any Writing or Deed of the Apostles, or from the consent of the Ages next after them; that the Bishops were looked on as succeeding to the Apostles in the Government of Churches; we deny not (tho' we deny that they had that Office, or any part of it) but then the question is, whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them, had that Government by themselves, or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters, unless the Dr. prove the former, he speaketh not to the point. None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself, Iren. p. 308. to wit, That not Bishops alone, but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles, and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian, jerom, and Ignatius.  
Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters, as some allege: And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted, or was read in the Ancient Church. We do not allege that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters, for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people; but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them, that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed, in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop; and in other things to be observed in our progess. In order to making out what he allegeth, he proposeth two things to be enquired into, Sect. 12. First, What power is left to Presbyters in our Church. 2. What Authority the Bishops have ●ver them. For the first, he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church, and that because they have a place in the convocation, where rules of Discipline, Articles of Doctrine, and forms of Service are determined. How small a matter this is (tho' the Dr. aggravateth it) I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbiased, and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation; it consisteth of two Houses, in the upper House are only Bishops, and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing, they can reject it; that is, 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel, have no more power than any other 25 of near 9000 (so many Churches are reckoned in England) take to themselves as much power as all these. Then for the lower House of the Convocation, it is made up of Presbyters indeed, as the Dr. saith; but many, if not most of them, such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have, as Deans, Arch-deacons, and other Cathedral Officers; here also the Presbyters are bereft of that party of power that is their due; besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted, often not above two or four in a Diocese. If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops, and their Creatures in the Convocation, let any judge: He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination, or giving Orders, as he calleth it, to wit, That by the Rules of this Church; four Presbyters are to assist the Bishop, and are to examine the persons to be ordained (or the Bishop in their presence) and to join the Imposition of hands. Here also their power is swallowed up, for all the rest have equal power with these four, yea, with the Bishop himself, which is wholly taken out of their hands, and managed at the Bishop's pleasure, who chooseth these four, beside, that this is really, if ever practised, the person is usually examined, or said to be so by the Bishop's Chaplain, and the Bishop layeth his hands on him.  
Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges, p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topics. The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter, to wit, Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency (saith the Dr.) had both these been, if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop. A goodly Argument, some think it a great Impertinency, and Boldness too, in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction, as to any part of Church Power, between a Presbyter and a Bishop. His next topic is, the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination, where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office, and greatness of the Charge, calleth them Pastors, that they are to Teach, Premonish and Feed, and provide for the Lords Family, etc. This indeed implieth their Preaching Power, but there is not a word of Ruling Power, which the Lord joined with it, but the Bishops do separate them; and for all this saying over their cold ●esson at the Solemnity, the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by virtue of this Ordination without Licence; so that their Ruleing Power is taken away, and their Preaching Power restraine● at the Bishop's pleasure. This is a crossing of Christ's Institution, who made them equal; neither is it any more wonder that the Bishop's practice should cross his own Exhortation, then that he should cross the Scripture, read on that occasion. His third Topick, is the ordained Persons Oath, to minister Word and Sacraments, and Discipline, as this Realm hath received the same. Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned; but the following words show the meaning, for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers, into whose hands he put it, but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less than I say, when he saith, That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop; I hope the Reader will by this time see, that the Presbyters in the Church of England, have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers; and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government, than that which Christ Instituted, or the purer primitive times knew.  
Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth, is, Sect. 13. to show what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration, which he placeth in Government, Ordination, and Censures; and he saith, the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not, but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so. Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind; that she did believe so, I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it, but the contrary I have proved above, wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion, p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly; it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves, and therefore there was no Bishop, but Bishops', and Presbyters were one; but as the Apostles went off, Bishops came to be settled in the several Churches, whom the Apostles settled some sooner, some later; if which (saith he) we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus. And by this he would reconcile the different Testimonies of Antiquity, the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured, for which Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian stand, and with this consisteth all that Jerom, and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first; to all this I repone these few things. 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived; the contrary I have proved, as to Ordination, and Excommunication in Corint●, and Th●ssal●ni●a, that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers, though superintended by the Apostles. 2. That they settled Bishops any where, either in their own time, or left order for it to be done after their decease, is also false. The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore; for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute, to wit, that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers; and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such, fully answered. This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man, he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion, to wit, that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist. This we deny, the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach, or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles; he saith, Th●ir removes do not invalidate this, because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops, or but few: I wish he had instanced in one, He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such, and for unfixed Bishops, we read of none such either in Scripture, or Antiquity, 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it; for it doth not answer what Jerom, Augustine, Chrisostom, and others say of the Divine institution of parity; neither is it true that Irenaeus, Tertulian, and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops.  
Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now, Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove, p. 244, to wit, that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth not overthrow their Constitution. In this I shall not oppose him, and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance, and consider what he saith in Justification of it, and not as a ground of Separation, and shall pass over what he saith, that is of that tendency. He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper, because none are to be admitted, but such as are confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed, and Presbyters are judges in that, because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop, who is to confirm them; and this, he saith, would (if rightly observed) keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations. Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord, for if one be ready to be confirmed, the Presbyter cannot keep him back, tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter, nor Confirmed by the Bistop; and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it: Again, when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent, if he prove never so profane or careless, the Presbyter cannot debar him; the Bishop's Confirmation admiteth him, let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member, when they fall into gross Sins. 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in managing of Christ's Ordinances, to say that his Testimony is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted; to wit, Confirmation. 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission; it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth. 4. It is an odd way of Admission to God's Ordinances, not precedented in Scripture, nor purer Antiquity, that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted, and another should admit him; the Bishop must act implicitly, and the Presbyter is only his informer, where this way of Discipline had its use we know; the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers, or to justify the Discipline of the Church of England.  
Sect. 15. Next, Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members, and showeth out of the Rubric before the Communion, that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend, and if he continue obstinate, ●e may repel him from the Communion, yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary. Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Ministers, for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop, more than the Bishop is accountable to him? Christ made them equal. 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any, it should be done by Presbyters in Common; the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication, either greater or lesser by a single person, except it were by an Apostle. But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power, that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person. 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand, what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is, it is not the greater Excommunication; and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church. I deny it not to be a Church censure, but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it, that Christ hath given to all his Ministers, to be exercised by them in Common. The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter, that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline. But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not meddle, it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them; it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Usurpation, that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate, and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend; whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop, than to any of the Presbyters.  
Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law, if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name, not censured by the ordinary; to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers. 1. What need public Admonition by name? Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that? It is enough it be done privately, and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves, and abstain if they saw cause; and the same Augustine saith, that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church. To this I reply, 1. How will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubric; will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion? 2. Discipline is a public and Authoritative Act; and another thing then, private dealing with a person, the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all, 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching, in that by Discipline reproofs are applied to the person, in Preaching they are in more general Terms: Now how this should be without public nameing the Man, I know not. 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. allegeth; it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercised, because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men: But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publicly, and personally inflicted on Offenders; and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn, hic & num, without fault, a●d where it is faultily forborn, it doth nullify the being of a Church; yet it must not always be forborn. His 2. answer is, If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law, whether the Minister ought to admonish publicly, and debar in that Case? Reply; why doth the Dr. make the Rubric, and the Law thus to clash, especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubric are settled by Law? And he doth by this fairly yield, that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law, a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come. Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something, and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing, parturiunt montes.  
Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself, Sect. 16. that the neglects, and abuse of Discipline among us, are too great to be justified, and too notorious to be concealed. To this he hath several Answers. The 1. is, That the question is, whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches; this I pass, for I think it doth not. The 2. is, It is easier to complain of this, or separate, then find out a way to remedy it. We propose the Scripture remedy; to wit, to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common. The 3. is, That ther● is not that necessity of Church Discipline, as in the primitive times, the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders, and so to vindicate the honour of the Church: And to confirm this, he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose. Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism; to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tu●es petrus, and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy, even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors, as Augustine, Theodoret, etc. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrate's disposal. But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus, and his followers, proving that the Church and Republic, are distinct Societies, though made up of the same Persons; that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World; that the Rules, Laws, Punishments, and immediate ends of Church-State are different. Let him no more tell us of the Church of England, but of the Civil Laws of England; as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed, and ordered by. I shall not digress to refute this Assertion; but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ, and his Apostles, who gave all their directions about Church Affairs, to Churchmen, and not to the Magistrate.  
Sict. 18. His Fourth Answer, is, that Excommunication by Protestant Divines, is not left to a Parochial Church; I do not plead for that; but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow, a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline: The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that mi●d. It is false, That among us a Minister (I mean with his Elders) can only admonish, not repel from the Lords Supper. Why, (saith he) may not our Ministers be obliged to certify ●he Bishop, as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery. Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters; and Discipline in the Apostolic and Primitive Church, was exercised by a single person. If the Dr's principle be true; I think it is fitter to certify the Justice of Peace, than either of both. What he saith of the African Churches, is answered above. Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them. The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery, by the declining of him, is meant declining of them. The Inconveniences that he allegeth, by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation; we eat by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance, to a meeting of Pastors. But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship, it could hardly be so ill managed, and made so ridiculous and contemptible, as it is now in the Hands of Bishops, or rather their Servants, in England. It is well known how solemn, and terrible it is, as practised (which is seldom) in Presbyterian Churches; and how it hath tamed some stouthearted Sinners, without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it. I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments, as he doth against Parochial Discipline; to wit, That there are no certain Rules to proceed by; no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication; no method of Trial; no security against false witness; no limitation of Causes; no liberty of Appeals, besides multitudes of other Inconveniences. Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church, without a Book of Canons; such reflections on the Word of God, are very unbecoming; a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers, how to behave themselves in the House of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfy him in all these; and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer. But he might have considered, if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible (and if he have not, his Will must be his Law) why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery, respective take the help of them. He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature (so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Style) would prove more Tyrannical, than any Bishops Court. It may be so, if managed by bad men; but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by, it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners, whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke, And it could never be so grievous to men's Persons and Estates, as the Bishop's Courts; for these we meddle not with. His fifth Answer I say nothing against.  
Sect. 19 He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline; even supposing every one left to their own Consciences, as to their fitness for the Communion; he saith, 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves; and they that come are usually the most devou●. 2. If Debauched Persons come, it is upon some awakening of Conscience. Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience. 3. He saith, This doth not defile right Communicants: That is true; and therefore it is no cause of Separation; but it is the Church's fault, and should be amended. 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches, and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline. This is no imitable Example.   

SECT. V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated.  
HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy, I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some; to wit, the National Constitution of the Church of England. I have above declared, that I look on this as no ground for Separation; yea, nor cause of complaint, if it be taken sano sensu. Though I think every organised Congregation hath a governing power in itself; yet this power is not Independent, but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches. These Associations may be greater or smaller; one contained in another, and so subordinate to it, as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow; and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation, containeth all the Churches in it, and may all meet in their representatives, for the governing them all in common. This we own as a National Church; wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is, for National, and Provincial Officers in this National Church, Arch-bishops, and Bishops, put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these, and I shall contend no further. I shall not then meddle with the substance of this his Discourse; but only note a few things.  
Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of, is, p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolic Function in the Hands of twelve Men, to be an Argument against Church's Power of governing themselves. This proveth nothing; for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed, which is an abiding thing; not by their own governing the Church, which ceased with them. Next, p. 290. he saith, the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, is, Matter of Fa●t, attested by the most early, knowing, honest, and impartial Witnesses; which I deny and have disproved. The next remark shall be upon, p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together, and becoming one National Church (he shuneth mentioning a Primate under, and in whom they unite) and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Usurpation, and and Universal Head of the Christian Church; by its being intended for the good of the whole so united, and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution, and not usurping the rights of others, nor assuming more than can be managed. This, he saith, an Universal Pastor must do; and he therefore mentioneth this, that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justify the Papal Usurpation. I cannot, for all this, see, that it is more justifiable, or consistent with Christ's Institution, to unite a National Church under a Primate, than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope: Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted, and so a greater Evil, than the other; but magis & minus non variant speciem, To clear this, I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth, in their uniting under a Primate; and consider whether they do agree better to him, than to a Pope. The First is, it is intended for the good of the Whole, so United. If we judge by Intentions; no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also; and is de facto as much pleaded by them, and with as specious pretences. And if we consider the reality of the thing; sad experience showeth, that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole; but is improved to Tyrannising over men's Consciences; and Rending, and Harassing the Church, for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men.  
Sect. 3. The Second, This Union is no way repugnant to Institution. This he should have proved; we deny it: Let him show us more Institution, or warrant for a Metropolitan, than for a Pope. If we should own. Bishops as Successors to the Apostles; yet an Archbishop, a Metropolitan, a Patriarch, a Pope, must still be beside Institution, except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles, and so be for Peter's Supremacy. The Third is, That in this Union there is no usurping the Rights of others. I say, there is, as really as there is in the Papacy; for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers, to govern the Church in equality of power with the rest; this is taken from them, and put into the hand of a Bishop; and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters, the Primate usurpeth from him, and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans, and Patriarches, that they had usurped from these under them. The 4th. is, not assuming more than can be managed. Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctor's understanding, to see, that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage, as really as the Primate or the Patriarch; yea, or the Pope doth. For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments, and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person, no more can a Primate to a whole Nation, nor a Bishop to a Diocese consisting of many thousands of People, and hundreds of Congregations. And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy, for Word, and Sacraments, and by his Chancellors, Archdeacon's, &c. for his Discipline, such as it is: And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church, by his and the Bishop's Courts: So can the Pope rule all Christian people (ut cunque) by Cardinals, Patriarches, Metropolitans, Bishops, by his Legate, or other Officers of his appointment. I challenge the Doctor, or any man, to show such a difference between a National Officer, and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church, as maketh one lawful, and the other unlawful. The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power, and more grossly abusing his pretended Church Power, will not make this difference. For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such, abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church.  
Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much, to the reason, or rather fancy, of Men; when he saith, That Union being the best way to preserve the Church, (the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution) we may reasonably infer, that whatever tendeth to promote this union, and to prevent notable inconveniences, is within the design of the first Institution, tho' it be not contained in express words. The Papists are dull if they cannot out of this principle hammer out a Pope, as well as the Doctor can frame a Bishop, or Archbishop: This Inference as thus loosely set down, is no way to be admitted; because Christ hath not provided for the unity, and preservation of his Church, by leaving it to men's will, or wholly to their reason either; but by his own Institutions to be wisely managed by the Officers, that he hath appointed in his house. Unity is then to be preserved, Divisions and Heresies to be prevented by the painful and faithful preaching of the Gospel by Christ's Ministers in their several particular Charges, by private, and public Instructions, and Admonitions: By their joint Concurrence in censuring, and drawing out the Sword of Discipline against stubborn Offenders: These are Christ's Institutions, and will be effectual when he is pleased to bless them; and this blessing we are to expect on his own appointed means, not on men's Devices: But we deny that Unity in the Church is to be preserved in any way that men in their Wisdom think fit, and particularly, that it is to be preserved by setting up Arch-Bishops, and Bishops in the Church: These being none of Christ's means appointed for that end. It is often seen that means thus devised of Men, by Crossing of Christ's Institution, either fail of their end, or by mending one evil make a worse: Peace, and Unity is sometimes (and in the case in hand) procured to the Church, with the bearing down of Piety, and shutting out of Purity.  
Sect. 5. I dislike one Particle of that Definition that he giveth of the National Church of England diffusive, p. 299. to wit, he saith, It is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation, consisting of pastors, and people, agreeing in that Faith, Government, and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm. Had he put the word of God instead of the Laws of this Realm, I should have fully assented to this description. But against that Particle I have two Exceptions. 1. The Civil Law is accidental to the Church, and is neither a constituent part of its essence, nor a necessary adjunct of it: The Church hath been without it, and I hope he will not say, That if the Laws were taken away, the Church is unchurched for that. 2. This makes the Church of England, a variable and mutable thing, as the Laws of men are, for if Presbytery, if Anabaptism, If Independency, Popery, Socinianism, and what sort of Religion you can name, either as to Faith, or Worship, or Government, were established by Law: They that are of that way should then be the Church of England; which is not only absurd, but a dangerous notion in such a critical time as this (I hope the Doctor did not design a fair retreat by this) if Popery (which God forbid) should come to be established by Law: The Papists were the Church of England, and all the Ties that men are under to the Church of England, by the●r Oaths, and Subscriptions, should oblige them to be Papists; and all the True Sons of the Church must turn with the Law, as the Weathercock doth with the Wind: This is like to be pleasing Doctrine to many. But I perceive the Doctor's design by this fine new notion is, To let men see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from Papists on the one side, and Dissenters on the other; which makes him wonder at them who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England. If Men wondered much before, they may wonder far more now, what is meant by the Church of England, when they see her painted in so changeable colours, as that she may be one thing now, and another next year, and another the third year, and so on. The Scripture placeth the Moon under the Church's Feet, and the Twelve Stars, Apostolic Doctrine, on her Head, as her cognizance and Glory, but the Doctor hath advanced the Moon to her Head, that she must be known by it; what he will do with the Twelve Stars I know not. He is more favourable to the Papists, and Dissenters, they are to be known by their Conformity, or Nonconformity to Scripture; not to the Laws of the Land: But if Papists or Dissenters should happen to get the Law on their side, what will that party be that is now the Church of England? It seems the Doctor is fond of this notion, for he hath it up again, p. 300. to the question, how comes it to be one National Church: He answereth, because it was received by the Common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament, as other Laws of the Nation are, and is universally received by all that obey these Laws. And thus he cleareth our Mists about the Church of England. He had debated much with Mr. B. owning a Christian Kingdom, but not a National Church; but here he homologateth all that Mr. B. had said, for the Parliament owning the Faith, maketh a Christian Kingdom, but it is some other thing that maketh a National Church, to wit, the Collective Body of all the Congregations of a Nation agreeing in the same Faith, and Worship, and Government, as it is held forth in the Word of God. If the Doctor say, thi● leaveth room for every party to call themselves the Church; for all pretend to have the Word on their side. I answer, This is not to be denied; for till the Lord cure our Divisions about truth, and about his Ordinances, we are not like to come to a decision of that question, Who is the Church? For all Congregations are parts of the Church; and these that are nearest to the Scripture rule are the truest part of the Church: The Apostle decided that Controversy, who is the Circumcision, (the Dialect of some in that time, for who is the Church) not by the Laws of men; but by the truth of God that they owned, Phil. 3. 3. The Doctor hath found out a new Mark of the Church that B●llarmine hath not, (though he hath more than enough) to wit, They that have the Law on their side are the Church.  
Sect. 6. He telleth us that the representative Church of England is, the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult, and advise about matters of Religion. This is saith not of the Convocation at Westminster; but of the Consent of both Convocations. Here I observe, 1. That the Law of the Land is so constitutive of a Church to this Author, that without it there is neither diffusive, nor representative Church. Then what becometh of the Apostolic Church, and that of the first 300 years, and of the Greek Churches under the Turk; yea, and of the Protestant Church of France, where their Prince is not only Christian, but most Christian? And yet his Law does not favour that Church. 2. I have showed before that the Convocation can make no Church National representative: The Presbyters, and Churches of the Nation being so insufficiently represented there. 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations, that never meet personally together, can be called a Church, or National representative Church: I thought a Church had been a Me●ting, not a consent of men: A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts; not a mental consent about them: Bodies are requisite to make a Church, as well as Souls.  
Sect. 7. I ple●d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholic Church; though an Oecumenick Counsel, if it could be had, might better challenge that Name than the Pope; and I think Christ's Headship over the Catholic Church d●th not answer to what is debated about, to wit, a visible power, super-intending all the Inferior Church powers on earth. We own a Catholic, diffusive, visible Church; but wish, rather than hope for one representative; for we are persuaded, the Pope hath no title to such a headship. But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England: I have showed that consent cannot stand in this room; and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Presbyters summoned by the King's Writ, whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament. Against this National Head I object, 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation; of which before. 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations, and so there must either be two Churches of England, or the one Church of England must be Biceps, and so a Monster. 3. This consent or Convocation (call it what you will) is not a regent head of the Church of England, it meddleth only with making rules for Government (which is none of the Church's work, she is only ministerially to execute Christ's Laws) but doth not govern; by receiving Appeals, censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches, inflicting Censures, etc.  
Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England, be Divine, or Humane. The Dr. answereth, Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule; but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed, as agreeable to the Word of God. This, I conceive is not to answer the question; he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth: We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England, (which he mentioneth) if the Magistrate own them, have civil Privileges annexed to Church Orders, but that is still wide from the question, whether these Orders be Divine, or Humane. Doth the Church, or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship, devised by Man, and place their unity in that? It remaineth then still, that if the National Unity of the Church of England, be made by Divine Rules that either are expressly, or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it, and will in all these join with it; but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture; if we cannot join with them in so doing, we do not separate from them, but they in so far separate from us, and from all the pure Churches of Christ.  
Sect. 9 He maintaineth, p. 305. against one of his Opponents, who had objected, That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules, teaching Signs, and Symbols, etc. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order, and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God, and that all settled Churches are for this, I reply. 1. He doth not answer to the Objection: I hope all Rules for Order, and Decency are not about Foederal Rites, and teaching Symbols: Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one, but not the other. 2. It is false. that all settled Churches appoint Rules for such Order, and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies, teaching Symbols, and such like. 3. It is also false that all settled Churches appoint Rules of Order, and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion; so as to exclude all from their Privileges, and to incite the Magistrate to punish them, who do not conform to these Rules (as he allegeth) other Churches use to rule by holding forth light, and Persuasives, not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men: Nor do they concern the Magistrate, but where some notable violations of the Law of God, otherwise not to be restrained, doth require it. 4. It is a false supposition, that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones, are not repugnant to the Word of God; but this is not the place of that Debate.   

SECT. VI The People's Right of Electing their Pastors.  
THe last of these four Pleas, that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head, and which he allegeth, some make use of for separation, is, That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors: This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation; though I reckon it a notable Grievance, and earnestly desire a redress of it, and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right, against them that take it from them. But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church, against the Doctor's Assaults. But before I come to this, I shall show 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors. 2. From whom they Derive it. 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right.  
Sect. 2. To show what this Right is, I assert, 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor; nor to elect him to it, unless either it be their own gift, or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them. It is Election to the Office, not to the Benefice, that we debate about; which if the Doctor had considered, he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse. It is true, the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church, so as the person, regularly chosen, may enjoy the Benefice; but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing, there is no Remedy; the people must either choose the man that may have the maintenance, if he be tolerably qualified, or they must provide for him themselves. And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms, That he have the choosing of the person who shall enjoy it, the Church should either reject it, and provide for their Minister another way, or choose the person that the Patron presenteth. But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church, devised in Satan's Kitchen, saith Beza, confess. fid. c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights, and in that which concerneth their Souls: A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth. And it had been less blame-worthy, if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift to themselves, than thus to prelimit the people in that which so nearly concerns their Souls; and to make that but an Accessary (to wit, the charge of Souls) which should be the thing principally minded: As now the Living is. 2. The Magistrate, or Patrons electing of a Minister, may give him a Title to the Living; but it can never make him the Pastor of such a people, nor fix a Relation between him, and them, of Pastor, and Flock: For it is wholly Foreign to the Church as a Church; it is a thing of Worldly concern, and therefore can never found that Relation, which is an Institution of Christ in his Church. 3. We do not deny, but when the people have chosen a Pastor, and the Presbytery hath ordained him also, the Magistrate may Imprison, Banish, or otherwise punish him, so as he is consequentially restrained from the exercise of his Ministry among that people; if the man be guilty of a civil crime (of which the Magistrate is Judge) but we deny that this Act doth dissolve the ministerial relation between that Pastor, and People; that cannot be done but by the Church 4. We do not so put Election into the hand of the multitude, as either to exclude the Eldership that is among them; or to exempt the people from their guidance in this: The Eldership ought to regulate this Action; yet so, as it be not done without the consent of the generality. 5. We are far from saying, That the People by their Election, doth make the Elected person a Minister; that is done by Ordination, which is in the Hands of the Presbytery. 6. We do not say, That this Elective power of the people is Arbitrary, and independent; they are to be bounded in it by the Rules of the Gospel, that set forth the qualifications of Ministers; and if they choose contrary to these, the Presbytery may reject the person, and refuse to ordain him. 7. We deny not but a part of a Church, or the whole Church, may forfeit this Right, as to the present exercise of it, by Ignorance, Scandal, Irreconcilable Contentions about the matter, and such like; in which case the power of Election devolveth into the hands of the Pastors of the Churches associated; I mean the Presbytery. Yet, the people's satisfaction should be endeavoured as much as is possible. 8. It is the Right of the people, which they ought not to be deprived of, nor restrained from exercising, ordinarily, nor without singularly weighty cause, to choose their own Pastors, and other Church Officers.  
Sect. 3. As to the Author of this Right in the people, I maintain, that it is neither from the Church's Determination, nor from any grant from the Magistrate; neither do I plead any Law of nature for it: For by Divine Institution (which is never contrary to the Law of Nature) it was otherwise in the Jewish Church. And though there be abundant reason for it, it being the privilege of Free Corporations, and other Societies, to choose these that are to govern them; and it being rational, that a Corporation, or person, may choose the Lawyer that they will intrust their Estates to; and the Physician in whose hand they put their life; so men should not be imposed upon to entrust the Conduct of their Souls to a person that they have not confidence in, and whom they cannot choose for that end. Yet, I say, we do not lay the stress of the matter on Humane Reason, but on Gospel Institution: I affirm then, that this is the Institution of Christ; that it is the order that he hath appointed in the Gospel, that people should have liberty to choose their own Pastors, and other Church Officers.  
Sect. 4. I am next to show the grounds that we have to think so. I shall prove this by showing that it was the constant practice in the Church, while the Apostles managed the Affairs of it, that Church Officers were chosen by the suffrages of the people; and I hope it will not be denied, that such practice is declarative of Christ's Institution. The first Argument for it, is from Act. 14. 23. where though Ordination, or appointing, be expressed in our Translation, yet the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; signifies a choosing by Suffrages; as the manner of the Grecians was, by stretching out or lifting up the hand (for that is the force of the Word) to declare their Votes. I deny not that this Word is sometimes used figuratively, for potestative mission, the effect, or consequent of Election; and that by one person, withot Suffrages, as Act. 10. 14. yet it is very rare that the Word is so used: And it is evident, that the Word is most commonly used in this sense; of all the Instances that Scapula in his Lexicon, giveth of the use of this Word, not one of them is to the contrary. And it cannot be Instanced, that ever this word is used for laying on of hands; lifting up (which is the force of the Word) and laying them down, being so opposite, it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other. Neither is it fit to seek for the Figurative signification of the Word, when the proper signification may be admitted. It is objected against this use of the Word here, that they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them, not to themselves, that is, the Apostles to the people ordained Elders. Answ. It cannot be denied, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used indifferently for them, or themselves; and why it may not here be understood of themselves, I see not; so as that here is denoted the Action of appointing Elders for the people, in which the people had a hand by Election, as the Word here importeth, and the Apostles had a hand by Ordination, as can be proved by other Scriptures? But if we should turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them, the sense may run plainly thus; the Apostles appointed by Ordination, Elders for the people, upon their Electing them by Suffrages. It is no strange thing in Scripture to see divers Actions expressed by the same Word, where one is the consequent of the other, as Is. 38. 17. Thou hast Loved my Soul out of the pit of corruption, i.e. delivered it, because thou loved it: Also Act. 7. 9 The Patriarches are said to sell Joseph to Egypt; where both their Actions, and the Actions of the Midianites who carried him to Egypt, and there sold him, are included in one Word. Many Instances of this kind of Synthesis may be seen in Gl●ss. Philol. Sacr. lib. 3. tract. 3. p. 229— It is also objected, that these are said to Ordain who commended the people to the Lord; that is, the Apostles, and that the Apostles are spoken of all along in the Nominative Case, and not the people; and therefore they must be the Actors meant by this word. Answ. We deny not the Apostles to be Actors meant in this Word, as the Patriarches were in the Word, Selling to Egypt, Act. 7. 9 but we say the people's action is also included, in the force of the Word; to wit, their Voteing by lifting up their hands; which in no reason can be applied to the Apostles, being but two men, the mater needed not such a way of Voteing between them. I conclude, this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church, the people respective choosing their Pastors, and the Apostles Ordaining them, it is clear to have been generally the practice of these times, and so the Institution of christ.  
Sect. 5. Argument 2. The Apostles were so careful; yea, rather the Lord was so careful, to preserve this right in Election or ordinary Officers; that when Men for extraordinary Work were to be sent forth, the People's choice was not neglected. Hence two were chosen by the Multitude, and presented to the Lord; that by Lot the Lord might choose one of them to be an Apostle Successor to Judas, Act. 1. 23. and Mathias being chosen by Lot, it is said of him, ver. 26, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was reckoned by Votes, among the Apostles, and Act. 13. 1, 2. the Lord choosed Barnabus, and Paul for a special Service; but he would have the Votes of the Church for it. If the Lord thus condescended to take the present consent in such a matter; is it fit for Bishops or Patrons to neglect them, and obtrude Men upon them, whether they will or not? Argument 3d. When ever any extraordinary piece of work (I mean such as was not daily exercise) was to be put into the Hands of Ministers, without a special Revelation; they were chosen to it by the Suffrages of the People, as appear by. Act. 15. 22. where Judas, and Silas are sent to Antiech, about carrying the Decrees of the Synod at Jerusalem, and backing them with their Doctrine. So 2 Cor. 8. 19 23. Some are chosen by the Churches to accompany Paul in carrying a Collection to the Jews in Judea; and are called the Messengers of the Churches. Argument 4th. The Deacons were appointed to be chosen by the People, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, also the other Church Officers see, Act. 6. 2, 3. It is a frivolous Answer; that it doth not follow, that they should choose their Pastors, because they may choose the Distributers of their Benevolence. For, 1. both are Church Officers, instituted by Christ: In this then they are alike. 2. It were a less matter, that people were imposed on in this lesser concern; than in that of greater consequence; and if the Lord have taken care, that they should be satisfied about the one, much more that they should be satisfied about the other.  
Sect. 6. Our 5th. Argument, is from the concurrent Testimony of the purer primitive times; which we the rather use, because our Brethren lay so much weight on this for the Power of Bishops, it should not be neglected by them in the matter of Election; and that of other Church Officers. Also, because nothing of Church-Ord●r is more clearly, and frequently, and unanimously in the Writings of the Ancients; nor did longer continue untaken away, even in the degenerate Ages of the Church; so that we may reckon Patronages, and obtruding Ministers on the People, among the Novelties of Popery. I shall in the first place bring some Canons of Council for this: Theodoret mentioneth an Epistle from the Famous Council of Nice, to a Church in Egypt; in which are these words, Dignum est vos potestatem habere & eligendi quem libet & eorum nomine dandi quem clero St. Digni. And after, si quum vero con●igerit requiescere in Ecclesia, tunc pro vehim honorem defuncti eos quem nuper Assumpti St. solummodi si videantur digni, & populus eos Elegerit. The Synod Constantinopolit. in an Ep. to Damasus, and others, show that they had ordained Nectarius— cuncta decernente pariter civetate, and that they had ordained Flavianus, omni Ecclesia parriter decernente. Hist. inpert. lib. 9 c. 14. Also, 4. Carthagin. cau. 1. It is required that a Bishop be Ordained, cum omni consensu Clericorum, & Laicorum, & Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 22. Nullus ordin●tur Clericus sine Episcopi examinatione & populi Testimonio. Also the Tenth Canon of Council. Cabilonens; (which was in the middle of the Seventh Century) hath these words, as they are in Caranz. Summa Concil. Signis Ep●scopus de quacunque Civitate fuerit defunctus, non ab aliis nisi a come. provinicialibus, clero, & civibus suis, alterius habeatur electio sin autem aliter fiet, ejus Ordinatio irrita habeatur. Here the want of Popular Election is held to make void Ordination.  
Sect. 7. Another sort of Testimonies out of Antiquity, are the Decrees of Popes; it was of old the Canon Law, that the People should have a Hand in Election of Ministers, Bishops, and others. Anacletus, who lived very near the Apostles time, hath these words in one of his Epistles, cum ejectionem summorum sacerdotum sibi Pominus reservaverit, eorum electionem tamen benis sacerdotibus & spiritualibus populis concessit; Caelestinus primus; who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century, hath these words, nullus invitis detur Episcopus cleri plebis, & ordinis consensus requiratur. Galasius about the 500 year decreed, Electionem Episcopi esse totius Ecclesiae. Also, Stephanus, Pecretat. didst 63. saith, Electionem non solum ad spiritual●s, sed etiam ad Paicos pertinere. And L●o Magnus, Anno 440. dist. 63. is plain, and full to this purpose. So Gregorius Magnus, about 590. frequently writeth to this purpose. I instance only his Letter to Scholast●us; H●rtanum Magnitud●nem vestr●m, ut cer●ocantes p●iores vel pl●bem civitatis, de electione alterius Sacerdotis cogites, and when in case they found not one, he desireth they may send three to Rome, to consult about it, adding quorum & judicio pl●bs tota consentiat. Hadriarus, who lived near the end of the Eighth Century, in an Ep. to Charlemagne, commendeth Canon's Olitanoes, and saith, at elect●ones he caused to proclaim the consuetudo Olitana; to wit, Plebs & clerus Ecclesiae illius simul consistens, elegerunt sibi Episcopum.  
Sect. 8. Also particular Fathers have frequently given their Vote for this privilege of the People. Cyprian Ep. 3. often mentioneth his being chosen by the Suffrage of the whole Church of Carthage, and in his Ep. de Martial. & Basilid; he saith, Plebs in sua potestate hab●t eligendi dignos sacerdotes. And he saith, Idemvidemus de divina Authoritate descendere. And he excuseth himself very carefully, that in a case of necessity, he had chosen Aurelius to be Reader in the Church, without the Knowledge, and Consent of the People. Tertul. apol. cap. 39 saith of the Seniores that preside in their Assemblies, that is, the Ministers, Approbantur Suffragiis eorum quos reger●debent. Greg. Nazianzen; in a Funeral Sermon made on his Father's Death; discourseth much of this privilege of the People, Chrysostom. lib. 4. de Sacerdotio, is of the same mind. Also, Augustine naming Eracius, his Successor addeth this express caution, si Ecclesia Consentiat, and declareth, hoc esse receptum provatumque jus & consuetudine, ut tota Ecclesia sibi elegat Episcopum, aut in ipsum consentiat. Hierom Ep. ad rustic. Monachum, Foll. (292.) cum ad perfectam ae●atem veneris si tamen vita comes fuerit, & ●e vel populis vel pontif●x Civitate Elegerint agito quae Clerici St. He supposeth it as the received practice; that the People should elect. Ambros. Ep. 82. Electio & vocatio quae sit a tota Ecclesia, vere & certo est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi: Many more Citations might be added; but these may suffice, and abundance more may be seen append. ad Catalogue. Test. veritat. where this right of the People is deduced from the Days of the Apostles, to the vl Century, by Testimonies out of all sorts of Authors. That Author taketh notice of this, as an ordinary Clause in many of the Epistles, which Tinemeras, Archbishop of Rheims, in the Reign of Charlemagne ab omnibus debet eligi, cui debet ab omnibus obediri.  
Sect. 9 I shall now attend to what the Learned Dr. hath to say in the contrary of this right of the People, so divinely appointed, so anciently, universally, and long approved. He discourseth these three things to this purpose, 1. What inherent Power the People had▪ 2. How they came to be devested of it. 3. Whether there be sufficient Ground to resume it. One would think, that if this Power be from Christ; his other two parts of his discourse might have been spared: For who then could take it from them? And they always had a Right to resume it, being unjustly deprived of it. As to the first of these, his debate with Dr. O. about the People's Church-Power, and the Government of the Church being Democri●al, I meddle not with; we plead for this power in them, not all Church-power. But he cometh, Sect. 25. to this power of Election; for disproving of which, he undertaketh to make out six things: I shall examine them in order. But I think it had been more to the purpose to have answered the Scriptures, and Testimonies out of Antiquity alleged by the opposites, which he hath not done. The First of these is, That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon; that a Bishop must be blameless, and of good report, 1 Tim. 3. 2, 7. Ans. I have produced other grounds, and not made this either the main, or any ground of this Right of the People; for indeed that passage of Scripture doth direct the Electors; but doth not determine who should Elect. I deny not but some of the Ancients made use of that Scripture to this purpose, but they made use of others also; and having established the Truth on other Grounds, they might well apply this place as spoken to the People, to direct them how to manage that power of Election, that the Lord had given them. This is a sorry Shift to shun the Dint of Arguments, to pitch on that which is either no Argument, or a weak one, and to set up that as the only Argument; and so by beating it down, to Triumph.  
Sect. 10. He bringeth a passage out of Clem. on which he taketh a great deal of pains, to make it speak for him contrary to the manifest design of it. The passage is, The Apostles, Preaching through Cities, and Countries, did appoint the first Fruits; having made a Spiritual Trial of them, to be Bishops, and Deacons.— The Apostles foresaw the Contentions that would be about the Name of Episcopacy (i. e. saith the Dr. about the choice of Bishops) therefore they appointed the Persons mentioned, and left the Distribution of their Office with this Instruction; that as some died, other approved Men should be chosen into their Office: These therefore who were appointed by them, or other eminent Men; the Church being therewith all pleased, discharging their Office with Humility— cannot be justly put out of their Office. A Man of less learning than the Dr. might easily draw the quite contrary Conclusion, from these words of Clement; but it will require all his Skill, and more too; to conclude from them against popular Election. But thus he argueth; They were to be appointed by the Apostles; therefore not of the People's choice. Ans. Non sequitur: The Deacons were appointed by the Apostles, Act 6. 3. yet the People are to look out from among them, i. e. to choose; and the Apostles to appoint them, i. e. set them apart for their work. Many other Instances may be given; yet this Argumentation the Dr. useth again, pag. 315. as if it were a mighty Argument. He saith, it seems some of the People were Contentious, and endeavoured to throw out some of their Officers, which occasioned this Ep. Ans. This Ep. is clear, that the People may not cast out their Officers, doing their Work in Humility— but not a Word in it against their Electing of them, but clearly to the contrary; in these words, the whole Church being therewith well pleased, implieth, that it is not to be done without them; and what Hand they can have in placing their Officers, that doth not amount to Election, I know not. He saith, they took this course of Purpose to avoid Contentions. What course doth he mean? It cannot be meant of Obtruding Officers on the Church; for he saith, they must be well pleased. Therefore the Course must be appointing Officers Authoritatively by Ordination; who being so appointed, could not be ejected again, quemdiu se bene gesserunt, as appeareth by Clem. instancing the Blossoming of Aaron's Rod, to put an end to the Emulation among the Tribes; which was a Strife not about Election, but about changing of the settled Officers of the Church. He saith, all that the People had to do, was to give their Testimony. Clem. saith, they must be well pleased. And it is clear, that that excludeth obtruding ●astors on people, either by Patrons, or the Magistrate, or Bishop. He saith, it seems probable to him, that the reason of the Faction among them was, that some represented it as a Grievance, that those Officers were appointed by others, not chosen by them. Why this should seem to him, I know not; except that prejudice representeth things otherwise than they are; as coloured Spectacles do. It seemeth to me there could be no such thought among the People, because Clement supposeth the Officers to have been chosen by themselves; the whole Church being well pleased. That these Factious Men had no Objection against the Presbyters themselves; the Dr. Asserts, but he doth not prove: It is true, Clem. supposeth there was no Ground for Objection; and therefore they could not be cast out, while they were humble, quiet, ready, and blameless; but for all that, Factious Men will find fault, and pick quarrels, with the most innocent men.  
Sect. 11. He next bringeth Cyprian to plead against popular Election; that is, to plead against himself. For he saith, p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony, that it be done, sub populi. Assistentis conscientia; that by their presence, either their Faults might be published, or their good Acts commended, that so it might appear to be a just, and lawful Ordination, which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all: And after Cyprian saith, It came down from Divine Tradition, and Apostolic practice that a Bishop should be chosen, plebe present (not by the Votes of the people, (says the Doctor.) One would think all this time, the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause; and yet will outface plain light to defend it. Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all, and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes; if their presence, their Testimony, commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate, their knowledge, and assistance, can consist with Patronage, and obtruding of Ministers on the people, as a Master of a Flock setteth a Shepherd over his Sheep (it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor's Conclusion.) If these do not import the people's consent to be required; and so amount to Election; let any indifferent Reader judge. It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power, but maketh it a Divine Right; and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust, and unlawful: Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgement, there would be few Ministers in the Church of England; and so more cause for separation than he is aware of; but I do not improve his Testimony to that end. The Doctor, p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony, That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad, and choose the good; and yet hath the Brow to say, That this is no more than their Testimony; but if Testimony be choosing, we require no more but Testimony; It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus, proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people, to see what they had to say against them; and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors. For 1. This was never declared to be necessary, and appointing Governors unjust or unlawful without it, as it is in our case. 2. We have proved, that the people have power of Suffrage, and of choosing: which was not granted by Severus. That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo, is such an Argument against us, as showeth a very weak cause, especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing. For it is Election we speak of, not Ordination; in which we confess, the people have no hand, neither doth Origen say, That this Ordination could proceed without the people's being more concerned about the person, than standing by while he was Ordained; and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England, the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people.  
Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is, p. 318. That the people upon this, Assuming the power of Elections, caused great Disturbance, and disorders in the Church. To this I answer in general, 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election, whether on Christ's Institution, or any subsequent ground; if the latter let him show it, if the former, it is improper to say they assumed, what was ever their due: The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people, after that privilege had been out of their hand for some time. 2. There is no Institution of Christ, but inconveniences may follow on it, as long as sinful men have the managing of it: Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops, and Presbyters? Yea, of civil power in the hands of Magistrates; yea, of power of Election, in the hands of Patrons. It were easy to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose: Will the Doctor thence conclude, that all these should be abolished? 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced, as following on the people's Election of their Pastors, as of most other things. The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years, that this power of the people lasted unviolated; and that through all the Christian Churches. I do not deny but more there might be; but when so few occur as observable to a man of so great reading, it saith more against the Doctor's design, than all these Instances say for it. 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people, and leading them into Factions; and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy, in the degenerate State of the Church; and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds, and were in a mean condition; so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur, and imparity, than against popular Elections. As is evident from Ammian. Marcellin▪ whom the Doctor citeth, as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome, when the Contest was about Damasus, where he showeth, That they aspired to that Bishopric with all their might, considering how the Bishop was enriched, Oblationibus Matronarum, rode in Chariots, were Gorgeously attired, fared sumptuously; and saith, They might have shuned these inconveniences, had they despised this grandeur, and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces, whose humble carriage, poor fare, and mean habit, commended them to God and good men. 5. It is worth our Observation, that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ, when the Church was in her Integrity, and had not degenerated, as she did afterward. 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances, to wit, the Magistrate ought to suppress them; and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections, and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly, as they take the Sacraments, though people's privilege, from them that walk unworthy of them. When inconveniences fall in, we must take God's way not our own, to set things right again.  
Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all, the Doctor's Alledgeances on this head; but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were. For the ●st. Instance, the Disorder at Antioch, it was not as he representeth it, about the choosing of a new Bishop to a vacant place; but about putting an Arian Bishop (at least supposed to be so) into the place of Eustathius, who had long been peaceably in that place, and regularly chosen; but was injuriously deposed by the Arians. Neither was Eustathius chosen at last (as the Doctor saith) but rid out the Storm; and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Heretics. And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose. The next Instance is at Caesarea: The person that carried the Election was Basil, the Magistrates, and the worst of the people opposing him. Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth; and it cannot be justified; but cannot infer, that popular Elections should be taken away. Gregorius Nazianzenus' wish to that purpose, is unduly represented; it was, That the Election might be in the hands of the Clergy, and the more holy part of the people, and that not only, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefly. This doth evince that he looketh on the right of Election to be in them; and only wished, that bad men might be deprived of the use of that privilege; and so do we, when they abuse it: So it be taken from them orderly. The 3d. Instance is at Alexandria, where Dioseurus was chosen, and Proterius killed. This is a gross mistake, or misrepresentation. It was not at the Election; but long after, yea, Proterius' Murder was 5 or 6 years after; beside, it was done, and the Sedition raised by Heretics: Shall not the Church choose her Pastors now, because Papists would oppose it, if they be not kerbed? Of the 4th Instance I have already spoken; to wit, that at Rome about Damasus. What he saith of Chrysostom, Jerom, and others, complaining of people's unfitness to Judge, doth not prove his point: For all these Men were for popular Election, as I have showed above. Beside, that the Pastor's fitness is to be judged by the Ordainers, after the Electors have done their part.  
Sect. 14. His third thing is, p. 320. That to prevent these inconveniences many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the people, and Canons were made for regulation of Elections. For proof of this, he telleth us, that at Alexandria the Bishop was not only to be chosen out of the twelve Presbyters, but by them, and citeth for this Jerome, Ep. ad Enagrium, Severus, and Almacintus, and Hilarius the Deacon. Answ. 1. It is no wo●der the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters, and by them; for he was their Moderator, and had no power over the people, more than the rest had; as hath been showed above: If he can prove that he was chosen to be Pastor of his particular Flock without their consent, that were to the purpose. 2. This can make nothing for Patronages, or the Magistrate obtruding a pastor on the people, or a single Bishop doing it. 3. Jerom●'s words are, Presbyteri unum ex selectum in excelciori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant; he saith, not unum a selectum: Severus speaketh not a word of the Presbyters electing alone: What is said by Hilarius of the altering of the custom, is not who should Elect; but that he might be Elected either from among the Presbyters, or from any place else. What is all this against popular Elections? We find (saith he) Bishops Consecrating others (in the room of the deceased) in several Church●s, without mention of choice made by the people: and mentioneth several instances. A. A negative Testimony in this case signifieth nothing. The Election being the constant practice, might well be supposed, but needed not be mentioned. That Severus of Milevis, and Augustine named, their Successors is no proof, unless he prove that they were obtruded on the People without their consent: No doubt any man, more the Great Augustine, may name a Minister to the People; but this taketh not away the People's free consent or choice; which the Dr. doth not deny to have been had in both these Cases. Yea, Augustine himself took it ill, that Severus named his Successor, without acquainting the People, and therefore in his own case did acquaintthem.  
Sect. 15. What he allegeth out of the Greek Canonists (whom he doth not name, and so cannot be examined) that the Council of Nice took away the power of Election from the people; is inconsistent with the Epistle of that same Synod above mentioned; and therefore these Canonists are not to be believed: He citeth Concil. Anti●ch; to show that Bishops were sometimes consecrated without the consent of the People; which that Council doth not approve; but rather alloweth the people to reject such a one; yet they will have him to retain the Honour, and Office. The words are, Si Episcopus ordinatus, ad paraeciam minime cui est electus, accesserit, non suo vitio, sed aut axuia cum populus volet— hic & honoris sic & Ministerii particeps.— This seemeth to show the Election of the people to be necessary to a Man's officiating as their Past●r; whether it go before Ordination, or follow after it: The same Council, Can. 17. mentioneth the case of a Bishop, consecrated, and neglecting to go to his charge; which the Dr. improve●h to show, that a Bishop was not always consecrated in his Church. I deny not, that such abuses were committed: The Council doth not approve of such a thing; nor doth it hence follow, that it was ordinary, but rather the contrary; it is pity to see the Dr. put to such shifts, as to instance Gregorius, being made Bishop of Alexandria before he went thither; seeing this was done by the Arians, and he took possession by military Force, and it was disliked by the rest of the eminent Persons of the Churches. But the main thing that maketh this instance to be inimitable, is, that Anastasius was in the place, and by this means expelled. The next Instance of Basil ordaining Euphronius before the people's consent, was irregular; but that he behoved to have the people's consent before he settled there, maketh it wholly impertinent to the thing in hand. Nothing can be less to the purpose, than what followeth, of the people's pititioning the Metropolitan to Ordain their Bishop; for this supposeth their Election of him; and that the Metropolitan had power to refuse him, is no more than we allow to the Presbytery, who may reject an unqualified person, tho' choose by the people. The Dr. is not yet weary of Writing beside the purpose, wh●n he telleth us of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea, that a Bishop chosen by the people, taking possession without the Provincial Synod, was to be turned out: We say the same; because the people may Elect; but the Pastors must Ordain. This doth not show (as he allegeth) that the business of Election was in the East, brought into the Bishop's power, but only that the people's Election was not sufficient without the Bishops, and other Pastor's Ordination.  
Sect. 16. He next citeth Justinians Law; that the Clergy, and better sort of Citizen's name three to the Metropolitan; whence the Dr. inferreth, that the common People were excluded from the Election. Ans. 1. Justinians Law cannot make void the Law of God and they that have not given their Names to Erastus, do think that Christ's Laws, which are to be declared by his Church, and not Justinians Laws should take place in the Church of God. 2. It is not said they must present Three; but they might do it; but they might also present two, or but one. 3. It is not said, that the Clergy and better Citizens were to Elect; but they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to draw up the Decrees, as they were then called, wherein the Election was contained. 4. In another Law of Justini●n, it is appointed that the Election be made by the Inhabitants of the City. And I hope he will not impute Contradictions to Justinian's Laws. He next objecteth Concil. Laodic. can. 13. He doth not cite the Words, and I meet only with the Title in these Words, Deo quod non sit populis concedendum electionent facere eorum quam altaris Ministerio sit applicandi. Ans. If this be meant of excluding the People wholly, it is inconsistent with other Canons above cited, and therefore not to be minded. Therefore the meaning must rather be, that the Election is not to be left to the Rabble; but they are to be assisted, and directed in that Action by the Presbyters, and better-sort of the People. The Second Council of Nice, is next cited; but much amiss; for it is Ordination, not Election that is restrained to Bishops, i. e. not to be done without them; and Election is only taken out of the Hand of the Magistrate. That Second Council citeth for Conformation of their Decree, the Fourth Can. of Concil. Nice. 1. Where there is not a Word of Election by Bishops, but only of Ordination. He concludeth with Concil. Constantinop. 2. Can. 28. Carazanze hath it, 22. Whereas the Greek Church owned but Fourteen of these Canons; and the rest are looked on as a Forgery. Beside, That Council was in the end of the Ninth Century; when the Bishop of Rome had got very high; and therefore less to be regarded.  
Sect. 17. The Fourth thing the Dr. considereth, is, p. 323. That the Magistrate, when Christian, did interpose in this, as he judged expedient. Ans. We are not against the Magistrates interposing; to repress Tumults, assist the Oppressed, oppose unpeaceable Persons, etc. But the question is, Whether the Magistrate did take away the Election from the People, and did interpose generally; and when there was no special necessity for his interposing. 2. We deny not but some Magistrates did interpose against Right, and Reason; but quo jure did they do so. But let us hear his Instances; the first is, Constantine recommended to the Synod, two Men to choose either of them, or whom they should judge fit, without taking notice of the Interest of the People. Ans. 1. This is far from taking away the People's right, to deprive them of the present use of it, on occasion of their dissension. 2. How doth he prove, that no notice was taken of the People's Interest: That it is not mentioned, is no proof; it was so universally owned in those days, that it might well be supposed without mention. 3, Yea, the Emperor in his Ep. to the People of Antioch, doth mention it several times, as Eus●bius relateth, for he willeth them not to desire the Bishop of Anti●ch; but to choose one according to the Custom of the Church, as our Saviour had directed them. His next instance is, in a Dissension at Constantinople, about Paulus, and Macedonius. The Emperor Constantius put them both by; and put in Eusebius of Nicomedia. And after his Death, when the Oxthodox party choosed Paulus, the Emperor put him out by force, and put in Macedonius. Ans. Such Instances will be little to the Credit of his cause; for all this was done by a persecuting Emperor Constantius, for r●oting out the sound Faith, and planting Arianism; and was complained of by all the Orthodox, as an Encroachment on the Liberties of the Church. What followeth is far short of the point; to wit, the Emperor's restoring Athenasius, and several other Bishops, who had been duly Elected and Ordained, and by him thrust from their places. Next, Theodosius would have Nectarius made Bishop of Constantinople, when many of the Bishops opposed it. Ans. This maketh more against Episcopal Ordination, than against Popular Election. But that t●e people's Election was not here Impedited, is clear from the Synod at Ep. cited above, Sect. 6. where the consent of the whole City is mentioned. Next, Chrysostom was appointed by the Emperor to Constantinople, without the People, for Palladius doth not mention any consent, but what was subservient to the Emperor's determination. Ans. Whether the consent was Antecedent or Subsequent, if it was, it destroyeth his design. Beside, both Socrates and Sozomen do expressly m●ntion the people's Votes; and Palladius, whom the Dr. in this leaneth to, doth not deny them. Next, he saith, the Emperor would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen to succeed Sinsinnius; therefore Nestorius was brought from Antioch. Ans. It doth not follow that he was not choose by the People; and the Emperor laying this restraint on the People, is only, if at all, exc●sable, because he feared disturbance: Such pretences have often given occasion to Oppression. His last instance is, Proctus was made Bishop by the Emperor's order, before the Burial of his Successor. Ans. It is not proved that the People did not choose him, yea, the People had chosen him before Maximanus his predecessor got the place, and he being now dead, he might enter in without the Formality of a new choice. Let the Reader now judge, whether any Orthodox Emperor did ever disown this privilege of the People, either by declaring that the power was not in them, but in himself, or by interposing ordinarily, or without hazard of the Civil Peace, in the Elections of the Pastors of the Church; wherefore the Dr. in all this hath said nothing, that can conclude against this power of the people.  
Sect. 18. His fifth Consideration, p. 325. is, That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom, there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing th●n before. I suppose by the alteration of the Government of Christendom; the reverend Author meaneth the breaking of the Roman Empire, and the setting up of many Kingdoms out of it; which fell out in the latter, and very corrupt times of the Church: Himself dateth it from the endowment of Churches, by the liberality of the Northern Princes. Against this I argue, 1. This practice being so long after the Church's purity began to decay; and when Christian Religion was almost destroyed by the increase of Apostasies, and when Princes, and Prelates had, as it were divided the spoils of the Church between them; and rob the People both of their Rights, and many of the Ordinances of God, as to the purity of them; it hath no weight to conclude against the People's right of Election, which they had from Christ, and enjoyed in the purer Ages of the Church, for many Centuries of years. If this reasoning have any force, it will make as much for the Mass, Imagines, denying the Cup in the Lord's Supper to the People; and many such things, which I hope the Dr. will not argue for; tho' he unwarily says more for them, than w●●ld have been expected. 2. He acknowledgeth, p. 325. That this was obtained by Princes by degrees, and indeed it was very late before it became common; and the Power was wholly wrested out of the people's Hands. He confesseth that this way was not always observed in the days of Clo●harius in France (which of them he means, I know not; there were three of that Name; the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after) now if the Infancy of this usage was so late, and it grew by degrees; the adult State of it must be (as indeed it is) a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts.  
Sect. 19 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State, there was either greater reason than before, or any reason, for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church, as to take it out of the people's Hand. That there was no greater reason then before I prove, both because he cannot show us such reason; and also because before this, there were Tumults, and Confusions, which might require the Magistrate's interposition; and also because the Christian Emperors had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions, as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms. No difference in this can be assigned, either from any grant of Christ to the one, more than to the other; nor from sound reason. That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason, is none at all; to wit, The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally: For, 1. Did not the Emperors so too. Co●stantin's liberality was exce●ding great, which occasioned that saying, hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam, and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People. 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Privileges, from them that Christ had granted them to, more than jacob's Pottages was for Es●us's Birthright. It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine, and only fit for Simon Magus; that the Liberality of Princes, or others, to the Church, can entitle them to be Masters of her privileges. As there is no more reason now then before, so there neither was, nor is any reason at all, why Magistrates should m●dle with the Election of Church Officers; because it is the people's right, by Christ's Institution, and hath been owned by the Church, and the Magistrate for many Ages, as hath been showed above.  
Sect. 20. The Dr. saith, that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used, these privileges (in Election of Churchmen) of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people; but to be enlarged. This he insisteth much upon afterwards; alleging that the people of England, by their representatives in Parliament, have given away their power of Elec●ion, and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates, Bishops, and other Patrons. A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right; it was Christ's Legacy to them, and not alienable by them. It doth concern their Souls, not their temporal Estates, and such concerns are not at men's disposal. 2. I deny that this was done; people never gave away this Right; it was partly by violence, and partly by Fraud, wrested out of their Hands; what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away, wherein the People are represented; is a mistake; for the people are represented in Parliament, as they are Members of the Body Politic; and they instrust all their worldly Interests, and Lives, and Estates, to them whom they choose; and they may dispose of these, by making Laws to secure them; and also to take them away when the public good doth so require; but they are not there represented, as they are Members of the Church; neither do they, or can they, entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls, or the Church Rights, and Privileges: These Christ hath made Laws about, and no Man can make Laws about them; all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial, not Magisterial, as Acts of Parliament are; it is to declare Christ's Laws, and to put them in Execution; and Christ hath not entrusted Kings, nor Parliaments with these Affairs, but only his Ministers; and the people can entrust no other with them. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's, on which all of it is built, is his confounding of Church, and State, with Erastus; which is to mingle Heaven and Earth.  
Sect. 21. He saith, The Princes obtained by degrees, not only the Confirmation of the Election, b●t the Liberty of Nomination, with a shadow of Election by the Clergy, and others of the Court, as appears by the formula of Marculphus. Answ. Here is plain dealing, both to let us see what fraudulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right, by leaving a Shadow of Election, when the substance was taken away; and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Privilege, that they behoved by such Policies, to wind themselves into: And further, that it is so grossly evil, that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church; but must thus hide the shame of this practice; if they have a good Title, why leave they a shadow of Election? If not, why do they assume the substance of it? He ci●eth on the Margin, in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings; several Acts of Councils, as Concil. Aurelian. An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause, for Can. 3. (which I suppose is that he aimeth at) d●th barely name the King (whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth, so far as the peace of the State is concerned in t●em,) but expressly requireth the Election of the Clergy, and People; and again their consent, and moreover maketh this Election a clero & plebe, to be as it is written in the Ancient Canons, Concil. Aurelan. 2. Can. 7. doth also expressly mention popular E●ection, and Council Aurelian. 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent. And Concil. Aurelian. 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordained in his Church, to which he was Elected decreto: that was the ordinary Term for the Writing, wherein the people's Election was contained. And in all these Canons, there is not one word of the Magistrate, except in the first, as abovesaid. His Concil. Tarraco●. I cannot find, Concil. Tolet. 12. that he citeth, was in the end of the seventh Century; when Corruptions were come to a great height, and it was but provincial, it saith indeed, quoscunque p●testas regia ●l●gerit; but the people's Election is not exluded, though not mentioned; and there is an express salvo (it is the 6th. Can.) for the liberty of the Provinces, which cannot well be understood, but of the privilege of the people of the Province.  
Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests, between the Papal, and Regal power; and how the latter prevailed in England, and citeth several Acts of Parliament; as of Edward 6th. and others. A●sw. What doth all this prove? If two contend about a Third Persons Estate, and the one prevail against the other, do●h that give him a Title? We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about; and neither possession, ●or Acts of Parliament can take that right that Christ hath given to h●s people, and b●stow it on another. His Allegation that the people's consent is swallowed up in the Parliaments Act, is answered above. That this right hath been owned in the King from the first planting of Christianity in England, is said with more confidence, than any semblance of Truth, or shadow of Reason: That Edward 3d asserted it in an Ep. to Clement will not prove it; men use big words, sometimes instead of strong Arguments; and I believe that his Assertion was so far true, that from the beginning of Christianity he●e, the Pope had not that power which he had claimed, and which the King was debating with him.  
Sect. 23. He saith, p. 326. That the right of inferior Patronage is justly thought to bear equal da●e with the first settlement of Christianity in peace, and quietness. A bold Assertion: It must then have begun in the days of Constantine the Great. His proof of this is, Presbyters were settled in Country Cures, what then? In the First Council of Orange, express mention is made of Patronage, and it is reserved to the first Founders of the Churches: If a Bishop (saith the Dr.) built a Church on his own Land, in another Bishop's Diocese, yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved. When first I read this, I could think of no other Answer, but that this was far from what was to be proved. Christianity was settled in peace long before this time; for I doubted not of the Truth of a Citation, made by a Man of so much Learning, Reading, and Integrity; but I now find it is fit we should see with our own Eyes; for in that Cano● (it is the 9th. the Dr▪ calleth it the 10th.) there is no mention, expressly, nor implicit, of Patronage, nor presenting of a Clerk; only this Favour is reserved to the Builder of the Church, ut quos desiderat in re sua videre, ipsos ordinetis, in cujus civitatis terri orio est, vel si ordinati jam sint, ipsos habere acquiescat. It is evident that no contest between the People and the Bishop is here determined, who should choose the Clerk; but between the Bishop that builded the Church, and him in whose Di●cess it is built. The Builder of the Church is to have his desire, as to the Officers of the Church; and not the Bishop in whose Diocese it is; but it may be rationally thought that the Bishop's desire was not to cross Christ's Institution, nor t●e ancient Canons, in depriving the people of the Election. Such a desire this Councils could not grant him; nor is it rational to suppose, that they granted it. But it might be supposed, that t●e Builder of the Church might more influence the People (they being his own Vassals, or Tenants (as we now speak) then the other Bishop, in whose Diocese the Church was; and therefore the one is here decreed to have his desire, rather than the other. He saith this was confirmed by Concil. Arelat. 2. c. 36. it is (mihi) Can. 35. Now let any judge, whether this Canon doth affirm any such th●ng, or rather doth not speak plainly for popular Election: The words of it are, placuit, in ord●natione Episcopi hunc ordinem custodiri; ut primo loco, ven●litate, vel ambitione, su●inata, ad Episcopis nec nominentur; de quibus Clerici vel Lai●i Cives erga unum eligendi haebe●nt potestate. The Relative de quibus, is not Diacritick, as if some might be named by the Bishops (which is the only ground on which this Canon could be drawn into the Dr's design) for here Bishops, (not a Bishop) are mentioned; and the choice is of a Bishop; not a Presbyter, of whom a Bishop might be a Pa●ron; the Relative is then to be understood, Vnivers●lit●r, that the Clergy and L●ity have the power of choosing their Bishop, and therefore the rest of the Bishops must not name him.  
Sect. 26. He bringeth next the Constitutions of the Emperor's Zeno, and Jusiinian. I have above answered to this; they were out of their Line, when they meddled in these matters. The Citati●ns themselves I cannot examine; not having the Books; but if they be like what goeth before, it is little matter. He saith, this was setl●d also in the Western Church, as appeareth by the 9th. Council of toledo. Ans. 1. This Council was held, An. 650. saith the Dr. 656. saith Alstedius; this was in a time, when Corruptions in the Church were come to a great height. 2. In this Provincial Council were bu●●●xteen Bishops: With what face then can it be said, that what they did was brought into the Western Church? This it is to speak big words, instead of using strong Arguments. 3. The 1st. ●anon impowere●h the Heirs of Founders of Churches to prevent Dilapidations in those Churches. The Second impowereth the Founder himself (quum diu in h●c vita supe●stes extiterit) during Life, to have a care of these places, and to offer fit Rectors to ●erve in them. Where it is to be noted, 1. That the Founder might be presumed to be a good Man, by his liberality; and theremore trust might be reposed in him, as to this matter, but his Heirs who m●ght be profane, Heretics, or Atheists, are not entrusted with a concern of that nature, as it is with us: Where Papists must choose a Minister for Protestants, or an Atheist or Drunkard, etc. 2. It is not said, that the people shall not choose, nor must consent, but he was to offer a Pastor, which might well consist with the People's Election. All that followeth is nothing but a raking into the Dunghill of the latter Corruptions of the Church, to confirm this right of patronage, I therefore wave it.  
Sect. 27. He is now arrived at his last consideration, p. 328. Things being thus settled by general consent, and established by Laws, there is no ground for the people to resum the liberty of Elections. I hope the weight of this is already taken of in the judgement of the unbiased Reader; that there never was such general consent, nor Laws, till the Church was quite corrupted, and that these, if they had been, could not take away the people's right of Election; and therefore they are to own i● still. He giveth three reasons for this Assertion. 1. It was not unalterable. That is denied. 2. No inconvenience can be alleged against the settled way of disposing of Livings, but may be remedied by L●w, easier than those which will follow on popular El●ctions in a divided Nation. Ans. 1. It is not only inconveniences that we object, but crossing of Christ's Institution. 2. The Doctor hath nothing in his eye but Livi●gs; it is the Pastoral Relation that we mind, and the concern of Souls in it: we desire to know who put the power of disposing of these into the hand● of Pa●rons. 3. We deny his Assertion; for though the Law will restrain a Popish Patron from presenting a Popish Priest that is openly so, yet he may present a Protestant in Masquerade, or one of the meanest of men for parts, and other qualities of a Minister, which it is known they often do; when yet the Law of the Land can ha●dly re●ch the Man. And a Debauched Patron may present one who will not reprove him too severely, who yet may have qualifications to satisfy the Law. But the dissensions that arise among a divided people, may be remedied by Church Discipline; or if they break out into external disorders by the Magistrate. 3. B●cause (saith he) other reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence. Answ. men's Authority must not preponderate with us, against that of Christ. He proveth what he saith, 1. By Beza declaiming against popular Election. see this in B●z. Ep. 83. Answ. Beza speaketh only against Election by the people, without their church-guide to manage them in that action. The Lutheran Churches that he next addeth, are no Examples to us. Their way is much applauded by the Church of England men, much more than the way of Engl●nd is by them: For as Pezel. mel●fic. ●ist. part 3. p. 345. observeth, none did more fiercely persecute the Exiles in Qu. Mary's days, than they did in Denmark, Lubeck, Rostoch, and especially at Hamburgh. The Salvo of the Synod of Dort showeth, that they did not allow Patronages, but must proceed warily in removing them; which hath been the case of other Churches, but maketh against the Doct●r's opinion, not fo● it. That the Ministers in France, or the Council of State at Gen●va, choose Ministers and obtrude them on the people without their consent, we deny.  
Sect. 28. I have by what is said, preoccupied most of the Doctor's Reasons against Mr. B. contained Sect. 26. I shall only take notice of a few things. We make void no Laws about Patronage, but so far as they respect the people's right of choosing a pastor for their Souls; and thus far they are cassate by the Laws of ●hrist: As to Temple and Tithes (as he speaks we meddle not with Laws about them; only we wish the removing of them, as a Grievance; and that Rulers would provide for the Church in a way that the people's right of Election might not be hindered, nor restrained in its Exercise. Mr. B. objecteth. p. 330. That the Patron by giving a right to Temple and Tithes, doth not make the man a Minister to that people● Souls, and the Parliament cannot dispose of people's Souls. The Doctor instead of an Answer, giveth the meaning of this, that if the people be humoursome and factious, they may run after whom they please in opposition to Laws. This is ad populum f●l●ras, but no fair way of Arguing. The true meaning is, that though the Pa●non by Law, may give a man a title to the Temple and Tithes, and the people can neither keep him out of the Church, nor deny to pay his deuce; yet the Law cannot make him their Pastor without their consent. I do not say, they should run after another; it is fit they should consent to a tolerable person, so imposed on them, for peace sake; yet it is not the Law, but their consent that maketh him their Minister: That Anabaptists, Quakers, and Papists will put in for a share in this privilege, is but a m●an objection; for Christ hath given people power to choose sound Pastors, not whom they will. The Doctor asketh, Whether all must have equal Votes? then the worst, who are the most part will choose one like themselves. Answ. This is to be regulated by the Guides of the Church, the worst are to be instructed; yea, and censured, if need be, and if they choose a bad man, the Pastors are not to ordain him. He allegeth, few are competent Judges. Answ. Many can judge tolerably, and they who cannot, are to be guided by others: but the matter is not wholly left to their judgement, the Elected man being to be tried by the Eldership. He enlargeth on the tumul●s, and strifes in popular Elections: This hath been abundantly answered above. That the matter is devolved, on a few, doth not take away the right of others, who are willing to be advised by these few. The Doctor is as certain that Christ never gave people such an unalterable right, as he is, that he designed Peace and Unity in the Church. This certainty is built on no good grounds, and therefore amounteth to no more but fancy. I have showed ground for a contrary persuasion, and a way that Christ hath laid down for peace consistent with this right.   

SECT. VII. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church, and First of the Liturgy.  
THe Reverend Author is now at last, Sect. 26. come to that which I reckon the main plea for our withdrawing from the Communion of the Church of England; to wit, the Terms of Communion, that she imposeth on all that shall partake with her in the Ordinances of God, which we count unlawful, and therefore cannot submit to them; the Church imposeth them so, as none are permitted to join with her who forbear them; and therefore we cannot partake without them. This putteth us on a necessity of forbearing Communion with her; and the necessity of Worshipping God, doth not suffer us to live without the Ordinances, and thence resulteth a necessity of keeping sep●rate meetings, which our Brethren blame us for, and we blame them for for●ing us to it against our will. If these Terms of Communion, upon due examination prove lawful, we refuse not the blame of separation, which we think as great as they do; but if they prove unlawful, then doth the blame lie at their door, who impose them. Yea, unbiased men will say, that if the things be but indifferent, and of no necessity, the Imposers cannot justify the imposing of them, when so sad inconvenience followeth upon them.  
Sect. 2. These Terms of Communion in particular are, the constant use of the Liturgy, and the Ceremonies; which are the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper, and observing of holidays, that God hath not appointed. ●●her Ceremonies they have, which we also dislike; but because they are not imposed as Terms of Communion, we do not here mention them. What is to be said of Godfathers, and godmothers, in Baptism, we shall in its place examine. The Doctor excuseth himself from saying any thing about the Liturgy, because it hath la●ely been so very well defended by a Divine of this Church, ci●eing on his Margin, Dr. Fal●oner's Vindication of Liturgies, and I for the like cause forbear this debate, or answering Dr. Falconer, that having been exceeding well done, Anno 1681. by the Learned G. F. in his Questions between the Conformist and Nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed; which the Doctor if he had pleased to read the Writings on both sides (the neglect of which he blameth us for) might have taken notice of before his Third Edition came out, 1682. But beside that, neither Doctor Falconer, nor any other, hath answered what hath been said against the Liturgy, and the use of it, in the Jerubbaal's necessity of Reformation, and other pieces, to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction in this point. Although I have made some Collections on this subject, yet so much being said by others; and neither the Doctor (nor any other) being pleased to Answer it; I also shall wave this Controversy. Only hinting a few of the chief grounds of our Scruple in this matter, because the Dr. p. 332, 333. chargeth his Answerers with pretending to scruple, without giving reason for their Scruples.  
Sect. 3. We do not simply, nor generally condemn Forms of Prayer; they may be used when that work cannot be tolerably performed without them; neither do we condemn joining in such a way of praying even when the man that chooseth that way might and ought to do otherwise: Neither do we scruple joining in the use of the Liturgy, merely because it is imposed by Authority. I know we are misrepresented in all these. But 1. We condemn using of set Forms of Prayer, either in private, or public, without such necessity, as that duty cannot be tolerably performed without that help. 2. We think it unlawful for the Church, or any other, to impose on the Ministers of the Gospel the use of a set Form of Praying, where there is not absolute necessity. 3. We think in the present case of the Church, there is no such absolute necessity of that imposition, seeing Ministers may be had, who are tolerably gifted for their Work: And seeing it is Christ's Institution that none but such should be in the Ministry; and seeing any Escapes, or Indecencies that can be observed in a Ministers Administrations, are to be Corrected by the Discipline of the Church; which is Christ's way, not by imposing a Liturgy, which is Man's way. 4. We think it unlawful for Ministers, who are tolerably gifted for their Work, (and if they be not such, in the judgement of the Church, they should lay aside that Work, and betake themselves to other Callings.) To submit to such Impositions, or to use such Forms of Prayer. 5. What is said of Forms of Prayers, let it be also understood of Forms of Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, and Exhortations at them, and of other parts of the Service of God: Here we may rationally except Forms of singing praise unto God, and that on two Grounds. 1. The Scripture hath furnished the Church with such Forms for all cases of a Soul, and of the Church, in the Book of Psalms, which is not done in Prayer, and other Administrations. So that these Forms are not humane, as other Forms must be● 2. The Gift of composing Spiritual Songs, fit to be sung in the Church, is not to be expected that it should be Commonly given to the Pastors of the Church, as the Gifts of Preaching and Praying are given. 6. We think it unlawful for people to join in Worshipping God, by a frame of Service, not instituted, nor warranted in the Word of God; both as to the matter, and as to the manner of it. 7. The English Service Book is such a frame of Service as is not warranted, nor instituted in the Word; and so it is unlawful for us to join in Worshipping God by it.  
Sect. 4. If we can give good reason for the 2d, 4th, 6th, and 7th, of these Assertions, sufficient ground will appear for our scrupling the use of the Liturgy, imposed as one of the Terms of our Communion with the Church of England. For the First of these, That Men may not impose set Forms on Gifted Ministers. Arguments for this are, 1. There is no warrant for such practice; if there be, it must be either Christ's Command, or his Permission, or the necessity of it: The first nor second is not alleged, because no such thing can be proved from the Word. Nor the third, for such a necessity is contrary to our supposition, that the men, so imposed on, are gifted. If it be said, the best gifted may slip into unfit expressions. Reply, This unfitness is either tolerable, and so no necessity can arise from that hazard; or intolerable, and then it is to be cured by Christ's means, Church Discipline, not by the invention of man. 2. No such imposition, nor usage was ever heard of in the Apostolic Church, nor in the Primitive Church for 300 years and more; and yet there were Ministers subject to Infirmities, as Men now are; and the Worship of God was by them fitly managed. May not the means of securing Worship from abuse, serve us that served them? Or will we be wiser and more wary than they? That there was any Forms used or imposed in the Apostles times, we need not prove, the Lord's Prayer is no Instance to the contrary, it cannot be made appear, that ever it was intended to be a form of words, or used as such. And for the Primitive times, it is evident that when Constantine would help his Soldiers, newly come out of Heathenism, with a Form he behoved to get some composed, which needed not, had they then been in the Church. Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. p. 98. Edition. Paris. giving account of their public Exercises on the Lord's day; to wit, reading Scripture, Exhortation, Prayer, sing, Administration of the Lord's Supper, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, the Minister sendeth up Prayers and Thanksgivings, as he is able; than not by Book, but his Ability as the Lord furnished him. Tertullian, Apol. c. 30. saith, They prayed in their Assemblies, sine monitore, quum de pectore; and in his Book de Oratiore, he showeth that there are many things to be asked according to every one's occasions; the Lord's Prayer being laid as a Foundation: where the true use of the Lord's prayer (note that by the way) is hinted; to wit, to be a Directory, not a Form. Socrates Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 21. which is wholly spent in showing what diversity of usages was in the Primitive times, in divers places; and how little weight was laid on uniformity (the great Argument for the Common-prayer) hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is generally and every where, in all Religions, in Prayer, there are not two to be found that agree in one; which surely must be meant of Agreement in the same words.  
Sect. 5. A third Argument for this is, such imposing doth thwart one great design of Prayer in public, which is to lay out before the Lord all the several cases of the people, or the Church; their sins, and wants; which do so vary, that no Book can suit them all; I am sure ours doth not. If it be answered, th●s design may be answered by leaving a liberty to Minister's sometimes, as af●er Sermon 〈◊〉 use their gifts. I reply, that this Liberty doth frustrate the design of set prayer, which is to prevent venting of error, and indecency, is not that hazard in permitting prayer after Sermon, as well as at other times: Wherefore either this imposing must shut out all Prayer; or it is a needless thing, and so unlawful in the Church. Argument 4. Imposing set Forms on the Ministers of the Gospel, is a restraining, if not making void the Charismata, the Gifts of the Spirit that the Lord hath furnished his Ministers with, for the benefit of the Church. For clearing and confirming this Argument, I offer these Considerations. 1. The Lord hath furnished his Church with Gifts that are needful for her edification. There was a large pouring out of the Spirit at first, Act. 2. 1. and tho' that degree and manner, and some of the uses of it, be ceased; yet the thing itself shall never cease, Isa. 59 21. for without the Gifts of the Spirit, the Church could not subsist, 1 Cor. 12. 3. It is by the Holy Ghost that we must profess Christ, preach him, pray in his Name, etc. Hence Christ sent the Spirit in his own room, when he left off to manage the Affairs of the Church in his person, as he had done on earth in the days of his humiliation; and the Spirit is on this account called by the Ancients Vicarius Christ's. 2. The Gifts of the Spirit are particularly given to the Ministers of the Gospel, for assisting them to manage their work for the Church's advantage: For these Gifts are mentioned with reference to them, and their work, and the fruit of their work; as is clear, Eph. 4. 8, 11, 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with 1.— having discussed of diversity of Gifts, the Apostle there showeth to whom especially they are given. 3. The ordinary Ministers of the Gospel, have their interest in these Gifts, and a share of them (tho' differently) as well as the extraordinary: For both sorts are mentioned in both the places last cited.  
Sect. 6. 4. The Spirit is given to Ministers, and people; as for other supplies, so to assist them in right managing the work of Prayer; and that not only to assist as to the manner of praying, or praying Graces, and Affections; but as to the matter of Prayer, to furnish the mind with fit and pertinent P●tions, Rom. 8. 26. The Spirit not only helpeth our Infirmities by making intercession with Groans, but on account that we know not what to Pray for as we ought. The Spirit also giveth utterance, Act. 2. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 5. 5. It is the will of Jesus Christ, that his Ministers should make use of the Gifts that he hath given for their proper ends; to wit, the Edification of the Church, that they should pray for them, improve them, and use them; yea, lean to the help of the Spirit, not to the Book for helping their Infirmities. This is clear from, Rom. 12. 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ministers must give account to their Master, of the Use and Improvement of their Gifts: this is clear, not only from the Parable Mat. 25. 19 Tho' Theologica Parabolica is said not to be Argumentativa; yet none denyeth, that an Argument may be brought from the Scope of a Parable; which here is to show, that God will reckon with men about their using, and improving what he entrusteth them with. But the thing is evident of itself; for this giving of Gifts to Men, cannot be imagined to be, that men may use them or not, as they will; or as other men will; but for the ends they were given for. 7. It is Christ's appointment, that none should be in the Ministry, but Gifted Men: they must be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3. 2. That is fit for their work, in all the parts of it. 8. The Imposing of set Forms doth hinder the exercise of the Gifts that Ministers have received, and so hindereth that Edification, that the Church should receive by that means. This cannot be denied, when ever they use set Forms; there is no use of these Gifts. All these put together, may warrant us to conclude, that imposing of set Forms on Ministers of the Gospel, is a restraining; yea, in a great measure, a making void, of these Gifts that are given them to profit with all. I conclude this with the opinion of Wickliff, that to bind men to Set and Prescript Forms of Prayers, doth derogate from that liberty that Christ hath given them. Full. Ch. Hist. lib. 3. cent. 14. Pag. 133.  
Sect. 7. The Proof of the second thing that I undertake; to wit, That it is unlawful for Ministers to submit to such a restraining of their Gifts by such Impositions as was mentioned. It followeth from what hath been already discoursed; all the Arguments for the former Assertion do also prove this, for they ought not to worship God in a manner, that is neither warranted by any necessity, nor by Christ's allowance, that were to worship God by the Prescript of Man's Will alone. Neither is it lawful to serve God in the way, that the Apostate used used; but was never used by the Church in her best times: Nor ought we to cross the design of Prayer by our way of praying; nor to make void the Gifts given to profit the Church by. All which, this way of being Tied up to set ●orms, hath been proved to be guilty of.  
Sect. 8. The next thing to be proved, is ●ur sixth Proposition; to wit, That it is unlawful to worship God by a Frame of Service, that is not warranted in the word, both as to its matter, and manner. This I prove, 1. From Christ's condemning the Traditions of Men as vain Worship, Mat. 15. 9 They taught these Traditions, e. i. saith Lucas Burgensis, in locum; they followed them, and taught others to follow them. The same Author calleth these men's Traditions, that, are so of men; that they are not of God; or are devised, by Man, ibid. So also Vat●blus, Erasmus, Maldonate, Tirinus, Piscator, Calvin and Chemintius say, here is meant, whatever is brought into Religion without the Word. Now it is manifest, that a Frame of Divine Service, not warranted in the word, falleth under this general head. 2. The Lord condemneth all Worship offered up to him, that he hath not commanded, Jer. 7. 31. where not being commanded, but devised by Men, is made the Ground on which that practice (though otherwise evil also) is condemned. And Jeroboam's Frame and way of Service is condemned, because devised (Heb. created) of his own Heart, 1 King. 12. 33. 3. Even Reason teacheth that God ought to choose how He will be Honoured, or Worshipped by his Creatures. He best knoweth what will please him; and His Sovereignty in all things must especially appear in this, that Himself is so nearly concerned in. This is a Principle so rooted in Nature, that among the Heathens, they that contrived their Liturgies, or ways of Worship, behoved to pretend Revelation from their Gods, to guide them in this. It was never heard of among the more religious Heathens, that Religion, or the manner of worshipping their Gods, was enjoined only by man's Authority, and devised only by him. Yea, in the so much magnified Rozary of the Virgin Mary; it is alleged, that St. Domini●us had it revealed by the Virgin herself, that this form of Service was most acceptable to her; and it is added, That she was fittest to choose what way she would be Worshipped: I hope they, and such as Symbolise with them, in ordering of the Worship of God, will give us leave to say the same of her Blessed Son. 4. For the matter of Worship, I think it will not be questioned, whether that m●st be appointed by God or not; otherwise the five Popish Sacraments, that they have added to Christ's woe, could not be condemned; and men might make an● kind of Action, as Dancing, Walking, Leaping, to be religious worship. And even the Frame, Composure, or mode of Divine Worship should have Divine Warrant; otherwise it is not Acceptable to God. The Lord hath appointed in his House, as Acts of his Worship, Reading Scripture, Preaching Praying, Praising, Baptism, and the Lords Supper; and the Service that we offer up to him in our Assemblies; should be an orderly performance of these. But when Men devise a Frame of Service, which is none of these, distinctly and orderly performed; but all of them confusedly jumbled together, and some modes of their own added to them. This Mode or Frame of divine worship the Lord hath not warranted; there is no example of it in Scripture, nor in the purest and first times of the Gospel; and therefore we ought not to worship God in such a manner. I hope it will not be asserted by our Brethren, that it is in the power of the Church to cast the divine Offices (as they speak) into what Frame or Mould they will; to make it look like a Theatrical Show, if they like that way, and think some carnal minds will be taken with it; and if this be granted; then it followeth, that there may be a Frame of Worship unlawful as to the manner of it; which it may be a Sin for people to join in. I do not say, that the order of religious Acts in the public Assemblies is fixed; so as we may not begin either with a Psalm or Prayer, or Exhortation, etc. but there is an order to be observed; and there may be a sinful swerving from it, which we are obliged to shun.  
Sect. 9 The last thing to be proved, is, That the Liturgy now under debate is unwarranted; and that it is unlawful to join in worshipping God by it: For this I bring five Reasons, 1. The Ordinance of God for reading the word in the Assembles of his people, is by this Service much perverted; for the Scripture is read in a very corrupt Translation; following the vulgar Latin Translation, as the Papists do, as may be showed in many instances, where the Sense of the Hebrew or Greek Text, is either contradicted, or distorted Additions are made to the Scripture; as the 5th. 6th. and 7th. verses of Psal. 14. are not in the Hebrew. Many Chapters of the Bible are never read in the Church at all; and instead of them, humane Writings: Yea, which contain fabulous things, as Ecclesiasticus 44. Judith 9 Tobit 5. much more also of Apocryphas is read as the Word of God. Yea, with justling out the Word of God. This we judge a depraving of God's Ordinance. These Apocriphical writings, though they be not said to be divine Scripture; yet they are so placed with it, and in its stead, and no hint given of their humane Original; that the people cannot but look on them as Scripture; yea, wise men have ground to judge that they were so looked on by the first contrivers of that Frame of Service, I mean the Papists. Some Scriptures are so read, as the reading of them with express reference to such occasion, as they are in the Book, appropriate to, is an abusing and mis-applying of them; as on the Festivity of Michael the Archangel, is read, Rev. 12. 7. as if Michael that fought with the Dragon, were not Christ, but a created Angel. 2. It hath a great and scandalous appearance of superstition; if superstition itself can be separated from its use in appropriating Scriptures to be read, to days, not only ordinary days, but such as they without warrant have separated from other days, and made Holy, and restraining Ministers from reading such portions of Scripture to the people, as suit the present case of them, or of the Church, also the appointing one piece to be said in the Desk, another at the Altar; one with the Ministers Face to the people, another with his Face to the East, and his Back toward the People; the many changes of postures, sitting, standing, kneeling, bowing, etc. we cannot persuade ourselves, that such a Mode of worship is appointed by Christ, Was ever practised in the purer times of the Church, or is acceptable to God.  
Sect. 10. The Frame or Composure of it is unwarranted, unprecedented in Scripture, and the purer Antiquity, and unsuitable to so holy an Action, as is Gospel Worship; as appeareth, in the jumbling of Prayer, and reading Scripture together; so many short Collects, two or three Lines, and then reading; then another scrape of Prayer, and then of Scripture; also the Responds, tossing the Service between Minister and People, and the Clerk and Minister; the mutual Salutations; the Litany, of heathenish Original; like O Baal hear us, reiterated so often; and other repeating of the same things so often, as is nauseous to serious worshippers of God: We dare not worship God in a way that is so unlike to any worship, that we read of among his people; and that is so Theatrical and Pompous. 4. Several passages in it are not sound; others have a great appearance of unsoundness; and others are unwarrantable. There is a Prayer, that We with this our Brother (the Man to be Buried) and all our Brethren departed, may have perfect Consummation: Where the Dead are prayed for; and it is supposed that every one that dyeth is Saved: The words have that appearance; they pray to be kept from all deadly Sin. It hath an hue at least, of approving the distinction of Mortal and Venial Sins: They pray to be delivered from several dangers and Afflictions, which there is no more reason to mention in Prayer, than there is of other things that are ordinary.  
Sect. 11. 5. It is a Symbolising with Idolaters, in our manner of worshipping God, which the Scripture condemneth, Deut. 12. 30, 31. I hope it will not be denied by our Brethren, that the Papists are Idolaters; and that this Service is a Symbolising with them, is too evident, which may appear, 1. If we consider the Manner and Frame of this Service, and compare it with the Mass: It is true, they differ in that this is in English, that in Latin; and that some parts of the Mass are left out; but otherwise they are as like to one another, as one thing can be to another; and this was not denied by our Reformers, who professed that their design in retaining this Service, was to bring Papists to the Church (tho' it proved, after a while, rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass.) And King Edward 6th. with the Council, did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West, who had risen in defence of Popery; saying, that the Service that now they had in English, was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible, and the Mass, and this Service, may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass, than between it and all the Worship of God, that the Scripture giveth account of, to have been practised in the Apostolic Church. 2. This may appear, if we consider the Original of this Service; it was taken out of several Popish Books; the Prayers out of the Breviary, the Sacraments, Burial, Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, out of the Ritual: Adminstration of the Lords Supper, out of the Mass-book; and Consecration of Bishops, out of the Pontifical; as any may see, who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together.  
Sect. 12. I know it will be said, that they retain only those parts of those Books, that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church, and used in the primitive times. But this is no sufficient defence; for, 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original; yet being now of late so grossly abused to Idolatry, and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists, rather than like Apostolic Worship; and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds, why should we choose their way of worship, and in so doing, both differ from the primitive times, especially the Apostles times, and from all other Reformed Churches? 2. It is false, that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers; it is indeed said by some, that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use o● weak Christians; but that he, or any other such, did compose this Frame, or any thing like it, is denied; and I have proved, that there was no such thing in these Times. The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great, Anno 600. or thereabout, other parts were added by other Popes; the Responds came not in till many years after. What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists, James, Peter, Matthew, Mark, is now so exploded, as learned men among our Brethren, do not plead for them. This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy, about which more might have been said; but I have said more than at first I intended.   

SECT. VIII. The other Terms of Communion that they impose, considered.  
I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse, about these other Terms of Communion, that his Church imposeth, and we scruple: And first I take notice, that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals, and pretending that they judge, they esteem, the Terms of Communion unlawful; but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them. He saith, Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion. The Answer to this is easy, 1. They were charged with Separation, and in answering the Dr's Sermon, acted the part of Defendants; it was enough for that de●ence, to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground, and to show that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion, imposed on them by the Church. It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversy about the Liturgy and Ceremonies. 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things; the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy, and against the Ceremonies; Didoclavius, the Author of the Book, called the English Popish Ceremonies; Mr. jean's Treasure out of Rubbish, a Treatise of Divine Worship: English Puritanism. Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies: Smectymn. G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists, and many other pieces. There is so much said in these, and yet unanswered, that it was needless to repeat what is there said. I must be guilty of the same fault, if it be one; having at length disputed against the Ceremonies, and proved them to be unlawful to be used, in a Piece entitled, A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship, against Mr. Geo●ge Ritchel, and others. I may without blame refer the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written; provided I leave nothing unanswered, that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject. 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party: Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have, nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments; but we are ready to be concluded, by a Prison, instead of Arguments; but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low, because our Persons, and worldly Interests are so.  
Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument (out of his Sermon) against our Separating; that there ought to be no Separation, where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship; and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case. He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine (of this I have given my judgement above, Part 2. S. 1. Section, 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship, and alleged the Cross in Baptism, to be a Substantial part of Worship: Hence the Dr. undertaketh, p. 335. 1. To show what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship. 2. That the Cross is not made such. The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship, to wit; Substantial and Circumstantial, or Accidental; and allegeth that many of us are misled, by not considering it. I much desire the clearing of it, and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith, and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith, that, The Nonconformists great Principle is, That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God, was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship; and when their Adversaries told them, that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship; they said, that made True Worship, but without it an Act might be Worship, that is, False Worship; and yet they allowed the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship. This Subject I have discoursed at large, in the Book above cited, cap. 3. sect. 1, 3, 4. But shall now a little consider, what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles. 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship, was Worship, either Real or Substantial; for they well know, that the Meeting-place, the Minister's Maintenance, the Pulpit, Communion-Table, etc. are designed for Worship, and yet are no Worship, Real nor Imaginary, Substantial nor Accidental, True nor False. If he mean by being designed for Worship; that the person doing such an Act, intendeth to Worship God by so doing (which I cannot take to be his meaning); I hope himself will acknowledge that though such a design is needful to make an act of Worship acceptable; yet Worship may be without it, else the three Children might have fallen down before the Image, keeping their intention to themselves, without the guilt of the external act of Idolatry.  
Sect. 3. I observe here, 2. That the Dr. confoundeth his own distinction, by jumbling together the terms of Real and Substantial Worship: To real Worship, must be opposed that which is no Worship, or but such in imagination: To substantial Worship, must be opposed that which is circumstantial, or accidental Worship. This is as if we should distinguish Eus in substantiam, & accidens; and speaking of the first Member of the Division, call it, substantiam, or eus real, which comprehendeth both substantia and accidens. Let the Dr. then tell us plainly, whether by substantial Worship, he mean all that is really Worship, or is truly Worship, Veritate Metaphysica, though it be not so, Veritate Theologica. And if this be his Meaning, what needed such a distinction of Worship? Had it not been as easy to deny the Ceremonies, in debate, to be Worship, or any part of Worship, as others of his Party do? What needed he blame the Non-conformists for want of Clearness and Distinction in this matter, when himself hath confounded it? I see no use of this his clear Notion, but to confound the debate, and hide the nakedness of his Cause. We say, the Ceremonies are parts of Worship, though false Worship; others of his Party say, they are no Worship, but mere Circumstances of Worship: The Dr. will clear the Matter, by telling us, That they are accidental Worship, but not real nor substantial Worship: Let any, that hath a clear sight, judge, whether this be a clearing or a confounding of this Matter.  
Sect. 4. The Dr. will now (p. 336.) seriously consider this Matter; because he designeth not to confute, but to convince the Non-conformists; and his work for this end, is, To find out a plain discernible Difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship, and mere accidental Appendices; and this, he saith, may more disentangle scrupulous Minds, than the multiplying of Arguments, to prove the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies. I doubt not of the Doctor's good design, in this debate, but he is not very like to attain it by such Methods, as is this proposing a distinction to clear the Subject in dispute, and then confound the Terms; and then at last, as he doth here, to over-turn it wholly; for here he calleth the Ceremonies, mere accidental Appendices of Worship; that is, no Worship, nor parts of Worship at all. But let him call them what he will, we strive not about Names; we maintain, that they are parts of Worship, (but parts of false Worship) and in such a Religious State, as nothing but the Institutions of Christ can lawfully have; in that they are used in Religion appropriated to it, designed for the Honouring of GOD by them, for the bettering of Religious Actions, and for the Religious end of edifying the Souls of them that use them: These Qualities are in the Ceremonies; and if these conjoined, do not make an Action to be Religious, and a part of Worship, (they belonging to no other part of Religion) I know not what can make a thing to be an Act of Worship; for to say, that nothing can be a Religious Act, but what hath Divine Institution, is to deny, that there can be such a thing as an external Act of Idolatry, or Superstition.  
Sect. 5. In pursuance of this Enquiry, and to find out this plain and discernible difference between substantial parts of Worship, and accidental Appendices of it: The Dr. bringeth several things agreed on both sides; they are five in number; I shall not repeat them, nor except against them, save that I wish he had showed in the Second of them, how these things under the Law, that by divine Institution, became parts of Worship, were of themselves Ritual, and Ceremonial: I rather think that without divine Appointment, it was unlawful to use them as Rites or Ceremonies in God's Worship. He cometh now, Sect. 27. To find out the Marks of Distinction, to satisfy the Conscience of the Difference between Innocent Ceremonies, and superstitious parts of Divine Worship. Here is yet another Face of our Proteus-like distinction, but I wave that, finding that the Dr. cannot make it appear, that there is any part of Worship that is not substantial and real Worship; and that all that is a part of Worship, is, even by him, looked on as superstitious, if it be not appointed by divine Authority: For his Notion of Innocent Ceremonies, I apprehend not his Meaning by this Term, Accidental Appendices of Worship he calleth them before, which also needeth a Commentary. If he mean natural Circumstances, I know these may be very innocent, and yet not instituted: But a Ceremony (as I have showed in the before cited Vindic. of Purit. C. 3. Sect. 3.) is properly a thing in Statu Religioso, or appropriate to Religion, but no natural part of Worship; and therefore I see not how it can be innocent, unless instituted: For accidental Appendices of Worship, if they be any thing beyond natural and necessary Circumstances determined by natural or civil Custom, I see not how these either can be innocent, unless instituted. I humbly conceive, the Dr. hath hitherto brought little light into this Controversy, but rather Darkness and Confusion.  
Sect. 6. Seeing we cannot agree about these Notions, let us labour, if we can, to concert the thing. He telleth us of Two ways, by which Ceremonies may become parts of Worship; 1. By supposing them to be necessary, and pleasing to GOD, without a humane Law imposing them. 2. By supposing them unalterable. We need not debate with the Dr. whether things become parts of Worship, and so superstitious, when not instituted by these two ways or not: But all this Discourse is wide from the purpose, unless he make it appear, that no uninstituted thing can be a part of Worship, nor superstitious, but by one of these Two Means: Or if we can make it appear, that without both these Opinions of men, about the Things that they use in Worship, without Institution, they may be guilty of false Worship, or Superstition; which I here do briefly, because I have done it sufficiently, in the place cited against Mr. Ritshell, who objected the same thing, in defence of the Ceremonies, that the Dr. now doth. 1. If this were true, there could be no external Act of false Worship, without an Erroneous Opinion of the Mind; but that is absurd, for then a man, who, to shun Persecution, should fall down before an Idol, and in Words and Gestures, do all that Idolaters do, should not be guilty of the outward Act of Idolatry; yea, it would follow, that is, the Church should erect a Statue, and impose it as a necessary Term of Communion with her, that her Members should once a week kneel before that Statue, and pray to GOD, and then kiss that Statue, with a reverend Bow, when, mean while, the Church declareth that this is not commanded out of an Opinion that such kneeling, etc. is antecedently pleasing to GOD; nor that this their Command is unalterable, nor binding to all; nor that the things commanded, are unalterable, and so binding; but only the Church judgeth this decent and fit to adorn the other parts of Worship: I say in this case, this bowing, should be innocent Ceremony, and no Act of false Worship; which, I think, will hardly go down with the greatest Ceremony-Mongers: And, in a word, let us but receive this one Principle, that there is no false Worship without such Opinion, as he mentioneth; and men may do what they will, and the Church impose what she will, in the Worship of GOD, provided they keep a right Opinion about the nature of these things; so that it is no more our concern to look to Scripture, that we may learn how to order the external Worship of GOD, but to look to our Opinion, that it be not faulty: And by this means, there are few of the Ceremonies that ever Papists, or Heathens used, but a Church sound in the Faith, and in opinion about Superstition, might bring them into the Worship of GOD, which is to open the door for Ceremonial Worship a little too wide, in the opinion of most sound Divines.  
Sect. 7. Another Exception I make against the Dr. Two ways, how an Act becometh superstitious, is, let them (especially the first of them) be applied to our Ceremonies, and I doubt not, but even what himself hath said, might condemn them; for however the pliable People that use the Ceremonies, because commanded by the Church, and see no antecedent necessity, or goodness in them, may by this means be acquitted from Superstition; the Church that imposeth them, cannot be so innocent; for either the Church must have reason for this Imposition, or none, but, sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione Voluntas. The Latter, I hope, the Dr. will not say, lest by purging his Church of Superstition, he make her guilty of as great a Crime; to wit, being Lords over GOD's Heritage, and Church-Tyrants. If he say the Former, this Reason must be, that these things are needful, that they please GOD: No, say our Adversaries, the Church's Reason for imposing them, is, She thinketh them decent, and edifying: But doth she not think this Decency, and that Edification that is by them, to be antecedently pleasing to GOD, and needful for the Church? If she do not, she acteth by mere will; if she do, she is guilty of a superstitious opinion, in supposing uninstituted things in Worship, to be pleasing to GOD, antecedentally to a humane Law; for if the use of them be pleasing to God, so must the things, out of which that usefulness doth result. And indeed, it may abundantly appear, to the Conviction of all unbiased Men, what opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies our Bishops have, when they appoint them by their Canons, impose them with Rigour and Severity, punish the Neglect of them with such Violence; and when they force them upon the Consciences of them, who agree with themselves in all things else; and when they make such distractions and divisions in the Church, rather than lay aside these things. Can any man of common sense, whose reason is not fettered by Prejudice and Interest, judge, that men who act so, have no opinion of the antecedent Goodness of the Ceremonies, or that they do not think them pleasing to God? He that thinketh otherwise, can think what he will.  
Sect. 8. I come now to examine what the D●. saith in defence of these Two things, which he requireth to make an uncommanded Act in Worship to be superstitious. The 1st. is, That it be supposed to be necessary and pleasing to God, and the omission of it unpleasing to God, antecedently to a humane Law. All the proof that he bringeth of what he saith, is, that the Observations that Christ condemned in the Pharisees, had no other evil in them, nor were condemned on any other account, but because of this Opinion that they had about them, (as Grocius observeth) that Touching any thing unclean, by Law, did communicate uncleanness to Soul and Body, and that Washing did cleanse both; on which supposition, they thought this Washing pleasing to God. Three things I here reply, before I come to answer the Drs. Proofs of this his Allegation. 1. All this is nothing to our purpose, unless it can be made appear that Christ condemneth only their erroneous Opinion, and not the●● Practise; or that they might Lawfully have added these Religious observations, to these that the Lord had appointed in his Law, provided they had no opinion of the antecedent necessity of the things which is so far from being proved, that the Contrary is evident, for our Lord doth expressly Condemn the observing of these things Mark, 7. 8. Ye hold the Tradition of men, as the Washing of Pots and Cups, and many other such things do ye. Their Doing, not their Thinking only, is condemned; Will any man say, that if any of the Pharisees should have laid aside that Opinion that the Dr. imputeth to them, and looked on these observations, as of no necessity, antecedent to the Tradition of the Elders; and yet observed them Carefully and Religiously, that such a one had sufficiently complied with Christ's Doctrine? no, surely, for the Controversy between the Disciples and Pharisees, was not about Thinking, but about Doing; the Disciples not only were not of their Opinion, but abstained from their Practice.  
Sect. 9 It is evident from Galat. 4. 9, 10. that the Apostle condemneth the observation of the old Jewish Ceremonies, though it is clear, that he is mainly disputing against their opinion of Justification by works, and these among other works; yet this doth not hinder the practice of these, abstracted from that opinion to be evil, it being expressly condemned; wherefore it is not enough that our practice, in God's Worship, be not built on a bad opinion; but itself must have warrant from God. 2. Christ in that debate is mainly dealing with the Imposers of these Ceremonies, the Pharisees, who continued that Yoke on the People, that their Ancestors had laid on them; and therefore it is no wonder that he took notice of a perverse opinion in them, which moved them so to impose on the People, whereas the people that obeyed, might be moved only by the authority of their Guides; hence he calleth them their Traditions, because they continued them, and put new life in them, by their Authority. The parallel then still holdeth between our Case and theirs, as they behoved to have some undue esteem of these washings that made them Impose them with the same (yea more) Zeal than that with which they enjoined the Ordinances of God; so there must be in our Church-Guides, some apprehension of Good in the Ceremonies more than is meet, that maketh them not only intermix them with Divine Worship, but impose them with equal (if not superior) Zeal, with the Ordinances of God. 3. Any variation of their opinion about their Washings, from our opinion about our Ceremonies, that can be observed, ariseth from the difference that is between their Church and Ordinances, and ours; and so cannot make their imposition unlawful, if ours be lawful; for God had appointed Washings, for removing of Ceremonial uncleanness, which affected both Soul and Body; to wit, at the touching of the Dead, or any unclean thing; and all 〈◊〉 Jews knew, that antecedently to the Command, no uncleannes●●ould be contracted by these Touches, nor removed by these Washings. The Rabbis, in the Apostate State of that Church, added such like observations to Gods, out of a desire of more ample strictness, and that their purity might be more conspicuous; knowing well, that before the Command, these things were in the same state, that the other things were in, before God's Command. Just so doth our Church; God hath instituted some Ceremonies for his own Honour, and Edification of his People; so as we all know, that antecedently to his command, they were indifferent things, as Water, Bread, and Wine; and the Church not content with these, add some other Ceremonies, for further honouring of God; to wit, making his Worship more decent, and further edification, stirring up the dull minds of men; yet protesting, that antecedently to their command, these things are indifferent. Is not here an exact parallel; if it be said, that the Rabbis thought the things that they enjoined, to be comprehended under God's commanded Worship, before they enjoined them; this is denied, and the contrary is evident, from Christ's Reasoning with them; he all along maketh a distinction between God's Command, and their Tradition: which they might easily have objected against, if they had pretended a Command of God, for the things that they by Tradition imposed.  
Sect. 10. In order to the proving his Opinion in this matter, he saith, p. 339. that, the Reason of Christ's opposing the Pharisees was, not because a thing in itself unnecessary was determined by their Superiors, but because of the superstitious opinion that the Pharisees had about these Washings. Here is a wrong state of the Question hinted; we never quarrelled with superiors for determining a thing in itself unnecessary; we know they may determine this Time, and that Place of Worship, and yet neither of these in itself is necessary, seeing another time or place may do as well. But the Question is, whether Superiors may determine a thing, that is not at all needful to be determined? as the Habit, Gesture, etc. and appropriate this their determination to Religious Worship, that so it shall be done in Worship, though it be not so done in other Actions; and this without warrant from the Lord, whom we Worship. His Proofs, that the Pharisees were condemned only because of their superstitious opinion (and if this only be not understood by the Dr. he speaketh not to the point in hand) are two. Saviour's Reasoning: Thus than he argue●●▪ p. 340. He proveth that they set up their Tradition above the Law of God; as in the Vow Corban. (The force of which Argument extendeth to all that they observed, because of the Tradition of their Ancestors) therefore they thought these things pleasing to God, and that men's Consciences were strictly obliged to observe them. This is the sum of the Drs. Argument. To which the Answer is obvious; to wit, that this doth not at all prove, that the Pharisees thought these things obliging, antecedently to their Tradition, which is the only thing in Question; Christ's Reasoning proveth no more, but that they had an undue esteem of their own Authority, and did (upon the matter) equal it with, if not prefer it, to that of God; by laying such stress on things that stood merely on their Authority; but he doth not so much as hint, that they thought these things antecedently obliging, or that the omitting of them would have defiled the Conscience, though there had been no such Tradition. Is not our Case parallel to theirs in this? We say, the Ceremonies oblige not, there is no Sin in not observing them, nor Indecency in not using them, antecedently to the Law; so did the Pharisees of their Washings; and if they were Zealous for their Washings, are not ye so, to as great a degree, for your Ceremonies when imposed? what disobedience, ungovernableness, contempt of the Worship of God, and indecency in it, are we charged with? and we are prosecuted with more rigour for neglect of these, than others are for the highest Immoralities. Is not this to prefer your Tradition to God's Law? Do not ye make void the Law of God, neglecting Love, studying Unity, Mercy, etc. for these your Traditions?  
Sect. 11. But saith the Dr. The Pharisees thought a man's Conscience defiled, if he did not observe the Traditions, as appears by Christ's subsequent Discourse, showing what it is that defileth a man, and what not. A. This they thought, only because they had put these things in that state, by their Tradition, but never taught that these things would have defiled the man if there had been no such Tradition; and do not our Brethren think, that omitting the Ceremonies now enjoined, defileth a man? Do they not think the Non-conformists have need of Repentance and Pardon for their Nonconformity: If they think not so, why do they so blame, and prosecute them? The Dr. concludeth, p. 341. That the main thing in question, was, whether this Ceremony of washing hands, could be omitted without defileing the Conscience, otherwise, saith he, our Saviour's Conclusion doth not reach the Question. This is a great Mistake (though it were no hazard to our Cause to grant it) for this Question was but consequential to another; to wit, Whether the Church had power to institute Ceremonies, such as Christ had not instituted; and then charge People with sin, and not keeping a good Conscience, for not observing them: This was the main Question, as appeareth by his reproving them for making such Traditions, and for bringing the Commandments of men into God's Worship: Our Saviour's Conclusion that he speaketh of; to wit, his discourse about what defileth a man, is not the thing he first intended to prove; to wit, by his reproving them for their Traditions; for the Conclusion of that Argument, is, That men ought not to teach for Doctrines, the Commandments of men, i. e. institute in Worship, what Christ hath not instituted: But this discourse, about what defileth a man, is a Consequence drawn from that Conclusion; to wit, That things, so forbidden, may be forborn without sin; and that it is transgressing of God's Command, not of man's, that defileth the Conscience; wherefore there is no ground for what the Dr. saith, that Christ condemned them, not merely with respect to the Command of Superiors, (understand a Command of Superiors bringing into the Worship of God, what was not instituted by God; otherwise, it reacheth not our Question) for condemning the Traditions of men, is a condemning merely with respect to the Command of Superiors, in that sense.  
Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews, p. 342. for this he showeth, That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists, to prove, That they equalled their Traditions, with the Commands of God; and h●nce inferreth, that this was not looked ●n as an indifferent Ceremony, but as a thing, whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience. The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth; to wit, the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission, after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church, not before; so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies. Wherefore, Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse, by this one saying, as the Dr. allegeth. I well know, what Sanctity the Rabbis placed in the strict Observance of these things, and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them: But all this Sanctity they founded, not only natural, or antecedent goodness of the things observed, but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church, in which our Brethren are not much inferior to them. He telleth us, that they said, Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom, deserveth not only Excommunication, but Death too: and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies, except that it is not yet made death by the Law; though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account, hath brought them to their death. I could tell you of Rabbis in the Church of E●gland, that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies, as ever the Jewish Rabbis did against not observing their Washings. He admireth, p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe, that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews, and required for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are. A. He need not admire, for none of us say so of that Washing, when imposed; and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition, as our Ceremonies are. That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are; a Reason of the difference is already given; to wit, That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies, for taking away Uncleanness: Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution, for honouring Him, and edifying of Souls.  
Sect. 13. He proceedeth, Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth, by considering the Popish Ceremonies, and their opinion of washing away Sin, and Justification by them. And for this, he citeth many Authors, all which pains might have been spared: For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abou● the Jews opinion of their Washings, and needeth no other Answer. All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies, is consequent to, and dependent on, their being enjoined by the Church: None of them say, that they have such Efficacy in themselves, and that they attribute, taking away of sin, to them, ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works, which the Church of England doth not maintain. The Church of England maketh them good Works, but denieth their Merit; because she denieth that, even to the Works that God hath commanded: The Papists do but make them good Works also, and that they think them meritorious, is from this their opinion, that all good Works are such, and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves, without Institution. They ascribe spiritual Effects to them, saith he; so do you to your Ceremonies; as, stirring up of dull Minds, engaging the Soul to God, etc. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this, without a Divine Institution, that it has to drive away Devils, as the Papists allege Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity, by the Doctor, on this ground. He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies, with these of Rome, but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites, than that hath to make them Causes of Grace. He telleth us, pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise, than as purged from Popish Superstition; and for this, citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer, and Can. 30. Answer. Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned, if they may be their own Judges; it is Amicum Testimonium. I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them, but to purge out all, is impossible: The things themselves, as stated in the Worship of God, without His Institution, being such: Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause, by this Discourse, our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies; viz. That these things (being unnecessary in themselves) that have been so grossly abused to Idolatry and Superstition, ought not to be brought into God's Worship, by them who abhor that way; nor indeed, can they without much scandal: But of this, and other Arguments, I have treated elsewhere.  
Sect. 14. His second way, how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship, he hath, pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable, and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians: And this he purgeth the Church of England from: What is already said, doth abundantly refute this; for I have showed that Ceremonies may be parts (though bad ones) of Worship, without this, and the former too. And indeed, if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship, none of the Popish Ceremonies were such; for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God, as he pleaseth, more than the English Convocation will▪ And I believe, there was never Church in the world, that held, That she could enjoin what God had not enjoined, unalterable, and so as to bind all Christians. But still the Doctor (as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do) maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies, and their Practice, in reference to them: If they be alterable, why will ye rather ruin your Brethren, hazard Souls, rend the Church, than alter them? If they bind not our Consciences, why do ye charge us with Sin, for refusing them? If they bind not all men, why is the Worship of other Churches so cried out upon, by many of your Church?  
Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now, Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church, and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries, that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship, and answereth them. It is here to be observed, that the Arguments that he mentioneth, are but some of many, that we use against the Ceremonies: And these, not they that are most directly against them. Mr. A. Argueth thus: An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace, whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of, and Subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. The Dr. Answereth: An outward visible Sign, representing between men, the duty or engagement of another, is no part, much less a substantial part of Worship. I know not how this answereth the Argument, or to what end it is brought; for the Argument speaketh of a Sign dedicating us to the Redeemer, the answer of one man's duty to another. I also wonder that the Dr. who a little above confounded a real and substantial part of Worship, should distinguish between some part of it, which is all one with a real part, and a substantial part.  
For further Answer, the Dr. distinguisheth a threefold Sign: 1. Representing Gods Grace to us, as Sacraments. 2. Representing men's subjection to God, these are parts of Worship. 3. Signs from men to men, to represent some other thing, beside the bare Action, and these are significant Ceremonies, such as is the Cross in Baptism, He saith that, after the child is Baptised, the Cross is used in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified. This sign is made not to God, even as the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross as a declarative sign to man; it in Baptism representeth the Duty, not the Grace; that is ours, and we appoint the sign for it; this God's, and he must appoint the sign for it.  
Sect. 16. To this his Answer, I repone. 1. Sacraments do not only represent God's Grace to us, but our Duty to him; for they are Seals of the Covenant, and the Covenant is mutual containing a Promise of Grace from God, and our duty to Him; wherefore, a Sacrament, as it Sealeth both, doth also Represent both. I wonder that the Learned Dr. for the sake of a few paultery Ceremonies, should thus mangle the use of the Sacraments of the New Testament, when he cannot otherwise defend these Ceremonies; but what will not men do or say to serve a design? 2. Signs representing our Duty to God; are parts of Worship, he acknowledgeth; he meaneth representing to God that which is our Duty. Now the Dr. should have told us what are these Signs that represent our Duty to God; it is like, he meaneth Prayer, Praises, and such like; but these do not so much represent to God our Duty, as offer it, or pay it to him: when I pay money to a man that I owed him; this is not a sign representing the money to him which is his due, but a giving of it to him: And indeed, we cannot without a very unfit Catachresis be said to represent to God, by a sign, what is our Duty. For, Signum (as Augustine defineth it) est res praeter speciem quam sensibus ingerit aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cognitionem venire. And all acknowledge, that it is essential to the notion of a sign, to bring one to the knowledge of somewhat, which cannot be applied to God who knoweth all things actually, and intuitively, at all times; beside, that a sign is a sensible thing, and Senses are not to be ascribed to God, and therefore God knoweth not any thing by signs.  
Sect. 17. 3. His thoughts seem to run very muddy in managing this distinction; especially in explaining the third member of it, Signs from men to men, representing some other thing than the bare Action. What meaneth he by this last Clause? do not all Signs represent somewhat beside the bare Action, or beside themselves? so that he here describeth his third Member of his distinction, by the general notion of the thing distinguished, which is a great error in Logic. 4. Signs are rather to be distinguished by their Original, which giveth them a signification, or maketh them representative, than by the persons to whom they hold forth what they signify; for every Sign doth represent the thing signified by it, to all that can discern. Hence all who treat of Signs, use to distinguish them in natural, customary and instituted, as having their power to signify, or represent somewhat, either from their nature, or from custom, or from institution, or they will of the Imposer of the signification; and this last sort they make to be Divine, when they are appointed by God for their use of signifying or representing somewhat, or Humane, when they are appointed by man. This distinction of Signs giveth some light, but I know no use of the Drs. new Coined distinction, but to confound the matter and serve a design. Now the Sacraments are Signs instituted by God to represent his Grace, and our Engagement, and this is represented to ourselves, and to all the world; the other duties wherein we express our subjection to, and dependence on God before all the world, and offer up our acknowledgements of these to him; these are also appointed by him, and so are parts of Worship that are acceptable to him; for the Ceremonies, they are merely humane Signs, appointed by man, and therefore they are not acceptable Worship; but that they are parts of Worship, is not from their Original, but from the Religious state that they are placed in; they are Solemn Actions, done in and with the Solemn Worship of God, and so appropriated to it, as that they are not done but in it; they have all that could make an external act of Worship, except Divine institution; they are designed for the same uses with true Worship; viz. Honouring God, and Edifying Men. On these Accounts they are to be accounted parts of Worship, and want of God's appointment doth not hinder that, otherwise there could be no false Worship, neither can their signifying to man, what they do signify, hinder it; for the true Worship of God doth that as hath been said.  
Sect. 18. 5. The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this, that the Cross is used after Baptism; but he will not deny; 1. That it is used immediately after it, or rather conjoined with it, as near as two actions can be to one another. Nor, 2. Will he deny that it is included in, and not used after the complex action of Baptism, which taketh in Instruction about the nature of Baptism, Prayer and Thanksgiving; it is not after all this, and so it is stated in, and mixed with this solemn piece of Religious Worship, and therefore must be a religious thing; it cannot possibly be a civil right under such circumstances. 6. It was to no purpose to mention here the Ancients use of the sign of the Cross, for that was in War, or other civil Actions, which could have no appearance of making it a Religious Ceremony. 7. That the Cross in Baptism representeth the Duty, and not the Grace of Subjection to the Redeemer, doth not hinder it to be a Sacramental Sign; (though we never thought it a Sign of Grace, as the Sacraments are) for Sacraments represent, also our Duty, as hath been showed; and its being so conjoined with the Sacrament; maketh a show as if men would by it represent that Grace by which we must subject ourselves to the Redeemer, which yet they cannot do. When men take upon them to add a new Sign to the Sacramental Sign instituted by Christ, for representing the one half of what is represented by Christ's Sign; viz. one part of the Covenant there sealed which is subjection to, and owning of the Redeemer, and put this their sign, in the same Religious state with Christ's Sign, so as there is no difference between them, but the Authority by which they are instituted; it may be warrantably said that they make a Sacramental Sign, and that they make a new Sacrament as far as man can make it. 8. That we may devise a Sign to represent the Duty in Baptism, because the Duty is ours, as God appointeth the Sign to represent the Grace, because that is his, is a strange assertion; for that is to allow man an equal share with God in instituting a Sacrament, in which both the Grace of God, and the Duty of Man, or his engagement to his Duty, are sealed, and represented. If Ceremonies must have such Divinity to defend them, I shall be less in love with them than before.  
Sect. 19 He denyeth, p. 349. that the Cross in Baptism, is intended by the Church as a Sign of immediate Dedication to God, but of Obligation on the person, and laboureth to clear the thirtieth Canon, asserting the contrary, which saith, that by it the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died on the Cross. What he saith for vindicating this Canon, is, that Baptism is complete before Crossing, and so it is no part of Baptismal dedication; and that, the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ, but signeth with the Cross in the name of the Church, who by that Rite, receiveth the Infant into their number; and thus understanding the use of the Cross, he saith, all the difficulties about dedicating, covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Signs, will appear to be of no force. Answer, 1. The Dr. would say something, by mentioning Immediate Dedication: and if what he intendeth by it be to the purpose, it must be, that the Church may not institute a Sign, whereby one is Immediately dedicated to God; but they may institute one, whereby he is Immediately dedicated to God: Now if the Dr. had given any hint of a ground for this distinction, or to show that the one is more lawful than the other, he would have obliged us; but that not being done his employed distinction is to be rejected as without all ground. 2. A Sign of Obligation of the Person to dedicate himself to the Redeemer, used in a piece of God's solemn Worship, and appropriated to that Worship, is by its Signification, its End, its concomitant Circumstances, so stated, as the using of that Sign cannot but be a Religious Act, and so a part of God's Worship, which (as the Dr. himself confesseth) needeth Divine Institution, and cannot lawfully be appointed by the Church. 3. I wonder why the Dr. should endeavour to vindicate that Canon that he citeth, from meaning what it expressly saith; viz. that by the sign of the Cross, the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who Died on the Cross; it is impossible to shun expounding this of a dedicating Sign without doing the greatest violence Imaginable to the plain words, neither is there the least shadow of ground, to think, that Immediate dedication is not here meant, seeing the Infant is said to be dedicated by this Sign, without the least hint of any intervenient dedicating sign, or cause between the sign, and that which the Dr. will call Immediate Dedication. 4. When he saith the Cr●ssing is no part of Baptismal dedication, the meaning must be, it is not a part of Dedication by that Sign that Christ appointed; viz. Baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, none doubteth of that; but how doth this show that it is no dedicating sign, as the Canon saith; or no immediate dedicating sign, as the Dr. allegeth: It is a sign devised by men, to dedicate the Infant, added to the sign appointed by God for the same end. Now our Question is, What warrant have men for making such an Addition to so great an Ordinance of God? 5. The next thing for vindicating the Canon is, that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ; but Signeth in the Name of the Church, is as little for his purpose: for who gave the Church Power to Institute a dedicating Sign to be Administered in her name, and set it up by Christ's dedicating Sign, to be Administered in his Name? This seemeth to be an addition to Christ's Ordinance, and a reflection on it as imperfect; as if the Child were not sufficiently dedicated to the Redeemer by Christ's Sign that he hath Instituted for that End. 6. It doth least of all vindicate the Canon, which he addeth; to wit, that by it (the sign of the Cross) the Church receiveth the Infant into their number; for this is a quite other thing than the Canon saith; and to make that the meaning of the Canon, is to take a liberty to impose what meaning upon it he pleaseth. Let the Reader now judge, whether by any thing that he hath said, all the difficulties about Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental signs, do appear to be of no force.  
Sect. 20. He asketh, page 350. Why may not the Church appoint such a rite of admission of one of her Members, declaring it to be no part of Baptism? Answer. The Church hath not appointed it as a rite of admission of a Member, but a rite of dedicating the Person to Christ as hath been showed. And the reason why he may not do it, is, because Christ hath already done it sufficiently: He hath appointed Baptism both for dedicating the Person to himself, and for admitting him into his Church: Therefore men ought not to contrive their signs for that end, which he hath abundantly provided for, by his own means. Another reason why this may not be done, is, because this sign is so stated in the Word of God, by being done in the Solemn Exercise of it, for a Religious end; and appropriated to this Religious Exercise, that it cannot be otherwise looked on than as a piece of God's Worship. He parallelleth this with holding up the hand, in an Independent-Church presently after Baptism, as a sign of admission into that particular Church. Answer, 1. I know no warrant for such an admitting rite, Baptism is sufficient to make one a Member of Christ's Church, and that maketh one a Member of any particular Church, where Providence casteth his lot. 2. If Independents should state this admitting rite in the very Solemnity of Baptism, before the complex action be finished, they were to be blamed, but they do not so; they make an observable difference as to time, and other circumstances, between these two actions. 3. Signing with the Cross, is not a mere admitting sign into a particular Church, as shall afterward be discoursed, but also a dedicating sign; as the Canon expressly saith, and therefore this parallel is null.  
Sect. 21. He next blameth Mr. B. for supposing, that the Minister signing the Child, speaketh in the Name of Christ, or as his Officer, and saith, it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church; because he saith, We receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him, etc. Answer, It is not material to our debate, which of the Two be said; for the question is, Whether the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ, when he hath already appointed a sign for that end? We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign, to be done in her name; after the person is already dedicated by Christ's sign, and in His name. If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number; and that may be done in her name. I answer, by Christ's sign that is also done, by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christ's Flock. But beside this, it is evident, that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church; but dedicating of the person to Christ, not only from the plain words of the Canon, of which already, but by what followeth in the words used at the signing; which are, We receive him into the number of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Soldier and Servant, unto his lives end, Amen. Will any man say that this is mere admission, as a Member of the Church, or into the Church of England; and that no more is intended by these words? Is it not made a sign of our Covenant, or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism? To wit, all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of. The absurdity of this notion; to wit, that Crossing is merely an admitting sign, will yet further appear, if we consider, that in the same office of Baptism, used by the Church of England, the Minister having put the Godfathers in mind of Christ's promise to the Infant to be baptised, he is to say: Wherefore after this promise made by Christ, these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties, that they will forsake the Devil, and all his works, and constantly believe Gods Holy Word, and obediently keep his Commandments: This is the baptismal Dedication. I hope that will not be denied: Now, is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things? And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign, as well as Baptism. And it may as well be said, that Baptism is merely a rite of admission into the Church, as that is such.  
Sect. 22. He telleth us, page 351. that all public admissions into Societies have some Ceremony; belonging to them. That we deny not, and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church; which he having done, how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end? As Baptism (saith the Doctor) is a rite of admission into Christ's Catholic Church, so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England, in which this Ceremony is used, without prescribing to other Churches.  
This now, is the fine new Notion, for the sake of which, all the foregoing discourse is designed: The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it; for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before: But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour, and hard throws of a Mountain. I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already, Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9 that by this one Notion, the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book; which is to charge them with separation; most of whom he here doth implicitly, and by necessary consequence, acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England; they never having been signed with the Cross: For if they never were Members, they were not capable of separation, more than another Man's Leg can be said to be cut off from my body, to which it never was united. 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church, but the quite contrary; as is evident from what is already cited, both out of the Thirtieth Canon, and out of the Office of Baptism, both which are the authentic Writings of the Church; wherefore this is to be looked on as but one Doctor's Opinion; and we are to take the scope, and meaning of the Church's Ceremonies from her own declaration, and not from the thoughts of any one man, when he is straightened in defending of these rites. 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross, should be willing now to join as Members of the Church; and to submit to all her terms of Communion, whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission? The same may be enquired concerning any Baptised in France, Scotland, or any other Church. I suppose he will not own such Crossing, I am sure it was never heard of; if he say, it is not to be done, How do these become Members of the Church? The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant, even where it is not joined with Baptism, why then do not the Church of England, (for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church) require this Crossing out of Baptism, if it be merely a sign of admission into the Church of England? 4. If the Church, and the Dr. too, and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church, would declare never so often that this is the use, and the only use of Crossing, all this could not satisfy, as long as the words used with it, and the Religious State in which it is by their practice fised, do make the contrary apparent.  
Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross, his Brethren do not approve; yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating, or common professing sign of Baptised Persons; to wit, that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end: Then the Dr. answereth; True, but not only for that end, but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men; for which God o●ly aught to appoint means. Reply, 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christ's for all the ends that they are appointed for; but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends; because Christ's means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for: Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify God's promise of giving grace, but also to signify our engagement to perform duty: Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one, more than for the other▪ 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a mean and instrument of conveying grace to men: Ergo, ex concessis, it is unlawful to be appointed by men. The antecedent I prove, for the Church maketh her Ceremonies to stir up the dull minds of men; and this in particular, to be a token that hereafter the party baptised shall not be ashamed of Christ; therefore it must be a mean of stirring up one to own Christ; and is not this the very use of Baptism? What difference is there, but that the one is a mean appointed by God for conveying the grace that he hath promised; the other is a mean appointed by man for the same end?  
Sect. 24. The Dr. chargeth the Church of Rome with Insolence, in appointing Rites for applying the Merits of Christ; and saith, This is the only possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments. Answer, Though we have many other Arguments against the Ceremonies, than that they are Sacraments of men's making; yet we will not pass even from that Argument. The Drs. assertion 〈…〉 false; for a Sacrament is a visible Sign of invisible Grace ●nd if men appoint signs of their own, for representing or conveying Grace, they make new Sacraments; tho' they do not intend by these to apply Christ's Merit: Sacraments are for applying the Spirit of Christ, as well as for applying the Merit of Christ; and therefore if men pretend to make signs for the one, tho' not for the other, they make new Sacraments. We do not say, that every significant Custom in a Church is to pass for a new Sacrament, as the Dr. would make us say: Sitting at the Sacrament, putting off the hat in Prayer, etc. (which he paralleth with the Ceremonies, are quite of another nature, being Actions made sit by civil Custom, and for their fitness, used in, worship, but not appropriated to it. Mr. B. objecteth against the Cross, being a bare Rite of admission; that the obligation is to the Common Duties of Christianity. The Dr. Answereth; And is not every Church-Member bound to perform these? How this Answereth the Objection, I see not: For the Question, is not what Church-Members are obliged to, but when Christ hath appointed a Sacramental sign, to represent the common duties of Christianity; whether the Church may appoint another sign for the same end, and join that sign with Christ's sign, to be performed with it, with the same Solemnity, and in the same Office of divine worship? He saith that, To show that Crossing is a solemn Rite of Admission, the Church alloweth it to be forborn in private Baptism. Answer, 1. This only showeth it to be a solemn action, not that it is a solemn rite of admission; for all this, it may be a solemn Sacrament, or a solemn piece of other worship. 2. This allowance of the Church doth quite cross the Drs. Conceit of its being a Rite of admission into the Church of England; for if it were so looked on, the Church would rather enjoin it then, because without it, the person baptised, should not at all be admitted into the Church, and so be no Member of it; and surely the Rite of administration to the Church, is more needful, where admission into the universal Church; to wit, Baptism is more questionable, whether it hath been done or not, as in private Baptism, than where it is public and known to all. To Mr. B's. Objection, That Christ's Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient, and therefore we need not devise more. He Answereth, If it be lawful, the Church is to judge of the Expediency, and to appoint other Rites that do not encroach on the Institutions of Christ, by challenging any effect peculiar to them, is no charging them with insufficiency. Reply, 1. Mr. B. and others assert, and prove the unlawfulness of these Rites, as the Dr. well knoweth; wherefore he might well have expounded, We need not devise, by, We ought not devise. 2. There are other ways how men's Rites may encroach on Christ's Institutions, than by challenging any effect peculiar to them, when as they are appropriated to Religion, used in, or amidst Religious Exercises, and for Religious Ends. 3. Dedicating a person to God, engaging the Soul to own Christ, and such like, are effects peculiar to Christ's Institutions; for they are instituted for these ends, and nothing else hath any efficacy that way, being destitute of the promise of a Blessing: Wherefore, even on that account, and by his own Confession, our Ceremonies import a charging of God's Ordinances with insufficiency.  
Sect. 25. The rest of his debate with Mr. B. pag. 353, 354. I wave, it being ad hominem, only on a principle of Mr. B's. that I allow not. He pleadeth against Mr. B. pag. 355. that the sign of the Cross, if it had Christ's Institution, would be a Sacrament; because than it should have promises annexed, and the nature of it quite changed, and the Minister should sing in Christ's Name not in the Church's. Answer. The Nature of it would be then changed, no doubt, because it would be a true Sacrament, and have the annexed Blessing; but there would be no other Change from what it now is, than what dependeth upon the Authority, by which it is instituted. But that doth not hinder it to be now a Mock Sacrament, and to have as much of a Sacrament as is possible, without divine institution. The Ministers signing now in the name of the Church, which he then would do in the Name of Christ, saith no more, but that in the one case it is Christ's Ordinance, but in the other case it is Man's Ordinance, but doth not hinder it in that case, to be a humane Sacrament. Whether Mr. B. do misrepresent the Popish Doctrine, about the efficacy of Sacraments, or not (which the Doctor by many Testimonies endeavoureth to prove, pag. 357, 358.) is not much to our business. The Doctor saith, That if by the Protestant Doctrine, the Sacraments do at all convey Grace, whatever way it be done, it showeth that the sign of the Cross-can never be advanced to that Dignity; since, in no sense it is held to be an Instrument for conveying of Grace. Answer. It is true, it is by this excluded from being a true Sacrament: But it may, for all that, be a false Sacrament; for though it be not their opinion, that it conveyeth Grace, yet it is by them held to be a mean of stirring up the mind, and engaging the Soul to these Acts, to which, nothing but the Grace of God can effectually help a person. I hope the Doctor's Conclusion of this debate with Mr. B. may now appear to be groundless; to wit, That this Phrase of a new Sacrament is groundless, and only invented to amuse People: Neither can I understand what sort of people these should be, who have been satisfied against all the other Arguments (which he calleth conveying their prejudices) and have so stuck at this stumbling block; for we bring many Arguments against the Ceremonies, that more weight is to be laid on, though this wanteth not its force.  
Sect. 26. The Dr. is pleased, Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus, and counts opposing it; a blow at the Church. If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony, he should have answered what is of purpose, learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken, and twelve arguments against it by another hand; and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A.: But this Ceremony being imposed by the Church, as one of the terms of her Communion (which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it) I shall a little consider it, by proposing our scruples against the use of it; and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it. But we must first consider the true state of the controversy; which is not, whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named? Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name, whereby that Blessed Person, or either of the other Persons of the Godhead are designed, to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty, whom Saints and Angels Worship? Yea, nor thirdly, whether it be in itself, and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling, as bowing, or lifting up the eyes, when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names? All these we readily yield: And our Brethren, on the other hand, grant, that no Worship, direct or indirect, mediate, nor immediate, (such as Papists give to their Images) is due to the Name, i. e. the Word. 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always, and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name; for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship: The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service; it is not there restricted to the Lessons, and the Creed, as the Dr. allegeth, page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth's Sermons are also taken in, & a general clause (when otherwise in the Church mentioned) carrieth it to all acts of Worship; which the Dr. without ground would limit; to wit, when they are not employed in any other act of Devotion. 3. They make it no natural, but instituted piece of Worship; the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful, never pleadeth for the necessity of it, and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church. It is true, some of them plead Scripture for it; to wit, Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty, as naturally necessary, as praying, and believing: But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this. The question than is, 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence, by bowing the head or knee, or otherwise, when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship, when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods? 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands? To both, our Brethren answer affirmatively; and we answer negatively.  
Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion. They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship. Ergo, it is unlawful. The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of men's Traditions in his Worship, as vain, on this account, that they are the Commands of Men, Math. 15. 9 Mark 7. 7. of which before. And I think the Doctor will not deny it, who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant, page, 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts; to wit, that this Act is uncommanded, and that it an Act of Worship. For the First: Few of our Brethren allege a Command for it; for than it should not be indifferent, as they make it, and they that plead a Command, found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way enjoin any such Rite: For first, the Greek Text is plain, not at, but in, the Name of JESUS: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word, is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words: For the plain sense, is, that subjection to his Dignity and Power, shall be yielded by all Creatures. 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service, but must either prove this a duty at all times, when this Name is uttered, or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all. 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling; and I know not that it is in the Church's Power, where the Lord commandeth kneeling, to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be enjoined, so is confessing with the Tongue, ver. 11. What power hath the Church, to pick and choose Scripture-Commandments, to enjoin one, and neglect another of equal Authority? But why do I stay on this, many Episcopal men, and even some Papists, look on this Text, as nothing to the purpose in hand; for the Second Part of the Antecedent, that this Bowing is an Act of Worship, I hope that will not be denied, it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ; and the stating of it in Divine Service, and appropriating it to that, doth constrain men to look so upon it.  
Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service; Ergo, It is not acceptable Service. The Consequence, I hope, will not be denied: The Antecedent I prove, because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word, rather than at the mention of these other Names, by which, God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or our Blessed Redeemer are called. It is not enough, that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered: For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it, do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST; and therefore, must either prove the Church faulty, in not instituting Worship to all these names, or they prove nothing at all. 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony, between this name, and others that are equally holy; therefore, they must either give a reason, why adoration is fit in this case, rather than in the other cases, or they do not reach the Question. The Reasons given by the learned Hooker, Eccles. polic. lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent; to wit, 1. It showeth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer, 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard. 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him, is not warrantable: He hath appointed ways for it, and not left them to our devising. 2. He saith, It maketh much against the Arians, who deny his God: head: Answer, 1. His way of convincing gainsayers, is by the Word; we must not devise ways of our own to convince Heretics; Moses and the Prophets, being God's way, are more powerful to convince, than if one were sent from the dead; and therefore, much more than such a foolish Ceremony. 3. If this Argument prove any thing, it would make it our duty rather to bow to him, when his name is mentioned in Blasphemy, or Swearing: Then such a Testimony is more needful, than when all present are worshipping him.  
Sect. 29. Argument 3. It is superstitious Worship, not only on the account of its not being commanded; but also because it is impossible to make that use of a name, without ascribing more to it than is due, to a word, or any external sign. I know our Brethren will deny all respect to the word, and affirm that it is only the Person of the Redeemer that they reverence: And I am obliged to believe that they make not the name, the Objectum Terminans, of any part of their Worship, yet the setting such a mark of discrimination on that name, from others, and giving such Reverence on that occasion, is such a violent presumption of some inward Respect to that word, rather than to another of equal Excellency, that a man ought not to believe himself, when he denyeth it of himself, much less are others obliged to believe him: Especially, the Church-Guides, who impose this, must either see some Reason for it, or none; if none, it is Church-Tyranny, to impose so arbitrarily in the Worship of God: If they see a Reason, that Reason cannot shun to be superstitious; to wit, a making a difference in this name from others, where there is no such difference: And if it were possible to free the mind of superstitious Conceits in this matter, it is altogether impossible to free the action from a●candalous appearance of superstition; for what other Construction can the Beholder put on bowing so many times at the recurrent mention of a word, when no such thing is done at the mention of other words of the same signification? May not one rationally think, that it is not the thing signified, but the sound of the word that moveth men, when they see them bow at that word, and not at another, that expresseth the same thing? If I see a man frighted at the hearing the word Eusis, and not moved at hearing Gladius, I have reason to think, that it is not the apprehension of a Sword, which is signified by both words, that doth so move him, but some Antipathy he hath at the sound of the word E●sis: This is easily applied.  
Sect. 30. Argument 4. It is impossible to observe this usage punctually, without having the mind diverted from that attention to the other Acts of Religion, that is fit. Men may talk what they will, but common Experience will convince the unbiased, that it is impossible to hear with serious attention, toward the matter read, or otherwise spoken, to go along with it in the heart, and at the same time to be ready at the sound of the word Jesus, to catch it, and to use the Reverence required. I appeal to the Experience of them who do seriously mind this bowing, whether their mind be not taken up with thoughts about the word, waiting for it before they hear it, so as they cannot at the same time, mind what else is spoken, as they ought. Here we may apply that Adage; Vides aliquem de vocibus solicitum, scito animum in pusillis occupatum. The mind cannot be intent on two things at once, such as are one single word, and the matter of a coherent Discourse. Argument 5. It is an usage unknown to the Apostolic & purest Primitive Times of the Church; yea, it is amongst the most novel Inventions of the later, and more corrupted Times of the Church, under the Antichristian Apostasy; no mention of it, till the middle of the 13th. Century. It was never enjoined, till Concil. Lugdunens' 1273. and Basiliens. 1431. Argument 6th. It hath been grossly abused to Superstition and Idolatry, in the Popish Church, and therefore being confessed to be an indifferent thing, it ought to be abolished. In a Council at Auspurg, this bowing is enjoined at the name of the body and blood of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and several others of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Concil. Lugdun. it is enjoined chiefly in the Mass. It argueth a strange respect to that way, thus to symbolise with them in their usages, that have no warrant in the word; and by so doing, to differ from all Protestant Churches.  
Sect. 31. I come now to attend the Doctor's debate with Mr. A. about this matter, where I am troubled to find the Dr. treating his Adversary with such Contempt, and indecent Reflections, on his learning, which maketh him be honoured in the eyes of men, as able to discern, as they who despise him; telleth us, He had before defenced these things, as required by the Church, against Papists; and Mr. A. borroweth their Weapons, but doth not so well manage them. We give the Author his due Praise for his learned Labours against the Papists, but are not thereby obliged to be silent, when he opposeth any of the Truths of God: But I cannot understand how Mr. A. should borrow the Popish Weapons in this Controversy, seeing the Papists, and the Doctor are in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Mr. A. doth oppose them both: It is true, a Nonconformist may say, that Papists have as good reason for their Ceremonies, as the Church of England for hers: But this is not to use their Weapons; for we think neither hath reason on their side. Mr. A. blameth the Doctor in answering his Popish Adversary, for saying, That bowing at the name of Jesus, is no more, than going to Church at tolling of a Bell. To which Mr. A. replieth, That it is Motivum cultus, at least; and so more than the tolling of a Bell, to call people to Church; and he addeth, that an Image may as well give warning to the eye, to worship, as a Bell to the ear. Here Mr. A. is far from either pleading for Popish Tenets, or using Popish Weapons; but showeth the absurdity of the Doctor's opinion, by a parallel opinion of the Papists, which the Dr. condemneth; which is a good way of reasoning ad hominem, and needed not be so cried out against. The Dr. giveth some good Reasons, why Images are not to be used in worship, but he doth not touch the Point in hand, between him and Mr. A. who never intended to parallel a Bell and Images any further than this; that a Bell in the Act of Worship (the sound of the word Jesus is in the same quality) must be Motivum cultus, and so is an Image. Therefore, if an Image not only on other accounts, that the Dr. mentioneth, but even on account of this lower use of it, its being motivum cultus, be evil; so is the sound of the word Jesus.  
Sect. 32. The Dr. exposeth Mr. A. as a cracked delirious man, for saying, that the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be motivum cultus, but the question is, whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use, to make it an ordinary stated motive to Worship. And after, if men sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship, yet how shall we excuse our own adorations? Sure the application of all this to the present Controversy is not so hard to be understood; but that a man, whose wit is not a woolgathering, may see these are not the words of a delirious man. He doth not charge the Church of England, with using Images, but with using the sound of a word to the same purpose, with the lower use that Papists ascribe to Images; and inferreth, that if the one be a sin, so is the other; and the one may as lawfully be done as the other. The adorations he speaketh of are worshipping God by the help of the sound of that word, as a motivum cultus; and therefore there is no need of proving that ye Worship any other beside God, before ye need excuse your adorations. The Dr. confesseth, page 361. that their Church never denied that men sin in making Images a stated motive of Worship: Hence Mr. A. inferreth, that their Church sinneth in making the sound of a word a stated motive of Worship; but this the Dr. is not pleased to take notice of: But when Mr. A. asserteth, that they may bring in Images with equal reason, the Dr. denieth that we may worship Images on the same reason, that we perform external adoration to Jesus at the mention of his Name; still he will not take notice wherein the parallel, and consequently, the strength of the reason lieth; to wit, in making Images a motive of worship; and making a word such; but the Dr. parallelleth making Images the object of Worship, and making the word Jesus, the occasion only of it; which is to seek subterfuges; not to stand to the argument insisted on.  
Sect. 33. Mr. A. giveth a difference between the tolling of a Bell to call People to Church, and the word Jesus occasioning, our bowing, that the one is out of worship, the other in it; when we should be intent on devotion. In answering this the Dr. saith, They contend not for the seasonableness of this bowing when they are in other acts of devotion, and immediate application to God; but about the lawfulness of it in repeating the Lessons or the Creed. Reply, 1. I have before showed that this is not the sense of the Church, which injoineth it in time of Divine Service; which I hope taketh in prayer: yea, when ever that Name is mentioned in the Church, wherefore the Dr. must be sore put to it, when he must defend the Church by contradicting her, and setting up his private opinion that he is forced upon, against her Authentic and public Records. 2. Here are two distinctions hinted, equally useless to this design. The first is, he pleadeth not for the seasonableness, but for the lawfulness of this usage; but if it be unseasonable, even at these times, that he will have it used, than it is also unlawful; seeing duties acceptable to God must be done in their season. 3. The other distinction is, it is not to be done in acts of devotion, and immediate application to God; but in the Lessons and Creed. I desire to know whether hearing the Word read, and hearing the Articles of our Faith rehearsed in a solemn manner, while we are about Worshipping God, be not acts of Devotion, and immediate Application to God, as well as prayer; which he seemeth to understand by that expression. The word read, as well as preached, Heb. 4. 2. should be mixed with Faith, and so should the hearing the Articles of our Faith; and is not Faith in its exercise Devotion, and an immediate Application to God? At least it cannot be denied, that serious exercise of the whole Soul is requisite in these exercises, as well as in that which he will call Devotion; and therefore it must be as unseasonable to be diverted by waiting for the fall of a Word, in the one exercise as in the other. 4. The Dr. taketh no notice of the main strength of Mr. A's. reason; to wit, that the toll of the Bell is out of Worship; the sound of the Word in it. The one is in statu Civili, or Communi; the other in statu Religioso;: For I hope he will not deny these exercises in which this bowing is to be used, to be Religious acts. He saith it signifieth nothing to this purpose whether persons be in the Church or out of if when the Bell rings; for in the same page he (Mr. A.) mentioneth the Mass-bell, which ringeth in Worship; and if the object of their Worship were right, it would make him better understand the parallel. Reply, It is a rash assertion to say there is no difference between the Bell ringing when People are in the Church, and when they are out of it, (he must mean when they are in the act of Worship, and when not; otherwise what he saith is impertinent) for the one is motivum Cultus, and in status Religioso, the other not: It is true, Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell in the next page, but he parallelleth it with the sound of the Word Jesus; both being a stated motive of Worship, and therefore that is mentioned by the Dr. to no purpose.  
Sect. 34. He saith, when it is said in the Injunctions, that we must bow at mentioning the Name Jesus in divine Service— or when it is otherwise in the Church pronounced: Yet, saith he, by the manner of showing this reverence, viz. with lowliness of courtesy, and uncovering the heads of mankind, it supposeth them at that time not to be employed in any other act of devotion. Answer, By this way of commenting he may easily make the Church say whatever he pleaseth; for this is to contradict the Text by his Commentary. Let him tell us when is that Name pronounced in the Church, and yet People at no other act of Devotion: This manner of reverence required, proveth nothing; for it is no wonder to hear them speak inconsistencies in requiring low courtesy, and uncovering of the head in time of Devotion, when the head is already uncovered; who enjoin the same in the Church out of that Devotion, when that Word is mentioned, tho' heads be already uncovered, as all must be in time of Divine Service; by Can. 18. the same that injoineth this Bowing. He saith, it giveth no interruption to Devotion: But doth it give none to other parts of Worship, which he is not pleased to call Devotion? He will still have it lawful, as long as the object of Worship is true; the mention of this Name only expresseth the time as the Bell doth of going to Church. Answer, It will then follow, that if Papists will only Worship God, not the Image; and use it only as a stated motive of Worship, that were lawful too. But he considereth not that the manner and mean of Worship may be sinful; when the object to which it is directed is true; and that this is so, is clear from what hath been said. I have also showed how irrational it is to parallel the Bell to call People together with a sign stated in Worship to stir up, or put in mind of it; what Mr. A. objecteth, that there is more need of this reverence in our ordinary converse, I have touched before: The Dr. maketh it a strange crossness, to deny it in Worship, and then plead for it in other cases. But Mr. A. doth not plead for it in any case, but useth this as a good reason to show the folly of their imposition: But enough of this.  
Sect. 35. The rest of his debate with Mr. A. may soon be dispatched. Mr. A. commendeth the moderation of the Canon 640. not imposing Worship toward the East or Altar; but leaving it indifferent, and pleadeth for the same Indulgence in other rites, as little necessary in themselves; as Crossing, Kneeling, etc. according to the Apostles rule, that differing parties should not judge nor censure one another, Rom. 14. 3. The Dr. in his answer, bringeth two reasons of this different practice; one is, the one sort of things were settled at the Reformation, not so the other; another is, the one is settled by Law, the other not. It is strange the Dr. should lay weight on either or both of these reasons in opposition to the Apostles command of forbearance; for the question still recurreth on the first settler of these, either by Law or otherwise: Why did they impose things so severely that the Apostle would have us bear with one another in? And then it recoileth on the upholders of this unwarantable settlement: Why do they continue such impositions as may be for-born, and divide the Church by so doing? We do prove these things unlawful as the Dr. requireth; but tho' we should fail in that proof, their counting them indifferent is enough to condemn such severe imposing of them. He saith, page 364. that Mr. A. thinketh the rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages, and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions; and than Papists may come in for a share as to worshipping the Host, Images, etc. Had Mr. A. talked at this rate, the Dr. would (as he doth on less ground) have said his fancy had been disordered, and all things were not right somewhere. Did ever Mr. A. or any of us say this, or words to that effect? We say this of things indifferent, not of things about which Christians differ; and so I hope the Papists are sufficiently shut out.  
Sect. 36. When Mr. A. or any of us, blame the leading Churchmen for using these things that are not imposed, we make this no grounds of Separation, as the Dr. would insinuate. What Mr. A. saith of disagreeing in a circustantial part of Worship, is not the conclusion of his discourse, to prove a disagreement in substantial parts of Worship; but an Antithesis (sufficiently proved) to the Dr's. assertion, that all our difference was about circumstances of Worship; and he makes it appear, that not only they with the Dissenters, but they among themselves did so disagree; while some of them Bow to the Altar, others not. If this be not a part of Worship, I see not how Bowing to an Image can be called such. He further blameth Mr. A. page 365. at the end, for making a sort of middle things (able to justify Separation) between Substantial parts of Worship, and mere Circumstantials. And the Dr. doth most unjustly infer from thence, that Separation is justified by things that are neither Substantial nor Circumstantial parts of Worship, and no part of it at all. For he will not consider, that tho' Mr. A. doth not make the Ceremonies mere Circumstantials, yet he maketh them Circumstantial parts of Worship; that is, parts of Worship without, which all that Worship that Christ hath instituted is confessed to be entire. And if Mr. A. do also go about to prove that the Ceremonies are made by the Churchmen Substantial parts of Worship, it is no incoherency in him, but in them who talk so variously of these rites; sometimes as the veriest trifles that can be, sometimes as so much conducing to the Glory and Decency of Gospel-worship. The truth is, Substantial parts of Worship, is a term of the Drs. (as Mr. A. telleth him) none of ours; and therefore if we do not apply it sometimes to his mind, let him blame himself for not making it more intelligible to us by his explication of it.   

SECT. IX. The other Pleas pretended for Separation.  
WE come now with the Dr. to the next Plea used for Separation; to wit, that the Dissenters are still unsatisfied in their Consciences about the Church's terms of Communion, and the Church excommunicateth them; and therefore they cannot join. He is pleased to join these two, tho' very distinct, yet he prosecuteth them severally. For the latter, which he speaketh first of, the Dissenters Plea, that he is pleased to take off is, the Excommunication ipso facto by the Canon 6. that we all lie under. Before I consider his answer to this, I must tell him of two things that have more weight to justify our Separation than that Canonical Excommunication. 1. That many thousands of us are otherwise Excommunicated for our noncompliance with the Ceremonies; even by the personal application, and publishing of the sentence against us; yea, multitudes may not go to Church if they would, being under the Writ de capiendo Excommunicato, and daily watched for to be apprehended; this putteth on us a forcible necessity of Non-communion, and conscience of Worshipping God, and waiting on the means of Grace, engageth us to meet privately to enjoy these ordinances that we cannot have publicly. The second thing is, even they who are not under the sentence of Excommunication, yet are materially Excommunicated by your Church if they will not comply with your Ceremonies; for we can have none of the Sacraments without them; and your Canon excludeth us out of the Church unless we Bow at the Name of Jesus. So that we cannot, if we never so fain would, enjoy God's Ordinances among you, without partaking your Ceremonies. Wherefore all the blame that can be cast on us, is not using the Ceremonies. From which we have sufficiently cleared ourselves in the eyes of unbiased Men; all that followeth on this is not to be charged on us, but on the rigour of your Church, which forceth us from among them.  
Sect. 2. The Dr. answereth to the Plea from the Canonical Excommunion, Sect. 33. page 367. that, that Excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of the things imposed, but against those who obstinately affirm it; and he blameth Mr. B. as misciting the words of the Canon. Wherefore I shall set down the whole Canon, it is the Can. 6. of the Convocation, 1603. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, by Law Established, are wicked, anti-christian, or superstitious; or such as being commanded by lawful Authority, men who are zealously, and godly affected, may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or as occasion requireth subscribe to them, let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto, and not restored until he repent, and publicly revoke these his wicked Errors. The Dr. hath a subtle distinction here between, but affirm, which term Mr. B. had used, and affirm: One would think that affirm, and no more added to it, signifieth no more than but affirm: But the Dr. saith, that affirm, signifieth these circumstances, which according to the common sense of mankind, do deserve Excommunication, viz. that it be done publicly and obstinately. What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism, I know not; I am sure his citation out of Augustine, that a man is born with till he find an accuser, or obstinately defend his opinion, saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm. Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either. If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable, being asked, why he doth not Conform; shall say, he cannot do it with a good conscience, he falleth under the plain letter of this Law, and goeth against the express words of it; and this is the least that a modest man can say, unless he will say, I will not do it, and that will be called obstinacy; and so bring him under the Law, in the Dr's. own sense. But if the man (as a modest man may) give reasons for his Nonconformity, when men require him to Conform, every word he saith, will bring him under this Excommunication.  
Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea, is pag. 368, 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists, that such an excommunication is but a commination, and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past, applying it to him; and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves, by withdrawing from the Church. I shall not contend about this, though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth, were rather ipso Jure, than ipso Facto; and that excommunication ipso Facto, bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed. But to let that pass, this excommunication declareth what we are to expect; and the frequent, yea, general execution of it, putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church, and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time. It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate, the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society, that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported; sure such excommunication, and the fact, (which we neither deny, nor are ashamed of) are enough to lose our tie that we had to the Church.  
Sect. 4. He answereth a question; Can these be called Schismatics who are first excommunicated by the Church? He saith, they may in two cases. 1. When there is just cause for the sentence. Reply, I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence, and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismatics; but to call men Schismatics for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out, seemeth to be such a figure, as when men are called Fugitives, who are justly banished; but I will not contend about words: If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just, let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth, make nothing for that; none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion, imposing men's devises in the Worship of God, and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them. His second case, in which excommunicates are Schismatics, is, if they set up New Churches, which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned. Reply, He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust, else this case were coincident with the former: And in that case I distinguish his assertion. The unjust excommunication is either for an alleged personal fault, or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false. Again, it is either passed against one or few, or it is against a great multitude, a considerable part of a Church or Nation. If it be for an alleged personal fault (where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned) I do not say that such may set up new Churches. It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared; they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine, Worship, or Discipline; but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline. But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle, falsely called error; and it also reacheth a great part of the Church, Ministers and People: I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves, let men call it setting up of new Churches, or what they will. For, 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation, or near so many, should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God, for the Caprice of some ambitious Churchmen, who excommunicate them, because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case, the Orthodox had been Schismatics, when they were excommunicated by the Arians, and set up New Churches. 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances, because of their love to the purity of them. What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases, but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes; not for any thing of their Faith, for he bids them keep the true Faith, without Separate meetings.  
Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth, in the end of page 371. and forward, to consider another Plea, made for separation; to wit, scruple of Conscience, which, I think, none do make the sole ground of separation; but they have a ground for their scruple: If that ground be good, it will warrant the scruple, and the separation too; if not, it can do neither. And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea, distinct from what I have already defended. I suppose the Author that mention it intent no more than I say; only they may rationally maintain, that a scruple not sufficiently warranted, in a person otherwise sober and sound, about a matter indifferent, or not intolerably evil, tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame, yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person. The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant, nor a Casuist; but of somewhat else that I shall not name. For when it had been pleaded, that these scruples are great, of long standing, not to be removed without very overpowering impressions on men's minds: He answereth, by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries, that a little impartiality and consideration would do it, but that we read, judge, and hear only on one side; think it a temptation to examine, cry out, we are satisfied already, are not willing to be informed, nor glad of light; fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples, etc. If we be such men, why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us; it is no wonder that he stir up the Magistrate against such, and the People too; to cry out, away with such fellows from the Earth, it is not fit they should live. He asketh, where lieth the strength and evidence of our scruples? If I should speak in his dialect, I should answer in the arguments by us produced, which he and all his party are not able to answer, nor have ever answered; but I had rather-dispute than scold: He saith, we may see light if we will: We say, we would see it if we could, and think we could see it, if it were to be seen. He telleth us how easy this dispute is. We assent, and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth. He chargeth us with wilful mistake; a mistake we deny, and make the contrary of it appear; but if it be a mistake, that it is wilful, we also deny; and though we cannot in this, satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us, etc. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts, who will one day judge us, and our rash judgers.  
Sect. 6. He contesteth, page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he allegeth Mr. A. mistook; there is no need of insisting on such debates: Brethren should study to understand one another, and construe every thing to the best. But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words, he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse, pag. 72, 73, 74. which he hath but lightly, or hardly at all touched. He proceedeth, pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists, who objecteth, that these who cannot conquer their scruples, as to Communion with our Church, must either return to the state of Paganism, or set up new Churches, by joining with the ejected Ministers. The Dr's. Answer is, that this is new Doctrine; the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church, altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at. Reply, I have formerly showed that there were old Puritans, that did both scruple and act as we do; but I deny not that some did join with the Church, but then their scruples and ours do differ: They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient, yet might be used; we think them unlawful, and not to be used: There was also another difference, they met with some indulgence, and were suffered to Worship God with the Church, and forbear the things that they scrupled; We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these, and therefore, whatever they did, we are under this unpleasing choice, either to sin against God and our Consciences, or to set up Separate Meetings, or to return to the state of Paganism; i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God.  
Sect. 7. It is objected, that we scruple joining in the Sacraments, and living under some of the Ministers. He answereth, that he never heard this last alleged for a ground of Separation; neither do I insist on it, as I have before declared; save, where they Preach false Doctrine, or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances, so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin: And this scruple hath been often heard of. It is too vulgar a way of reasoning, it is a hard case if People must fly into separation, because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be. Pray, who ever said so? But the Dr. would fain know whether, as often as men do scruple joining with others, their separation be lawful. This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge, that scrupling can never make Separation lawful; it is good ground for these scruples that must do that. Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations, might have been spared, as wholly impertinent; O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth. After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England, he asketh, what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable, as the present Separation? Ans. There is in it, that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated, that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of men's devising, or other unlawful terms of Communion, and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these. He telleth us, page 378. that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation, because men cannot conquer their scruples. It is true, neither is it fit they should allow it merely on that account; but withal he might have added, that few settled Churches except that of Rome, and that of England, do tempt, or rather force men to scruple, and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion, which they know many count unlawful. What he saith ibid. for Papists, Anabaptists, and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating, doth no way come up to our case. Neither are their scruples built on good grounds, nor are the things that they scruple, known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things. He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation, by showing what scruples are to be allowed, and what not. Hath this never been done by Non-conformists? Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly descent in the lesser concerns of Religion; and not impose unnecessary things on People's Consciences: If these were attended to, a stop might soon be put to Separation; but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand, and the Church will impose without cause on the other, there is no putting a stop to Separations, till the Lord cure our Distempers. Rigour and Persecution, if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party, is one way to put a stop to Separation, but it is none of God's way; and as it never had his approbation, so it seldom hath had success.  
Sect. 8. The Learned Author, Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject; to wit, the use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism. I never looked on this as a sufficient ground of Separation, and therefore might wave this whole debate: But I think it is an abuse, and therefore shall say a little on this Subject. Here we have not any institution to guide us, there being nothing in Scripture, that I know of, about Sponsion for the party Baptised: And therefore, as on the one hand, what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary, should not be withstood; so on the other, what is beyond that, should not be practised, and far less imposed. All the question is about the use of Sponsors in the Baptism of Infants, for the adult are to undertake for themselves. Some make the use of Godfathers, to be witnesses of the Childs-Baptism. That is very needless, for the whole Church are witnesses of that. The true use of them is to represent the Child as a party covenanting with God, in this Solemn Sealing of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Infant; and consequential to this, to undertake the instruction and education of the Child in the Christian Religion; and endeavouring to engage him to a personal owning of the Covenant. The original of other Sponsors beside the Parents was, in the Primitive Church, many young ones, either born of Heathen-Parents, or Orphans of Christian-Parents, falling into the Tuition of Heathen-Relations, in reference to their worldly concerns, were in hazard by that means to be bred in Heathenism: Wherefore it was judged needful that some faithful, and intelligent Christian should undertake for their Religious Education. This usage which reason had first brought in, ostentation did afterward enlarge, by multiplying Godfathers and Godmothers; and after that, Superstition did pervert it, by excluding the Parents, and putting strangers in their room; till at last in Popery, it was quite depraved, by making a spiritual kindred to result from this action. Wherefore, we do not deny the use of Sponsors, but think the Parents the most proper Sponsors; both on account of their opportunity, obligation and natural inclination, to do the office of a Sponsor for the Child, which may rationally be thought to be more in them than in a stranger; and we think it a gross abuse to admit of other Sponsors, except in the want of Parents, or their inability. I think also, considering things as they are, not barely in the notions that men have of things that they will defend; this practice is fallen into such abuse, that even that should make it be laid aside; for it is manifest and most common, that Godfathers and Godmothers are chosen most unqualified for, and most unconcerned in that which they make a solemn promise to God to perform, which is a horrid mocking of Him and his Ordinances: Are not Boys and Girls chosen, or Debauched and Ignorant Persons; or Strangers, that may be, shall never see the Child again, nor mind it, except it be to send it a new Coat?  
Sect. 9 The Dr. telleth us of Mr. Cartwright; yea, and all Protestant Churches approving of this. But will he say, that they are for Excluding the Parents? which is the very thing that we controvert; For as the Dr. confesseth, Can. 29. Ordaineth, That Parents need not be Present, and that they shall not be admitted to Answer: that is, they must not undertake for the instruction and education of their own Child. But saith he, The Parents are to provide such as are Fit. I desire to know what Warrant is for this, even from sound reason? Who can be so Fit, by his opportunity and care, as the Parent? And if he be wholly unfit, as to understanding, and respect to true Religion, we are not against his having a Deputy, in that Case; that it is done with the Parents consent, is better so than otherwise; but that the Parent can transfer his right to another, is without all reason, unless the Person to whom such a Translation is made, do really take the education of the Child; which though by a private compact between the Parent and Sponsor, might be done; yet, what shadow of reason can be for a Canon compelling every Parent to do it? It is (saith he) but like an occasion of absence; to wit, of the Parent, in which case all allow of a Sponsor. Ans. It is no way like it, for the one hath necessity to warrant it; the other hath nothing but men's will, or superstitious conceit. Is it alike for, the State to make a Law that neighbours should feed and clothe the Orphans of poor Parents; and to make a Law that they shall feed and clothe the Children of their rich Neighbours, who are alive? The case is just so here. It is an injury to a man, to have his Child taken from him without a cause, and given to another to be educated; so it is to be obliged, yea, forced to transfer upon another all that right he hath to represent his own child, and to engage for his education. He saith, it is not the Church's intention to supersede the obligation of the Parent, but to superinduce a further obligation upon other Persons. Had the Parent been permitted to undertake for the Child jointly with the Sponsors, there had been some colour for this assertion; but that being expressly denied by the Canon, it is evident that the Church doth what she can to make the Parent think that no obligation at all lieth on him. I meddle not with his debate against Mr. B. about Mr. B's Argument against Sponsors, from the Child's having right to Baptism, only from the Parents; many learned men differ from Mr. B. in that, and I shall not digress to dispute it.  
Sect. 10. The Dr. pag. 386. saith, he findeth nothing particularly objected against Kneeling at the Communion, that deserveth consideration, which he hath not answered in another place; to wit, Conferences First Part, which Book I have not seen; wherefore I shall in a few words lay down our Ground of Scrupling that Practice, and so leave it. We do not scruple Kneeling at Prayer, which is joined with receiving of that Sacrament; nor do we deny that all possible reverence should be used in going about that Holy Ordinance; but we think the expression of that Reverence should be of Gods appointing in his Word, or grounded on Nature, or civil Custom, and not instituted by man's Will. 1. Then we scruple it, because it is an uncommanded Act of Worship; that it is Worship, I think will not be denied; Kneeling in Prayer cannot be denied to be an Act of external Worship, no more than this: That it is uncommanded, we must believe, till they show us a Command for it. They allege, that Kneeling, being unquestionable a fit gesture to express Humility and Adoration; it cannot be unfit, but needful in this Case where both are required. To this I reply, Humility is not fitly expressed by Kneeling, though Adoration be, and therefore we think Kneeling in the Act of Receiving to be no fit gesture, because Adoring, however needful it be in the complex Action of Communicating; to wit, before and after Receiving the Elements; it is not the Souls work in that Act, Believing or Covenanting with God, is the proper Exercise of the Soul in that Act, which is a solemn sealing of the Covenant, and this Covenanting is very unfitly expressed by Kneeling. He that is about solemn Prayer or Adoration (which might be well expressed by Kneeling) in the Act of receiving that Sacrament, doth little know, or consider, the nature and use of it; whence I form our Argument thus; that Religious Gesture which is neither Commanded by God, nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature, and dictated by it; nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship; but is only imposed by the Will of man, is unlawful to be used in that Worship; but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such; Ergo, etc. The major is clear, for that must in that case be Will-worship; the minor is proved by what is said, and the conclusion followeth, ●i●syllogistica.  
Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is; this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolic and purest Primitive Church; Christ with his Disciples Sat or leaned; they used the table gesture, than made decent by civil custom, and yet they used as much humility in receiving, and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do, or can. In after Ages this Practice was not used, it is well known that in Tertullia's time, and till the beginning of the Fifth Century, they did not use to Kneel on any Lord's Day between Easter and Pentecost, so much as at Prayer; and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it; how then did they make the Communion Kneeling? A third ground is; this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature, with a Religious respect to the Creature; but this is unlawful, etc. The first proposition is clear, for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them, that we Kneel; and it will not be denied that we there adore God Religiously. The second proposition I prove, because Protestants do generally condemn Praying before an Image (as on other accounts, so on this) because it is an adoring of God before a Creature, with a Religious respect to it; let our Brethren show us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images, that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements. We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship, as they do the other; they deny that they give any Worship to the Image, as we do with reference to the Elements. A fourth Ground is; this Practice, (as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent,) hath been grossly abused to Idolatry, the Papists in the same external way worshipping the Host. And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christ's Bodily presence in the Sacrament, and the Papists profess, that if they did not believe that, they would not so Kneel; and is it fit that we should so symbolise with them? which by this Practice we do to that degree, that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs, by the spectators of both. These grounds I have but hinted, being spoken to more largely by others.  
Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies, she may impose some use of Images, etc. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages. All this discourse might have been waved, for neither Mr. A. nor any of us, did ever make that a ground of Separation; tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground. If they will remove the present Ceremonies, we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them; nor out of fear of what may come.  
Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth, and then refuteth is, Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England, and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome; and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface (he should have said, Epistle Dedicatory) to Mischief of Impositions; but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other, ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is, ad hominem, against the Dr's. ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church; whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church; Ration: account. p. 293. And def. against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth. Separation from that Church: Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head. And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary, that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject, and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joining with the Church of England, but Worshipping God in Meeting apart from it.  
Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book, to set it off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, three Letters of three French Divines, Printed first in French, and then in English, ad pompam; for it is little ad pugnam. But he might know, what ever difference we give to learned and good men, their authority, without Scripture proof (which we yet desiderate) will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice; let the Dr. call it obstinacy, or by what name he pleaseth. The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden, to the Bp. of London; the authority of which Letter (not of the learned Author of it) we have good cause to neglect; because it is apparent to any that read it, that it is written by a stranger to us, upon gross misinformation of our principles: For he saith, page 404. that he could not have persuaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England: And I join with him so far; that I know not, nor hear of one Nonconformist of that opinion; but thus it seems we are, by our Brethren, represented abroad; and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us. He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies, page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline, ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England, yea in the Christian World, that are predestinated to eternal happiness, and that hold truths necessary to Salvation, as they ought to be held, so he page 408. he also, page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London, where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher, as very ridiculous; and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists, showeth him to be either a very great stranger to them, or somewhat that is worse. Let any now judge, whether such a Testimony be to be received against us.  
Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle, speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it, to be an ingenious and sober Person, but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party: He lamenteth our Divisions, so do we; he is for compliance with the Ceremonies, being settled, but is far enough from approving of them. The former part of this, I impute to his being less concerned to consider these things, than we are. He stateth our Separation mainly upon Episcopacy, which we do not; and he, no doubt, doth it upon Misinformation: But it is observable, that this good man, whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side, doth as much blame the Church as us, whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies, that occasion Separation; which he insisteth much on, as the way to peace. A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with, is, That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters, a little after His Majesty's Restauration, nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians; the contrary of which, and their great Condescendency for Peace, is known to all England, and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity, is the Book called, A Petition for Peace, containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed, while the Prelatical Party would not part with, yea, nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony, or mode of their Service.  
Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent, Monsieur Claude, who walketh by the same Spirit, and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague, Monsieur de l' Angle: He speaketh of Episcopacy as tolerable; that one may, with a good Conscience, live under it: This is not our Question; but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him, by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause. He telleth us, they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops; so do we: He doth highly commend Love and Concord: And we think it cannot be overvalued▪ where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages, both by Episcopacy, and Parity; and of disadvantages by both, when managed by bad men. Nothing of which do we contradict. He complains of Extremes on both sides, we do the same: We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate, as they should be: After a proof of Independency, he comes to speak of Presbyterians, with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding, and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth. He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order, and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry; this we refuse not. He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart, but stateth it on this ground, page 445. as if we did Separate because the public assembles are held under Episcopal Government; and that we think our presence there were an approving of it, which is wide from our case; but no doubt is according to his information, for which we ●hank our Episcopal Brethren, and commend their ingenuity. To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies; but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them: which is far from our thoughts: These Principles he doth most solidly refute. He saith, page 447. that he cannot believe that any of ●us (Presbyterians) look on their Episcopal Discipline, or Ceremonies as blots and capital errors that hinder a man from Salvation. And doth in this truly judge, for we have always disowned such sentiments, we judge them sinful evils, which we dare not own; but have much charity to some who own them. He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation, and when the dispute is about Ceremonies, that are a stumbling-block, and nothing in comparison of communion, they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ, better than themselves. O that this advice were followed, how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude, or his Colleague touched our controversy. Alas! good Men, they are abused by misrepresentations. Their Letters give just ground to think, that if they were made Umpires between the two parties, Prelatical and Presbyterian, and heard the true state of our debate, and true matters of fact: they would be of the same mind with us. And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for. Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters. What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side, or at least to say nothing against them, may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary, Monsieur l' Arrogie; who having writ a Book, wherein he showeth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome (which all know to be Presbyterian) with that of the Primitive Church; And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle, touching the Letters of Ignatius, and the Apostolical Constitutions, against Mr. Pearson and Beverige, and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him, at the request of some that favoured episcopacy, he did not finish his answer. These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause; of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants, Ministers and others, who do not Conform to the Church of England; the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great gospel Duty of charity. At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles, was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies, nor English Liturgy. Since I wrote this, I have met with another instance of Episcopal ingenuity, for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches. It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart, dated Nou. 2d. 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley, wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three positions; whereof the third is a gross calumny, and excellently disproved by Bochart, and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him; the position is, Reges posse vi & armis a subditis cogi in ordinem▪ & si se praebeant immorigeros, de soliis deturbare, in carcerem c●njici, si●●i in jus & carnificem deniqne capite plecti; and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st. The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter, as it is Printed after his Phaleg, and Canaan; from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford, 1681.  
FINIS.