The unreasonableness of Separation: OR, An Impartial Account OF THE History, Nature, and Pleas OF THE Present Separation FROM THE Communion of the Church of ENGLAND. To which, Several late LETTERS are Annexed, of Eminent Protestant Divines Abroad, concerning the Nature of our Differences, and the Way to Compose Them. By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET, D. D. Dean of St. Paul's, and Chaplain in Ordinary to HIS MAJESTY.  
LONDON, Printed by T. N. for Henry Mortlock, at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXI.   

THE PREFACE.  
IT is reported by Persons of unquestionable credit, that after all the Service B. Jewel had done against the Papists, upon his Preaching a Sermon at St. Paul's- Cross, in Defence of the Orders of this Church, and of Obedience to them, 
Archbishop Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, p. 423.  he was so Ungratefully and Spitefully used by the Dissenters of that Time, that for his own Vindication he made a Solemn Protestation on his Deathbed, 
Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works, n. 34.  That what he then said, was neither to please some, 
Vita Juelli per Humoured. p. 255.  nor to displease others, but to Promote Peace and Unity among Brethren. I am far from the vanity of thinking, any thing I have been able to do, in the same Cause, fit to be compared with the Excellent Labours of that Great Light, and Ornament of this Church, (whose Memory is preserved to this day, with due Veneration in all the Protestant Churches;) but the hard Usage I have met with, upon the like occasion, hath made such an Example more observable to me; especially when I can make the same Protestation, with the same sincerity as he did. For, however it hath been Maliciously suggested by some, and too easily believed by others, that I was put upon that Work, with a design to inflame our Differences, and to raise a fresh persecution against Dissenting Protestants; I was so far from any thought tending that way, that the only Motive I had to undertake it, was, my just Apprehension, that the Destruction of the Church of England, under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery, was one of the most likely ways to bring it in. And I have hitherto seen no cause (and I believe I shall not) to alter my opinion in this matter; which was not rashly taken up, but form in my Mind from many years' Observation of the Proceedings of that Restless Party (I mean the Papists) among us; which hath always Aimed at the Ruin of this Church, as one of the Most Probable Means, if others failed, to compass their Ends. As to their Secret and more Compendious ways of doing Mischief, they lie too far out of our View, till the Providence of God, at the same time, discovers and disappoints them; but this was more open and visible, and although it seemed the farther way about, yet they promised themselves no small success by it. Many Instruments and Engines they made use of in this design; many ways and times they set about it, and although they met with several disappointments, yet they never gave it over; but, Would it not be very strange, that when they can appear no longer in it, others, out of mere Zeal against Popery, should carry on the Work for them?  
This seems to be a great Paradox to unthinking People, who are carried away with mere Noise and Pretences, and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery, who talk with most Passion, and with least Understanding against it; whereas no persons do really give them greater advantages than these do. For, where they meet only with intemperate Rail, and gross Misunderstandings of the State of the Controversies between them and us (which commonly go together) the more subtle Priests let such alone to spend their Rage and Fury; and when the heat is over, they will calmly endeavour to let them see, how grossly they have been deceived in some things, and so will more easily make them believe, they are as much deceived in all the rest. And thus the East and West may meet at last; and the most furious Antagonists may become some of the easiest Converts. This I do really fear will be the case of many Thousands among us, who now pass for most zealous Protestants; if ever, which God forbid, that Religion should come to be Uppermost in England. It is therefore of mighty consequence for preventing the Return of Popery, that Men rightly understand what it is. For, when they are as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony, as of real Idolatry; and think they can Worship Images, and Adore the Host on the same grounds, that they may use the Sign of the Cross, or Kneel at the Communion; when they are brought to see their mistake in one case, they will suspect themselves deceived in the other also. For they who took that to be Popery which is not, will be apt to think Popery itself not so bad as it was represented, and so from want of right understanding the Differences between us, may be easily carried from one Extreme to the other. For, 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. For, it will be very hard to persuade any considering Men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon, so unanimously, so universally, as it must do, if Episcopal Government, and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostasy. Will it not seem strange to them, that when some Human Polities have preserved their First Constitution so long, without any considerable Alteration, that the Government instituted by Christ, and settled by his Apostles, should so soon after be changed into another kind, and that so easily, so insensibly, that all the Christian Churches believed, they had still the very same Government which the Apostles left them? Which is a matter so incredible, that those who can believe such a part of Popery could prevail so soon in the Christian Church; may be brought upon the like grounds to believe, that many others did. So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Church's Enemies, bring upon the Cause of the Reformation. And those who forego the Testimony of Antiquity, as all the Opposers of the Church of England must do, must unavoidably run into insuperable difficulties in dealing with the Papists, which the Principles of our Church do lead us through. For we can justly charge Popery as an unreasonable Innovation, when we allow the undoubted Practices and Government of the Ancient Church, for many Ages after Christ. But it is observed by Bishop Sanderson, That those who reject the Usages of our Church as Popish and Antichristian, 
Preface to 2d Vol. of Serm. Sect. 11.  when Assaulted by Papists, will be apt to conclude Popery to be the old Religion, which in the purest and Primitive Times was Professed in all Christian Churches throughout the World. Whereas the sober English Protestant, is able, by the Grace of God, with much Evidence of Truth, and without forsaking his Old Principles, to justify the Church of England from all imputation of Heresy or Schism, and the Religion thereof, as it stood by Law established, from the like imputation of Novelty. Wherein he professes to lay open the inmost thoughts of his heart in this sad business before God and the World. I might show, by particular Instances, from my present Adversaries, that to defend their own practices they are driven to maintain such Principles, as by evident consequences from them, do overthrow the Justice and Equity of the Reformation; but I leave those things to be observed in their proper places: Yet I do not question the Sincerity of many men's Zeal against Popery, who, out of too eager a desire of upholding some particular Fancies of their own, may give too great advantage to our Common Enemies.  
Three ways Bishop Sanderson observes, 
Preface to the First Volume, Sect. 18.  our Dissenting Brethren, though not intentionally and purposely, yet really and eventually have been the great Promoters of the Roman Interest among us. (1.) By putting to their helping hand to the pulling down of Episcopacy. And, saith he, it is very well known to many what rejoicing that Vote brought to the Romish Party: How even in Rome itself they Sung their Jo-●aeans upon the Tidings thereof, and said Triumphantly, Now the day is ours; Now is the Fatal-Blow given to the Protestant Religion in England. (2) By opposing the Interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason. (3) By frequent mistaking the Question; but especially through the necessity of some false Principle or other, which, having once imbibed, they think themselves bound to maintain: whatever becomes of the Common Cause of our Reformation. Which may at last suffer as much through some men's folly and indiscretion, who pretend to be the most Zealous Protestants, as by all the Arts and Designs of our open Enemies. For, as the same Learned and judicious Bishop, hath said in this case, Many a Man, when he thought most to make it sure, hath quite marred a good business, by overdoing it. Thus when the Papists of late years, have not been able to hinder the taking many things into consideration, against their interest, it hath been observed, that their Instruments have been for the most violent Counsels, knowing, that either they would be wholly ineffectual, or if they were pursued, they might in the end bring more advantage than prejudice to their Cause. And it is to be feared, they may still hope to do their business, as Divines observe the Devil doth; who, when he finds one extreme will not do, he tries whether he can compass his end by the other: And no doubt they will extremely rejoice, if they can make some men's Fears of Popery, prove at last an effectual means to bring it about. As some of the Jews of old, out of a rash and violent zeal for the preservation of the purity of their Religion (as they pretended) by opposing the Sacrifices offered by Strangers, and denying the use of the lawful Customs of their Country, brought the Roman Power upon them, and so hastened the destruction both of their Religion and Country too. I do not mention this, as though we could take too great care by good and wholesome Laws to strengthen the Protestant Interest, and by that means, to keep out Popery; but only to show, what mighty prejudice an indiscreet Zeal at this time may bring upon us; if Men suffer themselves to be transported so far as to think that overthrowing the Constitution of this Church will be any means to secure the Protestant Religion among us.  
For, What is it which the Papists have more envied and maligned than the Church of England? What is it they have more wished to see broken in pieces? As the late Cardinal Barberini said in the hearing of a Gentleman who told it me, He could be contented there were no Priests in England, so there were no Bishops; for than he supposed, their Work would do itself. What is it they have used more Arts and Instruments to destroy, than the Constitution and Government of this Church? Did not Cranmer and Ridley, and Hooper, and Farrar, and Latimer, all Bishops of this Church, suffer Martyrdom by their Means? Had not they the same kind of Episcopacy which is now among us; and which some now are so busy in seeking to destroy; by publishing one Book after another, on purpose to represent it as unlawful and inconsistent with the Primitive Institution? Is all this done for the honour of our Reformation? Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us; to fill men's Minds with such Prejudices against the first settlement of it; as to go about 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, Whither will not men's Indiscreet Zeal, and love of their own Fancies carry them, especially after 40 years' prescription? I do not say such Men are set on by the Jesuits, but I say, they do their Work as effectually, in blasting the credit of the Reformation, as if they were. And yet after all these pains, and Forty years' Meditations, I do not question but I shall make it appear, that our present Episcopacy, is agreeable to the Institution of Christ, and the best and most flourishing Churches. And, Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Establishment? Were not the same Ceremonies then appointed? the same Liturgy in Substance then used? concerning which Dr. Taylor who then suffered Martyrdom, 
Acts and Monuments, Tom. 3. p. 171.  publicly declared; That the whole Church-Service was set forth in King Edward ' s days, with great deliberation, by the Advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm, and Authorised by the whole Parliament, and Received and Published gladly through the whole Realm; which Book was never Reform but once, and yet by that one Reformation, it was so fully perfected, according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf, that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained, I mean, saith he, of that Book Reform. Yet this is that Book, whose constant use is now pleaded by some, together with our Ceremonies, as a ground for the necessity of Separation from our Church's Communion.  
But if we trace the Footsteps of this Separation as far as we can, we may find strong probabilities, that the Jesuitical Party had a great influence on the very first beginnings of it. For which, we must consider, that when the Church of England was restored in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, there was no open Separation from the Communion of it, for several years, neither by Papists, nor Non-conformists. At last, the more Zealous Party of the Foreign Priests and Jesuits, finding this Compliance would in the end utterly destroy the Popish Interest in England, they began to draw off the secret Papists from all Conformity with our Church, which the old Queen Mary's Priests allowed them in: this raised some heat among themselves, but at last the way of Separation prevailed, as the more pure and perfect way. But this was not thought sufficient by these busy Factors for the Church of Rome, unless they could, under the same pretence of purity and perfection, draw off Protestants from the Communion of this Church too. To this purpose Persons were employed under the disguise of more Zealous Protestants, to set up the way of more Spiritual Prayer, and greater Purity of Worship than was observed in the Church of England: that so the People, under these Pretences, might be drawn into Separate Meetings. Of this we have a Considerable Evidence lately offered to the World, 
Foxes and Firebrands. 1680.  in the Examination of a Priest so employed at the Council-Table, A. D. 1567. being the 9th of Q. Elizabeth, which is published from the Lord Burleighs Papers, which were in the hands of Archbishop Usher, and from him came to Sir James Ware, whose Son brought them into England, and lately caused them to be Printed. Two years after, one Heath a Jesuit was Summoned before the Bishop of Rochester on a like account, for disparaging the Prayers of the Church, and setting up Spiritual Prayers above them; and he declared to the Bishop, That he had been six years in England, and that he had laboured to refine the Protestants, and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies, and to make the Church purer. When he was seized on, a Letter was found about him from a Jesuit in Spain, wherein he takes notice, how he was admired by his Flock; and tells him, they looked on this way of dividing Protestants as the most effectual to bring them all back to the Church of Rome; and in his Chamber, they found a Bull from Pius V. to follow the Instructions of the Society for dividing the Protestants in England; and the Licence from his Fraternity. There is one thing in the Jesuits Letter deserves our farther consideration, which the Publisher of it did not understand: which is, that Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson are there mentioned, as Persons employed to sow a Faction among the Germane Heretics; which he takes to be spoken of the Sects in Germany; but by the Germane Heretics the English Protestants are meant, i.e. Lutherans: and these very Men are mentioned by our Historians, without knowing of this Letter, as the most active and busy in the beginning of the Separation. Of these (saith Fuller) Coleman, 
Church History, l. 1. p. 81. History of Presbyter. l. 6. p. 257.  Button, Hallingham and Benson were the chief. At which time (saith Heylin) Benson, Button, Hallingham, and Coleman, and others taking upon them to be of more ardent Zeal than others, etc. That time is 1568, which agrees exactly with the Date of that Letter at Madrid, October 26. 1568. And both these had it from a much better Author than either of them; 
annal Elizabethae, A. D. 1568.  Camden I mean; who saith, That while Harding, Sanders, and others attacked our Church on one side; Coleman, Button, Hallingham, Benson, and others were as busy on the other; who, under pretence of a purer Reformation, opposed the Discipline, Liturgy, and Calling of our Bishops, as approaching too near to the Church of Rome. And he makes these the Beginners of those Quarrels which afterwards broke out with great violence. Now, that there is no improbability in the thing, will appear by the suitableness of these Pretences about Spiritual Prayer, to the Doctrine and Practices of the Jesuits. For they are professed despisers of the Cathedral Service, and are excused from their attendance on it by the Constitutions of their Order; and are as great admirers of Spiritual Prayer, and an Enthusiastic way of Preaching, as appears by the History of the first Institution of their Order, by Orlandinus and Maffeius. They who are acquainted with their Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer, will find that which is admired and set up here, as so much above Set-Forms, to be one of the lowest of three sorts among them. That Gift of Prayer which Men have, but requires the Exercise of their own Gifts to stir it up, they call Oratio acquisita, acquired Prayer; although they say, the Principle of it is infused. The Second is, by a special immediate influence of the Holy Ghost upon the Mind, with the concurrence of infused habits. The Third is far above either of these, which they call the Prayer of Contemplation, and is never given by way of habit to any; but lies in immediate and unexpressible unions. All these I ●ould easily show to be the Doctrine received and magnified in the Roman Church, 
V. Thom. à jesus, de natura divinae Orationis.  especially by those who pretend to greater Purity and Spirituality than others. But this is sufficient to my purpose, to prove, that there is no improbability that they should be the first setters up of this way in England. And it is observable, that it was never known here, or in any other Reformed Church before this time: and therefore the beginning of it is unjustly fathered by some on T. C. But by whomsoever it was begun, it met with such great success in the zeal and warmth of devotion which appeared in it, that no Charm hath been more effectual, to draw injudicious People into a contempt of our Liturgy, and admiring the Way of Separation. When by such Arts the People were possessed with an Opinion of a more pure and Spiritual Way of Worship than was used in our Church, they were easily drawn into the admiration of those, who found fault with the Liturgy and Ceremonies that were used among us; and so the Divisions wonderfully increased in a very short time. And the Papists could not but please themselves to see that other Men did their Work so effectually for them. For the Authors of the Admonition 14 Elizab. declared, They would have neither Papists nor others constrained to Communicate: which although, 
Defence of the Answer, p. 605.  as Archbishop Whitgift saith, they intended as a Plea for their own Separation from the Church, yet, saith he, the Papists could not have met with better Proctors. And elsewhere he tells them, That they did the Pope very good service, 
Page 55.  and that he would not miss them for any thing. For what is his desire but to have this Church of England (which he hath Accused) utterly defaced and discredited, to have it by any means overthrown, if not by Foreign Enemies, yet by Domestical Dissension. And, What fitter and apt Instruments could he have had for that purpose than you, who under pretence of zeal, overthrow that which other Men have builded, under colour of Purity, seek to bring in Deformity, and under the Cloak of Equality and Humility, would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over your Parishes, as ever the Pope did over the whole Church? And in another place, he saith, They were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave, whereby they intent to overthrow this Church by our own Folly, which they cannot compass by all their Policy. 
Fair warning second Part Printed by H. March. 1663.  Archbishop Grindal (as I find a Letter of his) expressed his great fear of two things, Atheism and Popery, and both arising out of our needless Divisions and Differences, fomented, he doubts not by Satan the Enemy of Mankind, and the Pope the Enemy of Christendom. By these differences, the Enemies of our Religion gain this, That nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion, whose every part is opposed by one or other of her own Professors; so that things continuing loose and confused, the Papists have their opportunity to urge their way, which is attended with Order and Government, and our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided, some vile wretches lay hold of the Arguments on one side to confute the other; and so hope at last to destroy all. Dr. Sutcliffe said long ago, That Wise Men apprehended these unhappy Questions about Indifferent things to be managed by the subtle Jesuits, thereby to disturb the Peace and Settlement of our Church, until at last they enjoy their long expected opportunity to set up themselves, and restore the exploded Tyranny and Idolatry of the Church of Rome. Among Mr. Selden's MSS. there is mentioned an odd Prophecy, That Popery should decay about 1500, and be restored about 1700, which is there said to be most likely by means of our Divisions, which threaten the Reformation, upon the Interest of Religion, and open advantages to the Enemies of it, and nothing is there said to be so likely to prevent it as a firm establishment of sound Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship in this Church.  
Among the jesuit Contzens directions for reducing Popery into a Country, 
Contzen Politic. l. 2. c. 18▪ Sect. 6▪  the most considerable are,  
(1.) That it be done under a pretence of ease to tender Consciences, which will gain a reputation to the Prince, and not seem to be done from his own Inclination, but out of kindness to his People.  
(2.) That when Liberty is granted, than the Parties be forbid to contend with each other, for that will make way the more easily for one side to prevail, and the Prince will be commended for his love of Peace.  
(3) That those, who suspect the Design, and Preach against it, be traduced as Men that Preach very unseasonable Doctrine, that the●● are Proud, Self-opiniators, and Enemies to Peace and Union.  
But, the special Advice he gives to a Catholic Prince, is,  
(4.) To make as much use of the Divisions of his Enemies, 
Sect. 9  as of the Agreement of his Friends. How much the Popish Party here hath followed these Counsels, will easily appear by reflection upon their behaviour these last Twenty years.  
But that which more particularly reaches to our own case, is, the Letter of Advice given to F. Young, by Signior Ballarini, concerning the best way of managing the Popish Interest in England, upon His Majesty's Restauration, wherein are several very remarkable things. This Letter was found in F. Young's Study, after his death, and was translated out of Italian, and printed in the Collection before mentioned;  
The First Advice is, To make the Obstruction of Settlement their great design, especially upon the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom, whereunto if things should fall, they would be more firm than ever.  
(2.) The next thing is, To remove the jealousies raised by Prin, Baxter, etc. of their design upon the late Factions; and to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops.  
(3.) To make it appear underhand, how near the Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline of the Church of England comes to us: at how little distance their Common-Prayer is from our Mass; and that the wisest and ablest Men of that way are so moderate, that they would willingly come over to us, or at least meet us half way; hereby the more stayed Men will become more odious, and others will run out of all Religion for fear of Popery.  
(4.) Let there be an Indulgence promoted by the Factious, and seconded by you.  
(5.) That the Trade and Treasure of the Nation may be engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties.  
(6.) That the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England be Aspersed, as either Worldly and Careless on the one hand; or so Factious on the other, that it were well they were removed.  
These are some of those excellent Advices then given, and how well they have been followed we all know.  
For, according to this Counsel, when they could not hinder the Settlement then, The great thing they aimed at for many years, was, the breaking in pieces the Constitution of this Church by a General Toleration. This Coleman owned at his Trial, 
Coleman's Trial, p. 101▪  and after Sentence, Declared, That possibly he might be of an Opinion, that Popery might come in, if Liberty of Conscience had been granted. The Author of the Two Conferences between L'Chese and the Four Jesuits, owns the Declaration of Indulgence, 1671/2, to be of the Papists procuring; but he saith, the Presbyterians presently suspected the Kindness, and like wise Men closed with the Conformists; and refused the Bait, however specious it seemed, when they saw the Hook that lay under it. It was so far from this, that when one of the furious Dissenters, suspected the kindness, and made Queries upon the Declaration, wherein he represented it as a Stratagem to introduce Popery, and Arbitrary Government; one of the more moderate Party among them, Wrote a Public Vindication of their accepting the Licences, 
Vindiciae libertatis Evangelii;  wherein he declared to the World, in their Name, That they were not concerned what the Secret Design might be, 
Or a justification of our present Indulgence and acceptance of Licences, 1672. p. 12.  so long as the thing was good And why, saith he, do you insinuate Jealousies? Have not we Public, and the Papists only Private Allowance? In fine, we are thankful for the Honour put upon us to be Public in our Meetings. Was this the Suspicion they had of the Kindness, and their Wisdom in joining with the Conformists? If such bold and notorious Untruths are published now, when every one that can remember but 8 years backward, can disprove them, What account may we expect will be given to Posterity of the Passages of these Times, if others do not take care to set them right? And I am so far from believing that they then closed with the Conformists, that I date the Presbyterian Separation chiefly from that time. For, Did not they take out Indulgences, Build Meeting Places, and keep up Separate Congregations ever since? And did not those, who before seemed most inclinable to hold Communion with our Churches, then undertake in Print to defend the lawfulness of these Separate Meetings upon such Principles as will justify any Separation? 
Sacrilegious desertion rebuked▪ and Tolerated Preaching Vindicated, 1672.  Upon this, many of those who frequented our Churches before, withdrew themselves; and since they have form and continued Separate Bodies; and upon the death of one Minister have chosen another in his room. And, What is a Formal Separation if this be not? Then the Ejected Ministers resorted to Cities and Corporations, not to supply the necessities of those who wanted them, but to gather Churches among them. 
Answer to Sacrileg. desert. p. 171. 1672.  For a very credible Person informs us, That in the City he lived in, where there were not above 30 or 40 that ordinarily refused the Public, and met Privately before the Indulgence; there were Ten Nonconformist Ministers that came into their City. And, What could this be for, but to draw People from their Churches, to make up Separate Congregations? And ever since that time, they have been hammering out Principles, such as they are, to justify their own practices. But the Presbyterians did not join with the Papists for a General Toleration. I grant some of them did not, although very powerful Charms were at that time used to draw them in: and not a few swallowed the Specious Bait, although some had the Skill to disentangle themselves from the Hook which went along with it. But that this honour doth not belong universally to them, I shall thus evidently prove.  
In A. D. 1675 there was a Book Printed, Entitled, The Peaceable Design, or an Account of the Non-conformists Meetings, by some Ministers of London. 
Page 71.  In it an Objection is thus put; But What shall we say then to the P●pists? The Answer is, The Papist in our Account is but one sort of Recusants, and the Conscientious and Peaceable among them, must be held in the same Predicament with those among ourselves, that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer. What is this, but joining for a Toleration of Popery? 
Page 72.  If this be not plain enough, these words follow, But as for the Common Papist, who lives innocently in his way, he is to us as other Separatists, and so comes under like Toleration.  
This notable Book, with some few Additions and Alterations, hath been since Printed, and with great sincerity called, An Answer to my Sermon. And the Times being changed since, the former Passage is thus altered, The Papist is one, 
Page 32.  whose Worship to us is Idolatry, and we cannot therefore allow them the liberty of Public Assembling themselves, as others of the Separation. Is it Idolatry, and not to be tolerated in 1680? And was it Idolatry and to be tolerated in 1675? Or was it no Idolatry then, but is become so now, and intolerable Idolatry too? The latter passage hath these Alterations; in stead of, He is to us as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Toleration; these are put in, He is to us, in regard of what he doth in private, in the matter of his God, as others who likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer. Now we see Toleration struck out for the Papists; but it was not only visible enough before, but that very Book was Printed with a Design to present it to the Parliament, which was the highest way of owning their Concurrence with the Papists for a general Toleration. And the true reason of this alteration is, that then was then, and now is now.  
And to show yet farther, what influence the Jesuitical Counsels have had upon their People, as to the Course of Separation; I shall produce the Testimony of a very considerable Person among them, who understood those affairs as well as any Man, viz Mr. Ph. Nye. Who, not long before his Death, foreseeing the Mischievous Consequence of those Extravagant Heats, the People were running into, Written a Discourse on purpose, to prove it lawful to hear the Conforming Ministers, and Answers all the Common Objections against it; towards the Conclusion he wonders, how the differing Parties came to be so agreed, in thinking it unlawful to hear us Preach; 
Page 250.  but he saith, He is persuaded it is one constant design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on foot by Jesuits among us. Let us therefore be more aware of whatsoever tends that way. Here we have a plain Confession of a Leading Man among the Dissenters, That the Jesuits were very busy among them, and that they and the Devil joined together in setting them at the greatest distance possible from the Church of England; and that those who would countermine the Devil and the Jesuits, must avoid whatever tends to that height of Separation the People were run into. And Mr. Baxter, in those days, viz. but a little before the Indulgence came out, was so sensible of the Mischief of Separation, 
Preface to the Defence of the Cure, p. 17.  that he saith, Our Division gratifieth the Papists, and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion, and that more than most of your seem to believe, or to regard. Where he speaks to the Separating People. And among other great inconveniencies of Separation, which he mentions, this is one, 
Defence of the Cure of Divisions, introduction, p. 52, etc.  That Popery will get by it so great advantage as may hazard us all, and we may lose that, which the several Parties do contend about.  
Two ways especially Popery will grow out of our Divisions.  
(1.) By the odium and scorn of our disagreements, inconsistency, and multiplied Sects: they will persuade People, that we must come for Unity to them, or else run Mad, and crumble into dust and individuaals. Thousands have been drawn to Popery, or confirmed in it by this Argument already; and I am persuaded, that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin, and all other Books that ever were Written, have not done so much to make Papists in England, as the Multitude of Sects among ourselves. Yea, some Professors of Religious strictness, of great esteem for Godliness, have turned Papists themselves, when they were giddy and wearied with turnings; and when they had run from Sect to Sect, and found no consistency in any.  
(2.) Either the Papists by increasing the Divisions, would make them be accounted Seditious, Rebellious, dangerous to the Public Peace; or else when so many Parties are constrained to beg and wait for liberty, the Papists may not be shut out alone, but have Toleration with the rest. And, saith he, Shall they use our hands to do their Works, and pull their Freedom out of the Fire? We have already unspeakably served them, both in this, and in abating the Odium of the Gunpowder Plot, and their other Treasons, Insurrections, and Spanish Invasion.  
Thus freely did Mr. Baxter Writ at that time; and even after the Indulgence, he hath these passages, concerning the Separating and Dividing Humour of their People; It shameth, it grieveth us to see and hear from England, and from New England this common cry, 
Sacrilegious desertion, p. 103, 104.  We are endangered by Divisions, principally because the Selfconceited part of the Religious People, will not be ruled by their Pastors, but must have their way, and will needs be Rulers of the Church and them. And soon after he saith to them, You have made more Papists than ever you or we are like to recover. Nothing is any whit considerable that a Papist hath to say, till he cometh to your case, and saith, Doth not experience tell you, that without Papal Unity and Force, these People will never be ruled, or united? It is you that tempt them to use Fire and Faggot, that will not be ruled nor kept in concord, by the Wisest, and holiest, and most Selfdenying Ministers upon Earth. (Are not these kind words for themselves, considering what he gives to others?) And must you, even you, that should be our comfort, become our shame, and break our hearts, and make Men Papists by your Temptation? woe to the World because of offences, and woe to some by whom they come.  
Let now any impartial Reader judge, who did most effectually serve the Papists Designs, those who kept to the Communion of the Church of England, or those who fell into the Course of Separation? I will allow, what Mr. Baxter saith, 
Defence of the Cure, p. 53.  That they might use their endeavours to exasperate the several Parties against each other; and might sometimes press the more rigorous execution of Laws against them; but than it was to set them at the greater distance from us, and to make them more pliable to a General Toleration And they sometimes complained, that those who were most adverse to this, found themselves under the severity of the Law, when more tractable Men escaped; which they have weakly imputed to the implacable temper of the Bishops, when they might easily understand the true Cause of such a discrimination: But from the whole it appears, that the grand Design of the Papists for many years, was to break in pieces the Constitution of the Church of England; which being done, they flattered themselves with the hopes of great Accessions to their strength and Party; and in order to this, they inflamed the differences among us to the utmost height, on purpose to make all the Dissenting Parties to join with them for a General Toleration; which they did not question would destroy this Church, and advance their Interest. Whether they did judge truly in this, I am not to determine; it is sufficient that they went upon the greatest Probabilities. But, Is it possible to imagine such skilful Engineers should use so much Art and Industry to undermine and blow up a Bulwark, unless they hoped to gain the place, or at lest some very considerable advantage to themselves by it? And it is a most unfortunate condition our Church is in, if those who design to bring in Popery, and those who design to keep it out, should both conspire towards its destruction.  
This, which I have represented, was the posture of our Church-Affairs, when the late horrible Plot of the Papists, for Destruction of the King's Person, and Subversion of our Religion came to be discovered. It seems, they found the other methods tedious and uncertain; and they met with many cross accidents, many rubs and disappointments in their way; and therefore they resolved upon a Summary way of Proceeding, and to do their business by one blow. Which, in regard of the circumstances of our Affairs, is so far from being incredible, that if they had no such design, it is rather a Wonder, they had not; especially considering the allowed Principles and Practices in the Church of Rome. Upon the discovery of the Plot, and the Means of Papists used confirm the Truth of it (knowing our great proneness to Infidelity) by the Murder of a worthy Gentleman who received the Depositions, the Nation was extremely Alarmed with the apprehensions of Popery, and provoked to the utmost detestation of it. Those who had been long apprehensive of their restless designs, were glad to see others awakened; but they seemed like Men roused out of a deep sleep, being amazed and confounded, fearful of every thing, and apt to mistrust all persons who were not in such a Consternation as themselves. During this heat, some of us, both in Private, and Public, endeavoured to bring the Dissenters to the sense of the necessity of Union among Protestants, hoping the apprehension of present danger, common to us all, would have disposed them to a better inclination to the things which belong to our Peace. But finding the Nation thus vehemently bend against Popery, those who had formerly carried it so smoothly and fairly towards the common and innocent Papists (as they then styled them) and thought them equally capable of Toleration with themselves, now they fly out into the utmost rage against them; and others were apt, by sly insinuations, to represent those of the Church of England (some of whom had appeared with vigour and resolution against Popery, when they were trucking underhand for Toleration with them) as Papists in Masquerade. But now they tack about, and strike in with the violent Rage of the People, and none so fierce against Popery as they. What influence it hath had upon others I know not, but I confess it did not lessen my esteem of the Integrity of those of the Church of England, that they were not so much transported by sudden heats, beyond the just bounds of Prudence, and Decency, and Humanity, towards their greatest Enemies, having learned from St. Paul, That, the wrath of Man worketh not the righteousness of God. They expected as little favour from them as any, if they had prevailed, and I doubt not but some of them had been made the first Examples of their Cruelty. However, this was interpreted to be want of Zeal, by those who think there is no Fire in the House, unless it flame out at the Windows; and this advantage was taken by the inveterate Enemies of our Church, to represent us all as secret friends to the Papists (so improbable a Lie, that the Devil himself would Blush at the Telling of it, not for the Malice, but the Folly and Ill Contrivance of it) and those who were more moderate, were content to allow 3 or 4 among the Bishops to be Protestants, and about 4 or 5 among the Clergy of London To feed this humour (which wonderfully spread among more of the People than we could have believed to have been so weak) most of the Malicious Libels against the Church of England were Reprinted and dispersed, and new ones added to them. Among the rest, one Translated out of French, to prove the Advances of the Church of England towards Popery; but so unhappily managed, that those Persons are Chiefly Mentioned, who had appeared with most zeal against Popery. Yet, so much, had the Arts of some Men prevailed over the judgements of others, that even this Discourse was greedily swallowed by them. But I must do the Author of it that Right, to declare, that before his Death, he was very sensible of the Injury he had done to some Worthy Divines of our Church therein; and begged God and them Pardon for it. Wherein, as he followed the Example of some others, who were great Enemies to our Church while they lived, but repent of it, when they came to die; so, I hope, others, upon better consideration, will see reason to follow his. But this was but an inconsiderable trifle in comparison of what follow. We were still in hopes, that Men so Wise, so Selfdenying as the Nonconformist Ministers represent themselves to the World, would, in so Critical a time, have made some steps or advances towards an Union with us; at lest to have let us known their Sense of the Present State of things, and their Readiness to join with us, as far as they could, against the Assaults of a Common Enemy. In stead of this, those we Discoursed with, seemed farther off than before; and when we lest expected such a Blow, under the Name of a Plea for Peace, out comes a Book, which far better deserved the Title of a Plea for Disorder and Separation, not without frequent, sharp, and bitter Reflections on the Constitution of our Church, and the Conformity required by Law; as though it had been designed on purpose, to Represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious, Lying and Perjured Villains, for Conforming to the Laws of the Land, and Orders established among us; for there are no fewer than 30 Tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity set down in it. And all this done, without the least Provocation given on our side; when all our Discourses that touched them, tended only to Union, and the Desirableness of Accommodation. If this had been the single Work of one Man, his Passion and Infirmities might have been some tolerable excuse for the indiscretion of it; but he Writes in the Name of a Whole Party of Men, and delivers the Sense of all his Acquaintance; and if those Principles be owned, and allowed by them, there can hardly be expected any such thing as a National Settlement, but all Churches must be heaps of Sand, which may lie together till a puff of Wind disperses them; having no firmer Bond of Union, than the present humour and good will of the People. But of the Principles of that Book, I have Discoursed at large, as far as concerns the business of Separation in the Second and Third Parts of the following Treatise.  
But, as though this had not been enough, to show what Enemies to Peace Men may be under a Pretence of it; not long after, the same Author sets forth another Book, with this Title, The true and only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches. As though he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth, and were to set the Terms of Peace and War among all Christians; but I wish he had showed himself such a Pattern of Meekness, Humility, Patience, and a Peaceable Disposition, that we might not have so much Reason to Dispute his Credentials. But this is likewise Fraught with such impracticable Notions, and dividing Principles; as though his whole design had been, to prove, That there is No True Way of Concord among Christians: for if there be no other, than what he allows; all the Christian Churches this day in the World, are in a mighty mistake. When I looked into these Books, and saw the Design of them, I was mightily concerned, and infinitely surprised, that a Person of his Reputation for Piety, of his Age, and Experience in the World, and such a Lover of Peace, as he had always professed himself; and one who tells the World so often of his Dying, and of the Day of Judgement, should think of leaving two such Firebrands behind him, as both these Books will appear to any one who duly considers them, which have been since followed by 4 or 5 more to the same purpose, so that he seems resolved to leave his Life and Sting together in the Wounds of this Church. And it made me extremely pity the case of this poor Church, when even those who pretend to Plead for Peace, and to bring Water to quench her Flames, do but add more Fuel to them This gave the first occasion to those thoughts, which I afterwards delivered in my Sermon; for since by the means of such Books, the zeal of so many People was turned off from the Papists against those of our Church, I saw a plain necessity, that either we must be run down by the Impetuous Violence of an Enraged, but Vnprovoked Company of Men, or we must venture ourselves to try, whether we could stem that Tide, which we saw coming upon us. And it falling to my Lot to Preach in the most public Auditory of the City, at a more than usual Appearance, being the first Sunday in the Term, I considered the Relation I stood in under our Honoured Diocesan, to the Clergy of the City, and therefore thought myself more obliged to take notice of what concerned the Peace and Welfare of the Churches therein. Upon these Considerations, I thought fit to take that opportunity, to lay open the due sense I had of the Unreasonableness and Mischief of the Present Separation. Wherein I was so far from intending to reflect on Mr. B. as Preaching in the Neighbourhood of my Parish, that to my best remembrance, I never once thought of it, either in the making or Preaching of that Sermon. And yet throughout his Answer he would insinuate, That I had scarce any one in my eye but himself. His Books indeed had made too great an Impression on my Mind for me easily to forget them: But it was the great, the Dangerous, the unaccountable Separation, which I knew to be in and about the City, without regard to the Greatness or Smallness of Parishes, to the Abilities or Piety of their Ministers, or to the Peace and Order of the Church we live in; which made me fix upon that Subject; although I knew it to be so sore a place, that the Parties most concerned, could hardly endure to have it touched, though with a Soft and Gentle hand. However, I considered the Duty which I owe to God, and this Church, above the esteem and good words of Peevish and Partial Men; as I had before done in my dealing with the Papists; and I resolved to give them no Just Provocation by Reproachful Language, or Personal Reflections; but if Truth and Reason would Anger them, I did not hold myself obliged to study to please them.  
But, against this whole Undertaking, there have been two common Objections.  
First, That it was Unseasonable.  
Secondly, That it was too Sharp and Severe.  
To both these I shall Answer;  
First, As to the Unseasonableness of it. What! Was it Unseasonable to persuade Protestants to Peace and Unity? That surely is very seasonable at any time, and much more then. And I appeal to any one that Reads it, whether this were not the chief, and only Design of my Sermon. And, to say, This was Unseasonable, is just, as if a Garrison were besieged by an Enemy, and in great danger of being surprised, and although they had frequent notice of it given them, yet many of the Soldiers were resolved not to join in a common body, under Command of their Officers, but would run into Corners, a few in a Company, and do what they list, and one should undertake to persuade them to return to their due obedience, and to mind the Common Interest, and some Grave bystanders should say, It is true, this is good Counsel at another time, but at this present it is very Unseasonable. When could it be more seasonable, than when the sense of their danger is greatest upon them? At another time it might have been less necessary; but when the common danger is apparent to all, Men of Sense, or common ingenuity, could not but take such advice most kindly at such a season. But this advice was not given to themselves, but to the Magistrates and Judges, and that made it look like a design to stir them up to a persecution of them. There had been some colour for this, if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon. But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon, and never intent to read it; and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it. They resolved to condemn it, and therefore would see nothing that might have altered their Sentence. It is enough, it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges, and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters. No●e are so incapable of Conviction, as those who presently determine what a thing must be, without considering what it is. Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal, or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar? Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before, great Generals? Which is just as reasonable as to suppose, that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates, but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws? But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication, who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon itself, for their own satisfaction. But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it. And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present? It seems they soon heard enough of it, by the Noise and Clamour they made about it. Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists, for us to quarrel among ourselves. Would to God this advantage had never been given them! And Woe be to them by whom these offences come. And what must we do? Must we stand still with open Arms, and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us? Must we suffer ourselves to be run down with a Popular fury, raised by Reviling Books, and Pamphlets, and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication, lest the Papists should overhear us? Which is, as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny, for fear the Enemy should take notice, and make some advantage of it. But which will be the greater advantage to him, to see it spread and increase, or care taken in time to suppress it? If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active, and busy than formerly; if they had not both by public Writings, and secret Insinuations, gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church, and the Members of it, so disingenuously, as they have done; there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon. But when those things were notorious, to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then, or now to defend it; is, in effect to tell us, they may say and do what they will against us, at all seasons; but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable; Which, under favour, seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side; for it is, like setting us in the Pillory, for them to throw dirt at us, without allowing us any means to defend ourselves.  
But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it. But, Wherein doth it lie? Not, in raking into old Sores, or looking back to the proceedings of former times? Not, in exposing the particular faults of some Men, and laying them to the charge of the whole Party? Not, in sharp and provoking reflections on men's Persons? All these I purposely, and with care declined. My design being not to exasperate any; but to persuade and argue them into a better disposition to Union, by laying open the common danger we are in, and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one, 
Dr. O. Vindication, p. 4.  There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists; 
Letter out of the Country, p. 7.  by another, that indeed I do not bespeak for them, Gibbets, Whipping-posts, and Dungeons; nor (directly) any thing grievous to their flesh; but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them, in respect of their Everlasting State. God forbid, that I should judge any one among them, as to their present sincerity, or final condition; to their own Master they must stand or fall; but, my business was to consider, the nature and tendency of their Actions. My judgement being, that a causeless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in, is really as great and as dangerous a Sin, as Murder; and in some respects aggravated beyond it; and herein, having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern: Would they have had me represented that as no sin, which I think to be so great a one; or those as not guilty, whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it? Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it; or, Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessened their sense of it? No, I had seen too much of this already: and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men, otherwise scrupulous and conscientious, that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin; as if there neither were, nor could be any such thing; unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation. Which is so mean, so jejune, so narrow a Notion of Schism, so much short of that Care of the Church's Peace which Ch●ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers; that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfied with it, unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings. And that I confess, is a shrewd temptation. But, so far as I can judge, as far as the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends, so far doth the Sin of Schism ●each; and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it; or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace, which is as far as is possible, and as much as lies in us. Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in, for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it, is directly the Sin of Schism, or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church. And this is not to be determined by men's fancies, and present apprehensions; which they call the Dictates of Conscience; but upon plain and evident grounds, manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ, and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion, than join in the practice of such things. We were in a lamentable case, as to the Defence of the Reformation, if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome, than they have against ours: and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them, if we had no better grounds to proceed upon, than they have against our Church. For the proof of this, I refer the Reader to the BOOK itself. This then being my opinion concerning their Practices, Was this a fault in me, to show some reason for it? And How could I do that without proving those Practices to be sinful? and if they were sinful, How could they who knowingly and deliberately continue in the Practice of them be innocent? What influence the prejudices of Education, the Authority of Teachers, the almost Invincible Ignorance of some weaker People, and the Uncurable Bias of some men's Minds may have to lessen their Gild, I meddle not with; but the Nature of the Actions, and the Tendency of them▪ which I then declared to be Sinful; and I am so far from being altered in my judgement by any of the Answers I have seen (and I have read all that have been published) that I am much more confirmed in it. But Dr. O. saith, He had seen a Collection made of severe reflections by the hand of a Person of Honour, 
Pag● 4.  with his Judgement upon them. I wish the Doctor had favoured me with a sight of them; but at present it is somewhat hard for me to make the Objections and Answers too. And it was not so fairly done to mention them, unless he had produced them. Therefore, to the ●nknown Objections, I hope no Answer is expected.  
But there is one expression wherein I am charged with a Scurrilous Sarcasm, or a very Unchristian Judging men's hearts, or a Ridiculous piece of Nonsense, viz. When I say, That the most godly People among them can the lest endure to be to told of their Faults: Now, 
Mischief of Impoes. end of the Preface.  saith Mr. A. How can they be most Godly, who cannot bear reproof of their Faults, which is a main part of Godliness. I am really sorry, some of my Answerers have so much made good the Truth of that Saying in its plainest Sense. But there needs no more to clear my Intention in it, but to consider, of whom it is spoken; viz. of those, who will not bear being told of the Sin of Separation by their own Teachers. For my Words are, Is it that they Fear the Reproaches of the People? which some few of the most Eminent Persons among them, have found they must undergo, if they touch upon this Subject (for I know not how it comes to pass, that the most Godly People among them can the lest endure to be told of their Faults.) In all which words I had a particular respect to the Case of Mr. Baxter who, after he had, with great honesty, published his Cure of Divisions, and therein sharply rebuked the Separating, Dividing Humour of the People, who pretended most to Religious Strictness, he met with bitter Reproaches from them for the sake of this Freedom, that he was foced to Publish a Defence of his Cure in Vindication of himself from them; wherein he saith, He was judged by them to be too Censorious of them, 
Preface, p. 11, 13.  and too sharp in telling them of that which he did not doubt to be their Sin: And again, If I be mistaken, Should you be so impatient, as not to bear with one, that in such an Opinion differeth from you? And why should not you bear with my Dissent, as well as I do with yours? 
Page 15.  Again, Why should not you bear with lesser contradiction, when others must bear with far greater from you? Will you proclaim you selves to be the more impatient? You will then make Men think, you are the most guilty.— And a little after, And yet you that should be most patient, take it for a heinous crime and injury, to be told, that you wrong them, and that you judge too hardly of them; and that their Communion is not unlawful. And when we join to this, what he saith elsewhere, that they are the most Selfconceited Professors who will not be ruled by their Ministers, but are most given to Division and Separation: in a passage before mentioned; there needs no more to vindicate the truth of this saying, than to show, that the most Selfconceited do often pass for the most Godly among them; which is a figure so common, so easy to be understood, that it needs no more Apology, than our Saviour's calling the Pharisees Righteous Men, and saying, they were so whole, as to need no Physician. And I cannot think such figures which were used by our Saviour, unfit for a Pulpit.  
But notwithstanding all the care I took to prevent giving any just occasion of Offence, my Sermon had not been long abroad, but I heard of Great Clamours against it. At first it went down quietly enough, and many of the People began to Read and Consider it, being pleased to find so weighty and so necessary a Point debated, with so much Calmness, and freedom from Passion. Which being discerned by the Leaders, and Managers of the Parties, it was soon resolved, that the Sermon must be cried down, and the People Dissuaded, by all means, from Reading it. If any of them were Talked with about it, they shrunk up their Shoulders, and looked Sternly, and shook their Heads, and hardly forbore some Bitter Words both of the Author and the Sermon. Upon this followed a great Cry and Noise, both in City and Country, against it; and some honest persons really pitied me, thinking I had done some very ill thing; so many People were of a sudden so set against me, and spoke so bitterly of my Sermon. I Asked, What the matter was? What False Doctrine I had Preached? Did they suspect I was turned Papist, at such a Time, when all the Nation was set against Popery? who had Written so much against it, when others, who are now so fierce, were afraid to appear? It was something, they said, had Angered them sorely, but they could not tell What: which made me Read my Sermon over again, to see what Offensive Passages there might be in it; after all, I could see no just cause for any Offence, unless it were, that I persuaded the Dissenters to Submit to the Church of England, and not the Church of England to Submit to them. And this, I believe, lay at the bottom of many men's Stomaches. They would have had me Humoured the Growing Faction, which, under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery, Designed to Overthrow the Church of England; or, at lest have Preached for Alterations and Abatements, and taking away Ceremonies and Subscriptions, and leaving them full Liberty to do what they pleased; and then I might have gained their good opinion, and been thought to have Preached a very Seasonable Sermon. But supposing my own private opinion were never so much for some Abatements to be made, that might tend to strengthen and unite Protestants, and were consistent with our National Settlement; Had it been seasonable to have spoken of the Alteration of Laws before Magistrates and Judges, who are tied up to the Laws in being? Is it fit for private persons, when Laws are in force, to take upon them to judge what Laws are fit to continue, and what not? I think the Alteration of Established Laws, which concern the Preservation of our Church and Religion, one of the Weightiest things that can be taken into Consideration. And although the Arguments are very plausible one way, yet the Objections are very strong another. The Union of Protestants, the Ease of Scrupulous Consciences, the providing for so many poor Families of Ejected Ministers, are great Motives on our side; But,  
1. The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters.  
2. The Uncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations.  
3. The Difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church, considering the Vngovernableness of some men's Tempers and Principles.  
4. The danger of breaking all in pieces by Toleration;  
5. The Exposing ourselves to the Papists, and others, by Receding too far from the first Principles and Frame of our Reformation.  
And 6. The Difficulty of keeping out Priests, pretending to be allowed Dissenters, are very weighty Considerations on the other side.  
So that, whatever Men talk of the easiness of taking away the present Impositions, it is a sign they look no farther than their own case; and do not consider the Strength and Union of a National Settlement, and the necessity thereof to keep out Popery; and, How much easier it is to break things in pieces, than to set them in order again; for, new Objections will still be raised against any Settlement, and so the result may be nothing but Disorder and Confusion. Of what moment these things may be thought to other persons, I know not; but they were great enough to me, to make me think it very unseasonable to meddle with Established Law's; but on the other hand, I could not but think it seasonable to endeavour to remove such Scruples and Prejudices, as hindered the People most from Communion with our Churches; for, as I said in the Epistle before the Sermon, If the People be brought to Understand and Practise their Duty, as to Communion with our Churches, other difficulties, which obstruct our Union, will more easily be removed. This passage, Mr A. tells me, 
Mischief of Imposition Preface towards the end.  was the Sport and Entertainment of the Coffeehouses. I confess, I am a great Stranger to the Wisdom of those places; but I see Mr. A. is able to give me an Account of the Sage Discourses upon Points of Divinity there. But if those pleasant Gentlemen would have understood the difference between Lay-Communion, and Ministerial Conformity, they might have apprehended the meaning of that passage. For, I am of Opinion, if the People once thought themselves bound to do, what they may lawfully do, towards Communion with us; many of the Ministers who seem now most most forward to defend the Separation, would think of putting a fairer Construction upon many things than now they do. And therefore I thought it fittest to handle the Case of the People, who are either overviolent in these matters, without ever considering them, or have met with ill-instructors, who have not faithfully let them know what the terms of Communion, as to themselves, were. For the Scruple of the Surplice seems to be worn out; Kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more judicious Non-conformists; and the only Scruple, as to them, about the Sign of the Cross, is not, whether it be lawful for the Minister to use it, but whether it be lawful for them to offer their Children to be Baptised where it is used; and, as Mr. Baxter resolves the case; Baptism is God's Ordinance, 
Christian Direct.  and his privilege, 
Cases Eccles. p. 49.  and the Sin (if it be one) is the Ministers, and not his. Another Man's sinful Mode will not justify the neglect of our Duty; else we might not join in any Prayer or Sacrament in which the Minister Modally sinneth: that is with none. As to the Use of the Liturgy, 
Defence of Cure of Divis. Introd. p. 55.  Mr. Baxter saith, He that Separateth from all Churches among us, on the account of the Unlawfulness of our Liturgy, doth Separate from them on a Reason Common to All, or almost All Christian Churches upon Earth; the thoughts of which he is not able to bear. And although the New Impositions, he saith, makes their Ministerial Conformity harder than formerly; yet the People's Conformity is the same (if not easier, by some Amendments of the Liturgy) as when Separation was fully confuted by the Old Non-conformists. 
Ib. & p. 88  And the most Learned and Worthy of them, he saith, Wrote more against Separation, than the Conformists: and the present Non-conformists have not more Wisdom, Learning, or Holiness than they. But, he saith, they did not only urge the People against Separation, but to come to the very beginning of the Public Worship, preferring it before their private Duties. What ground was there now, to make such a Hideous. Outcry about a Sermon, which persuaded Men to no more, than the Old Pious, and Peaceable Nonconformists would have done; who talked more sharply against the Sin, and Mischief of Separation, than I have done; as may be seen in the First Part of the following Treatise?  
But as if they had been the Papists Instruments, to execute the fury of their Wrath and Displeasure against me, they Summon in the Power of their Party, and resolve, with their full might, to fall upon me. And, as if it had not been enough to deal with me by open Force, which is more Manly, and Generous; they made use of mean and base Arts, by Scurrilous Rhymes, by Virulent and Malicious Libels sent to me without Names; by Idle Stories, and False Suggestions, to rob me at once, of my Reputation, and the Tranquillity of my Mind. But I thank God, I despised such pitiful Artifices, and such Unmanly and Barbarous Usage; which made no other Impression on my mind, but to make me understand, that other Men could use me, as Bad, or Worse, than the Papists. But this brought to my Mind a Passage of Archbishop Whitgift, 
Archbishop Whitgift ' s Defence, etc. p. 423.  concerning their Predecessors usage of Bishop Jewel; after he had so stoutly defended this Church against the Papists. But, saith he, it is their manner, except you please their humour in all things, though you otherwise deserve never so well, all is nothing with them, but they will Deprave you, Rail on you, Backbite you, Invent Lies of you, and spread False Rumours, as though you were the Vilest Persons upon Earth I could hardly have believed so ill a Character of Men pretending to any kind of Religion, had I not found so just a parallel; abating only the due allowances that must be made as to my Case, with respect to the far greater deserts of that incomparable Bishop. But notwithstanding all their hard Censures of me, I do assure them, I am as firm a Protestant as ever I was, and should be still as ready to Promote the Interest of the Protestant Religion, yea, and to do any Real Kindness to the Dissenters themselves, that may be consistent with the National Settlement of our Church, and the Honour of our Reformation.  
After a while, they thought fit to draw their Strength into open Field, and the First who appeared against me, was Dr. Owen, who treated me with that Civility, and Decent Language, that I cannot but Return him Thanks for it; however, I was far from being satisfied with his Reasoning, as will appear in the Book itself. The next was Mr. Baxter, who appeared with so much Anger, and unbecoming Passion; that I truly pitied him; and was so far from being transported by it, that it was enough to cure an inclination to an indecent passion, to see, how ill it became a Man of his Age, Profession, and Reputation. At first he sent me some Captious Questions for a Trial of Skill; I Returned him Answer, They were not to the business; but if he intended to Answer my Sermon (as I perceived by his Letter he was put upon it, and I knew how hardly he could abstain from Writing however) I desired him not to make too hasty a Reply. But he, who seldom takes the Advice of his Friends, was, I suppose, the more provoked by this Good Counsel; and seems to have Written his whole Book in one continued fit of Anger; and by some Rules of Civility peculiar to himself, he published my Private Letter, without so much as letting me know that he intended it. Whatever Injurious and Spiteful Reflections he hath made upon me through his Book, I can more easily forgive him, than he can forgive himself, when he looks them over again with a better mind. And therefore I pass over the Scurrility of his Preface, wherein, after he hath in 20 Particulars described, the most Unskilful, Proud, Partial, Obstinate, Cruel, Impertinent Adversaries he could think of places of Scripture, or Similitudes for, he than concludes; But although all this be not the case of the Reverend Doctor. What a malicious way of Reproaching is this? To name so many very ill things, and to leave it to the Reader to apply as much as he pleases; and when he is charged with any one to say, he meant not that, for he added, although all this be not the case of R. Dr. If this be the Justice, the Charity, and Ingenuity of Mr. B. and his Brethren, who put him upon Writing, they must give me leave to think, there are some Nonconformist Ministers, that are not the Wisest, the Meekest, nor the most Selfdenying Men upon Earth. He seems much concerned about my being likely to have the last Word: which I am very willing to let him have, hoping he may come to himself before he Dies; and may live to Repent of the Injuries he hath done to his Brethren and the Mischiefs he hath done to the Church of God, by so industriously exposing the Governors of it, and laying the Foundation for Endless Separation, as will appear in the following Discourse.  
The Third who entered the Lists, was one, who seemed to Write more like a Well-disposed Gentleman, than like a Divine; he wishes very well to the Cause he undertakes; he discourses Gravely and Piously, without Bitterness and Rancour, or any sharp Reflections, and sometimes with a great mixture of Kindness towards one; for which, and his Prayers for me, I do heartily Thank him. What I find Material to the business in his Book, I have considered in its due place.  
The Fourth comes forth with a more than ordinary briskness; and seems to set up rather for a sort of Wit, than a Grave Divine. His Book resembled the Bird of Athens, for it seems to be made up of Face and Feathers: For, setting aside his Bold Sayings, his Impertinent Trifling, his hunting up and down for any occasion of venting his little Stories and Similitudes, there is very little of Substance left in him; but what he hath borrowed from Dr. O. or Mr. B. Methinks, such a light, vain, scurrilous Way of Writing, doth not become such a Tenderness of Conscience as our Dissenting Brethren pretend to. There is a sort of pleasantness of Wit which serves to entertain the Reader in the rough and deep Way of Controversies; but certainly there is a difference between the Raillery and Good Humour of Gentlemen, and the jests of Porters and Watermen. But this Author seems to be Ambitious of the honour of a Second Martin, whose way he imitates, and whose Wit he equals. Yet this is not his greatest Fault, for he deals with me as a Man that was by any means to be run down, without regard to common Ingenuity. For, suppose I had mistaken the Sense of my Text, which I am certain I did not; yet I am not the only Person in the World that Talks Impertinently. Suppose there had been a Fault in my Reasoning, methinks the sense of Humane Frailty should make Men not grow Insolent upon such a Discovery: and yet I do not know one thing which he hath made it in; as will appear hereafter. But, Will nothing serve but to Represent me to the World as a kind of Atheistical Hypocrite, i. e. as a secret underminer of the proof of a Deity, under the pretence of proving it? Yet, this he doth more than once: which was so remote from his Business, that nothing but a Wretched, Malicious Design of Exposing me, could make him draw it in: He gives a gentle Touch at it in his Preface, to prepare the Readers Appetite; but p. 70. he charges me with proceeding upon such Principles, as plainly render it impossible by any certain Argument to prove the existence of a Deity. Mr. B. had unhappily said, and without the least ground, that my Principles overthrow all Religion; and Mr. A. vouches it, and undertakes to prove it for him. Mr. B. begins his Plea for Peace with a saying of St. Augustin, (he meant St. Hierom) that no Man ought to be patient under the accusation of Heresy: What should a Man then be under the accusation of being guilty of overthrowing all Religion, and rendering it impossible, by any certain Argument, to prove that there is a God? According to all Rules of justice, a Charge of so high a nature ought not to be brought against any Man, without such evidence, as appears clear and convincing to him that brings it. But I very much mistrust in this case, that Mr. A. in his Conscience knew, his Proofs to be weak and insufficient; What then can we think of him that charges another with so high a Crime, when he knows that he cannot prove it? His first Proof, he takes from my Popish Adversaries, about the inconsistency of proving a Deity, by such Infallible Arguments, as must suppose the existence of what we prove; as all infallibility from Divine Assistance must do. But did I ever say, there was no Certainty without Infallible Assistance? And yet this whole matter about Certainty, 
Several Conferences, p. 258, etc.  as to the Proof of a God, and the Christian Religion, I had so lately cleared in my last Answer to the Papists, which he refers to in this very place, that he could not but be convinced of the Impertinency of it. His Main Argument he pretends to bring from a Principle of my own; for his words are, He lays down this for a Principle, that the Foundation of all Certainty lies in the necessary Existence of a being Absolutely Perfect; How then, saith he, shall we come to prove his Existence by such demonstration, Cui non potest subesse falsum? And then he adds, That I have excluded all Demonstration from the Works of God, because we must first know, that there is an invisible God, before we can certainly know, that there is a visible World. But if I make it evident, that I lay down no such Principles of my own; and that I do particularly insist upon the certainty of proving a God from his Works, What doth this Man deserve for his Calumnies?  
First, That which he saith I lay down for a Principle, I only propose as an i●serence from the Hypothesis of other Men. For my words are, 
Orig. Sucr. l. 2. ch. 8. p. 220.  And if that Principle be supposed, as the foundation of all Physical Certainty, as to the Being of things, that there is a God:— I say, if that Principle be supposed. From hence appears a double Falsification.  
1. That I make it the Principle of all certainty, whereas I expressly set down in their Hypothesis Physical Certainty as to the being of things; but, Is there no certainty but what is Physical? What thinks he of Mathematical, or Metaphysical Certainty? so that there might be a Mathematical or Metaphysical Certainty of the Being of God, though this Principle were allowed. How then doth this prove, that I render it impossible, by any Certain Argument, to prove the Existence of a Deity?  
2. That I make it a Principle of my own, whereas I only suppose it as following from a Principle of others. To clear this, it will be necessary 〈◊〉 lay down the scope of that Discourse, which was to prove, that there is a certainty of Faith, as well as of Sense; and to that end I showed from the nature of the certainty of sense, that it doth fall short of Mathematical Demonstrations; which having done from other Arguments, I then consider their Hypothesis, who derive all Physical Certainty from the knowledge of God, who will not suffer men's Minds to be deceived in clear perceptions; then from this Principle being supposed, I infer several things for the advantage of the certainty of Faith. 1. That the Foundation of all Certainty, i. e. such as was before spoken of, lies in the necessary Existence of a being absolutely perfect. Which I deduce as ● just inference from the former Hypothesis; and therefore on this Supposition, something above our Comprehension, viz. Absolute perfection, must be made the foundation of our certain knowledge of things, and so the difficulty of our conception of matters of Faith, aught to be no hindrance to the certainty of Faith. 2. That we have as great, or greater reason to believe, that God will not suffer us to be deceived in matters of Faith, as in the objects of our Senses because as I there Argue, there is no sue● great danger of being deceived, or in being deceived in the objects of Sense, as in the matters of Faith. Let any Man now judge, whether this be the discourse of one that rendered it impossible, by any certain Argument, to prove the Existence of a Deity? or that I laid down that as a Principle of my own, from which being supposed, I deduce such inferences as prove the certainty of Faith hath no greater difficulties, than the certainty of Sense.  
Secondly, I am so far from excluding the certainty of the Argument from the Works of God to prove his Being, that I particularly and largely insist upon it from p. 401. to p. 411. but he pretends that I bring no Argument but from the Idea of God in our minds, which is so false, that  
(1.) I make use of that Argument only to slex, that the notion of a God hath no inconsistency in it, nothing repugnant to the faculties of our Minds: as appears by that very place he quotes: 
Orig. Sacr. p. 367, 368.   
(2.) The main Arguments I insist upon, are, That the things in the World are the manifest effects of Divine Wisdom, Goodness and Power: and that there be such things in the World which are unacceptable without a Deity.  
Let any Man now judge, with what Conscience or ingenuity, this Man hath managed such an Accusation against me▪ as that I go upon such Principles, as plainly render it impossible, by any certain Argument, to prove the Existence of a Deity.  
But it may be he will pretend, that he did not design to prove me Atheistical, but only to show, that I acted very unreasonably, in requiring a greater certainty in them, as to the Principles of Separation, than I do allow in far greater things. As to his design I leave the Reader to judge by his way of preceding in it. As to the colour he hath to bring it in, on the account of the Grounds of Separation, it is only this; The Sub-Committee of the Assembly arguing against the Dissenting Brethren, saith he, I say, That such tenderness of Conscience, as ariseth out of an Opinion (cui potest subesse falsum) which may be false, is not a sufficient ground, etc. to justify Separation. But here is a dangerous etc. in the middle of a Sentence, which made me look again into the Papers, and there I find such words left out, as fully explain and determine the sense; for the whole Sentence runs thus. 
Papers for Accommodation, p. 51.  We much doubt, whether such tenderness of Conscience, as ariseth out of an Opinion, Cui potest subesse falsum, when the Conscience is so tender, as that it may be withal an erring Conscience, can be a sufficient ground to justify such a material Separation as our Brethren plead for. Where we see, the force is not laid upon the bare possibility of Deception (for then no Separation could be allowed in any case, since all Men are fallible) but upon the supposition of an actual deception, which an Erroneous Conscience supposes. For it is such a deception as doth suppose Tenderness of Conscience, which doth not arise from a possibility of being deceived, but from an Error of Conscience. The Plea is, Tenderness of Conscience; the Question is, Whether this Plea be sufficient to justify Separation? We much doubt it, say they, Why so? the other Reply; Our Reason is, Because this Tenderness may arise from an Erroneous Conscience. But why should you suspect an Erroneous Conscience in the Case? Because Persons are liable to be deceived in the Dictates of Conscience: especially when they go merely upon their own apprehensions, without producing Arguments ex Naturâ rei. For all the debate between them about Tenderness of Conscience proceeded upon this. So that their meaning is not here to be taken as to the bare possibility of deception, but of such an Opinion, as carried a great probability along with it, that they were actually deceived. And what coherence is there now between this, and the Proof that I bring for the Existence of a Deity? so that, it is apparent, that this was an occasion sought after, to lay as much load upon me as he could. And by this taste let the Reader judge, what Ingenuity I am to expect from this Man.  
The Last who appeared against my Sermon is called, the Author of the Christian Temper, I was glad to find an Adversary pretending to that; having found so little of it in the Answers of Mr. B. and Mr. A. His business is, To commit the Rector of Sutton with the Dean of St. Paul's: which was enough to make the Common People imagine, this was some busy Justice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle. The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian Temper which the Author pretends to. For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with (in a Book written twenty years since) with great tenderness towards the Dissenters, before the Law's were Established. As though, as Mr Cotton once answered in a like case, there were no weighty Argument to be found, but what might be gathered from the weakness or unwariness of my Expressions. 
Answer to R. Williams, p. 129.  And, Have you not very well requited the Author of that Book for the tenderness and pity he had for you, and the concernment he then expressed, to have brought you i●, upon easier terms than were since required? And, Hath he now deserved this at your hands, to have them all thrown in his face, and to be thus upbraided with his former kindness? Is this your Ingenuity, your Gratitude, your Christian Temper? Are you afraid of having too many Friends, that you thus use those, whom you once took to be such?  
Methinks herein you appear very Selfdenying, but I cannot take you to be any of the Wisest Men upon Earth. When you think it reasonable, that upon longer time, and farther consideration, those Divines of the Assembly, who then opposed Separation, should change their Opinions; Will you not allow one single Person, who happened to Write about these matters when he was very young; in twenty years' time of the most busy and thoughtful part of his life, to see reason to alter his judgement? But after all this, wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself? Is it in the Point of Separation, which is the present business? No, so far from it, that in that very Book, he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation, as in this Sermon. Which will appear by these particulars in it.  
(1.) That it is unlawful to set up new Churches, 
Irenic. p. 123.  because they cannot conform to such practices which they suspect to be unlawful.  
(2.) Those are New Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers, governing by Laws, and Church Rules, different from that form they separate from.  
(3.) As to things in the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God, and in matters of mere order and decency, and wholly as to the Form of Government, every one, notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them, is bound for the Peace of the Church of God, to submit to the determination of the lawful Governors of the Church. Allow but these Three Conclusions, and defend the present Separation if you can. Why then do you make such a stir about other passages in that Book, and take so little notice of these, which are most pertinent and material? Was it not possible for you to espy them, when you ransacked every Corner of that Book, to find out some thing which might seem to make to your purpose? And yet the very first passage you quote is within two Leaves of these; 
Page 5.  and Two passages more you soon after quote, are within a Page of them; 
Page 6, 7.  and another in the very same Page; 
Page 8.  and so many up and down so very near them, that it is impossible you should not see and consider them? Yes he hath at last found something very near them; for he quotes the very Pages where they are. And, he saith, he will do me no wrong, for I do distinguish, he confesses, between Non-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practices in a Church, and entering into distinct Societies for Worship This is doing me some right however, although he doth not fully set down my meaning. But he urges another passage in the same place, viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion, their Separation is necessary— That is no more, than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome. But, Will not this equally hold against our Church, if it Excommunicates those who cannot conform? I Answer, (1.) Our Church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for mere Scrupulous Nonconformity in some particular Rites. For, it allows them to Communicate in other parts of Worship; as appeared by all the Non-conformists of former times, who constantly joined in Prayers and other Acts of Worship, although they scrupled some particular Ceremonies. (2.) The case is vastly different, as to the necessity of our Separation, upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome; and the necessity of others Separating from us, supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publicly defame the Orders of this Church For that is all which can be inferred from the Canons. For, in the former case, it is not a lesser Excommunication denounced, as it is only in our case against Public and scandalous Offenders (which is no more than is allowed in all Churches; and is generally supposed to lay no obligation, till it be duly executed, though it be latae sententiae & ipso facto) but in the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema, so as to pronounce us uncapable of Salvation, if we do not return to, and continue in their Communion; and this was it which that Author meant, by being wholly cast out of Communion, i. e. with the greatest and highest Church Censure. (3.) That Author could not possibly mean, that there was an equal reason in these cases, when he expressly determines, that in the case of our Church, Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it; being only about matters of Decency and Order, and such things which in the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God. Although therefore he might allow a scrupulous forbearance of some Acts of Communion, as to some suspected Rites, yet upon the Principles there asserted, he could never allow men's proceedings to a Positive Separation from the Communion of our Church. And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Paul's. But if any thing in the following Treatise, be found different from the sense of that Book, I do entreat them to allow me that which I heartily wish to them, viz. that in Twenty years' time we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts, as to see reason to change our opinion of some things; and I wish I had not Cause to add, of some Persons too.  
There is one thing more which this Author takes notice of, and the rest do not (for else he offers little or nothing but what is in the others) which is, that when I say our differences are condemned by the wiser Protestant's abroad, he saith, if it be so, they may thank their Friends at home, that have misrepresented them to the World. Therefore, to give satisfaction, as to the judgement of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad nowliving, I have subjoined to the following Treatise, some late Letters of theirs, to a Person of great Honour and Dignity in our Church, to show the Unlawfulness of Separation from the Communion of the Church of England. Which were not written by such, who had only a partial representation from others at a distance, but two of them by those who have been among us, and have been curious observers both of the Separate Meetings and of the Customs of our Churches; and the Third by the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude. And i● a Council could be called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom, we should not doubt of their Determination of the Unlawfulness of the Present Separation.  
But before I conclude this Preface, there is a great Objection yet to be removed, which concerns the Time of Publishing this Treatise; which some do seem to think, to be very unseasonable; when there is so much talk of Union among Protestants, and there appears a more General Inclination to it than formerly. And what, say they, can the laying open the Weakness of Dissenters tend to, but to Provoke and Exasperate them, and consequently to obstruct the Union so much desired? In so doing, I shall appear to resent more the Injuries done to myself, than the Mischief which may come to the Protestant Religion, if this opportunity be not embraced for making an Union among Protestants. This is the force of the Objection. To which I Answer.  
God forbid that I should either design, or do any thing which tended to obstruct so Blessed a Work, as a Firm and Lasting Union among Protestants would be. But my Business is, to show the unreasonableness of those Principles and Practices, which hinder Men from such an Union, and lay a Foundation for Perpetual and Endless Separations. For upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dissenting Brethren, let the Constitution be made never so easy to themselves, yet others may make use of their Grounds, and carry on the Differences as high as ever. Which will render all Attempts of Union vain; and leave the same Weapons ready to be taken up by others. If the Union so much talked of, be such as tends to the lessening, and not to the increasing of our Differences; if it be for strengthening and supporting the Protestant Religion, and not rather for weaking and betraying it, by laying it more open to the Assaults of our Enemies; no Man shall be more ready to promote it than I; no Man will rejoice more in the Accomplishment of it:  
But universal liberty is quite another thing from Union; as much as looseing is from binding up; and it is strange if that which the Papists, not long since, thought the best means to bring in Popery, should now be looked on as the most effectual way to keep it out. But suppose the Indulgence be at present strictly limited to Dissenting Protestants; are we sure it shall always so continue? Will not the same Reasons, as to scruple of Conscience, suffering for Religion, etc. extend farther when occasion serves, and the Popish Religion get footing on the Dissenters grounds? Where hath the Church of Rome more Labourers, and a greater harvest, than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience? Let the State of the Northern Kingdoms, as to this matter, be Compared with the Number of Papists in the United Provinces. And it will be found impossible to Root out Popery, where Toleration is allowed. (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. (2) Because it will be thought great hardship, when men's heats are over, for them only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences, when the wildest fanatics are allowed it. (3) Because the diversity of Sects which will be kept up by this means, will be always thought a plausible argument to draw Men to the Popish pretences of Unity. (4) 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. If Laws would alter the temper of men's minds, and make proud, selfwilled, froward and passionate Men, become meek, and humble, gentle and peaceable, than it were great pity, some Men had not had the Law on their side long ago. But is this to be looked for? are we to expect the Laws of Men should work more upon them than the Grace of God? If such than continue peevish and quarrelsome, full of wrath and bitterness against all that are not of their minds; and they meet with Men as froward and contentious as themselves; will this look like the Union of Protestants? And Bystanders will be apt to say, if this be all that you mean by Union of Protestants, viz. a Liberty to Pray and Preach, and to Write and Dispute one against another, there seems to be much more of sense and reason in the Papal pretence to Unity and Infallibility.  
But what then? Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants, who agree with us in all Doctrinal Articles of our Church; and only scruple the use of a few Ceremonies, and some late Impositions? shall these differences still be continued, when they may be so easily removed? And so many useful Men be encouraged and taken into the Constitution? Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies, and some late Declarations, and doubtful expressions, beyond the satisfaction of men's Consciences, and the Peace and Stability of this Church?  
As to this material Question, I shall crave leave to deliver my opinion freely and impartially; and that,  
I. With respect to the Case of the People; the Terms of whose Union with us, is acknowledged by our Brethren to be so much easier than their own. But these are of two sorts:  
1. Some allow the use of the Liturgy, but say they cannot join in Communion with us, because the participation of the Sacraments hath such Rites and Ceremonies annexed to it, which they think unlawful; and therefore till these be removed or left indifferent, they dare not join with us in Baptism or the Lord's Supper; because in the one the Cross is used, and in the other Kneeling is required. As to these I answer,  
(1) Upon the most diligent search, I could make into these things, I find no good ground for any scruple of Conscience, as to the use of these Ceremonies; and as little as any as to the Sign of the Cross, as it is used in our Church; notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament, and I know not what, but of this at large in the following Treatise.  
(2) I see no ground for the People's separation from other Acts of Communion, on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful. And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act, as the Cross in Baptism is not; and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper, as is in the Rubric after the Communion.  
(3) Notwithstanding, because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions, and they ought to be so Administered, as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joining in them; I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governors of our Church, to remove those Bars from a freedom in joining in full Communion with us, which may be done, either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross; or if that may give offence to others, by confining the use of it to the public administration of Baptism; or by leaving it indifferent, as the Parents desire it. As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper, since some Posture is necessary, and many devout People scruple any other, and the Primitive Church did in ancient times, receive it in the Posture of Adoration; there is no Reason to take this away, even in Parochial Churches; provided, that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it, with the least offence to others, and rather standing than sitting, because the former is most agreeable to the practice of Antiquity, and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches. As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches, it is not of that consequence, as to bear a Dispute one way or other. And as to Cathedral Churches, there is no necessity of alteration. But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism, viz. the Use of Godfathers and Godmothers excluding the Parents. Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified (as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise) yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein, but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples, either by permitting the Parents to join with the Sponsors, or by the Parents publicly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism; or, which seems most agreeable to Reason, that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism, and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part, representing the Child; and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors.  
These things being allowed, I see no obstruction remaining, as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us, in all Acts of Divine Worship, and Christian Communion, as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful.  
2. But because there are many of those, who are become zealous Protestants, and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine, although they cannot join with us in Worship, because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies, and the right constitution of our Churches; their case deserves some consideration, whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest, and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us?  
To their Case I answer,  
First, That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants, will soon bring Confusion among us, and in the end Popery, as I have showed already; and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration.  
Secondly, If any present Favours be granted to such, in consideration of our circumstances, and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists, for a general Toleration, (for if ever the Papists obtain it, it must be under their Name) if, I say, such favour be thought fit to be showed them, it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations, as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it. For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches, by their declaring, that our Churches are no true Churches, that our Manner of Worship is unlawful, and that our Church-Government is Antichristian; and that on these accounts they separate from us, and worship God by themselves. But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted, I humbly offer these things to consideration.  
1. That none be permitted to enjoy the privilege of it, who do not declare, that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful. For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others, and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations.  
2. That all who enjoy it, besides taking the Test against Popery, do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith, because the pretence of this Liberty is joining with us in Points of Faith; and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them.  
3. That all such as enjoy it, must declare the particular Congregations they are of, and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose; that so this may be no pretence for idle, loose, and profane persons, never going to any Church at all.  
4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties, if they use any bitter or reproachful words, either in Sermons or Writings, against the established Constitution of our Churches; because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences; and the using this liberty will discover, it is not Conscience, but a turbulent factions humour, which makes them separate from our Communion.  
5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches (lest mere covetousness tempt Men to run among them) and no persons so indulged be capable of any public Office. It not being reasonable, that such should be trusted with Government, who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful.  
6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons, but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches, which ought to be duly collected for the Use of the Poor, and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden, considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it.  
7. That the Bishops, as Visitors appointed by Law, have an exact Account given to them, of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline, and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations, with their Qualities and Places of Abode; and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it, that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion, by giving satisfaction to their scruples. This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them, since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law.  
8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed up Scholars, or to teach gentlemen's Sons University Learning; because this may be justly looked on as a design to propagate Schism to Posterity, and to lay a Foundation for the disturbance of future Generations.  
II. As to the Case of the ejected Miinisters, I have these things to offer,  
1. That bare subscription of the Thirty six Articles concerning doctrinal Points, be not allowed as sufficient to qualify any man for a Living, or any Church-preferment, for these Reasons,  
First, Any Layman upon these Terms may not only be capable of a Living, but may take upon him to Administer the Sacraments; which was never allowed in any well constituted Church in the Christian World. And such an allowance among us, in stead of settling and uniting us, will immediately bring things into great confusion, and give mighty advantage to the Papists against our Church. And we have reason to fear, a Design of this Nature, under a pretence of Union of Protestants, tends to the subversion of this Church, and throwing all things into confusion, which at last will end in Popery.  
Secondly, This will bring a Faction into the Church, which will more endanger it than external opposition. For such Men will come in triumphantly, having beaten down three of the Thirty nine Articles; and being in legal possession of their Places, will be ready to defy and contemn those who submitted to the rest, and to glory in their Conquests, and draw Followers after them, as the victorious Confessors against Prelacy and Ceremonies. And can they imagine those of the Church of England will see the Reputation of the Church, or their own, to suffer so much, and not appear in their own Vindication? Things are not come to that pass, nor will they suddenly be, that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid, or ashamed to own her Cause. We do heartily and sincerely desire Union with our Brethren, if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms; but they must not think, that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it, so as to condemn its Constitution, or make the Ceremonies unlawful, which have been hitherto observed and practised in it. If any Expedient can be found out for the ease of other men's Consciences, without reflecting on our own; if they can be taken in, without reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church; I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it. But if the Design be to bring them in as a Faction to bridle and control the Episcopal Power, by setting up forty Bishops in a Diocese against one; if it be for them to trample upon the Church of England, and not to submit to its Order and Government upon fair and moderate terms, let them not call this a Design of Union, but the giving Law to a Party to oppose the Church of England. And what the success of this will be, let wise Men judge.  
Thirdly, If a subcription to Thirty six Articles were sufficient by the Statute 13 El. c. 12. I do not understand how by virtue of that Statute a Man is bound publicly to read the Thirty nine Articles in the Church, and the Testimonial of his Subscription, on pain of being deprived ipso facto, if he do not. For the L. Ch. I. Coke faith, 
Co. jast. 4. Part. 323, 324.  That subscription to the 39 Articles is required by force of of the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. c. 12. And he adds, That the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto; and that a conditional subscription to them was not sufficient, was resolved by all the Judges in England. But how a Man should be deprived ipso facto, for not subscribing, and Reading the 39 Articles, as appears by the Cases mentioned in Coke; and yet be required only to subscribe to 36, by the same Statute, is a thing too hard for me to conceive.  
2. But notwithstanding this, if any temper can be found out, as to the manner of Subscription, that may give ease to the scruples of our Brethren, and secure the Peace of the Church, the desired Union may be attained without that apparent danger of increasing the Factions among us.  
And this I suppose may be done, by an absolute subscription to all those Articles which concern the Doctrine of the true Christian Faith, and the Use of the Sacraments; and a solemn Promise under their hand, or Subscription of Peaceable submission, as to the rest, so as not to oppose or contradict them, either in Preaching or Writing; upon the same penalty as if they had not subscribed to the 36. Which may be a more probable means to keep the Church in quiet, than forcing a more rigorous subscription upon them, or leaving them at their full liberty.  
3. As to the other subscription required, 1. Jac. to the 3 Articles. The first is provided for, by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. The third is the same with the subscription to the 39 Articles. And as to the second, about the Book of Common Prayer, etc. It ought to be considered,  
(1) Whether, for the satisfaction of the scrupulous, some more doubtful and obscure passages may not yet be explained or amended? Whether the New Translation of the Psalms were not fitter to be used, at least in Parochial Churches? Whether portions of Canonical Scripture were not better put in stead of Apocrypha Lessons? Whether the Rubric about Salvation of Infants, might not be restored to its former place, in the Office of Confirmation, and so the present exceptions against it be removed? Whether those expressions which suppose the strict exercise of Discipline, in Burying the Dead, were not better left at liberty in our present Case? Such a Review made by Wise and Peaceable Men, not given to Wrath and Disputing, may be so far from being a dishonour to this Church, that it may add to the Glory of it.  
(2) Upon such a Review, whether it be not great Reason that all Persons who Officiate in the Church, be not only tied to a constant Use of it in all Public Offices; (as often as they administer them) which they ought in Person frequently to do, but to declare at their first entrance upon a Parochial Charge, their approbation of the Use of it, after their own Reading of it, that so the People may not suspect them to carry on a factious Design, under an outward pretence of Conformity to the Rules of the Church they live in.  
(3) Whether such a solemn Using the Liturgy, and approbation and promise of the Use of it, may not be sufficient, in stead of the late Form of declaring their Assent and Consent, which hath been so much scrupled by our Brethren?  
These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union, and which I suppose may be granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church. There are other things very desirable towards the happiness and flourishing of this Church, as the exercise of Discipline in Parochial Churches, in a due subordination to the Bishop; the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication, without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law; the Building of more Churches in great Parishes, especially about the City of London; the retrenching Pluralities; the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations; the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age, for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy. Such things as these, might facilitate our Union, and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth.  
The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion, for the Honour of this Church, and for a firm Union among Brethren, hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface; Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God, that he, who is the God of Peace, and the Fountain of Wisdom, would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority, and incline the hearts of the People, that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion, nor be driven into the Abyss of Popery; but that the true Religion being preserved among us, we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God, through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, and our alone Advocate and Mediator. Amen.   

The Contents.  

PART I.  
An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation.  
§ 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation, although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded. The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days. § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt. Mr. B's mistake about them. § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies. § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation. § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad. § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation. § 8. Their zeal against it, notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it. § 9, 10. The true state of the Controversy between the Separatists and Nonconformists. § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons. § 12. The progress of Separation. The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency. That makes Separation more inexcusable, by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches. § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad, and § 14. hither into England. § 15. The Controversy stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren. brethren 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters. § 17. The old Nonconformists judgement of the unlawfulness of men's preaching here, when forbidden by Laws, fully cleared from some late Objections.   

PART II.  
Of the Nature of the present Separation.  
§ 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down. The things agreed on with respect to our Church. § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence; showed from Mr. B's own words. § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened. § 4. The Principles of it as to the People. Of occasional Communion, how far owned, and of what force in this matter, showed from parallel cases. § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined. § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings, never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation. No reason for this pretence she●ed from Mr. B's words. § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches. Of joining with our Churches as Oratories. § 8. Of the People's judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers. Mr. B's Character of the People. The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation. § 9 The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words. § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity. What public Worship may be forbidden. § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases, and Separation allowed on that account. § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists. § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side, where the terms of Communion are thought sinful. § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation, or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful. § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained. § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful. § 17. The obligation to constant Communion, where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful, at large proved. § 18. The Objection from our Saviour's practice answered. § 19 The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections. § 20. A new Exposition of that text showed to be impertinent. § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful. § 22, 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it. The testimonies of foreign Protestant Divines to that purpose. § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds, which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants. protestants 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences. § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds. Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered. § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church. The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture. In all others it is proved to be a great sin.   

PART III.  
Of the Pleas for the present Separation.  
Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered. Sect. 2. justice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered. Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations. Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power, and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time. Sect. 5, 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City, though there be of more Congregations. Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation; but the General Rules extend it further. Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy; the Question about it stated. But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches, though many Assemblies. Sect. 9 Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches. The extent of S. Austin's Diocese. Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria. The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese: the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's. late Objections. Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself. Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church. Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical, proved from many Testimonies. Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches, as to Admission. Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline. Sect. 16, 17. Of the defect of Discipline; and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches. Sect. 18. Of National Churches, and the grounds on which they are built. Sect. 19 The advantages of National Churches above Independent Congregations. Sect. 20. Mr. B's. Queries about National Churches answered. The Notion of the Church of England explained. Sect. 21. What necessity of one Constitutive Regent part of a National Church. Sect. 22. What Consent is necessary to the Union of a National Church. Sect. 23. Other Objections answered. Sect. 24. Of the People's power of choosing their own Pastors. Not founded in Scripture. Sect. 25. The testimony of Antiquity concerning it fully inquired into. The great disturbances of popular Elections: the Ganons against them. The Christian Princes interposing. The ancient Rights of Nomination and Presentation. The practice of foreign Protestant Churches. No reason to take away the Rights of Patronage to put the choice into the people's hands. Objections answered. Sect. 26. No unlawfulness in the Terms of our Communion. Of substantial parts of Worship. The things agreed on both sides. Sect. 27. The way of finding the difference between their Ceremonies and parts of Divine Worship cleared. Sect. 28. The difference of the Popish Doctrine from ours as to Ceremonies. Sect. 29. The Sign of the Cross a Rule of Admission into our Church, and no part of Divine Worship. Sect. 30 No new Sacrament. Mr. B's. Objections answered. Sect. 31. His great mistakes about the Papist's Doctrine concerning the Moral Casuality of Sacraments. Sect. 32. Of the Customs observed in our Church, though not strictly required. Sect. 33. Of the Censures of the Church against Opposers of Ceremonies, and the force of Excommunication ipso facto. Sect. 34. Of the Plea of an erroneous Conscience in the case of Separation. Sect. 35. Of scruples of Conscience still remaining. Sect. 36. Of the use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism. Sect. 37. No ground of Separation because more Ceremonies may be introduced. Sect. 38. No Parity of Reason as to the Dissenters Pleas for separating from our Church, and our Separation from the Church of Rome.  
An Appendix containing several Letters of Eminent Protestant Divines abroad, showing the unreasonableness of the present Separation from the Church of England.  

Letter of Monsieur le Moyn,— p. 395  
Of Monsieur le Angle,— p. 412  
Of Monsieur Claude,— p. 427     


Errata in the Preface.  
Page 14. marg. r. Church History l. 9 p. 81. p. 17. l. 24. after find insert in. p. 34. l. 18. for S. Paul r. the Apostle, p. 36. l. 5. r. follows. p. 53. l. 21. for our r. one.   

In the Book.  
p. 59 l. 5. for (1) r. (3) p. 71. l. 27. r. secession. p. 72. l, 8. r. as will. l. 28. r. for which. l. ult. r. Cameron. p. 101, l, 12. deal for before say they. p. 102. l. 11. r. their teachers. p. 378. l. 2. deal whether.    

AN Historical Account OF THE RISE and PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT Separation.  

PART. I.  

Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controversy, it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things.  
1. 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.  
2. That when Separation began, it was most vehemently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked many things in our Church, and wished for a farther Reformation. And from a true Account of the State of the Controversy then, it will appear, that the Principles owned by them, do overthrow the present practice of Separation among us.  
In the making out of these, I shall give a full account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversy about Separation from the Communion of our Church.  
I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation, yet no such thing was then practised, or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation. By Separation we mean nothing else, but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church, and joining with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edification. By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on, by those who pretend to justify these Practices; and those are such, as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful. And not one of all those, which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justify the present Separation by, but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation. For our Church stands on the same Grounds; useth the same Ceremonies (only fewer;) prescribes the same Liturgy (only more corrected;) hath the same constitution and frame of Government; the same defect of Discipline; the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers; and at least as effectual means of Edification, as there were when the Reformation was first established. And what advantage there is, in our present circumstances, as to the Number, Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers; as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies, and the Explication of the meaning of others; as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation, do all make it much more unreasonable now, than it had been then.   

Sect. II. It cannot be denied, that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Reformation; but they were such things, as are the least scrupled now. 
Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131.  Roger's refused the wearing of a Square Cap, and Tippet, etc. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours. Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits, but he submitted afterwards to the use of them. Bucer, and some others, disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth, which were Corrected in the Second: So that upon the Review of the Liturgy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church; at least, as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separation. For we read of none, who refused the constant use of the Liturgy, or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained, as the Cross in Baptism, and Kneeling at the Communion, which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion, and make them cry out in such a dreadful manner of the Mischief of Impositions; as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insupportable Ceremonies. 
Mischief of Impositions Preface.  Now we are told, That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separation, and then complain of an Impossibility of Union. By Whom? At what Time? In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created? Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion, or altered the Old Ones? No: the same Author saith, It is perpetuating the old Conditions, and venturing our Peace in an old Wormeaten Bottom, wherein it must certainly miscarry.  
Not to insist on his way of Expression, in calling the Reformation, An Old Wormeaten Bottom; which ill becomes them, that would now be held the most Zealous Protestants. I would only know, if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs, and other Reformers, and which are only continued by us, do, as this Author saith, Create a Necessity of Separation; how then it came to pass, that in all King Edward's days, there was no such thing as Division in our Church about them?  
And even Dr. Ames, who searched as carefully as any into this matter, 
Fresh suit against Ceremonies, p. 467.  can bring no other Instances of any differences then, but those of Rogers and Hooper: he adds indeed, That Ridley and others agreed with Hooper. Wherein? What, in opposing our Ceremonies, when Hooper himself yielded in that which he at first scrupled? No, but there was a perfect reconciliation between them, before they suffered. And what then? Is there any the least colour of Evidence, that before that Reconciliation, either Hooper or Rogers held Separate Assemblies from the Conformists, or that Ridley ever receded from his steadfast adhering to the Orders of this Church? This is then a very mean Artifice, and disingenuous Insinuation. For although Ridley, in his Letter to Hooper, out of his great Modesty and Humility, seems to take the blame upon himself, by attributing the greater Wisdom to Hooper in that difference; yet he doth not Retract his Opinion, but only declares the hearty love that he bore to him for his constancy in the Truth. Neither do we find that ever Hooper repented of his Submission, to which he was so earnestly persuaded, both by Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer; and Peter Martyr in his Letter to Bucer condemns his frowardness, 
Pet. Martyr, Epist. Theolog. Hoopero, Buc. r. Script. Anglic. p. 708.  and saith, That his cause was by no means approved by the Wiser and Better sort of Men. But Ames saith, Mr. Bradford might have been added, who calleth Forked Caps and Tippets, Antichristian Pelf and Baggage. Suppose this were true, it proves no more than that a good man had an unreasonable Scruple, and such as is thought so by our Brethren themselves at this day. But did he ever divide the Church on such an account as this? Did he set up separate Congregations, because a square Cap and a Tippet would not go down with him? No, he was a far better man than to do so. But if the whole words had been set down, the seeming force of these words had been taken away, for they are these; The cognizance of the Lord standeth not in forked Caps, 
Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319.  Tippets, shaved Crowns, or such other Baggage and Artichristian pelf, but in suffering for the Lords sake; i.e. it is more a Mark of God's Service to suffer Martyrdom as a Protestant, than to be at ease as a Romish Priest, for he puts them altogether, Caps, Tippets, and shaved Crowns. And what is this to the Impositions of our Church, or Separation on the account of them? Dr. Ames knew too much, to pretend to any thing like that in those times; For there was no such thing as Separation from our Church then heard of, on the account of these dividing Impositions. Some furious Anabaptists it may be, or Secret Papists then had separate Meetings, 
Ridiey's Articles of Visitation, 1550.  of which Ridley bids Enquiry to be made, in his Articles of Visitation; but no Protestants, none that joined in the Articles of our Fait●, and Substantials of Religion with our Church, as Dr. O. speaks, 
Vindicat. of Nonconf. p. 13.  did then apprehended any 〈◊〉 of Separation from it; not for 〈◊〉 of the A●●● Sign of the Cross; nor Kneeling at the Communion; nor the Religious Observation of holidays; nor the constant use of the Liturgy; nor any one of all the particulars mentioned by Dr. O. which he saith, 
P. 35. 37.  makes our Communion unlawful and separation from it to be necessary. How come these Terms of Communion to be so unlawful now; which were then approved by such holy, learned, and excellent men as our first Reformers? Were they not arrived to that measure of attainments, or comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel, that men in our Age are come to? Is it credible, that men of so great integrity, such indefatigable industry, such profound judgement, as Cranmer and Ridley, who were the Heads of the Reformation, should discern no such sinfulness in these things, which now every dissenting Artificer can cry out upon, as unlawful? Is it possible, that men that sifted every thing with so much care themselves, and made use of the best help from others, and begged the Divine Assistance, should so fatally miscarry in a matter of such might importance to the Souls of Men? Could not Latimer, or Bradford, or such holy and mortified men as they, discern so much as a Mote of unlawfulness in those times, which others espy such Beams in now? What makes this wonderful difference of eyesight? Were they under a cloudy, and dark, and jewish Dispensation; and all the clear Gospel Light of Division and Separation reserved for our times? Did they want warmth and zeal for Religion, who burned at the Stake for it? Doth God reveal his Will to the meek, the humble, the inquisitive, the resolute Minds? And would he conceal such weighty things from those who were so desirous to find the Truth, and so resolved to adhere to it? If Diocesan Episcopacy, and the Constitution of our Church were such an unlawful thing, as some now make it, it is strange such men should have no suspicion of it, no not when they went to suffer? For as H. jacob, 
Iacob's Answer to johnson, p. 20, 21.  the old Nonconformist, saith, in answer to johnson the Separatist, Did not M. Cranmer hold himself for Archbishop still, and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed, and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it? Did he ever repent of holding that Office to his death? Also did not Ridley stand upon his Right to the Bishopric of London though ready to die? Latimer, though he renounced his Bishopric, yet he kept his Ministry, and never repented him of it. Philpo● never disliked his Archdeaconry: yea, when he refused bloody Bonner, yet he appealed to his Ordinary the Bishop of Winchester. The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar. And generally, whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelates Ordination, they never renounced it, though they died Martyrs. 
Johnson's Defence of his ninth Reason.  Johnson indeed quotes some passages of Bradford, Hooper, and Bale against the Hierarchy; But he notoriously misapplies the words of Bradford, which are, The time was when the Pope was out of England, but not all Popery; which he would have understood of the times of Reformation, under Edward VI. whereas he speaks them expressly of King Henry's days. And it is not credible, Hooper should think the Hierarchy unlawful, who (as it is generally believed) had the Administration of two Bishoprics at once. 
Bradford's Confer. with the B●. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298.  Bale's words were spoken in Henry VIII. his time; and could not be meant of a Protestant Hierarchy, for he was after a Bishop himself. But H. jacob answers to them all, That supposing these men disliked the Hierarchy, it made the stronger against the Principles of Separation: 
Iacob' s Answer, p. 82.  Seeing for all that, they did not refuse to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians. And that not only occasionally and at certain seasons, but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it.   

Sect. 3. Thus matters stood as to Communion with our Church in the days of Edward VI. but as soon as the Persecution began in Queen Mary's time, great numbers were forced to betake themselves to foreign parts, 
Letters of the Martyrs, p. 50.  whereof some went to Zurick, others to Basil, others to Strasburg, and others to Frankford. Grindal in a Letter to B. Ridley, saith they were nigh 100 Students and Ministers then in Exile: These, with the people in all other places, Geneva excepted, kept to the Orders established in our Church; but at Frankford some began to be very busy in Reforming our Liturgy, leaving out many things, and adding others; which occasioned the following Troubles of Frankford. The true ground whereof is commonly much misrepresented. 
Plea for Peace, p. 100L.  Mr. Baxter saith, The difference was between those which strove for the English Liturgy, and others that were for a free-way of praying, i.e. as he explains it, from the present sense and habit of the Speaker: but that this is a great mistake, will appear from the account published of them, A. D. 1575. by one that was a Friend to the Dissenting Party. From which it appears, That no sooner were the English arrived at Frankford, but the Minister of the French Congregation there, came to them and told them, he had obtained from the Magistrates the freedom of a Church for those who came out of England, but especially for the French; they thanked him and the Magistrates for so much kindness, but withal let them understand this would be little benefit to the English, unless they might have the liberty of performing all the Offices of Religion in their own Tongue Upon an Address made to the Senate, this request was granted them; and they were to make use of the French Church at different times, as the French and they could agree, but with this express Proviso, that they should not descent from the French in Doctrine, or Ceremonies, lest they should thereby Minister occasion of offence. But afterwards, it seems, the Magistrates did not require them to be strictly tied up to the French Ceremonies, so they did mutually agree. Upon this, they perused the English Order, and endeavoured to bring it as near as they could to the French Model, by leaving out the Responses, the Litany, Surplice, and many other things; and adding a larger Confession, more suitable to the State and Time; after which a Psalm was Sung; then the Minister, after a short Prayer for Divine Assistance (according to calvin's Custom) was to proceed to the Sermon; which being ended, then followed a General Prayer for all Estates, particularly for England, ending with the Lords Prayer; and so repeating the Articles of the Creed, and another Psalm Sung, the People were dismissed with the Blessing. By which we see, here was not the least controversy, whether a Liturgy or not; but whether the Order of Service was not to be accommodated, as much as might be, to the French Model. However, when they sent to the English in other places to resort thither, by reason of the great Conveniencies they enjoyed, and acquainted them with what they had done; it gave great offence to them, which they expressed in their Letters. Those of Zurick sent them word, They determined to use no other Order, than that which was last established in England; and in another Letter, They desire to be assured from them, that if they removed thither, they should all join in the same Order of Service concerning Religion, which was in England last set forth by King Edward. To this the Congregation of Frankford returned Answer, That they could not, in all points, warrant the Full Use of the Book of Service, which they impute to their present Circumstances, in which they suppose such Alterations would be allowed; but they intended not hereby to deface the worthy Laws and Ordinances of King Edward. These Learned Men of Strasburg, understanding their resolutions, send Grindall to them with a Letter subscribed by 16; wherein they entreat them, To reduce the English Church there, as much as possible, to the Order lately set forth in England, lest, say they, by much altering of the same, they should seem to condemn the chief Authors thereof, who, as they now suffer, so are they most ready to confirm that fact with the price of their Bloods; and should also both give occasion to our Adversaries to accuse our Doctrine of Imperfection, and us of Mutability; and the Godly to Doubt of that Truth wherein before they were persuaded, and to hinder their coming thither, which before they had purposed. And to obtain their desire, they tell them, They had sent Persons for that end to Negotiate this Affair with the Magistrates, and, in case they obtained their Request, they promised to come and join with them; and they did not question the English in other places would do the same. Notwithstanding the weight of these Reasons, and the desireableness of their brethren's company in that time of Exile, they persist in their former resolutions, not to have the Entire English Liturgy; for by this time Knox was come from Geneva, being chosen Minister of the Congregation: However, they returned this Answer to Strasburg, That they made as little Alteration as was possible; 
Page 19  for, certain Ceremonies the Country would not bear; and they did not descent from those which lie at the Ransom of their Bloods for the Doctrine, whereof they have made a most worthy Confession. 
Page 21.  About this time, some suggested, that they should take the Order of Geneva, as farthest from Superstition; but Knox declined this, till they had advised with the Learned Men at Strasburg, Zurick, Emden, etc. knowing, that the Odium of it would be thrown upon him. But finding their Zeal and Concernment for the English Liturgy, he, with Whittingham, and some others, drew up an Abstract of it, 
Calvin, Ep. 164.  and sent it to Calvin, desiring his Judgement of it. Who, upon perusal of it, being throughly heated in a Cause, that so nearly concerned him, writes a very sharp Letter, directed to the Brethren at Frankford; gently Rebuking them for their unseasonable Contentions about these matters, but severely Reproving the English Divines who stood up for the English Liturgy, when the Model of Geneva stood in Competition with it. And yet after all his Censures of it, he Confesses. The things he thought most unfit, were Tolerable; but he blames them, if they did not choose a better, when they might choose; but he gives not the least encouragement to Separation if it were continued; and he declares for his own part, how easy he was to yield, in all indifferent things, such as External Rites are. And he was so far, in his Judgement, from being for Free Prayer, or making the constant use of a Liturgy a Ground of Separation, as Dr. O. doth, that when he delivered his Opinion, with the greatest Freedom, to the then Protector, about the best method of Reformation, he declares, That he did mightily approve a Certain Form, from which Men ought not to vary, 
Ep. 55.  both to prevent the inconveniencies which some men's folly would betray them to, in the free way of Praying; and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers; and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be showing some new things. Let Mr. Br. now Judge, Whether it were likely that the Controversy then at Frankford, was, as he saith, between them that were for the English Liturgy, and others that were for a free way of Praying; when Calvin, to whom the Dissenters appealed, was so much, in his Judgement, against the latter. And it appears, 
Ep. 165.  by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren, that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him; which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done; and he expresses his satisfaction, that the matter was so composed among them, when by Dr. Cox his means, the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford. And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before, he mentions Lights, as required by the Book, which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth. So that either they deceived him, who sent him the Abstract; or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself; the matter being ended contrary to his expectation. For, although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter, the Order of Geneva had like to have been presently voted in, 
Tr. of Fr. p. 30.  yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service, they were fain to compromise the matter, and to make use of a Mixed Form for the present. But, Dr. Cox, and others, coming thither from England, and misliking these Alterations, declared. That they were for having the Face of an English Church there; 
Page 31.  and so they began the Litany next Sunday; which put Knox into so great a Rage, that in stead of pursuing his Text (which was directly contrary) he made it his business, to lay open the nakedness of our Church, as far as his Wit and Ill Will would carry him. He charged the Service-Book with Superstition, Impurity, and Imperfection; and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation, want of Discipline, with the business of Hooper, allowing Pluralities; all the ill things he could think on. When Cox and his Party (with whom, at this time, was our excellent jewel) were admitted among them, they presently forbade Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation; who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor, in a Book by him Published, he was forced to leave the City, and to retire to Geneva; whither most of his Party followed him. And thus saith Grindal, in his Letter to Bishop Ridley, The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox, and others, which met there for that purpose.   

Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel (before his Works) that this Controversy was not carried with them out of England, 
Letters of the Martyrs, p. 60.  but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went. For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time (as particularly Hooper, who lived many years in Switzerland) brought home with them a great liking of the Church's Model, where they had lived (which being such as their Country would bear, they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplicity, being far enough from any thing of Pomp, or Ceremony) which created in them an aversion to the Ornaments and Vestments here used: So now, upon this new Persecution, those who had Friendship at Geneva, as Knox, and Whittingham, or were otherwise much obliged by those of that way, as the other English were, who came first to Frankford, were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Divine Service, than of our own. And when Men are once engaged in Parties, and several Interests, it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in, especially when they have great Abettors, and such, whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them. This is the True Foundation of those Unhappy Differences, which have so long continued among us, about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church. For when Calvin and some others found, that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation, our Bishops proceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, than mere opposition to Popery (which some other Reformers made their Rules) they did not cease by Letters, and other ways, to insinuate, that our Reformation was imperfect, as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained. So they called the Use of those Ceremonies, which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church. Calvin, in his Letter to the Protector, Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation, To go as far from Popery as they could; and therefore what Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Popery were to be removed, lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby: but at last he yields to this moderation in the case; That such Ceremonies might be retained as were easy, and fitted to the Capacities of the People; provided they were not such, as had their beginning from the Devil, or Antichrist, i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery. Now, by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed; for it took away all those Ceremonies which were of late invention. As in Baptism, of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church, it reserved, in the Second Liturgy, only the Cross after Baptism; which was not so used in the Roman Church; for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism; and the Anointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it; in stead of these, our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, being of uncontrollable Antiquity, and not used till the Child is Baptised. In the Eucharist, in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome, our Church hath only appointed Kneeling. 
Bonavent. 〈◊〉 Ps. 21.  I say appointed, for although Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host, be strictly required by the Roman Church, yet in the Act of Receiving it is not; 
Angel. Roecha de Soll●●i Communione Summi Pontificis, p. 33. 38.  (as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of Receiving, which is not Kneeling, but either Sitting, as it was in Bonaventures time; or after the fashion of Sitting, or a little Leaning upon his Throne, as he doth at this day) therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation, lest it should seem to recede from the Practice of Antiquity, which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used, hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants. In stead of the great number of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church, it only retained a plain Linen Garment, which was unquestionably used in the times of St. Hierome, and St. Augustin. And lastly, As to the Episcopal Habits, they are retained only as a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men; the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black. These are now the Ceremonies, about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church; and any sober, considering Man, free from Passion, and Prejudice, would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church, and is at this day, about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions.   

Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask, is, Why were these few retained by our Reformers, which were then distasteful to some Protestants, and were like to prove the occasion of future Contentions?  
I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Retain, or to Appoint these Ceremonies, and then proceed.  
1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity. They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Superstitions of Popery, and the Innocent Rites and Practices which were observed in the Church before. And What could more harden the Papists, then to see Men put no difference between these? It is an unspeakable Advantage which those do give to the Papists, who are for Reforming 1600 years backward, and when they are pinched with a Testimony of Antiquity, presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity working in the Apostles times: as though every thing which they disliked, were a part of it. Next to the taking up Arms for Religion, which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design, there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France, especially among Learned and Moderate Men, as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery, and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church. For the time was when many Great Men there, were very inclinable to a Reformation; but when they saw the Reformers oppose the undoubted Practices of Antiquity, equally with the Modern Corruptions, they cast them off, as Men guilty of an unreasonable humour of Innovation; as may be seen in Thuanus, and Fran. Baldwins Ecclesiastical Commentaries, and his Answers to Calvin and Beza. But our Reformers, although they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith, and rejected all things repugnant thereto; yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church, but a Reformation of it; by reducing it as near as they could, to that state it was in, under the first Christian Emperors, that were sound in Religion; and therefore they retained these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church.  
II. To manifest the justice and Equity of the Reformation; by letting their Enemies see, they did not Break Communion with them for mere indifferent things. For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were subtle and learned Men, as Gardiner, Heath, Tonstall, etc. and nothing would have rejoiced them more, than to have seen our Reformers boggle at such Ceremonies as these; and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the People. Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers' scrupling the Episcopal Vestments. Peter Martyr tells him plainly, That such needless scrupulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation. For, saith he, since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary, if we once declare things indifferent to be unlawful, they will have no patience to hear us any longer. And, withal, hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches, and those Ancient Churches, which have hitherto to been in great esteem.  
III. To show their Consent with other Protestant Churches, 
Calvin. Epist. ad Sadolet. De verâ Eccl. Reformatione, c. 16. ●●●olamp. Epist. f. 17.  which did allow and practise the same, or more Ceremonies, as the Lutheran Churches generally did. And even Calvin himself, in his Epistle to Sadolet, declared, That he was for restoring the Face of the Ancient Church; and in his Book of the true way of Reformation, he saith, He would not contend about Ceremonies, not only those which are for Decency, but those that are Symbolical. 
Bucer. Script. ●●gl. p. 479.  Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament, as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Since therefore, so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies; and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful, our first Reformers for this, and the foregoing Reasons, thought it fit to retain them, as long as they were so few, so easy both to be practised and understood.   

Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad, did not wear off, at their Return home, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. For they retained a secret dislike of many things in our Church; but the Act of Uniformity being passed, and the Use of the Liturgy strictly enjoined; I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it; no, not by the Dissenting Brethren, that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva; Knox was forbidden to Preach here, because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen; but Whittingham, Samson, Gilby, and others, accepted of Preferment and Employment in the Church. The Bishops, at first, showed kindness to them, on the account of their forward and zealous Preaching, which at that time was very needful; and therefore many of them were placed in London. Where, having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching, 
Dialogue between a Soldier of Barwick, and a-English Chaplain, p. 5, 6.  they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies, and a desire of farther Reformation of our Liturgy; but finding that they had gained ground, they never ceased, till by inveighing against the Livery of Antichrist, as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies, they had inflamed the People to that degree, that Gilby himself insinuates, That if they had been let alone a little longer, they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church. This was the first occasion of pressing Uniformity with any rigour; and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others. But as kindness made them presumptuous, so this severity made them clamorous; and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva. Beza, after much importunity, undertook to give an Answer to them; which being of great consequence to our present business, I shall here give a fuller account of it. We are then to understand, that about this time, the Dissenting Party being Exasperated, by the Silencing some of their most busy Preachers, 
Beza Epist. 23.  began to have Separate Meetings; This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London; and it appears, by an Examination taken before him, 20th of june 1567. of certain persons, who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches; 
Part of a Register, p. 23.  but for gathering together and making Assemblies, using Prayers and Preachings, and Ministering Sacraments among themselves; and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding, for that Purpose.  
The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences, and then told them, That in this Severing themselves from the Society of other Christians, they not only Condemned them, but also the whole State of the Church Reform in King Edward's days, which was well Reform according to the word of God; yea, and many Good Men have shed their. Blood for the same, which your doings Condemn. Have ye not, saith he, the Gospel truly Preached, and the Sacraments Ministered accordingly, and good order kept, although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies, and in indifferent things, which lie in the Prince's Power to Command, for Order sake? To which one of them Answered, That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached, and the Sacraments Administered, without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it, they never assembled together in Houses: but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Nonconformity, they be thought themselves what was best for them to do; and calling to mind, that there was a Congregation there in the days of Queen Mary, which followed the Order of Geneva, they took up that, and this Book and Order, saith he, we hold. Another Answered, That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word, but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it; and set them up before it, so that no Man may Preach, or Minister the Sacraments without them. Things being come to this height, and Separation beginning to break out, the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther, till they had Consulted their Oracle at Geneva. Beza being often solicited by them, with doleful Complaints of their hard usage, and the different Opinions among themselves, what they were to do, at last resolves to Answer; but first he declares, How unwilling he was to interpose in the Differences of another Church, especially when but one Party was heard; and he was afraid, this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more, rather than Cure this evil, which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured, but Precibus & Patientiâ, by Prayers and Patience. After this General Advice, Beza freely declares his own judgement, as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church; but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers, and the People's Separation, he expresses his Mind in that manner, that the Dissenters at this day, would have published their Invectives against him, one upon the back of another. For (1.) As to the Silenced Ministers, he saith, That if the Pressing Subscription continued, he persuades them rather to live privately than to yield to it. For, they must either act against their Consciences, or they must quit their Employments; for, saith he, the Third thing that may be supposed, viz. That they should exercise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops, we Tremble at the Thoughts of it, for such reasons, as may be easily understood, though we say never a word of them. What! Is Beza for Silencing, and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful and able Ministers; and at such a time, when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching, and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it? when St. Antholins, St. Peter, St. bartholomew's, at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was, were like to be left destitute of such Men? Would Beza, even Beza, at such a time, as that, be for Silencing so many Preachers, i. e. for their sitting quiet, when the Law had done it; And would not he suffer them to Preach, when they ought to have done it, though against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops? It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries, but that he was of the contrary, it appears plainly by this, That before he Persuades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe; and that he expresses no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places, as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws. (2) As to the case of the People, his Advice was, As long as the Doctrine was sound, that they should diligently attend upon it, and receive the Sacraments devoutly, and to join Amendment of Life with their Prayers, that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation. So that nothing can be more express against Separation, than what is here said by Beza: for, even as to the Ministers, he saith, Though he did not approve the Ceremonies, yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves, he doth not think them of that moment, that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them; or that the People should forsake the Ordinances, rather than hear those who did Conform. Than which words, nothing can be plainer against Separation. 
Beza Epist. 24. p, 148.  And it further appears, by Beza ' s Resolution of a case concerning a Schism in the French Church then in London; That he looked on it as a Sin, for any one to Separate from a Church, wherein Sound Doctrine, and a Holy Life, and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up. And, by Separation, he saith, he means, Not merely going from one Church to another, but the Discontinuing Communion with the Public Assemblies, as though one were no Member of them.  
Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissenting Brethren at that time, seems to have put an effectual Stop to the Course of Separation, which they were many of them, then inclined to. But, he was not alone among the Foreign Divines, who, about that time, expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church, notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used. 
Gualther. Ep. ded. ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad C●rinth.  For Gualther, a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches, takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talk of the Difference then about these things; and he extremely blames the Morose humour of those, who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things, and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations. And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely, 1572. he tells him, How much they had dissuaded them from making such a stir in the Church, about Matters of no moment: and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church, which they had sent Men on purpose to possess them with, both at Geneva and other places.  
Zanchy, 
Zanchii, Epist. l. 2. p. 391.  upon great Solicitation, wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies; but withal he sent another to Bishop jewel, to persuade the Non-conformists, if the Queen could not be moved, not to leave their Churches on such accounts, which, for his part, he did not understand how any could lawfully do; as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel, and Administer the Sacraments, although they were forced to do something therein, which did not please them; as long as the things were of that kind, which in themselves were neither good nor evil. And the same Reason will much more hold against the People's Separation.   

Sect. 7. But about this time, the dissenting party much increasing, and most of the old and peaceable Non-conformists being dead, or unfit for business; the management of their affairs fell into the hands of younger and fiercer Men. Who thought their Predecessors too cold in these matters; insomuch, that honest john Fox complained of the Factious and Turbulent Spirit which had then possessed that Party, although himself a Moderate Nonconformist; and he saith, 
See his Letter in Fuller's Church-History, l. 9 p. ●06.  They despised him, because he could not Rail against Bishops, and Archbishops as they did; but if he could be as mad as they, they would be kinder to him. And therefore he soberly adviseth the Governors of the Church to look well after this sort of Men; for, saith he, if they prevail, it is not to be imagined, what Mischief and Disturbance they will bring; whose Hypocrisy is more subtle and pernicious then that of the old Monks; for, under a Pretence of Greater Purity, they will never give over, till they have brought Men under a jewish Slavery. These New Men, full of bitter zeal, despised the old trifling Controversy about Garments and Ceremonies, they complained, That all was out of order in the Church, and nothing but a New and Through Reformation would please them. For, in the Admonition presented to the Parliament, 14 Eliz. they complain for want of a Right Ministry, a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures, without which (they say) there could be no right Religion. The Liturgy they deride, as c●lled and picked out of the Popish Dunghill, the Portuise and Mass-Book; the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops and Bishops they call Devilish and Antichristian; and Condemn the Vocation of the Clergy, as Popish and Unlawful; and add, That the Sacraments are mangled, and profaned, that Baptism is full of Childish and Superstitious Toys. All which, and many more expressions of a like Nature, are extant in the First and Second Admonitions. Which Bold and Groundless Assertions, being so Openly Avowed to the World, by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party, gave the true Occasion to the following practice of Separation. For when these things were not only published in the name of the Party, being the Pleas for Peace at that time, but stiffly maintained with greater Heat, than Learning, It is easy to imagine, what Impressions such things would make on the common sort of People; who have still a good Inclination to find fault with their Governors, especially in the Church, and to Admire those that Oppose them. And these they Courted most, having their Opinions so suited to Vulgar capacities, that they apprehended their Interest carried on together with that of Purity of Reformation. Hence they pleaded then, as others do at this day, for the People's right to choose their Bishops and Pastors against the Usurpations, as they accounted them, of Princes and Patrons; hence they railed against the Pomp and Greatness of the Clergy, which is always a Popular Theme; and so would the exposing the inequality of men's Estates be, if Men durst undertake it, with as great hopes of impunity. Besides, it was not a Little Pleasant to the People, to think, what a share they should come to in the New Seignory, as they called it, or Presbytery, to be erected in every Parish; and what Authority they should Exercise over their Neighbours, and over their Minister too by their double Votes. By such Arts as these, they complied with the Natural Humours of the People, and so gained a mighty Interest amongst them; as the Anabaptists in Germany and Switzerland at first did, upon the like Grounds. Which made Bullinger, 
Bullinger, Ep. ad Robert Winton▪ in the Appendix to Bishop whitgift's first Book.  in an Epistle to Robert Bishop of Winchester, parallel the Proceedings of this Party here, with that of the Anabaptists with them in those Countries; For, saith he, we had a sort of People here, to whom nothing seemed pure enough in our Reformation, from whence they broke out into Separation, and had their Conventicles among us, upon which followed Sects and Schisms, which made great entertainment to our Common Enemies, the Papists. Just thus it happened here, these hot Reformers designed no Separation at present; which they knew would unavoidably bring confusion along with it; for, that was laying the Reins on the People's necks, and they would run whither they pleased, without any possibility of being well managed by them; but since these Men would Refine upon the present Constitution of our Church, there soon arose another sort of Men, who thought it as fit to Refine upon them. They acknowledged they had good Principles among them, but they did not practise according to them: If our Church were so bad as they said, that there was neither right Ministry, nor right Government, nor right Sacraments, nor right Discipline; What follows, say they, from hence, but that we ought to separate from the Communion of so corrupt a Church, and join together to make up new Churches for the pure administration of all Gospel Ordinances? The Leaders of the Non-conformists finding this Party growing up under them, were quickly apprehensive of the danger of them; because the Consequence seemed so Natural from their own Principles; and the People were so ready to believe, that nothing but Worldly considerations of Interest and Safety kept them from practising according to them. Which was a mighty prejudice against them in the Minds of the Separatists, as appears by Robinson's Preface to his Book of Communion.   

Sect. 8. II. The Separation being now begun, the Non-conformists set themselves against it, with the Greatest Vehemency. Which is the second thing I am to make out. 
Parker on the Cross▪ Part. 2. cap. 9 Sect. 2.  As for those of the Separation, saith Parker a Noted Nonconformist, Who have Confuted them more than we? or, Who have Written more against them? And in a Letter of his, he expresseth the greatest Detestation of them. Now it grieved me not a little, at this time, saith he, that Satan should be so impudent, as to fling the dung of that Sect into my Face, which, with all my Power, I had so vehemently resisted, during the whole course of my Ministry in England: 
Vide Profane Schism of the Brownists, Ch. 12.  I think no other, but that many of them love the Lord, and fear his Name; howbeit their Error being Enemy to that Breast of Charity, wherewith Cyprian covered his, Qui ab Ecclesiâ nunquam recessit, as Augustin speaketh; they cannot stand before his Tribunal, but by the Intercession of our blessed Saviour. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Think not these words are applied to their Sect amiss; for, in effect, What doth it less than even persecute the Lord Jesus in his Host, which it revileth; in his Ordinances, which it dishonoureth; and in his Servants last of all, whose Graces it blasphemeth, whose footsteps it slandereth, and whose Persons it despiseth. And Two Characters he gives of the Men of that way, viz. That their Spirits were bitter above measure, and their hearts puffed up with the Leaven of Pride. How far these Characters still agree to the Defenders of the present Separation, I leave others to Judge. When Brown and Harrison openly declared for Separation, T. C. himself undertook to Answer them, in a Letter to Harrison. His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren, who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown, and the Defence of that Admonition. When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation, Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament, viz. Unlawful Ministry, Antichristian Government, and False Worship; Gifford, a Nonconformist at Maldon in Essex, undertook to Answer them in several Treatises. And it is observable, that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile, Notorious, and Damnable Schism, because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches, and set up New Ones of their own. Gifford not only calls them Schismatics, 
Giffords' first Treatise against the Donatists of England, Preface.  but saith, They make a Vile Schism, Rending themselves from the Church of England; and condemning by their Assertions, the Whole Visible Church in the World, even as the Donatists did of old time: and he adds, That the end of Brownism, as it was then called, is Infinite Schisms, Heresies, Atheism and Barbarism. And the same Author, 
Gifford's Second Treatise. Preface.  in his Second Book, reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People, hath these remarkable words. Now look also on the People, where we may see very many, who not regarding the chief Christian Virtues, and Godly Duties, as namely, to be Meek, to be Patient, to be Lowly, to be full of Love and Mercy, to deal Uprightly and justly, to Guide their Families in the Fear of God, with Wholesome Instructions, and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them, give themselves wholly to this, even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion, namely, to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church, against Bishops and Ministers, and one against another on both sides. Some are proceeded to this, that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher, but not to the Prayers of the Book, which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose. But yet this is not the worst, for sundry are gone further, and fallen into a Damnable Schism; and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous, in that many do not see the foulness of it, but rather hold them as Godly Christians, and but a little over-shot in these matters. But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists, appears, by his Stating the Question, in the same Preface. For, I showed, saith he, in express words, that I do not meddle at all in these Questions, whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church, condemned by God's Word; whether they be many or few; whether they be small or great; but only thus far, whether they be such, or so great, as make our Churches Antichristian. 
Answer to Giffords' Preface.  Barrow saith, That this Gifford was one that joined with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy: and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Nonconformist; and he is joined with Cartwright, Hildersham, Brightman, and other Non-conformists, by the Prefacer to the defence of Bradshaw against johnson: 
Dangerous Positions, etc. l. 3. c. 5.  and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time. The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating, 
The Second Answer for Communicating, p. 20. Printed by John Windet, A. D. 1588.  who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison, Brown's Colleague against Separation, proves joining with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoined him of God by his Providence, through his being and placing in a particular Church, and justly required of him by the Church, or Spiritual Body, through that same enforcing Law of the coherence, and being together of the parts and members, which is the express Ordinance of God. So that, saith he, unless I hold the Congregation, whereof I am now, disannulled, and become no Church of Christ, for the not separating an unworthy Member, I cannot voluntarily either absent myself from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises, or yet depart away being come together, without Breach of the Bond of Peace, Sundering the Cement of Love, impairing the growth of the Body of Christ, and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division. 
Page 46.  To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere. 
Answer to Ainsworth, p. 13.  Richard Bernard calls it, An Uncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of. But I need not mention more particular Author's, since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists, 
Page 57  in the Name of the Non-conformists, it is said, That because we have a True Church, con●●ting of a Lawful Ministry, and a Faithful People, therefore they cannot separate themselves from us, but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism. 
Preface to the Reader, p. 17.  And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation, they say, We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate, (we are loath to say in a Damnable Estate) as long as they continue in this Schism.   

Sect. 9 But, for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversy, we must consider, What things were agreed on both sides, and where the Main Points of Difference lay.  
1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine, or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound, and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it. In their Apology presented to King james, 
Brownists Apology, p. 7. A. D. 1604.  thus they speak; We testify by these presents unto all Men, and desire them to take knowledge hereof, that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Faith professed in our Land; but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still. 
A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, Middleburgh, p. 3. A. D. 1599  And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation, between johnson and jacob, saith, That the first Separatists never denied, that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England, was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them, to be true Christians, and in the state of Salvation, but always held, professed, and acknowledged the contrary. 
Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply, n. 4. p. 240.  Barrow saith, That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs, and deemed them saved, notwithstanding the false Offices, and great corruptions in the Worship exercised: 
Brownists Apol. p. 92.  And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death, he saith, He had Reverend estimation of sundry, and good hope of many hundred thousands in England; though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church, in the present Communion, Ministry, Worship, Government, and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies.  
2. The Separatists granted, 
Brownists Apology, p 7.  That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church, for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it. Thus they express themselves in their Apology, Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church, for blemishes and imperfections, which every one, according to his Calling, should studiously seek to cure, and to expect and further it, until either there follow redress, or the Disease be grown incurable. And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith, written by johnson and Ainsworth, they have these words. None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established, for faults and Corruptions, which may, and so long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men, will fall out and arise among them, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the redress thereof. But in the case of our Church they pleaded, that the Corruptions were so many and great, as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church. 
Barrow, ib.  So Barrow saith, They do not cut off the members of our Church from God's Election, or from Christ, but from being Members of a True Constituted Church.  
On the other side, the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church, but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it, or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary, or lawful. So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions.  

1. That nothing could Justify Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrew the being, or constitution of it.  
2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such, as did overthrow the Constitution of it.   
The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversy.  
1. That nothing could justify Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrew the being or constitution of it. 
Barrow's Refutation of Giffard. Preface to the Reader. Sum of the Causes of Separation.  Barrow and his Brethren, did not think they could satisfy their Consciences in Separation, unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches. For, here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be; Want of a right gathering our Churches at first; False Worship; Antichristian Ministry and Government: These Reasons, say they, all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ, to which any faithful Christian may join himself in this estate; especially, when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied, but resisted, blasphemed, persecuted. These are the words of the First, and Chiefest Separatists, who suffered death rather than they would forego these Principles. We condemn not, say they, their Assemblies, barely for a mixture of good and bad, which will always be, but for want of an orderly gathering, or constitution at first: we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry, but for having and retaining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them: we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government, or Discipline, but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government. Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections, but because their Worship is Superstitious, devised by Men Idolatrous, according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book; according unto which their Sacraments, and whole Administration is performed, and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament. So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well, that nothing but such a Charge, which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches (the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound) could justify their Separation: not mere promiscuous Congregations, nor mixed Communions; not defect in the Exercise of Discipline; not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship; but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church; as they supposed Idolatrous Worship, and an Antichristian Ministry to do. If Mr. Giffard, 
Ibid.  saith Barrow, can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches, than we would show him how free we are from Schism. The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King james, 
Brownists Apology, p. 7, 8, 9  by Ainsworth, johnson, and the rest of them. Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus. That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God, 
Ainsworth's Counterpoison, p. 3. Ib. p. 87.  ought not, by any true Christian, to be continued, or Communicated with; but must be forsaken, and separated from; and a true Church sought, and joined unto, etc. But the Church of England is before proved, not to be the true Church of Christ, and of God, therefore it ought to be separated from, etc. By which we see, the Greatest Separatists that were then, never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches, if they were true. On the other side, those who opposed the Separation, with greatest zeal, thought nothing more was necessary for them, to disprove the Separation, then to prove our Churches to be true Churches. R. Brown (from whom the Party received their denomination) thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright (the Ringleader of the Non-conformists) to prove the Necessity of Separation, because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church; and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here, he made our Church not to be a true Church, and consequently that Separation was necessary. T. C. Answers, 
T. Cs. Letter to Harrison against Separation, in Defence of the Admonition to the followers of Brown p. 98, 99  That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation, the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remaining of that which is forbidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing, as giveth an utter overthrow, and turning upside down of the truth. His meaning is, wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed, there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church, or justify Separation from it. For, he addeth, although besides Faith in the Son of God, there be many things necessary for every Assembly; yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being, and not simply to the being of the Church. And in this respect, saith he, the Lutheran Churches, 
Page 106.  (which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies) which beside the maim of Discipline, which is common to our Churches, are grossly deceived in the matter of the Supper, are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God. 
Page 107.  Was not Jerusalem, saith he, after the Return from Babylon, the City of the Great King, until such time as Nehemias' came and Builded on the Walls of the City? To say therefore it is none of the Church, because it hath not received this Discipline, methinks is all one with this, as if a Man would say, It is no City, because it hath no Wall: or that it is no Vineyard, because it hath neither Hedge, nor Ditch. It is not, I grant, so sightly a City, or Vineyard, nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them; but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards. And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church, his Defender saith, He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church, with respect to Censures, 
Page 91.  but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties, i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People.  
Afterwards, as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation, their main Business was, To Prove our Churches to be True Churches. As in a Book, Entitled, Certain Positions h●ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of the Gospel, against those of the Separation; which was part of that Book, afterwards Published by W. R. and called, A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists. The Groundwork whereof, as Mr. Ainsworth calls it, is thus laid.  
That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ, 
Counterpoison, p. 117.  and such a one, as from which whosoever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself, Cutteth himself off from Christ.  
If this was the Groundwork of the Non-conformists in those days; those who live in ours, ought well to consider it, if they regard their Salvation.  
And, for this Assertion of theirs, they bring Three Reasons.  
1. For that they Enjoy, and join together in the Use of these outward Means, which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church; i. e. Preaching of the Gospel, and Administration of the Sacraments.  
2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith: and Hold and Teach, etc. all Truth's Fundamental. So we put their Two Reasons into One, because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith; which, say they, is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church: and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church, and admitted to the Privileges thereof, even by the Apostles themselves. So the Church of Pergamus, though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it: yet because it kept the Faith of Christ, was still called the Church of God.  
3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister, and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship.  
When H. jacob undertook Fr. johnson upon this Point of Separation, the Position he laid down was this,  
That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God. Which he proved by this Argument.  
Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; that is sufficient to make a Company of Men, so gathered together, to be a True Church.  
But the whole Doctrine, as it is Publicly Professed, and Practised, by Law in England, is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; and our Public Assemblies are therein gathered together.  
Therefore it is sufficient to make the Public Assemblies True Churches.  
And in the Defence of this Argument, against the Reasons and Exceptions of johnson, that whole Disputation is spent. And, in latter times, the Dispute between Ball and Can, about the necessity of Separation, runs into this, Whether our Church be a True Church or not; concerning which, Ball thus delivers his Judgement. 
Ball against Can, p. 77.  True Doctrine, in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith, though mixed with Defects and Errors in other matters, not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion, and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance, though in the manner of Dispensation, some things be not so well ordered, as they might and ought, are notes and marks of a True and Sound Church, though somewhat crazed in health and soundness, by Errors in Doctrine, Corruptions in the Worship of God, and Evils in Life and Manners.  
The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on, was,   

Sect. 11. (2.) That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it.  
This will best appear, by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation.  
I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery. To which Giffard thus Answers, The Church of England in the time of Popery, was a Member of the Universal Church, 
Giffard's Answer to the Brownists, p. 55.  and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome, nor took not her beginning of being a Church, by Separating herself from that Romish Synagogue; but having her Spirits revived, and her Eyes opened, by the Light of the Heavenly Word, did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist, with his Abominable Idolatry, Heresies, and False Worship; and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith, 
Grave Confutation, etc. p. 9, 10, 11.  and True Service of God; and so is a purer, and more faithful Church than before. Others add, That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church, and so to make a visible Church: Neither were sufficient means wanting, in our Case, for the due Conviction of men's Minds; but then they add, That the Question must not be, Whether the Means used were the Right Means, for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith; but, Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling, and reuniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors, whose Fellowship they had forsaken; which they justify, by the Examples of Jehoshaphat, and Josiah, Asa, and Hezekiah.  
II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God, which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers, using Popish Ceremonies, etc.  
To this they Answer;  
1. That it is evident by the Word, That the Church hath used, 
●rav●con●utation, etc. ●. 12, 13, 15.  and might lawfully use, in God's Worship, and Prayer, a stinted Form of Words: and that not only upon Ordinary, but Extraordinary Occasions, which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit. Nay, they say, They are so far from thinking them unlawful, that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church, they are many times more fit, than those which are called Conceived Prayers.  
2. If Forms, 
Ibid.  thus devised by Men, be Lawful and Profitable, What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church, to Command, that such Fo●ms be used; or, for us, that are persuaded of the Lawfulness of them, to use them? unless they will say, That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word, Receive the Sacraments, Believe the Trinity, and all other Articles of Faith, because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do: Whereas indeed, we ought the rather to do good things, that are agreeable unto the Word, when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate▪  
3. It is true, 
Palls against Can. Part. 2. p. 8.  the Non-conformists say, The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship; for many things contained in the Mass-Book itself are good and holy. A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghill; we cannot more credit the Man of Sin, than to say, That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devilish and Antichristian, for than it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ, to read the Scriptures, to profess many Fundamental Truth's necessary to Salvation. Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all show and appearance of Evil; though the Mass-Book itself was fraught with all manner of Abominations— But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book, how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass, that both cannot possibly stand together? Yea, so many points, saith B●ll, are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery, that it is not possible Popery should stand, if they take place. And, saith he, it is more proper to say, the Mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book: for most things in our Common Prayer, were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church, long before the Mass was heard of in the World.  
4. As to the Fasts, and Feasts, and Ceremonies retained, they Answer, That what was Antichristian in them, was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome, which being taken away by the Reformation, the things themselves are not Antichristian. As namely, 
Giffard's Plain Declaration, etc. Preface.  saith Giffard, the Remission of Sins, and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting▪ which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church; the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels; 
Answ. to the Brown. p. 10, 11.  the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross, and such like things, which the Papacy is full of, but rejected by us.  
III. That our Ministry was Antichristian. To this they Answer.  
1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture, 
Mr. Arthur Hildershams' Letter against Separation, Sect. 2. highly commended by Mr. J. Cotton, in his Preface before his Commentaries, on 4 John.  not by his unlawful outward Calling, or Office, that he should exercise in the Church; but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach; and Secondly by the Authority he should Usurp, to give Laws to men's Consciences, and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God. Which two Marks of Antichrist, as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy, so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised, were faulty, and unwarrantable by the Word, yet you in your own Conscience know, that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers. For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine; and we all Profess Christ to be the only Lawgiver to Conscience; neither is any thing among us urged to be done, upon pain of Damnation, but only the Word and Law of God.  
2. That the Office, 
I●. Sect. C, 7, 8.  which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood, is the very same in substance with the Pastor's Office described in the Word; 
V. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson.  and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office, which the Law alloweth, is the very same in substance which is set down in the Word. Doth the Word enjoin the Minister to Teach diligently? so, by our Laws, he is expressly charged at his Ordination to do, and forbidden to Teach any thing, as required of necessity to Salvation, but that which he is persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture: yea, it Commandeth him, with all faithful diligence, to banish, and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines, that are contrary to God's Word. Doth the Word Authorize him, to Administer the Sacraments? So doth our Law. Doth the Word require that the Minister should not only publicly Teach, but also oversee, and look to the People's Conversation, Exhorting, Admonishing, Reproving, Comforting them as well privately as publicly? So doth our Law. Last, Doth the Word Authorize the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ? our Law doth also command the same. So that, although many, to whom the execution of these things appertain, do grievously fail in the practice thereof, yet you see the Office which the Law enjoineth to the Minister, is the same in substance, with that which the Word layeth upon him. Tell us not then, That the same Name is given to our Office, as to the Popish Sacrificers. Do you think the worse of yourself because you are called Brownists? And, Shall the Holy Office and Calling, which is so agreeable to the Word, be misliked, because it is called a Priesthood? considering, that though it agree in Name, yet it differeth in Nature and Substance as much from the Romish Priesthood, as Light doth from Darkness.  
IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church. To which they Answer.  
1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ, 
Hildershams' Letter, Sect. 3.  which concern the Discipline of his Church, and the outward calling of his Ministers, is no such sin, as can make either the Ministers, or Governors of our Church Antichrist, or our Church an Antichristian and False Church. And Mr. H. adds, That no one place of Scripture can be found, wherein he is called an Antichrist, or Antichristian, who holding the Truth of Doctrine, and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental, as we do, doth swerve, either in judgement, or Practice, from that Rule, which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church. Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture, whose Doctrine is sound. If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound, What Warrant have you to call us Antichrists? If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation, through no other door than Christ, How dare you, that say you are Christ's, refuse to be guided by them? If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock, How can you deny them to be True Churches?  
2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us; 
Grave Confutation, etc. p. 17.  in which they reckon Preaching of the Word, and Administration of Sacraments, as well as the Censures of Admonition, Suspension, Excommunication, and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor; which, say they, by Law, aught to be in all our Assemblies; and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ; but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ; which is most substantial, do want the other, and so exercise it not rightly, that is to say, not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed. And farther they add, That the Laws of our Land do Authorise the Minister to stay from the Lords Table, all such as are Vncat●chised, 
Giffard's Answer to the ●rownists, p. 47.  and out of Charity, or any otherwise public offenders; as appeareth in the Rubric before the Communion, and in that which is after Confirmation.  
3. That although it were granted, 
Grave Confutation, etc. p. 18.  That we wanted both the Exercise of the Church's Censures, and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by, yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding: as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat, yet was not the Discipline Reform there till the latter end of Jehoshaphats Reign. The Church of Corinth was a True Church, even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline. The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church, 
Acts. 8, 12, 19, 31.  before the Discipline was established there. And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline (for want whereof they Condemn us) were established there; yea, it is evident, that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time, before the Discipline was settled, or exercised: by all which it is manifest, that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline (which we want) be, to the Beauty and Wellbeing, or preservation of the Church; yet are they not necessary to the being thereof; but a True Church may be without them.  
4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Consent of the Christian Magistrate, 
Grave Confutation, etc. p. 51. 52.  and Governors of the Church: 
Giffard's Answer, p. 59 95, 100, 101, 102.  Nay, they declare, that in so doing, they should highly offend God. Giffard saith, That the Fetters and Chains, can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists, than the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience, and the Fear of God, from presuming to take upon them Public Authority. And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together, and choose a Minister and Ordain him, it would make him no more a Minister before God, then if all the Apprentices in London, taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor, and Minister an Oath unto him, should make him a Lord Mayor. But of this more afterwards.  
V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under (as they speak) an Antichristian Hierarchy. To which they Answer,  
First, 
Grave Confutation, etc. p. 19  They deny that our Bishops can be called Antichristian, since they do, and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Fundamental; yea, some of them have Learnedly and Sound maintained the Truth against Heretics, that have gainsayed it; some have not only by their Doctrine and Ministry Converted many to the Truth, but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel.  
Secondly, Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke, which they deny; yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church, or Ministry under it. Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches, have frequently born such a Yoke, and yet have been the True Churches of God still.  
Thirdly. That there is nothing unlawful, or Antichristian in the Office of Bishops, if they consider them as the King's Visitors and Commissioners, to see that the Pastors do their Duties. And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church, to cast many particular Churches, 
Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson, p. 65. Ed. 1642.  under one Provincial, or Diocesan Government. Yea, Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this, not only lawful, but expedient, to that degree, that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty, as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches within his Dominions, without it: as is employed in the seven Queries he propounds to Fr. johnson about it. 
Page 49.  But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them, this, saith he, doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations, so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors; which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do, and by the Laws caught to do.  
These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness, from the Authors of best reputation on both sides, that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversy about Separation, between the Old Non-conformists, and the Separatists of that time.   

Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times, we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversy, by those who were called Independents, and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism, or rigid Separation.  
And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation, or the Steps by which it was carried on; and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way; and what the True State of the Difference was, between the Assembly of Divines, and the Dissenting Brethren; and how far the Reasons, then used, will hold against the present Separation.  
When those who were called Brownists, 
Stephen Offwoo● 's Advertisement to Jo●n Delecluse and H. May, p. 10, 39  for the f●eer Exercise of their new Church way, withdrew into the Low-countrieses, they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves. A. D. 1582. Robert Brown, accompanied with Harrison a Schoolmaster, and about 50 or 60 Persons, went over to Middleburgh, and there they chose Harrison Pastor▪ and Brown Teacher. They had not been there Three Months, but upon the falling out between Brown and Harri●on, Brown forsakes them, and returns for England, and Subscribes, promising to the Archbishop, To live Obediently to his Commands. Concerning whom, Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words: Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins, which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause. Mr. Brown hath cast us off, and that with open, manifest, and notable Treacheries, and if I should declare them, you could not believe me. Only this I testify unto you, that I am well able to prove, That Cain dealt not so ill with his Brother Abel, as he hath dealt with me. Some of the words of Brown's Subscription, 
Defence of the Admon. to the Followers of Brown, p. 127.  were these, I do humbly submit myself to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment, whose Authority, under Her Majesty, I w●ll never resist, or deprave, by the Grace of God, etc. But, being a Man of a Restless, and Factious Temper, no Promises, or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds; as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered. For, although he promised to frequent our Churches, 
Page 133.  and to come to Prayers and Sacraments, yet, living Schoolmaster at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years, in all that time he never did it; and when he was like to have been questioned for it, he withdrew into another Parish. Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons, 
Page 135.  but that he accounted no act of Communion; and declared to his Friends, 
Page 134.  That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons; and therefore persuaded his Followers in London so to do. 
Page 140.  Notwithstanding this, he Preached in Private Meetings, and that in the time of Public Assemblies, when he thought fit; Which this Author, though a Nonconformist, and Friend of T. Cs, calls a Cursed Conventicle: who sets forth at large his Strange juggle, and jesuitical Equivocations in his Subscription. 
Page 141.  By the Bishop's Authority, he said he meant only his Civil Authority; by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God, he understood the Church of his own setting up; 
Pag. 138, etc.  by frequenting our Assemblies according to Law, he meant, the Law of God, and not of the Land: he declared, his Child was Baptised according to Law, 
Counterpoison p. 25. Cotton's Answ. to R. Will●●ms, p. 122.  but then told his Followers, it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton, of New England, hath this passage concerning Brown. The first Inventor of that way, which is called Brownism, from whom the Sect took its Name, fell back from his own way, to take a Parsonage called I●ourc●; God so, in a strange (yet wise) Providence, ordering it, that he, who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England, as no Church; should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them, and it called, A Church. But upon the Dissension at Middleborough, between Brown and Harrison, that Congregation soon broke to pieces. Ainsworth cannot deny the early Dissensions between Brown and Harrison, Brown and Barrow, Barrow and Fr. johnson; but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justify theirs; notwithstanding, 
Offwood's Advertisement, p. 15.  as Dr. O. well observes, We are to distinguish between what falls out through the passions of Men, and what follows from the nature of the thing. But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes notice of a Third Cause of these Dissensions, viz. The judgement of God upon them. I do see, saith he, the hand of God is heavy upon them, blinding their Minds, and hardening their Hearts, that they do not see his Truth, so that they are at Wars among themselves, and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness.  
There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them.  
First, Their Invincible Obstinacy.  
Secondly, The Scandalous Breaches which followed still one upon the other, as long as the course of Separation continued; and were only sometimes hindered from showing themselves, by their not being let loose upon each other; For then the Firebrands soon appear, which at other times they endeavour to cover.  
Their great Obstinacy appears, by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood, who being Condemned for Seditious Books, could no ways be reclaimed; rather choosing to Die, than to Renounce the Principles of Separation. But Penry, who suffered on the same account about that time, had more Relenting in him, as to the business of Separation. For Mr. I. Cotton, 
Cotton's Answer to R. Williams p. 17.  of New-England, relates this Story of him, from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham, an eminent Nonconformist; That he confessed, He deserved Death at the Queen's hand, for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation, from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches, Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of, yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Subjects whom he had Seduced; and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands. These are Mr. Cotton's own words. 
Ib.  Concerning Barrow, he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth, that when he stood under the Gibbet, he lift up his eyes, and said, Lord, if I be deceived, thou hast deceived me. And so being stopped by the hand of God, he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more, either to the Glory of God, or Edification of the People. These Executions extremely startled the Party, and away goes Francis johnson with his Company to Amsterdam; johnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Anabaptism, 
Clifton's Advertisement, p. 22. 26.  and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government. In short, they fell to pieces, separating from each others Communion: 
Way of Congregational Churches cleared, p. 6.  some say, They formally Excommunicated each other; but Mr. Cotton will not allow that, but, he saith, They only withdrew: yet those who were Members of the Church do say, That Mr. Johnson and his Company, were Accursed, and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company: and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoided by Mr. Johnson and his. 
Profane Schism of the Brownists, p. 63.  And one Church received the Persons Excommunicated by the other, and so became ridiculous to Spectators, as some of themselves confessed. johnson and his Party charged the other with Schism in Separating from them: 
Ib. ch. 2. p. 9  But, as others said, who returned to our Church; Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson, than for him to refuse and avoid the Communion of all True Churches beside? But the Difference went so high, that johnson would admit none of Ainsworth's Company without Rebaptising them; 
Page 71.  Ainsworth, on the other side, charged them with woeful Apostasy: 
Offwood's Advertisement, p. 43.  And one of his own Company said, That he lived and died in Contentions. When Robinson went from Leyden, on purpose to end these Differences, he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People; Which, with Mr. Ainsworths' Maintenance, was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-government. 
Schism of the Browni●s, p. 87.  Smith, who set up another Separate congregation, was Johnson's Pupil, and went over, In hopes, saith Mr. Cotton, 
Way of Congregational Churches, p. 7.  to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation; but he was so far from that, that he soon outwent him: and he charges the other Separate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England, viz. (1.) Idolatrous Worship; for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry, 
See Smith's Reasons in B●nard against Br●●nists, ca●led Plain Evidences, p. 5, 6, 7.  in Reading of Prayers; he thought them equally guilty in looking on their Bibles, in Preaching and Singing. (2.) Antichristian Government, in adding the Human Inventions of Doctors, and Ruling Elders: which was pulling down one Antichrist, to set up another; and if one was the Beast, the other was the Image of the Beast. Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches, he began one wholly new, and therefore Baptised himself. For, 
Smith's Ep. to the Character.  he declared, There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists. But this New Church was of short continuance, for, upon his Death, it dwindled away, or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism. And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation; and so in all probability there had; had not Mr. Robinson of Leyden abated much of the Rigour of it; for he asserted, The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer, 
Cotton's Way cleare●, p. 8.  but not in Sacraments and Discipline. The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him. So that the present Separatists, who deny that, are gone beyond him, and are fallen back to the Principles of the Rigid Separation. Robinson succeeded (though not immediately) jacob, in his Congregation at Leyden, whom some make the Father of Independency. 
Page 15.  But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church, it spread into New England; for Mr. Cotton saith, They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth; and that Model was followed by other Churches there; at Salem, Boston, 
Page 14.  Watertown, etc. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth, That Robinson 's Denial of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches (either by reason of their mixed corrupt matter, or for defect in their Covenant, or for excess in their Episcopal Government) was never received into any heart, from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State. 
Page 138.  And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams, he hath these words, That upon due consideration he cannot find, That the Principles and Grounds of Reformation do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches, as false Churches; from their Ministry as a false Ministry; from their Worship as a false Worship; from all their Professors as no visible Saints: Nor can I find, that they do either necessarily, or probably conclude a Separation from Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England. 
R. Williams Answer to Cotton 's 〈◊〉. 3●.  Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice; for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches, yet by his Actual Separation from them, he showed, that really he did not; and he adds, that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puritan Principles; saying, That Mr. Can hath unanswerably proved, 
Page 39  That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies, and profaneness of People professing Christ, and the necessity of Christ' s Flock and Disciples, must necessarily, if truly followed, lead on to, and enforce a Separation. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches; but then, he saith, There is no Church Communion in Hearing, 
Page 43.  but only in giving the Seals. Mr. Williams urgeth, That there is Communion in Doctrine, and Fellowship of the Gospel. 
Cotton's Answer to Williams, p. 129, 132.  Upon which, Mr. Cotton grants, That though a Man may join in Hearing, and Prayer, before and after Sermon; yet not as in a Church-state. Yet, after all, he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches. But, if they remain true Churches, it appears from the former Discourse, they can never justify Separation from them; upon the Principles of either Party. So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate, as to some of their Principles, than the old rigid Separatists; yet they do not consider, that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable. The Dissenting Brethren, in their Apologetical Narration, to avoid the imputation of Brownism, deliver this as their Judgement, concerning our Parochial Churches. And for our own Congregations, 
Apologet. Narrative, p. 5, 6.  viz. of England, we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World, that all that Conscience of the Defilements, we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them, or of the Unwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein, did never work in us any other thought, much less opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assemblies, and Parochial Congregations thereof, were the True Churches and Body of Christ, and the Ministry thereof a True Ministry: much less did it ever enter into our hearts, to judge them Antichristian; we saw, and cannot but see, that by the same reason, the Churches abroad in Scotland, Holland, etc. (though more Reform) yet for their Mixture, must be in like manner judged no Churches also; which, to imagine, or conceive, is, and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts. Yea, we have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with Defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof; and when ourselves had least, yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons, that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren; but then the difficulty returns with greater force; How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful? If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles, all the Dispute had been about the truth or falsehood of them; but their truth being supposed, the necessity of Separation followed; whereas now, upon altering the State of the Controversy by the Independents, though their Principles seem more Moderate, yet their Practice is more Unreasonable. It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day, to justify the Separation, That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches, and that therein they differ from the old Separatists; It is true▪ in that Opinion they do; but in Separation they agree, which is the more unjustifiable in them, since they yield so much to our Churches. And yet herein, whatever they pre●end, they do not exceed their Independent Brethren, whose Separation themselves Condemned. But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren, and thought, it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism; 
Anatomy of Independency, p. 18, 19, 20, etc.  because (1.) They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government, Which, they say, is inconsistent with the Civil Peace; as may be seen, say they, in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam, and Rotterdam; and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there. (2.) They overthrew the Bounds of Parochial Churches, as the Separatists did, and think such a Confinement Unlawful. (3.) They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members, as the Separatists did: Whereby, say they, they confound the Visible, and Invisible Church, and make the same essential form of both. (4.) They renounce the Ordination received in our Church, but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry, is, by virtue of an explicit or implicit Call, grounded on the People's explicit or implicit Covenant, with such a Man as their Pastor. For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church, after the New Model, at Rotterdam, Ward was chosen Pastor, and Bridges Teacher, but they both Renounced their Ordination in England; and some say, They ordained one another; others, That they had no other Ordination, than what the Congregation gave them.   

Sect. 13. And now, new Congregations began to be set up in Holland, upon these Principles; but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former. Simpson renouncing his Ordination, was admitted a private member of the Church at Rotterdam; but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church, and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members, as to the exercise of Prophesying; and so he, and those who joined with him, complaining of the Mischief of Impositions, were ready for a Separation, if that restraint were not speedily removed. Mr. Bridge yields to the thing, but not as to the time, viz. On the Lord's Day after Sermon; this gives no satisfaction, for they must have their will in every thing, or else they will never cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions. And so Mr. Simpson, 
Answer to the Antapologia p. 245.  and his Party, set up a New Church of their own: Which 1 Goodwin doth not deny; for Mr. Simpson, saith he, upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church, whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor, might seek and make a departure from it. But were these Churches quiet, after this Separation made? 
Dissuasive from the Errors of the Times, p. 76▪  So far from it, that the contentions and slanders were no less grievous, saith Bailiff, than those of Amsterdam, betwixt Ainsworth and Jonson's followers▪ But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness? No, but in stead of that, they were so full of Bitterness, 
Anatomy of Independ. p. 6.  Reproaches, and hard Censures, that Mr. Br●dge often declared, If he had known at first, what he met with afterwards, he would never have come amongst them, nor being amongst them, have given them such scope and liberty, as he had. It seems at last, he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions, and the mischief of a Separating dividing humour. But the People having the Power in their hands, were resolved to show, that they held it not in vain; for Mr. Ward, had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregation, by Preaching the same Sermons there, which he had Preached before at Norwich; this, and some other frivolous things, were thought Intolerable Impositions; and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge, they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministry. This being a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government, gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren: which occasioned a Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches (as they called them) for closing up of this wound; but they durst not search deep into it, but only skinned it over, to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it. From these things, the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing; 
Anatomy of Independ. p. 49.  and of not leaving all to Conscience. For, say they, Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasioned at Rotterdam by that Schism, where divers Members left the one Church, and joined to the other, so disorderly, wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge; yet as that could not then be prevented, so there had been many Meetings, Sermons, and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off, by a Reunion of the Churches, and yet the way to do it could never be found, till the Magistrate's Authority and Command found it. These things I have more fully deduced; Not, as though bare Dissensions in a Church were an Argument of itself against it; but, to show (1.) That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions, and leaves them without Remedy; and (2.) That humorous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions, though the things be never so just and reasonable; and (1.) That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience, will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion: For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church, they run down the Hill, and tumble down all before them. If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions, the Members of their own Churches, may on the same grounds, complain of theirs; and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents, as to the Pretence of Conscience; so it is impossible for either, or both of them, to Answer the Anabaptists, who have as just a Plea for Separation from them, as they can have from the Church of England.   

Sect. 14. From hence we find, that, although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest, as to themselves; yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience, the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms, which immediately overspread this City and Nation: which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most ●●inent Presbyterians of that time. Thence 〈…〉, 
Duply to M. S. p. 53.  a zealous Scotch Presbyterian, said, That he verily believed, Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies: Yea, I add, saith he, That by consequence, it is much worse than Popery.  
Then●e the Scotch Commissioners, 
Arguments of the Scotch Commiss. p. 3, 4.  in the first place, pressed Uniformity in Religion, as the only means to preserve Peace, and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles; a thing very becoming the King to promote, according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah; and a thing which, they say, all sound Divines and Politicians are for.  
Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons, 
Serm. Nou. 8. 1641.  That our Church was laid waste, and exposed to confusion, under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing men's Consciences: and that, to put all Men into a course of Order and Uniformity, in God's way, is not to force the Conscience; but to set up God in his due place, and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life.  
The Errors and Innovations, 
Serm. before the Com. Feb. 19 1645.  under which we groaned so much of later years, saith Mr. Case, were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae, Tolerable Trifles, children's Play, compared with these Damnable Doctrines, Doctrines of Devils, as the Apostle calls them: Polygamy, Arbitrary Divorce, Mortality of the Soul; No Ministry, no Churches, no Ordinances, no Scripture, etc. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience, and such Lawless Separation of Churches, etc.  
The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam, 
Serm. before the Lord Mayor, Jan. 14. 1645.  saith Mr. Calamy, Separation from our Churches is Countenanced, Toleration is Cried Up, Authority asleep. It would seem a wonder, if I should reckon how many separate Congregations, or rather Segregations there are in the City; What Churches against Churches, etc. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted, many are hindered from Conversion, and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives. The Lord keep us, saith he, from being Poisoned with such an Error as that of an Unlimited Toleration. A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government, bringeth in Confusion, and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism.  
Diversity of Religion, 
Serm. before the Parliament, Sept. 12. 1644.  saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen, disjoints and distracts the Minds of Men, and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds, jealousies, Seditions, Wars, if any thing in the World be; and in a little time, either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church, or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State: i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions, or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars. Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens; and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments.  
These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time, concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired.  
The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches, and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms, published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves, wherein (as is said before) they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism; declaring, That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches, and our Ministry, as a true Ministry; but yet they earnestly desire liberty, as to the Peaceable practice of their own way.  
To this the Presbyterians Answered,  
First, 
Observations and Annotations on the Apologetical Narration, p. 17.  That they did not understand by them, in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches.  
Secondly, If they did, what Necessity there was for any Separation, or what need of Toleration.  
As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches; either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity, as many of our Divines, say they, grant it to the Romish Church; That she is a True Church, as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman; and then they thank them for their Favour, that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome: or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches, and then, say they, Why do ye not join with us, and Communicate as Brethren? Why desire ye a Toleration? Yes, say the Dissenting Brethren, we own you to be True Churches, and Communicate with you in Doctrine. To which the others replied, If you own it by External Act of Communion, ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments: but this ye refuse; therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation. For where there was such a refusal of Communion, as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own, 
Sermon at St. Paul's, Feb. 8. 1645. p. 41.  there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists. And, as Mr. Newcomen urged them, their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental, their holding one Head, and one Faith, doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Unity, and downright Schism, as long as they hold not one Body, one Baptism. For when Men make different Assemblies, and Congregations, and draw Men into Parties, it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism, as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza. Of which afterwards.  
But still they denied themselves to be Brownists, or Rigid Separatists, because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches, and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian, and from our People as no Visible Christians.  
To which the other Replied, That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves, some being more rigid than others; and as to the last Clause, none since Barrow had owned it. But, for the rest, 
Narrative of New-England, etc. Postscript, p. 52.  only putting Unlawful for Antichristian; and by Ordinances, understanding Church-Ordinances, they own the very same Principles as the others did. And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches; yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists, touching Church-Constitution, Matter, Form, Power, Government, Communion, Corruptions, etc. The consequence must be, say they, that we have no true Churches, and that our Ordinances are all unlawful. And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation, 
Baylie's Dissuasive, p. 104.  by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches, their Separation is so much the more culpable, and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism. For, it is a greater sin, saith Bayly, to depart from a Church, which I profess to be True, and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving, than from a Church which I conceive to be False, and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God; nor any Blessing from his hand.  
So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things.  
First, For refusing Communion with those Churches, which they confessed to be true Churches. For, say the Members of the Assembly, 
Papers for Accommod. p. 47.  Thus to depart from True Churches, is not to hold Communion with them as such, but rather by departing, to declare them not to be such.  
Secondly, For setting up different Congregations, where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine.   

Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversy about Separation, between the Divines of the Assembly, and the Independents, I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them.  
The desire of the Independents, as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation, Dec. 4. 1645. was this,  
That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness, and yet out of tenderness of Conscience, cannot Communicate in their Parishes, but do voluntarily offer themselves to join in such Congregations.  
To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered, Decemb. 15.  
This Desire is not to be granted them, for these Reasons.  
1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule; as if in nothing it were to be complied with; nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing, which should argue Church-Communion. More could not be said, or done, against False Churches.  
2. It plainly holds out, The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches, yea out of such True Churches, which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God; whereof we are assured, there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God.  
3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church, still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule, which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away, and those whom they leave; and again, between the Church that should be forsaken, and that to which they should go.  
Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons.  
To the First Reason, they say, (1.) That gathering into other Congregations such, who cannot, out of tenderness of Conscience, partake as Members in their Churches, for the purer enjoyment (as to their Consciences) of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches, is far from Separation, much less a plain and total Separation. And this is not setting up Churches against Churches, but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different judgement. For, say they, if the purest Churches in the World (unto our judgement, in all other respects) should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, any one thing; that such tender Consciences cannot join in (as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving, which was the case of Scotland and England) if they remove from these Churches, and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches, to enjoy this and other Ordinances, this is no Separation.  
(2.) That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule, unless they Wholly in all things differ, by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution, Worship and Government; but they shall practise the most of the same things; and these the most substantial, which are found in the Rule itself.  
(3.) That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches, not only in Hearing and Preaching, but Occasionally, in Baptising their Children in their Churches, and receiving the Lords Supper there, etc.  
And, Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism? Not agreeing in the main things? Not owning their Churches to be true? Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them? Let us hear, what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this.  
Thus they Answer,  
First, That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear, or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular, wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin, yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript, as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God, of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches, to be one.  
Secondly, It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule, another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule; in the former case a Man retains his Membership; in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgement, touching the very Constitution of the Churches, from and unto which he removes.  
Thirdly, If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member, he must forbear to do it, yet without Separation. They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion, to be unlawful, either in England, or Scotland, did not Separate, or Renounce Membership, but did, some of them, with Zeal and Learning, defend our Church against those of the Separation.  
Fourthly, The Notion of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State, but by the Word of God.  
Fifthly, To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike, when Opposition or Offence offers itself, is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense.  
Sixthly, A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation; for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship, and Government with our Brethren; and under this pretence, Novatians, Donatists, all that ever were thought to Separate, might shelter themselves.  
Seventhly, If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once, a second, or third time, without sin, we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin; and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless. To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may join without sin, seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation.  
To the Second Reason, The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers.  
1. That it was founded upon this supposition, That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the judgement of those who are to Tolerate: Which the Divines of the Assembly denied; and said, It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness, to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches: which they do not once endeavour to prove lawful.  
2. That if after all endeavours, men's Consciences are unsatisfied, as to Communion with a Church, they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion; or on the Churches to withhold them from removing to purer Churches; or if there be none such to gather into Churches.  
To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied.  
I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due.  
II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England; and they have as just ground to deny it as they.  
To the third Reason they Answered.  
First, That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches; that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State, nor debated by the Assembly.  
To which the others Reply;  
That if the word Schism had been left out, the Reason would have remained strong, viz. That this would, give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church, still drawing away Churches from under the Rule. And to give countenance to an unjust, and causeless Separation from Lawful Church Communion, is not far from giving countenance to a Schism; especially when the grounds, upon which this Separation is desired, are such, upon which all other possible scruples, which erring Consciences may, in any other case, be subject unto, may claim the privilege of a like Indulgence, and so this Toleration being the first, shall indeed but lay the foundation, and open the Gap, whereat as many Divisions in the Church, as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men, shall, upon the selfsame Equity be let in.  
Secondly, This will give Countenance only to Godly People's joining in other Congregations for their greater Edification, who cannot otherwise, without sin, enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ; yet so, as not condemning those Churches, they join not with, as false; but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints, as Members of the Body of Christ, of the Church Catholic; and join also with them in all duties of Worship, which belong to particular Churches, so far as they are able; and if this be called Schism, or Countenance of Schism, it is more than we have yet learned from Scriptures, or any approved Authors.  
To this, the Divines of the Assembly replied.  
1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church, and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule. For, upon the same pretence, those who scruple Infant-Baptism, may withdraw from their Churches, and so Separate into another Congregation; and so in that some practice may be scrupled, and they Separate again: Are these Divisions, and Sub-Divisions, say they, as lawful as they may be infinite? or, Must we give that respect to the Errors of men's Consciences, as to satisfy their Scruples, by allowance of this liberty to them? And, Doth it not plainly signify, that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism?  
2. The not condemning of our Churches as false, doth little extenuate the Separation: for, divers of the Brownists, who have totally separated in former times, have not condemned these Churches as false; though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgement against us, yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches, if not as false, yet as impure, eousque as that in such Administrations, they cannot be by them, as Members, Communicated with, without sin. And when they speak of Communion with us, as Members of the Church Catholic, it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches, as if we were false Churches.  
3. We do not think differences in Judgement in this, or that Point, to be Schism, or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoined is Schism, so that Communion be preserved; or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion, or Worship, ex se unlawful, is Schism: but to join in Separate Congregations of another Communion, which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others, and is therefore a Schism in the Body: and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church, wherein Christians did not Separate into divers form Congregations, of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms, much more may such Separation as this desired, be so called.  
4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating, nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism, which may arise from Errors of Conscience, as well as carnal and corrupt reasons; therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shown to be such exnaturâ rei, will bear it out; and therefore we say, that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism.  
5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason, and Experience of all Ages, that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions, Strifes, Envyings, Confusions, and so draw with it that breach of Love, which may endanger the heightening of it into formal Schism, even in the sense of our Brethrens.  
6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism, but the breaking off Members from their Churches, which are lawfully constituted Churches, and from Communion in Ordinances, etc. without just and sufficient cause, ex natura rei, to justify such secession, and to join in other Congregations of Separate Communion, either because of personal failings in the Officers, or Members of the Congregation from which they separate, or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience, which hath been called setting up altar contra altar: from which they quote St. Augustin, and Camenon.  
Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversy about Separation, as it hath been managed in former times among us. From whence there are these things to be considered by us, which may be of some use in our following Discourse.  
(1.) That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England, and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin, notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it. This I have proved with so great evidence in the foregoing Discourse; that those who deny it, may, with the help of the same Metaphysics, deny, That the Sun shines.  
(2.) That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Union of the Church, to go as far as they were able. This was not only Asserted by the Nonformists, but by the most rigid Separatists of former times, and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves. So that the lawfulness of Separation, where Communion is lawful, and thought so to be by the persons who Separate, is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age; but what new Reasons they have for it, besides Noise and Clamour, I am yet to seek.  
(3.) That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justify Separation, although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled; provided that they have used the best means for a right information.  
(4.) That where occasional Communion is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches, and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them. For, say they, to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may join, seemeth to be a most unjust Separation.  
(5.) 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 Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren.   

Sect. 16. From all this it appears, that the present practice of Separation can never be justified, by the old Non-conformists Principles; nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines. The former is clear from undeniable Evidence, and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries. 
Baxter's Answer, p. 89. Dr. O. p. 50.  For, although they endeavour all they can, to blind the Readers Judgement, with finding out the disparity of some circumstances, which was never denied; yet not one of them can deny, that it was their Judgement, That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship, where there was an agreement in Doctrine, and the substantials of Religion, was Unlawful, and Schismatical. And this was the point, for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon: and it still stands good against them. For their resolution of the case, doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time, but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Unity in Churches; which must have equal force at all times, although there happen a great variety, as to some circumstances. For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded, as to one circumstance, or another, the general case, as to Separation, is the same: whether the Scruples do 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 on their Account; it comes at last to the same point. Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations, as the Dissenting Brethren did, because of some Scruples of Conscience in them? and is it not equally unlawful in others, who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead, although they relate to different things? I will put this case as plain as possible, to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions. Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now, should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations, on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience; one of them pleads, that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy: another saith, His People do not scruple that, but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross, or Kneeling at the Communion; a third saith, If all these were away, yet if their Church be not rightly gathered and constituted, as to matter and form, they must have a Congregation of their own; a fourth goes yet farther, and saith, Let their Congregation be constituted how it will, if they allow Infant-Baptism, they can never join with them; nor, saith a fifth, can we, as long as you allow Preaching by set forms, and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses, and such like Human Inventions: Here are now very different scruples of Conscience; but, Doth the nature of the case vary, according to the bare difference of the Scruples? One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit, is Separation on that account lawful? No, say all other Parties against the Quakers; because their scruples are unreasonable. But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism? No, say the Presbyterians and Independents, that is an unreasonable Scruple. Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches, although they may occasionally join in the duties of Worship? No, saith the Presbyterians, this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions, if mere scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation: and if they can join occasionally with us, they are bound to do it constantly; or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little: No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism. If they allege grounds to justify themselves, they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei, and not from the mere error or mistake of Conscience. But, at last, the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to join with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England, and if they do not, either they must desire a separate Congregation, on the account of their Scruples, as to the Ceremonies, and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them. (For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Unreasonable, as they do those of the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers,) Or else they declare, They can join occasionally in Communion with our Church, but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship; and then the obligation to Peace and Unity ought to have as much force on them, with respect to our Church, as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren, with respect to themselves. For no disparity, as to other Circumstances, can alter the nature of this Case; viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawful, it becomes a Duty, and Separation a Sin; under what denomination soever the persons pass. For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances, but in the nature of the Act; because then Separation appears most unreasonable, when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful. As will fully appear by the following Discourse. Those Men therefore speak most agreeably to their present practice, although least for the honour of the Assembly, who confess, 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 58, 68, 69.  That they were transported with undue heats, and animosities against their Brethren; which deserve to be lamented, and not to be imitated; that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said, nor to be concluded by their Determinations: 
●etter out of the Country, p. ●8.  that it is to be hoped, the Party is become wiser since. This is plain dealing, and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren; and that in a matter wherein they happened to have the strongest reason of their side. But hereby we see, that those who justify the present Separation have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists; as to this point of Separation.   

Sect. 17. It remains now, that I show how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles of their Predecessors, as to private persons undertaking to reform the Discipline of the Church, and setting up new Churches, against the consent of the Magistrate, in a Reformed Church: and particularly, as to the Preaching of their Ministers, when Silenced by our Law's This I am the more obliged to do, because when I said, That I was certain, that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws, is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times, Mr. B. is pleased to say, 
Answ. to my Sermon, p. 21.  That my Assertion is so rash and false, in matters of notorious Fact, that it weakeneth his Reverence of my judgement, in matters of right. I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversy, than that he would be determined by the plain Evidence of the Fact; and if what I said be true, and notoriously true, I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies.  
Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism, 
Giffard's Answer to the Brownists, p. 104.  That Churches are to be set up, and Discipline reform, without the consent of the Christian Magistrate: Brown maketh many Arguments, saith he, to prove, that Princes are not to be stayed for, nor yet to have to do, by Public Power, to establish Religion. Which Opinion of his, is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes, and such horrib● Injury to the Church, contrary to the manifest Word of God, that if there were nothing else, it is enough to make him an odious and detestable Heretic, until he show Repentance. But to clear this matter, he distinguishes, (1.) of Princes that are enemies to Christianity; as they were in the time of the Apostles; to what end, saith he, should they, having Authority from Christ, to establish Discipline, sue unto the Courts of such Princes, or attend their pleasure. (2.) Of such who profess Christianity, but are Idolaters. In this case, he saith, they are neither ●ound to forbear Preaching, nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it. (3.) Of such Princes, who own the true Doctrine of Christianity, but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline. In this case he determines, That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience, yet no private persons are to break the Unity and Peace of the Faithful, or to take upon them Public Authority to reform: which he there proves, and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary.  
In Answer to this, 
Barrow against Giffard, p. 105.  Barrow saith, That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Commandments of God, upon any restraint, or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever; and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles, who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion, if Princes had been to be stayed for, or their restraint been a sufficient let: and adds, That they only, according to God's Commandment, refrained from their Idolatry, and other Public Evils, and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner, to Worship the Lord our God, and to join ourselves together in the Faith, unto mutual Duties, and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church, and for the Church to erect the same.  
To the Instance of the Apostles, Giffard had Answered, That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ, to set up his Kingdom: but ye have no Commission from God, it is the Devil that hath set you forward; And will ye, in such vile and wretched manner, pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches? Barrow replies, If the Commandment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work, though all the Princes of the World resisted; then must the Commandment of the same God, be of the same effect to all other Instruments, whom it pleaseth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also, though all the Princes in the World should withstand, and forbid the same. By this we see, this was a great point in controversy between the Brownists and Non-conformists. Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. johnson and jacob. For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with, 
Page 70, 72.  whom they called the forward Preachers; these are two.  
1. That the planting, or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate, and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants, except they have Authority from Earthly Princes; which Doctrine, saith he, is against the Kingly Power of Christ, and three whole Lines of Scripture, which he there puts together.  
2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching, and to forsake his Flock, at the commandment of a Lord Bishop: Which Doctrine, he saith, is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more, with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse. But, lest it should be supposed, that these two were among those which jacob saith, he falsely laid to their charge; we find both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-conformists, 
Confut. of the Brown. p. 51.  who joined together in a Confutation of the Brownists. For, say they, As to the People's power of Reforming,  
First, We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scripture, for them that are private Members of any Church, to erect the Discipline, no not though the Magistrate and Ministers, who should deal in this work, were altogether profane and ungodly.  
Secondly, We esteem our Prince to be a most Lawful and Christian Magistrate, and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ, and therefore we are justly afraid, that by enterprising a public Reformation, not only without, but contrary to the direction and liking of them, who by God's word ought to have, if not the only, yet the principal hand in that work, we should highly offend God.  
Thirdly, That for the want of Public Reformation, the Magistrate is every where blamed, and no where the Church, for aught we can find: Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry, 
Page 2●▪  but never for that they plucked it not down, when their Princes had set it up; neither can we find, whether ever the Church, under a Christian Magistrate, was by any Prophet, either commanded to deal (otherwise than by persuasion) in public Reformation, when the Magistrate neglected it; or reproved for the contrary.  
Fourthly, To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things.  
I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave; yet not contrary to his liking; or when he opposed his Authority directly, and inhibited it; they never erected the Discipline, when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates.  
II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then, yet would it not follow, that we may do so now; for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church, as the Christian Magistrate is; neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power, to pull down, and set up Orders in the Church, as the Apostles (those wise Master-builders) had.  
Fifthly, As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced, they declare,  
1. So long as the Bishops Suspend, 
Page 41.  and Deprive, according to the Law of the Land, we account of the Action herein, as of the Act of the Church, which we may and aught to reverence, and yield unto; if they do otherwise, we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them. If it be said, the Church is not to be obeyed when it Suspends and deprives us, for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient. We Answer, That it lieth on them to Depose, who may Ordain; and they may shut that may open. And as he may, with a good Conscience execute a Ministry, by the Ordination and Calling of the Church, who is privy to himself of some unfitness (if the Church will press him to it) so may he who is privy to himself, of no fault that deserveth Deprivation, cease from the execution of his Ministry, when he is pressed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltless person, put out of his Charge by the Church's Authority, may yet continue in it, What proceedings can there be against guilty persons, who, in their own conceit, are always guiltless, or will at least pretend so to be; seeing they will be ready always to object against the Church's judgement, That they are called of God, and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministry at the will of Bishops? 
The Second Quaere.   
2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects.  
First. They that Inhibited the Apostles, were known and professed enemies to the Gospel.  
Secondly. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Gospel, which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto, than this of our Bishops, who, though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government, and Reformation of the Church, yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached, but are also Preachers of it themselves.  
Thirdly. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men, nor by the hands of Men, but immediately from God himself, and therefore also might not be restrained or deposed by Men; whereas we, though we exercise a Function, whereof God is the Author, and we are also called of God to it, yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministry of Men, and may therefore by the Ministry of Men be also deposed, and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministry.  
To this, 
Answer to Letter, p. 22.  which I had referred Mr. B. to, he gives this Answer, If Mr. Rathband hath denied this, it had been no proof. Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof? My words are, That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists, as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband. Can any thing be plainer, than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists, and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it? This way of Answering is just, as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament, and another should reply, If Curcellaeus said so, it had been no proof. Can Mr. B. satisfy his Mind with such Answers?  
When Fr. johnson said, 
unreasonableness of Separation, p. 89.  That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Public Ministry, no not by Lawful Magistrates. Mr. Bradshaw Answered, This Assertion is false and seditious. And when johnson saith, That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal; but this, that they ought to obey God rather than Man; which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians. Bradshaw (a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter, and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with johnson) gives this Answer.  
1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God, as the Ground of their refusal, in so many Letters and Syllables, yet that which they do assign, is by Implication, and in effect the same with it. For it is as much as if they had said, God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us, and not Man; and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God, we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us. For, opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man, they therein plead a Calling from God, and not from Man; otherwise, if they had received a Calling from Man, there had been incongruity in the Answer; considering, that in common sense and reason, they ought so far forth to obey Men, forbidding them to exercise a Calling, as they exercise the same by virtue of that Calling. Else, by this reason, a Minister should not cease to Preach, upon the Commandment of the Church, that hath chosen him; but should be bound, to give them also the same Answer, which the Apostles gave, which were absurd. So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson, there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever, to depose a Minister from his Ministry; but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State, the Minister is to continue in his Ministry.  
2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit, plainly tending to Sedition, we are to know, that though the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, Preached Publicly, where they were not hindered by open violence; and did not, nor might not leave their Ministry upon any Human Authority, or Commandment whatsoever, because they did not enter into, or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever; yet they never erected and planted Public Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate, whether they would or no; or in despite of them; but such, in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate, were as private and invisible as might be.  
3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden, so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places; but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly intended in Silencing of them. But our Churches whereof we are Ministers, are no private and secret Assemblies, such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State; but are public, professing their Worship, and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State; yea, and by his Countenance, Authority and Protection; and we are set over those Churches, not only by a Calling of our People, but also by the Authority of the Magistrate, who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such public action; who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel, in those places where he forbiddeth some. If therefore after our public calling, to Minister to such a known and Public Church, not by the Church only, but by the Magistrate also, the Magistrate shall have matter against us (whether just or unjust it skilleth not) and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church; I see not by what Warrant in God's Word, we should think ourselves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministry still; except we should think such a Law of Ministry to lie upon us, that we should judge ourselves bound to run upon the Sword's point of the Magistrate, or to oppose Sword to Sword. And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly, and against the will of the Church, and should therein sin; yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Church, nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate; neither doth she stand bound, in regard of her affection to her Minister (how great and deserving soever) to deprive herself of the Protection of the Magistrate, by leaving her public standing, to follow his Ministry in private, and in the dark; refusing the benefit of all other Public Ministry, which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy.  
4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath, by God's Word, in such a case, so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministry, that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Commonwealth where they live; when in some competent measure they may publicly, with the grace and favour of the Magistrate, enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another: and (except he have a calling to Minister in some Church) he is to be content to live as a private member, till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him, and to call him again to his own Church; labouring mean while privately, upon particular occasions offered, to strengthen and confirm in the ways of God, those People that are deprived of his public Labour. And I take it to be the duty of the People, in such a Case, if they will approve themselves faithful Christians, and good Subjects, so to submit to the Ministry of another, as that by Prayer, and all other good, dutiful, and loyal means, they may do their best endeavour to obtain him, of whom, against their will, they have been deprived, and still to affect and love him as their Pastor: now, if the People do thus, then is that Minister called to be Silent, not only by the Magistrate, but by them also, though with much grief.  
To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw, 
Answer to Serm. p. 99  all that Mr. B. saith, is, That Bradshaw thought, we should submit to a Silencing Law, where our Ministry was unnecessary, and so doth he. If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes, he would never have given such an Answer as this. For, Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity, or no necessity of their Preaching, but upon the allowance, or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate. And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity, Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time, than there is now, when himself confesseth, several years since, That Thirty years ago, 
Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 55.  there were many bare Reading, not Preaching Ministers, for one that there is now? And what was there, which the old Non-conformists more complained of, than the want of a more Preaching Ministry? This then, could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason; and Mr. Baxter, upon second thoughts, cannot be of that opinion.  
I have yet one Argument more, to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists; which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation; 
Cassand. Anglic. p. 2.  Which is, that where two Duties do meet, a greater, and a less, whereof both cannot be done at the same time, the lesser duty must yield unto the greater; but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming, teacheth, and the practice thereof causeth, to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less; therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine, and a Sin in Practice. The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose, That Ministers, deprived by Law, are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law's. And to confirm this, several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument, and to give an account of the disparity of the case, as to the Apostles times, and ours. For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose, since they submitted to jewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministry, they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground; to which they Answer; That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do; 
Page 232▪  because their Ministry was of far greater excellency, and usefulness, and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles, than it could be with them. For, say they, What one Minister of the Gospel is there, that dare be so presumptuous, as to say, That his Preaching and Ministry can be of that necessity, and use for the Glory of God, and good of his Church; as was the Ministry of his Apostles? The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles (viz. the planting of the Church, and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations) was such, as could not have been performed by any other, but the Apostles alone; but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity, there is no such danger, and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined; though they Preach not, the Gospel is Preached still, and that sound, and fruitfully. Did these Men think, the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel, did reach to their case? Can Mr. B. imagine, that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach, although they were silenced by our Laws?  
And now, I hope, I have proved that to be evidently True, which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false. But if after all this, Mr. B. will persist, in saying, That he knew those who did otherwise; all that I have to say to it, is, That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance, both of the one, and the other Party (if they were such, as he represents) are not to be the Standard for all the rest; for, it seems, he was not very happy in either.    

PART II.  
Of the Nature of the Present Separation.  

Sect. 1. HAving made it my business, in the foregoing Discourse, to show, How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists; I come to consider, What those Principles are, which they now proceed upon;  
And those are of Two sorts.  
First, Of such as hold partial, and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful; but not total and constant, i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship, and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us; but yet, they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations, and when they are to choose, they think themselves bound to choose these, although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church, as it is now established.  
Secondly, Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful, because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful; for which they instance, in the constant use of the Liturgy; the Aereal sign of the Cross; kneeling at the Communion; the observation of Holidays; renouncing other Assemblies; want of Discipline in our Churches; and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors.  
To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter, we must consider these Three things, 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties, with respect to our Church. 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it. 3. What the true State of the present Controversy about Separation, is.  
I. In General, they cannot deny these three things.  

1. That there is no reason of Separation, because of the Doctrine of our Church.  
2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation.  
3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad.   
1. That there is no Reason of Separation, because of the Doctrine of our Church. This was confessed by the Brownists, and most rigid Separatists; as is proved already; and our present Adversaries agree herein. 
Vindication of Non conformists, p. 8, 9  Dr. Owen saith, We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel; and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation, in Confession of the same Faith: And again, The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion, 
Page 22.  and in a Common Interest, as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion. Mr. Baxter saith, That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles, 
Answ. to Serm. p. 27.  as distinct from the form of Government, and imposed abuses. And more fully elsewhere, Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England, when they subscribe to it, and offer so to do? 
Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 64.  The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles, as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony. We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith, 
Restor of Sutton, p. 15.  and the Substance of God's Worship, saith the Author of the last Answer. And again, We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith, 
Page 30.  and Christian Practice, We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance, and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils, acknowledges, That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles, 
Mischief of Imposition. Preface.  which was compiled above a Hundred years ago; and this Book some Men call the Church of England. I know not who those Men are, nor by what Figure they speak, who call a Book a Church; but this we all say, That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein; and whatever the opinions of private persons may be, this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken: And that no objection ought to be made, against Communion with our Church, upon account of the Doctrine of it; but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church.  
2. That there are in effect no new terms of Communion with this Church, but the same, which our first Reformers owned, and suffered Martyrdom for, in Q. Mary's days. Not, but that some alterations have been made since, but not such as do, in the Judgement of our Brethren, make the terms of Communion harder than before. Mr. Baxter grants, that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations, even since the additional Conformity, with respect to the late Troubles. The same Reasons then, which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful, must have held against Cranmer, Ridley, 
jacob against Johnson, p. 21, 23, 29, 32, 33, 37, 40, 42, 47, 54, 68, 79, 82.  etc. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church. And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church; because it reflected much on the honour of our Martyrs; who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church; 
Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson's Third Reason Sect. 2. Giffard against Brow: p. 97, 98, 10●.  and in the practice of those things, which some are now most offended at; but were themselves the great Instruments in settling the Terms of our Communion.  
3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad. Which they have not only manifested, by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions; but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it, by the most Esteemed, and Learned Writers of those Churches, and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it. This Argument was often objected against the Separatists, by the Non-conformists; and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book; but the best Answer he gives, 
Counterpoison, p. 9 10, 27, 51, 92.  is, That if it prove any thing, it proves more than they would have For, saith he, the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church; they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England, as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers; and rejoice as well for their Sees, as for your Parishes, having joined these all alike in the●r Harmony. As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church, and Protestant Divines abroad, concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church, so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel, and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence, that this aught to be taken as a thing granted; but, if occasion be given, both he and o●hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines, in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it.   

Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation, which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church.  
Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants. For this I find insisted on, by almost all my Answerers; 
Letter out of the Country, p. 34.  Some Parishes, saith one, cannot receive a tenth part, some not half the People, belonging to them, few can receive all. The Parochial Teacher, saith another, is overlaid with a numerous throng of People. 
Mischief of Imposition. Preface. Rector of Sutton, etc. p. 35.  The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City, saith a third. And yet not one of these, but assigns such reasons, for the necessity of Separate Congregations, as would equally hold, if there were never a Church in London, but what would hold all the Inhabitants together. This is therefore but a colour, and pretence, and no real Cause. Any one would think, by Mr. Baxter's insisting so very much, on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes, as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations, this were his opinion, that such Congregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes, where they are helps to the Parochial Churches: And no Man denies, that more places for Worship are desirable, and would be very useful, where they may be had, and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them, as in our Parochial Churches; where they may be under the same Inspection, and Ecclesiastical Government; where, upon pretence of greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edification, the People are not drawn into Separation. But, is it possible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike, where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected, the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned; and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them, and the Laws? Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster, because it is a very large Parish? Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at Boston, because there were but three Churches there, to receive all the numerous Inhabitants? If such a number of Churches could be built, as were suitable to the greatness, and extent of Parishes, we should be so far from opposing it, that we should be very thankful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work: but, in the mean time, Is this just and reasonable, to draw away the People, who come to our Churches, under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come? For, upon consideration, we shall find,  
(1.) That this is Mr. Baxter's own case. For, if we observe him, 
Answ. to Let. p. 24.  although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands, that cannot come into the Temples, many of which never heard a Sermon of many years; and to this purpose he put so many Quaere 's to me, concerning the largeness of Parishes, and the necessity of more Assistants, thereby to insinuate, That what he did, was only to Preach to such, as could not come to our Churches; yet, when he is pinched with the point of Separation, than he declares, That his hearers are the same with ours; at least 10 or 20 for one; 
Ans. to Letter, p 17. Answer to Sermon, p. 57  and that he knows not many (if any) who use to hear him, that Separate from us. If this be true, as no doubt Mr. B. believes it, than what such mighty help, or assistance is this to our great Parishes? What colour, or pretence is there from the largeness of them, that he should Preach to the very same persons, who come to our Churches? And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Parishes, where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches, Then how come they to be lawful, where few or none of those many thousands ever come at all, but they are filled with the very same Persons, who come to our Parish Churches? These two pretences than are inconsistent with each other; and one of them cannot hold. For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches, and scarce to any else (i● any, as Mr. B. supposes) than all the pretence from the largeness of our Parishes, and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches, is vain and impertinent; and, to Speak Softly, not becoming Mr. Baxter's sincerity.  
(2.) That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case, viz. That he Preached only to such, as could not come to our Churches, it would be no defence of the general practice of Dissenters, who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes. As, if it were necessary, might be proved, by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City; and in the adjacent Parishes. Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not; if not, Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them? if they be, Why doth he pretend the greatness of Parishes to justify Separate Meetings; when, if they were never so small, they would be lawful however? This therefore must be set aside, as a mee● colour and pretence, which he thought plausible for himself, and invidious to us, though the bounds of our Parishes were ne●ther of our own making, nor is it in our power to alter them. And we shall find, that Mr. B. doth justify them upon other grounds, which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes, or capacity of Churches. I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon.   

Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches, in some duties, at some Seasons; but not with all Churches, in all Duties, or at all times. These things must be more particulary explained, for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Separation. Which proceeds not so openly and plainly, as the old Separation did; but hath such artificial windings and turnings in it, that a Man thinks they are very near our Church, when they are at a great distance from it. If we charge them with following the steps of the old Separatists, we utterly deny it, for, say they; For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches; they disowned your Ministry and Hierarchy as Antichristian, and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous; but we do none of these things; and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation. To which I Answer,  
(1.) There are many still, especially of the People, who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists; of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions, and the Defence of it; and elsewhere. Where he complains, 
Cure of Divis. p. 393.  of their Violence, and Censoriousness: their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors; and forcing others to forsake their own judgements to comply with their humours. And, he saith, A sinful humouring of rash Professors, is as great a Temptation to them, as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World. In another place he saith, 
Sacrileg. desertion, p. 102. etc.  The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them, but they declare they would be gone from them, if they do use them. And he doth not dissemble, that they do comply with them, in these remarkable words, Should the Ministers in London, that have suffered so long, but use any part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms, though without any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good, What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them? And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers. One would think, that their warning had been fair; but, Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam; The Lord have Mercy upon us.  
(2.) When the matter is throughly examined, the difference between the Teachers, and the old Separatists, will be found not near so great as is pretended. For what matter is it, as to the nature of Separation, whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous, or Unlawful; whether the Ministry of our Church be called a False Ministry, or Insufficient, Scandalous, Usurpers, and Persecutors; whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian, or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments, which the old Separatists used, only they are disguised under another appearance, and put into a more fashionable dress. As will be manifest by Particulars.  

(1.) As to the People.  
(2.) As to the Ministry of our Church.    

Sect. 4. (I.) Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation, yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons, as Members of our Church, to be unlawful. For, 
First Plea, Sect. 9 p. ●41.  Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace, hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church. And in the same Book he saith, It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism, without the Transient Sign of the Cross, or for want of Godfathers, etc. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling. 
Page 45.  Now, if the Church be Schismatical, than those who Separate in these things are not. For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptised without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross; 
Answ. to Serm p. 49.  and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers, which they take to be no small sin; Is it Separation to join with Pastors that will otherwise Baptise them? We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things, and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to join with other Pastors that will not use them; And what is this but formal Separation? But for all this, Mr. B. may hold, that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical; for, he saith, 
Plea for Peace, p. 47.  it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles, Practices, and Persons, if those be not such, and so great, as to necessitate our departure from them. But here Mr. B. saith, There is a necessity of departure, and to join with other Pastors; and therefore he must hold a formal Separation: And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church, that was never done by the greatest Separatists. For they all held Communion in Faith with it: And even Brown, the Head of the old Separatists, thought it lawful to join with our Church in some Acts of Worship; and others thought, they might join in Acts of private and Christian Communion, but not in Acts of Church Communion; others thought it lawful to join in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers, though not in others; and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists. And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful; they must hold a necessity of Separation, or that persons may be good Christians, and yet be no Members of any Church. For, if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church, they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church, or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours. If they declare themselves Members of another Church, they own as plain a Separation, as the old Separatists ever did: if they do not, and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members, than they are Members of no Church at all. So that, if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful; they must either be Separatists, or no good Christians upon their own Principles. 
Letter out of the Country, etc. p. 9  For, saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country; this were to exchange visible Christianity, for visible (at least Negative) Paganism. Now, that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful, they are more forward to declare, than I could have imagined. In my Sermon I mentioned some passages, wherein it seemed clear to me, that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful: But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me; some declaring in express terms, That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful, and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches, and of joining to other Congregations. And others saying, 
Dr. O. Vindication, etc. p. 35.  That such a Concession, viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful, taken in their own sense, will neither do them any harm, nor us any service. For, as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 
Mischief of Impositions, etc. p. 36.  1. Many of them declare so, and many declare otherwise— And it's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful, because many declare against it, as 'tis to prove it lawful, because many declare for it. 2. They declare Communion lawful, but. D● they declare Total Communion lawful? The same Persons will tell us, that both these Propositions are ●●ue Communion is lawful▪ and Communion is unlawful; Communion in some parts of Worship is so, in others not. And, 3. Th●y will further tell us, That Communion with some Parish church's is lawful, with others unlawful; that there are not the same Doctrines Preached, the same Ceremonies urged, the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted. And lastly, that occasional Communion is, or may be lawful, where a stated and fixed Communion is not so; and they give this Reason for their judgement and practice, because to hold Communion with one Church, or sort of Christians, exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholic Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches; and that there are some things tolerable, which are not eligible, wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake, but choose rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations. Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together.  
1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful; and that must be understood of any kind of Communion; for the Second sort, from whom they are distinguished, hold total Communion unlawful; and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful. And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's, and the New-England way; and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists.  
2. Those that do hold Communion lawful, do it with so many restrictions and limitations, that in practice it amounts to little more than the other. For First, It is only with some Churches; and those it seems must be such, as do not hold to our Constitution; for he saith, The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches, nor the same rigid terms of Communion exacted, i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them, they can Communicate with them, i. e. if they break their own Rules, they can join with them. Is not this an admirable way of Communicating with our Churches? But, if our Churches hold to their Rule, and observe the Orders prescribed, than it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful. And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England? For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Communion required by it, they will have no Communion with them.  
And Mr. A. delivers this, not only as his own Opinion▪ 
Mischief of Impositions, p. 65.  but as the Sense of the Party, That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their judgements, about the Lawfulness of joining with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship, or in any exclusive to their joining with other Assemblies, where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed, they would flatly deny it. And he goes yet further, when he saith, That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members, and from those Pastors, under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them, to join ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches. This is owning a plain and downright Separation, in as clear and distinct words as ever johnson or Ainsworth did. For, 1. He makes it to be their general sense, That it is unlawful to communicate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly, or to be Members of our Churches: Which is the same thing which they said. 2. He owns the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours. For he owns other Pastors, other People, and a new Relation between these, by the choice of the one, and the conduct of the other. This is no mincing the matter, as Mr. B. often doth; but he speaks it boldly, and with great assurance; and ushers it in with, I have confidence contrary to his. I think no Man doubts of his Confidence, that ever looked into his Book; but in this matter he is so brisk, that he saith, He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withal so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall: as though all who gave their Votes there, had owned these Principles of Separation, for which, many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks, and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers.  
(II.) All the difference then that seems to be left, is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion. As to which, these things are to be observed. (1.) That it is practised by very few; especially if Mr. A ' s. Poll be allowed. (2.) That it signifies little, as to this matter, if Men be fixed Members of other Churches. For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence, and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence. For Communion with a Church, is joining with a Church as a Member of that Church: And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship, which makes a Man a Member of a Church. I suppose there are many occasionally present at Mr. A's, or Mr. B's Meetings, who renounce all Communion with them. A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church, and that frequently too, to hear Sermons, etc. but, Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome? Most of our Gentlemen who have Traveled abroad, have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship, at Rome and Paris; but they would think themselves hardly dealt with, to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome. And if they be urged with it, they will plead still, They were of the Protestant Communion; and the Reason they will give, is, because they did not join with them in all parts of their Worship; not in adoration of the Host, or Worship of Images; and therefore they remained still of the Protestant Communion, although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Popish Service. And Is it not the same case here, If Men only afford an occasional Presence, at some parts of our Worship? How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church, than the like presence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church? In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign, most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches, in some parts of our Worship; and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church, because they kept their Priests, and had Mass in private, and declared, That though they looked on our Service as tolerable, yet they thought the Roman more eligible; and so having Full Communion with that, and being only occasionally present at our Service, they thought themselves good Catholics. So, if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eligible, and a better way of Worship; with which they constantly join, and always choose to do it, their occasional Presence at our Assemblies, doth not make them Members of our Churches, but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations, if they maintain full and constant Communion with them. And none of the form Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them, for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship; for they say, That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them; but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches, a Submission to all the Rules and Orders among them. The New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Communion, that scruples Infant Baptism, or refuses to be present at the Administration of it; although he be never so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them. For not only openly condemning and opposing Infant-Baptism, but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or purposely departing the Congregation at the Administration of that Ordinance, is liable, by their Laws, to the Sentence of Banishment. And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical Interests together, that as none but Church-Members are Freemen among them; so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership. From all this, it appears, that this new Notion of Occasional Communion, in some parts of Worship. exclusively to others, is disowned by all sorts of Churches; and is a late fancy taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Separation.   

Sect. 5. But we here meet with an excellent Reason for the lawfulness of this Occasional Communion with our Churches; viz. because to hold Communion with one Church exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholic Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches. Or as Mr. B. expresses it, 
Sacrileg. de ●ertion, p. 16.  The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best, for certain seasons, to join even in defective Modes of Worship, as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time: though the least defective must be chosen, when no such accidental Reasons sway the other way. From whence we may take notice, (1.) That no obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church, as they are Members of it, doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it, but a certain Romantic Fancy of Catholic Unity; by which these Catholic Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church, than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches. Only it happens, that our Church is so much nearer to them, than the others are, and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion. But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholic Principles to be at jerusalem, where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches; and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him, What Church he is Member of? If he should Answer, He could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches, but was a fixed Member of none: Would they take such a Man for a Christian? What, a Christian, and a Member of no Church! That, they would all agree, was no part of Catholic Christianity. And I much doubt, whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion, that could not tell what Church he was Member of. For, as to the Church of England, he declares, That he holds only occasional Communion with that, as he would do with any other tolerable Churches. But, Were they not Baptised in this Church, and received into Communion with it as Members of it? if so, then if they Communicate no otherwise with it, than as a tolerable defective Church, they must renounce their former Membership; for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it. And if they do renounce their Membership in this Church, their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation. We thank them, that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable, but we cannot see, how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church; so that this great favour of occasional Communion, which they do not choose but submit to for some accidental reasons, and some very good occasions, is not worth the speaking of among Friends; and so far from looking like Communion, that it hath hardly the face of a Civility.  
(2.) That, if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen, as they say, than this occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life: For that is sufficient to show their true Catholic Principles; and Mr. B. faith, When no such accidental Reasons do sway, they are to choose the least defective way of Worship; or as Mr. A. speaks, To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations. If then a Man be bound, out of love to his Soul, to prefer the best way of Worship, and he judges the way of the Separate Congregations to be such, there will arise a difficult case of Conscience, concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion. For the same Reasons, which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other, will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one, and to forsake the other. And why should a Man, that is acquainted with purer Administrations, give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship, and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disorderly, and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel; and not reprove her rather, by a total forbearance of her Communion? And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent, and holding fast that which is good, and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together, persuade such a Man, that it is not lawful to leave the best Communion, merely to show, what defective, and tolerable Church he can communicate with? Which is, as if a Man should forsake his Musk-melons, to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow; or to leave wholesome Diet to feed on Mushrooms, and Trash.  
(3.) That here are no bounds set 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. Suppose some think our Churches tolerable, and Mr. B's. or Mr. A's. Meetings were eligible; but after a while, when the first relish 〈◊〉. they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉 or Quakers, and then think their way more 〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable; Are not these Men bound to forsake them, for the same Reasons, by which they were first moved to leave our Communion, and join with them, unless they be secure, that the absolute perfection of their way of Worship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind, that it is impossible for them, either to find or fancy any defect in it? 
Defence of the Cure of Divis. Introd. p. 50.  Mr. Baxter once very well said, Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last; it will admit of no consistency. Parties will arise in the Separated Churches, and Separate again from them, till they are dissolved. Why might not R. Williams of New-England (mentioned by Mr. B.) proceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem, 
Ibid. p. 170.  because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs; as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence? Why might he not go on still refining of Churches, till at last he dissolved his Society, and declared, That every one should have liberty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience? By which remarkable Instance we see, that this Principle, when pursued, will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches.   

Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter, that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow, and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists, and from them to the Quakers. 
Answ. p. 23.  To which Mr. B. Answers; What harm will it do me or them, if any hearers go from me, as you say, to Dr. O. None, that I know. For, as Dr. O. saith, 
Dr. O. Vindicat. p. 20,  Since your Practice is one and the same, your Principles must be so also, although you choose several ways of expressing them. But, Did the whole force of my Argument lie there? Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers, upon the very same ground? And, Is this a good way of Answering, to dissemble the main force of an Argument, that something may seem to be said to it? I suppose Mr. B's. great haste made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him. But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better; whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose, that since the Peace and Unity of the Church is a thing of such great importance, 
Christian Directory, part 3. p. 739, 741.  and Separation so mischievous (as he hath represented it) that the People's apprehension of a less defective way of Worship, shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces, and to run into ways of Separation? Hath not Mr. Baxter represented (and no Man better) the Ignorance, 
Sacrileg. desert, p. 102, etc.  Injudiciousness, Pride, Conceitedness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion? And after all this, must they, upon a conceit of Purer Administrations, and Less Defective Ways of Worship, be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces; and run from one Separate Congregation to another, till they have run themselves out of breath, and left the best parts of their Religion behind them? How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the ungovernable and Factious Humour of this sort of People, 
Cure of Divis. p. 393.  and the Pernicious consequences of complying with them? and, Must the Reins be laid in their Necks, that they may run whither they please? Because, forsooth, they know better, what is good for their Souls, than the King doth; and they love their Souls better than the King doth, 
Answ. to my Letter; p. 23.  and the King cannot bind them to hurt, or Famish, or endanger their Souls. But, Why must the King bear all the blame, if men's Souls be not provided for according to their own wishes? Doth the King pretend to do any thing in this matter, but according to the established Laws and Orders of this Church? Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament? And why did he not put it as it ought to have been, that they know what makes better for their own Edification, than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament, and the Governors of this Church do: and let them make what Law's and Orders they will, if the People, even the rash and injudicious Professors, as Mr. B. calls them, do think other means of Edification better, and other ways of Worship less defective, they are bound to break through all Laws, and to run into Separation. And, How is it possible, upon these terms, to have any Peace, or Order, or any established Church? I do not remember, that any of the old Separatists, no not Barrow, or johnson, did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation, as these are. The Brownists declare, in their Apology, That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions, 
Apology of the Brownists, n. 36.  which may, and will fall out among Men, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the redress thereof. Where a Church is rightly constituted, here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men, although they might apprehend Smith or jacob to be more edifying Preachers, than either johnson, or Ainsworth. The ground of Separation with them, was the want of a right constituted Church; if that were once supposed, other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation. 
Chap. 13.  In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England, it is said, That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please, nor without just and weighty cause: Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body.  
Those just Reasons are, 

1. If a Man cannot continue without sin.  
2. In case of Persecution.    
Not one word of better means of Edification. For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations, and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences; lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion. So in their Declaration at the Savoy, they say, 
Order of Congregational Churches, n. 28.  That Persons joined in Church-Fellowship, ought not lightly, or without just cause, to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church, whereunto they are joined.  
And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes.  
1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin: and that in Three cases.  
First, Want of Ordinances.  
Secondly, Being deprived of due privileges.  
Thirdly, Being compelled to any thing in practice, not warranted by the Word.  
2. In case of Persecution.  
3. Upon the account of conveniency of Habitation.  
And in these Cases, the Church or Officers are to be consulted, and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church. No allowance here made of forsaking a Church, merely for greater means of Edification. And how just soever the reason were, they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Officers, 
Irenic. c. 22.  and to tell them why they depart. And Mr. Burroughs condemns it, as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church. Yet this is now the main support of the present Separation; and mere necessity hath driven them to it; for either they must own the Principles of the old Separatists, which they are unwilling to do, or find out others to serve their turn; but they are such, as no Man, who hath any regard to the Peace and Unity of the Church, can ever think fit to maintain, since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and confusion, as Mr. Burroughs truly observed. But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations? since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches; 
Answ. to Letter, p. 18.  That for his part, he hath seldom heard any, but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London, where he hath been; but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Scholar's, or judicious Hearers, than to such as need more Practical Subjects, and a more plain, familiar, easy method. Is this the truth of the case indeed? Then, for all that I can see, the King is excused from all blame in this matter; unless it be a fault to provide too well for them. And, Is this a good ground for Separation, that the Preaching is too good for the People? Some Men may want Causes to defend, but at this rate they can never want Arguments. Yet, methinks, the same Men should not complain of starving, and famishing Souls, when the only fault is, that the Meat is too good, and too well dressed for them. And on the other side, hath not Mr. B. complained publicly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Nonconformist Preachers? 
Sacrileg. desert, p. 86.  and that he really fears, lest mere Non-Conformists have brought some into reputation as conscientious, who, by weak Preaching, will lose the reputation of being judicious, more than their silence lost it. And again, But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation. To which he adds, But the Grand Calamity is, that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and selfconceited, and none so commonly give way to their Ignorant Zeal, to Censure, Backbite, and Reproach others, as those that know not what they talk of. Let now any Reader judge, whether upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself, their having better means of Edification, can be the ground of leaving our Churches, to go to Separate Congregations, unless injudiciousness, and selfconceited confidence and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities, and to some purposes, than judicious and well studied Sermons.  
This Argument must therefore be quitted; and they who will defend the present Separation, must return to the old Principles of the Separatists, if they will justify their own practices. And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do; for discerning▪ that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of itself, he adds more weight to it, and that comes home to the business; 
Answ. p. 18.  viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for Separation, and the very same, which Barrow, and Greenwood, and johnson, and Smith, and Can used. Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry; but we are mistaken, if we think they now manage it after the same manner. We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry; but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation, but less fit to justify it, the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage.   

Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Principles of our new Separatists, as to the Ministry of our Church; and to discover, how little they differ from the old Separatists, when this matter is throughly enquired into, as to the Argument for Separation.  
I. In General, they declare, That they only look on those as true Churches, which have such Pastors whom they approve. How oft have I told you, saith Mr. B. that I distinguish, 
Answer to my Sermon, p. 63.  and take those for true Churches, that have true Pastors. But I take those for no true Churches, that have, 

1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office.  
2. Or not truly called to it.  
3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor.    
And one or other of these he thinks most, if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under.  
You will say then, Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist; and thinks it not lawful to join with any of our Parochial Congregations: but this is contradicted by his own Practice.  
There lies therefore a farther subtlety in this matter; for he declares in the same place, he can join with them notwithstanding. But how? as true Churches, though he saith they are not? No; but as Chapels and Oratories, although they be not Churches, as wanting an essential part. This will bring the matter to a very good pass, the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chapels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists. This I confess is a Subtlety beyond the reach of the old Brownists, and Non-conformists, for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation, if our Churches were not true Churches, and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry. Now, saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches, because they want an essential part, viz. a true Ministry, yet he can join with them occasionally, as Chapels or Oratories. From whence it appears, that he accounts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches, nor doth communicate with them as such; but only looks on them as Public places of Prayer, to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister, or looking on the Congregation as a Church. For, where he speaks more fully, he declares, That he looks on none as true Churches, but such as have the Power of the Keys within themselves, 
Sacrileg. desert. p. 34.  and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power; 
True way of Concord, Ch. 10.  and any Parochial Church that hath such a one, and owns itself to be independent, he allows to be a true Church, and none else. So that unless our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power, in opposition to the present Constitution of our Church, as he apprehends, he at once discards them all from being true Churches: but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches; that which I only insist on now is, That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches, or as he calls it, of the Political Organised Form, as wanting an essential part, viz. a true Pastor. From hence it necessarily follows, either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all; or it must be a Separate Church; or, if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church, he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did, by setting up new Churches in opposition to ours. It is no sufficient Answer in this case, to say, That Mr. B. doth it not; for we are only to show, what he is obliged to do by virtue of his own Principles: which tend to as much Separation, as was practised in former times, and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B.   

Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Parochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches; yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many, that they scarce allow any, from whom they may not lawfully Separate.  
1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy, or incompetent, they allow them liberty to withdraw, and to Separate from them. This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others.  
First, They 〈◊〉 it in the People's Power, notwithstanding all Lega●●stablishments, to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and ●etronage, 
Answ. p 15, 50.  and the Power of Magistrates in these cases, and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People; as the old Separatists did. 
Plea for Peace, p. 55.  God, saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scripture, hath given the People that consenting Power, antecedent to the Prince's determination, which none can take from them. 
Brownis●s Apology, Sect. 23.  Mr. A. saith, Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors. Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation. 
Mischief of Imposit. Preface.  So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places, yet if the People have not owned them, 
Dr. O's. Vindic. p. 36.  they are at liberty to choose whom they please. How many hundred Congregations, 
Answ. p. 50.  saith Mr. B. have Incumbents, whom the People never consented to; but take them for their hinderers and burden! So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation.  
Secondly, The People are made judges of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers. This follows from the former. 
Plea for Peace, p. 83.  In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People, saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom, or only the tenth part, it is no Schism, saith he, but a Duty, for those that are destitute, to get the best supply they can, i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent; and it is no Schism but a Duty, for faithful Ministers, though forbidden by Superiors, to perform their Office to such people that desire it. This is plain dealing. But suppose the Magistrate should cast out some, and put in others; In that case he saith, If they be Men of uniried and suspected parts of fidelity (of which the People are to be Judges) the Prince's imposition doth not make such true Pastors of the Church before, or without the People consent; nor doth it always bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schismatics, because they do it not.  
Thirdly, They give particular directions to the People, what sort of Ministers they should own, and what not. Mr. B. bids the People not think that he is persuading them to make no difference: 
Cure of Divisions, Direct. 36.  but after he hath set aside the utterly insufficient, and the heretical (of which the People are admirable Judges) he lays down this general Rule, Any one whose Ministry is such, as tendeth to destruction more than to edification, and to do more harm than good is not to be owned. And if not to be owned so, than he is to be separated from: and although he adviseth the People to lay aside partiality and passion; yet whether they will or not, they are left sole judges in this matter. And that we may not think all this to be only a Romantic Scheme, or Fiction, 
Sacrileg. desert. p. 10.  he tells us elsewhere, That they are not able to confute the People in too many places, who tell them that their public Priests are so defective in their necessary qualifications for their Office, as that they hold it unlawful to own such for true Ministers, and to encourage them by their presence, or commit the care of their Souls to such, i.e. in plain terms, they are encouraged to Separation on this account, which is directly contrary to the Principles of the old Non-conformists, as appears at large by Mr. Ball. 
Ball against Can, p. 1, 4, 5, etc.  if, saith he, Can's meaning be, that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worship of God with Ministers not fitly qualified, disorderly called, or carelessly executing their Office and Function, than it is directly contrary to the word of Truth, sound Reason, and consent of all the Learned. With much more to that purpose. 
Pag. 15, 42, 56.  and even Mr. B. himself, when he takes upon him as a Casuist to determine these things, 
Trial of New Church way, p. 11.  doth then declare his Mind.  

1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow People to Separate from the Worship of God. 
Christian Direct. Part. 3. p. 747.   
2. Nor all Ministerial faults, but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intolerable.   
But now, 
Answ. p. 50.  if Mr. B. may be believed, the People need not be told, how great a number of Cases there are among us, where the Ministers are uncapable of the Ministerial Office, and therefore it is no sin in them to judge him no Minister, and consequently to Separate from him. Hath not Mr. B. fully set forth the Pride, Ignorance, Censoriousness, Headiness, Rashness of raw and injudicious Zealots? and after all this. Is it fit or reasonable, that the opinion of such persons be taken, concerning the qualifications of their Ministers? Hath not Mr. B. complained with more than ordinary resentment, 
Cure of Divis. p. 393.  that they are ready to scorn, and vilify the gravest wisest Pastors? And, Must such men's Judgements be taken, concerning the Abilities and Competency of their Ministers? Either Mr. B. hath extremely wronged them in the Characters he hath given of such People; or he hath taken away all the reputation of their Judgement in such cases: When they scorn and contemn the greavest wisest Pastors, are they fit to Judge of Ministerial Abilities? But there are graver and wiser among the People. Suppose that; But doth not Mr. B. say, That the rawest and rashest Professors are commonly the most violent and censorious? these are the bold and forward men, that will Judge in spite of the rest; these are the men that need not be told, what numbers of uncapable Ministers there are among us And it doth not become Mr. B's Gravity or Wisdom to hearken to all the censures and malicious reports of such ignorant and heady zealots (as he calls them) about the unworthiness or incapacity of their Ministers. Are they only the grave and wise Pastors among themselves, which are scorned by such men? It is possible, that those may be grave and wise among us too, whom they censure for incompetent men; Or must the same People which are raw and injudicious, ignorant and censorious, proud and selfconceited, when they make their Judgement of them, be of a sudden turned into grave and wise men, when they pass their Judgement upon the Abilities and Fitness of our Preachers? This doth not look like fair and equal dealing. I pray let our Ministers have a fair hearing, and let the matter be well examined, before the People be thus encouraged to Separate from their Ministers for their disabilities, or unworthiness. But suppose there be too great a number of young, raw, injudicious Preachers, as Mr. B. saith, 
Answ. p. 54.  no Man can deny that knoweth England, and hath any modesty. Is there no way, but to your Tents O Israel? Will nothing but Separation serve your Turn? Is this the way to mend the matter, and to make them grave and wise? Doth not Mr. B. confess, That they have too many such among themselves? Must they Separate from them too? What endless confusions do such Principles tend to? But the bottom of all is, this Separation must be justified, one way or other; and such Principles found out, which may seem to do it. Yet after all, What is this to the present case of Separation in this City? for here the Charge was laid, and to this the Answer must be given, or it is to no purpose. Is it any reason, that near half of some Parishes in London, should Separate from their grave and wise Pastors, such as I know some to be, where this case is; because in Cornwall, or Yorkshire, or Northumberland, there are many raw and injudicious, besides scandalous Priests, as Mr. B. speaks? We urge you particularly with the London Separation, you tell us what the People say of the Insufficiency and unworthiness of the Clergy in other parts of England; suppose it true, What is all this to the business? If you persist in this way, we can name the Parishes to you in London, where the Ministers are Men of unexceptionable Learning and Piety; where the Churches are large enough to receive the People that Separate; as well as those that come; and yet they forsake the Church's Communion, and adhere to the Separate Congregations: Tell us plainly in this case, Is this Separation lawful or not? If it be lawful, to what purpose do you make use of so many shifts and evasions, as to great Prishes, and insufficient and scandalous Priests, in other parts of the Nation? Answer to the case proposed, and to the place where the Charge was laid; and think not to escape by such apparent evasions, and impertinencies as these. If you think such a Separation unlawful, then Why do you pretend to confute my Sermon, which was designed purposely against it?   

Sect. 9 But while you plead for this liberty of the People's Separating upon their judgement of their Ministers Abilities and Fitness, you can never secure them from Separation from any Church or Ministers whatsoever. And no settled Church in the World could ever subsist long, without infinite disorder and confusion, if this were allowed. For Mr. B. thinks them uncapable of the Ministerial Office in the People's Judgement.  
1. Who have not tolerable Ministerial Knowledge, 
Answ. p. 50.  or utterance.  
2. Who are Heretical.  
3. Who malignantly oppose serious Religion as Hypocrisy, or a needless thing.  
4. Who by their wicked lives do more hurt than they do good. From such, saith he, St. Paul bids turn away.  
And of all these things the People are to be judges; and so may Separate, (1.) When they are unsatisfied about the Ministerial Knowledge or utterance of their Ministers. As for their Utterance; we may allow them to be Judges of that; but I never heard before, that St. Paul did bid People turn away from their Ministers, if their Utterance were not thought to be tolerable. For he intimates, that some complained of his utterance and had him in contempt for it. But as to Abilities and Knowledge fit for Ministers, Are not the People admirable Judges? How few, how very few, even of those of the people who pretend most to Knowledge in Religion, have any tolerable understanding of the true principles, and right notion of it? I do not speak only of Artificers and Tradesmen; but of those of better education, who either by prejudices, or want of due application of their minds to such things, are subject to great mistakes about Religion, and yet may be very good men: If such as these, are so unfit to Judge of Ministerial Knowledge, and the Doctrines of Religion, What shall we say to the common sort of raw, and injudicious Professors of Religion? Mr. B's. experience in the World is not so little, as not to know and be sensible of the truth of this, among the People most apt to divide and Separate. Is it not then a strange thing he should thus subject the Judgement of Ministerial Knowledge to such a Company of Triers as these? But suppose they do allow their Ministers to pass for men of tolerable abilities, and reasonable good utterance, there is a harder task yet behind, and that is, to approve themselves to the People to be Sound and Orthodox; For, saith Mr. B. (2) If they be Heretical, they may without sin separate from them. But how shall a Man escape being thought Heretical by the People, if they have a mind to make him so; i.e. if he crosseth their humour, and delivers such Doctrine as doth not please them; for that is generally their Standard for Heresy? And they cannot well have any other; unless you will suppose all the People to be learned Divines, and every Man obliged to read and understand Epiphanius and Binius: and then perhaps they may be competent judges of Heresy, and come at last to be even with the Divines for having been their Judges so long in that matter. Let us now suppose a Person of great value and esteem among them for his other Ministerial Abilities, should happen to be thought unsound in the Point of justification, and to draw too near to the Papists in it; and this not only be said by the common People, but they are abetted and encouraged in it, by the greatest part of their Teachers, who tell them, this is a Fundamental point, Articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae; that they had as good give up the Cause of Reformation, as yield in that matter, as some have said; I would fain know in this Case, whether upon Mr. B's. Principles, the People are not bound to Separate from such a Man, notwithstanding his other Abilities?  
The like may happen as to many other Doctrines, which the People are as incompetent judges of, as they are in this matter. Let us yet suppose that such a Man may pass for sound in the main among the People; what shall we say to him, if under pretence of Curing Divisions he exposes good People, and lays open with great freedom and plainness their Factious, Turbulent, Censorious, ungovernable humour; not omitting their Injudiciousness, but forgetting all the while that these same injudicious People (with all their other faults) were once his Electors, and are still his judges; suppose, that he tells the World, That for their Ignorance, Injudiciousness, Pride and Selfconceitedness, they are their grief and their shame; that they are endangered by Divisions, principally because the selfconceited part of the Religious People will not be ruled by their Pastors; that it is they that tempt the Papists to use Fire and Faggot that will not be ruled, nor kept in Concord by the wisest, and holiest, and most selfdenying Ministers upon earth. Notwithstanding all these very kind words of themselves, Do not we think such People would call all this Reviling, and Reproaching the People of God, and say, That such men do malignantly oppose serious godliness as Hypocrisy; and let their lives be what they will, they do more hurt than good; and therefore by Mr. B's own Rules, they are bound to Seprate from the Wisest, the Holiest, the most Selfdenying Ministers upon earth. Which I think is sufficient for the present to show the mischievous consequence of putting so great a power of Judgement, and Separation upon it into the hands of the People.   

Sect. 10. But this is not all the encouragement to Separation, which is given to the People, by their power of judging, and Withdrawing from their Ministers; For,  
2. They insinuate, That the whole Body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such Faults, as the People may lawfully Separate from them; as will appear by these Particulars.  
First, They make Conformity itself to be a very scandalous thing; and then tell the People over and over, It is no sin to separate from Scandalous Priests; especially when the Scandal is notorious, as it is in this case. 
Plea for Peace, p. 108.  Mr. B. goes about to prove This, by many Arguments, when he Writes in the name of the Party; now let us see what Judgement they pass upon Conformity. In one place he saith, That the Love of Peace, 
Sacrileg. desert. p. 43.  and the fear of frightening any farther from Parish Communion than I desire (as though such suggestions did not do it enough) do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformity; and that sin which Non-conformists fear, and fly from, which maketh it harder to us that desire it to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists than it was of old. No doubt of it, if you give such broad intimations as these are, what a horrible scandalous sin Conformity is. Nay, he maketh it an inexcusable sin, when he saith, in the Preface to his Plea, That more like Truth hath been said for the lawfulness of Anabaptistry, Polygamy, Drunkenness, Stealing, and Lying, in case of necessity, than any thing he ever yet read of all that he hath there described, i.e. full Conformity. 
Answer to Serm. p. 46.  He chargeth us downright with Lying, and by consequence with Perjury, 
Plea for Peace, p. 220. 223, 226, 339.  and tells me of 30 tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; among which are Lying and Perjury, and not only that, but drawing on ourselves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries (by declaring, That the Covenant doth not oblige.) But I do not question, if Mr. B. pleased, he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggravations of the Sin of Separation. For never did any Man lay more load than he, upon whatever he opposes, without considering how it may fall upon himself at last; and How easy it is to return such heaps of Aggravations. And it was well said by one of Mr. B's. Adversaries concerning him, 
Answ. to Sacril. desertion, p. 13.  That be the Controversy what it will, he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ, a Heaven and Hell. Which I have found too true, by my experience in this case, for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of, but only by declaring against Separation, he tells me, That he is so far past doubt, on the other side, as that he thinks I overthrow all Religion, 
Answ. p. 19  and set up Man in Rebellion against God. But the worst is that he would make me say, which I never said or thought, That all Public Worship is sinful, when forbidden: and then on he runs with a mighty torrent, Daniel may go to the Lions; the Martyrs, Fathers, Counsels, the Universal Church are all foolisher, than the meanest of his Auditors. I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism. For he doth in effect charge me with them; For it follows, It's strange that he can be sure, God's Word is true, and yet be so sure, that men's Laws are above it, and may suspend it. Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way? I abhor and detest such Principles, as set Man's Laws above Gods. And when I gave him the State of the Controversy about Separation, I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion, between the dissenting Parties and our Church. How then could he possibly infer from hence, that I set Man's Laws above Gods? The Question is not, Whether all Public Worship be sinful, when forbidden? but whether in a Nation professing true Religion, some public Worship may not be forbidden? If not, than an universal, unlimited toleration of Turks, jews, Papists, Socinians, Ranters, etc. must follow. If some may be forbidden, than another Question follows, viz. Whether such Public Worship, as may have an evil in it, antecedent to that Prohibition, may not be forbidden? viz. such as tends to Idolatry, Sedition, Schism, etc. and if this be allowed, than it comes to this at last, Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults; and if they be, Whether the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them? And this is the utmost that matter can be driven to; which I here mention, to let the Reader understand, what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me; for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more. But the sting of these aggravations follows. If the People think, (though they should mistake) that all the Conformists are guilty of the like, 
Answ. p. 50.  Can you wonder, if they prefer less Guilty Pastors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with? Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last. Our Conformity is a horrible, scandalous sin with them, and therefore they must choose better Pastors. Is not this just the old Brownists Argument? The Ministry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministry, and therefore we must not communicate with them, but choose more honest and faithful Guides: But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true, Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not? If it be not lawful, than he condemns his own practice, and takes away occasional communion; if it be lawful, How comes Separation to be lawful, since, that is never lawful, but when it is necessary? as it will be proved afterwards.   

Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Ministers of the Church of England to be Usurpers; and from such they say, they may lawfully separate. Is it Separation, 
Answ. p. 4●.  saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are Usurpers, and have no true Power over them? But Who are these Usurpers among us, since we have a legal establishment, and we thought Law and Usurpation contrary to each other? But notwithstanding Law, it is determined,  
First, All that come into the places of ejected Ministers are Usurpers, at least to as many of the People, as do not consent to their coming in: 
Answ. p. 54.  How prove you, saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected London-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved, and that the succeeders, were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks? When faithful Pastors, saith he in his Plea (written in the name of the Party, 
Plea for Peace, p. 55.  and by consent, as he saith, of many of his Acquaintance) are in possession, 
Answ. p. 44.  if a lawful Magistrate cast them out; and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fidelity.  

I. The Prince's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church, before, or without the People's consent.  
II. Nor will it always bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schismatics, because they do it not.   
The bottom of all this, is, they are Usurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish; although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors, and putting in of others. And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Principles as these, I leave others to Judge. For upon these grounds, when Solomon deprived Abiathar, and put Zadok in his room; 
1 Kings 2. 35.  any part of the People might have pleaded, They never consented to Zadok 's coming in, and therefore he was their Highpriest still; let Solomon do what he would; he could not dissolve the relation between them, without their own consent. For the Question is not, Whether Abiathar did not deserve to be put out, but to whom it belonged to do it, whether to the King, or the People? And whether any part of the People might still own that relation which he had before to them, without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority? Especially if the People had given their own consent, and the thing had been done not only by Solomon, but by the States of Israel; as it was in our case. They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government, have very little insight into Affairs. For it follows, that a small part of the People may disown the Public Acts of Parliament, and choose other Governors, to themselves in opposition to those established by Law: and why they should not do it, upon an equal pretence in other cases, I do not understand. For there is no more colour for the People's resuming their right, especially a small part against the whole, in one case then in the other. Which makes me wonder at those who da●e call them Usurpers, who enjoy their places by the same Laws, that any Men do enjoy their Estates. And they who assert, that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to adhere to their former Pastors, as Mr. A. doth, who saith, 
Mischief of Impoes. Preface.  They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors, do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws, passed by general consent in Parliament; but overthrew the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation. For, the Papists then had the very same Plea, that these Men have now, v●z. That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation between their former Church Guides and them: and therefore notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, they were still hound to adhere to them. For the Magistrate had no power in such matters, and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides; just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers. So much do these Men, in pursuing the interests of their Parties, overthrew the principles of the Reformation. For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers, and to put others in their places, or he hath none: if he hath none, then, What becomes of the justice of the Reformation, when the Popish Bishops and Priests were ejected, and others put into their places? If they say, He hath a just power in some cases, but not in theirs. Is not this a Plea common to all? For whoever thought themselves justly ejected? Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment? What then is to be done in this case, if Men think themselves unjustly cast out? The old Non-conformists said, They ought to sit down quietly; with this satisfaction, that there were others to Preach the Word of God sound, although they did not. They might by joining in their private capacities in Communion with our Churches, and drawing the People to it by their example and encouragement, have done more good both to the People and to this Church, than I fear their public preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either▪ But if they go upon such principles ●s these, That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them, That others are Usurpers who come in their places, That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws, And that 'tis Schism to separate from them, notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our public Assemblies, I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government, or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians. This I the rather insist upon, because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it, but that it is made the standing Plea for the necessity of the present Separation, among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful. So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question, Whether they can be said to erect new Churches, 
Rector of Sutton etc. p. 26.  or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations, who were true Ministers, and had their Congregations before others came into their places? If they had done nothing worthy of ejection, or exclusion from their Ministry, whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function. And consequently, whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them, as they are charged with the same practice? There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation. For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned, if Ministers be ejected without or against Law, they who come into their places are no Usurpers; and if they are cast out by Law, they that succeed them are Usurpers; so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration.  
Secondly, All those who come into any Pastoral charge, whether Bishops by virtue of the King's Nomination, or others by the Presentation of Patrons, are Usurpers, unless the People be pleased to give their free consent; and if they do it not, they may lawfully withdraw from them. For, saith Mr. B. the People have an antecedent Right to consent, 
Plea, p. 55.  which none can take from them. 
Answ. p. 9  And he saith, he hath proved it by many Canons, that he was no Bishop, that was not chosen by the Clergy and the People; or came in without the People's consent. Nay, if they have the consent of some, and not of the greater part, those who did not consent, may proceed to choose another Bishop, if Mr. B. say true. For these are his words. If a Diocese have a Thousand or 600, or 300 Parish Pastors, 
Plea, p. 81, 82.  and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People (or 50000 or 20000, as ye will suppose) and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters, and a Thousand People (or none) choose the Bishop, this is not the Election or Consent of the Diocesan Church; nor is it Schism for twenty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand. Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling, as Mr. A. suggests, there is nothing hinders them, but that in spite of Laws, they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops, and new Pastors of Churches, wherever they think they can make the Majority. For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People, say they, to choose their own Pastors. Again, saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea, 
Ibid.  If Bishops that have no better a Foundation, i.e. that come in by the King's Nomination, and not by the Majority of the People, shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches, and command the People's acceptance and obe●●●nce, i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patron's presentation, the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such; nor is it Schism to disobey it, no more than it is Treason to reject the Usurper of a Kingdom. It is plain then, all Bishops of the King's Nomination, all Ministers presented by Patrons are mere Usurpers: the People may give them a good Title if they please; but they are not to blame if they do it not. For in them, Mr. B. saith, 
Answ. p. 49.  the chief Power is, and sometimes he tells them, they are bound to Separate; however, while they do not consent, they are no Churches, which they are set over; 
Plea, p. 82.  and it is no Schism so to pronounce them; nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church. Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace; and the true and only way of Concord, which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions, only that they might have some pretence for their present Separation?   

Sect. 12. 3. Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent (implicit at least) of the People, and so are no Usurpers, yet if they be Persecutors, or Ithacian Prelatists, i.e. if they either act towards, or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists, the People may Separate from them. When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book, called, The Cure of Divisions, to satisfy the People who were much displeased with him for it; one of the material Questions, 
Preface to Defence of his Cure, p. 9  he Asks about his Book, is, Is there a word to persuade you to Communion with Persecutors? As though that had been an unpardonable Crime. In the Plea he saith, If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin, 
Plea, p. 42.  i.e. Conformity, but also prosecute them with Mulcts, Imprisonments, Banishments, or other Prosecution, to force them to transgress, this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism: and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such. And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this persecution, appears by the example he makes of me, for although I expressly set aside the case of Ministers, and declared, I intended only to speak of Lay-communion; 
Answ. p. 61.  yet he charges me with engaging myself in the Silencing design. And by such consequences, all that speak against Separation may be Separated from, as Persecuters, and Ithacian Prelatists.   

Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful, they say, the Schism doth not lie on those that Separate, 
Plea, p. 42.  but on those that do impose such terms; and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers. This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them. But in this case, we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice, or wilful Ignorance, or error of Conscience. That there is a real distinction between these two, is evident; and that it ought to be considered in this case, appears from hence, that else there can be no sinful separation under an erroneous Conscience. As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hourglass, and much more Praying by one, was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time, as Praying by a Form was in point of words; and all Men should be required to begin the public Worship at such an Hour, and so end at such an Hour; time being a necessary circumstance, our Brethren grant, that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it. Here is then a lawful imposition; and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful; and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed; For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to any certain time; On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case? Not on the Imposers, because they grant such an imposition lawful; therefore it must lie on those that Separate, although they judge such terms of Communion sinful. If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Church's Power, as the necessary circumstances of time and place, etc. then men's apprehending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side, and not on the imposers. Because it is to be supposed. that where there is no plain prohibition, men may with ordinary care and judgement, satisfy themselves of the lawfulness of things required. As for instance, when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images, we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful condition of Communion; but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy, and Ceremonies, which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion, Where is the prohibition? In the same Second Commandment say some. I desire them to read it over to me. They do so. Where, say I, are the words that forbid a Liturgy, or Ceremonies? I am mistaken, they tell me, it is not in the words, but in the sense. I Ask, How we should come by the sense, but from the words? Yes, they say, there are certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments. Are they Divine or Human? Where are they to be found? What are those Rules? One, they say, is, that where any thing is forbidden, something is commanded. So say I, there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image. What is there more? Yes, say they, (1.) That we must not Worship God with our own Inventions; now Liturgies and Ceremonies are men's Inventions▪ But, I say, no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God, but such as God himself hath somewhere forbidden; but he hath no where forbidden these. And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God; but then (1) They are such inventions which go about to represent God, and so to disparage him; and no other inventions are to be understood, than the Reason of the Law doth extend to, i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God. (2.) They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship, supposing the Worship itself be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. For otherwise all use of men's inventions, as to Preaching, or Reading, or Interpreting Scripture, would be forbidden. And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful, because it is a mere Invention of Men; as much as Liturgies, or Ceremonies.  
By this we see, what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be, to make Liturgies or Ceremonies unlawful terms of Communion; And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain prejudices of Education, or Reading only one sort of Books, and taking some things for granted which they ought not, before they can esteem the terms of Communion required by our Church to be sinful: and therefore the Schism doth not lie on the Imposers side, but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily Deluded, and then Separate from our Church upon it. But there is another plain instance in this case, wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side; and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism. Many of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality, as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies: if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful, On whose side doth the Schism lie, on theirs that require the allowance of it, as a condition of Communion, or not? If on the Imposers side, they must condemn themselves, who blame the Anabaptists for their Separation. And so did Fr. johnson, and so did the New-England Churches. From whence it appears, that they do all agree, that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not, the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side, but on those that separate. Therefore, this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful, but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so; but till these are brought forth, which never yet were, or ever will be, they must bear the blame of the Schism, if they Separate on these accounts.  
Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches, rather than Communion with them; which I have discovered to be of that Nature, as leads Men to the greatest Separation.   

Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously, and so need the less pains to discover their minds, and those are,  
II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful. But there is a difference among these; For,  
First, Some allow hearing Sermons in our Public Assemblies, and joining in the Pulpit Prayers; but not in the Liturgy, or any proper Act of Church-Communion. This I have showed, was the Opinion of Robinson, and the New-England Churches; and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye, who Wrote a Discourse about it, and answered all Objections. Yea, he goes so far, as to own the public preaching, as a great blessing to the Nation; and he thinks, the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent, (as they have liberty and opportunity) the more public and National Ministry. But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People, to be of another opinion; which he imputes to the activity of the jesuits among them; and he was a very sagacious Man.  
Secondly, Others hold it unlawful to join with our Churches in any Acts of public Worship. And some are arrived to that height, 
Rector of Su●to● etc. p. 25.  that one of my Answerers confesseth, That they refuse to hear him, because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches. It seems then, they not only think it unlawful to hear us, but to hear those who think it lawful; and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them, that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches.  
Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach: and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists; as may be seen at large in a Book called jerubbaal: whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry, and our Ministers Antichristian; which Mr. Nye was so far from owning, that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful, and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian; because the Articles of our Religion, to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions, are Orthodox, and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery.   

Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down, the State of the present Controversy, as to Separation from our Communion, will soon appear. And any one may now discern,  
1. That I do not mean bare local Separation. For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's; 
Answ. p. 46.  Do you think, that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you? No; I do assure him, provided that he elsewhere joins with our Churches as a Member of them; and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings, as having a purer way of worship, and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations. 
Mischief of Impoes. P. 48.  And so much may satisfy Mr. A. too, who, after his trifling manner, talks of a bellum Parochiale, as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes; but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale, I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it.  
2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine, not determined by our Church, upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it: And I wonder, who ever did. But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it. To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words: While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination, 
Tract of Schism, p. 3.  went no farther th●n the Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatched; but assoon as one party swept an old Cloister, and by a pretty art made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet, that which was before a Controversy became a formal Schism.  
3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live. This is to Answer Mr. B's. Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches; and public and private administrations of Sacraments. But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner, that they may go off the better with the common people. And a very pleasant representation he endeavours to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Country Parishes. 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 48, 49.  But what is all this to the purpose? If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London, than he wears in the Country, Is he not the same Man for all that? Are not David's Psalms the same, whether they be Sung, or Said? Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune, or as set by a Parish Clerk? That which only looks like Argument (and my business is to mind nothing else; possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing) That I say which looks like Argument is, That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches, 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 53.  as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre; and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation. This proceeds upon a mistake, for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI allowance was made for the use of the Psalms, as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy; and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised. But suppose there are some Customs received without Rules; suppose there are some different Customs among us; What is this, to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches? To the choosing of new Pastors? and sitting down, as he speaks, with purer Administrations? All which this Man owns in his Book, as their avowed Principles and Practices; and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church, with the different Modes of Worship among ourselves. He must have a very mean opinion of men's understandings, that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner.  
4. By Separation I do not understand a mere difference as to the way of Worship, which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy. For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches; but have certain privileges allowed them, as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came. But what have we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches? Our business is with those who being Baptised in this Church, and living under the Rules and Government of it; either renounce the Membership they once had in it, or avoid Communion with it as Members, and join with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion. 
Answ. p. 46. 60, 87.  Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again; as though their case could be thought alike, who never departed from ours, but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches.  
5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion, Government and Worship with the Gild of Separation. For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority, 
Answ. p. 47.  and the Orders of the Church he lives in; yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church, and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edification, I do not charge such a one with Schism.  
6. I do not charge those with Separation, who under Idolatrous, or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate. But what is this to our case, where the true Religion is acknowledged, and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves, who break off Communion with our Churches. Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres, 
Answ. 15, 52, 53, 84.  about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors? or the Arian Emperors, or Idolatorous Princes? I hope, he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs; for, What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government, and the Protestant Religion established among us? To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues, 
Answ. p. 21.  and several other unbecoming Insinuations? when God be thanked, we live under a most merciful Prince, and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us, and may have it still continued, if men's great Ingratitude, as well as other crying Sins, do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it. What need was there, of letting fall any passages tending this way? when I told him in the very State of the Question, 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? Why is this Dissembled and passed over? And the worst cases imaginable supposed, in stead of that which is really theirs? If I could defend a Cause by no other means, I think Common Ingenuity, the Honour of our Prince and Nation, and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us, would make me give it over.   

Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons, in the management of this debate, I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question, as it is laid down; and to make good the charge of Separation, 

I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship; but deny constant Communion to be a Duty.  
II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful; although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion.    
1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship, but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty.  
To overthrow this Principle, I shall prove these two things, 

1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation.  
2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful, constant Communion is a Duty.    
1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation. Which will appear by these things,  
First. Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church. This term of occasional Communion, as far as I can find, was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians, who charged them with Brownism: to avoid this charge, they declared, That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful, which they did not; for, said they, we can occasionally Communicate with you; but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary, as long as they upheld Separate Congregations, with whom they would constantly Communicate; and accounted those their Churches, with whom they did join as Members of the same Body. But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches, they joined with other societies in strict and constant communion; it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches, that they could not join as Members with them; and because they saw a necessity of joining with some Churches as Members, they pleaded for separate Congregations. And so, must all those do, who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all; and not follow Grotius his Example, in suspending Communion from all Churches. Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own. 
Answ. p. 64.  Although Mr. B. declares, 
Page 24.  That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches; 
Page 62.  That he never gathered a Church; 
Page 86.  that he Baptised none in 20 years; and gave the Lord's Supper to none in 18 years. I desire to know, what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time. For as to our Churches, he declares, That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally; but not as Churches (for he thinks we want an essential part, viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power, as appears before) but as Oratories; and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches; and for other Churches, he saith he hath gathered none, he hath administered Sacraments to none in 18 years; and if he hath not joined as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church, he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all. It is true, he hath Prayed occasionally, and Received the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories, but not as a Member of our Churches; he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations, but he hath gathered no Church, he hath Administered no Sacraments for 18 years together. So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place, and Preached occasionally in another, but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where. But I wonder, how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach, that Woe was unto him if he did not; and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together; none, to join himself as a Member to any Church. Is it possible for him to think it Sacrilege not to Preach; and to think it no fault, not to give the Sacraments to others, nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church? Was there not the same devotedness, in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments, as to Preaching the Gospel? Was not the same Authority, the same charge as to both of them? Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments? Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty, and none at all to the other? Is this possible, to persuade impartial Men, that for 18 years together you thought yourself bound to Preach against the Laws; and yet never thought yourself bound to do that, which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other? Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History, that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach, and not without leave from the Bishop, and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too; viz. the African; but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments; so that, if one obligation were stricter than the other, that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in, for 18 years together; and why he might not as well in the other, is not easy to understand. However, Why all this while, no Constant Communicant with any Church? What, no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of? No Obligation upon a Christian to that, equal to the necessity of Preaching?  
These things must seem very strange, to those who judge of Christian Obligations, by the Scripture, and the Universal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages. To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion; if men can live for 18 years together without joining in Communion with any such Church? What was this Communion intended for? The ancient Churches at this rate, might easily be capacious enough for their Members, if some never joined with them in so long a time. But he hath communicated occasionally with us: Yes, to show, what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with, but not as a Member, as himself declares; and this occasional Communion makes him none. 
Mischief of Impoes. P. 85.  For Mr. A. saith, Their occasional Communion with us, is but like any of our occasional Communion with them: or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher; or occasional going to a Popish Chapel; which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations. If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice, or ten or twenty times, as long as they declare it is only occasional communion, it makes them no Members of our Churches; for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion.  
Secondly, They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another, are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered, although they may be occasionally present in it. Now, if Men who think our constant communion unlawful, Do judge themselves bound to join together in another Society for purer administrations, as Mr. A. speaks, and to choose new Pastors; this is gathering new Churches; and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gathered. The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter. Such, saith he, of the dissenting Ministers, 
Page 33.  as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches; have also declared their judgement of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing, and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also. If this be true, as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles, than we see plainly a Separation owned, notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches. For, here is not only a lawfulness, but a necessity asserted of joining in Separate Congregations, for Preaching, Hearing, and other Religious Duties. And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches, Pastors, People, and joining together for Religious Worship, in a way separate from our Assemblies. For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them; yet they are so far from allowing constant communion, that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship; And what was there more than this which the old Separatists held? For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation, which Giffard Answered, they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies; from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation; and then declare, that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of God's faithful servants; and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors; with whom they might join, in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different, from what must follow from the Principles of those, who assert the necessity of joining in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties? And if there be a necessity of Separation, as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold, that seem most moderate, the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion, will not excuse them from the guilt of the other. For, as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained, the other was always accounted a less material dispute, and some held one way and some another. And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us, that he looks upon it, but as drinking a single glass of Wine, 
Page 51.  or of Water, against his own inclination, to a person out of Civility; when he is not for any Man's pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else. It seems then, this occasional communion is a mere Compliment to our Churches, wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations; but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls, as the other is destructive to their health. So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation.   

Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful, 
Page 50.  constant Communion is a Duty. This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence. 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 84.  Mr. A. brings several instances to prove, that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful, where constant is no duty; as with other Parish Churches, upon a journey, at a Lecture, etc. but who ever questioned the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution; or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church, where he goes to hear a Lecture, etc. but the question is, about the lawfulness of Separation, where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful. For a man is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion; but only from that Church, with which he is obliged to hold Communion, and yet withdraws from it. And it is a wonder to me, none of my Friends (my Adversaries I am loath to call them) could discern this. It is lawful, saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French, Dutch, 
Answ. p. 105.  or Greek Church, Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty? Yes, if he were obliged to be a Member of those Churches, and thought it lawful to communicate some times, constant communion would be a Duty. But because this seems so hard to be understood, I will therefore undertake to prove it, by these Two Arguments.  
First, From the general Obligation upon Christians, to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church.  
Secondly, From the particular force of that Text, Philipp. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule, etc.  
First, From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church. 
Rom. 12. 18.  If it be possible, saith St. Paul, as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask, If there be not as great an obligation at least, upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church, as with all Men? and they are bound to that, as far as possible, and as much as lies in them. And is not that possible and lies in them to do, which they acknowledge lawful to be done, and can do at some times? What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Unity among Christians? What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles? And cannot these prevail with Men to do that, which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do, towards joining in Communion with us? This I am persuaded, 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. When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority, they refused it; and they have been more and more backward ever since, till now they seem generally resolved, either to break all in pieces, or to persist in Separation. Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful, or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments; and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful; and no one of the Brethren seemed to descent: but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this; 
Mischief of Impoes. P. 39  i. e. saith he, They did not enter their several Protestations, nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother; like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them. And so they have been advising and considering ever since, till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropped into Separation before they were aware of it; and the mere necessity of defending their own practices, makes them espouse these Principles. Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith, they had after the Plague and Fire, at which they agreed, That Communion with our Church was in itself lawful and good. Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy, 
Ibid.  and wronging the Relator, by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence, viz. When it would not do more harm than good. And upon this he expatiates about the ways when it may do more harm than good; Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place, he will find, I did consider the force of those words; 
Plea. p. 240.  when I put it, that they resolved it to be lawful in itself; although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it. For they declared, That it was in itself lawful and meet; but the circumstances of that time, did make them think it might do more harm than good; and therefore it is said, They delayed for a fitter opportunity, which makes it clear, they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing. But that opportunity hath never happened since; and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it; as Mr. A. plainly doth; by such reasons as these. Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good,  
1. When such Communion shall persuade the Parish Churches, that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable. 
Mischief of Impoes. p, 40.  As though Separation were more eligible, than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable; and Schism were not more intolerable, than Communion with a tolerable Church. What will not Men say in defence of their own practice? Was ever Schism made so light a matter of, And the Peace and Unity of Christians valued at so low a rate; that for the prevention of the one, and the preservation of the other, a thing that is lawful may not be done, if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible? As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church, were not fit to be put in the balance, against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience. Methinks, it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate, than always thus subtle and witty against the common sense, and reason of Mankind.  
2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches, i. e. be drawn off from their Separation.  
3. When it will harden the Papists. As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more.  
4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general. Yes, no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so.  
By these particulars, it appears, that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do. Yet at last, he saith, he tells us, as much is done, as their Consciences will permit them. Say you so? Is it indeed come to this? Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy, or to make use of any parts of it, in your own Meetings? How often hath Mr. B. told the World, That you stuck not at Set-Forms, nor at the Use of the Liturgy, provided some exceptionable passages were altered in it? Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting, publicly, in a Writing on purpose, That they did not meet under any colour, or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner, than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England, and were he able he would accordingly Read himself? Is this observed in any one Meeting in London, or through England? Then certainly, there are some who do not, what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us. And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea, That they never made one Motion for Presbytery, or against Liturgies; and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians. And since that, Mr. B. saith, They did come to an Agreement, wherein the constant Use of the Liturgy, 
Answ. p. 64.  with some Alterations, was required. And are we now told, That all that can lawfully be done is done? Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles, in coming to our Liturgy; but Where are all the rest? And, Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies? Do they not hereby discover, that they are more afraid of losing their People, who force them to comply with their humours, than careful to do, what they judge lawful, towards Communion with our Church?   

Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass, that any who think occasional Communion with us to be lawful, should not think themselves obliged to constant Communion? From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion? Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord, as Mr. B. saith? That is a good ground so far, as it goes, But will it not carry a Man farther, if he pursue it, as he ought to do? What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches, and at the same time to declare, That there is greater purity of Worship, and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations? The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord, as the other doth encourage them in the Principles of Separation. But, if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in, notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it, that Obligation can never be discharged by mere occasional Presence at some times, and in some Acts of Worship; 
Trial of Grounds of Separation. Chap. 10. p. 791.  for, saith Mr. Ball, To use one Ordinance, and not another, is to make a Schism in the Church.  
The only Example produced to justify such occasional Communion with defective Churches, is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in the jewish Synagogues and Temple. But this is so far from being true, that the old Separatists granted, That our Lord Communicated with the jewish Church in God's Ordinances, 
Robinson's Treatise, p. 11.  living and dying a Member thereof; and from thence they prove, That the jewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviour's time.  
And did not he declare, 
Ainsworth's Consider. examined, p. 5.  That he came not to dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it? And that he complied with john 's Baptism, because he was to fulfil all righteousness? Did he not go up to the Feasts at jerusalem, as a Member of the jewish Church, and frequent the Synagogues? Even at the Feast of Dedication, though not instituted by the Law, he was present, 
John 10, 22, 23.  as other jews were. Yea, Did he not express more than ordinary zeal, for purifying the outward parts of the Temple, because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations? Was not this to show men's Obligation to come and Worship there, as well, as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use? And, Doth not the Apostle expressly say, That he was made under the Law? Where is there the least ground in Scripture, to intimate, that Christ only kept occasional, and not constant communion with the jewish Church? What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from? Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sat in Moses Chair? 
Matt. 23. 2.  Where did he ever bid them go thither, when they could have no better; but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Worship, and better Means of Edification? Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs? Is there any pretence for greater Edification now, to be mentioned with what the Disciples had, to forsake the jewish Assemblies, for the love of Christ 's own Teaching? Yet he would not have them to do that, out of the regard he had to the Public Worship and Teaching. Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples Occasionally, and at certain Seasons; but their constant Communion was with the jewish Assemblies. And so it was after his Passion, 
Luk. 24, 53.  till the Holy Ghost fe●l upon them, and they were then employed to gather and form a new Church; which was not done before; and thence the Author of the Ordinary Gloss observes; That we never read of Christ 's Praying together, with his Disciples (unless perhaps at his Transfiguration with three of his Disciples) although we often read of his Praying alone. So that no example can be mentioned, which is more directly contrary to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds, than that of our Blessed Saviour's; which ought to be in stead of all others to us.   

Sect. 19 2. I argue, from the particular force of that Text, Phil. 3. 16. As far, as we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. From whence it appears evident, that Men ought to go as far as they can, towards Uniformity; and not to forbear doing any thing, which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Unity.  
To take off the force of the Argument from this place, several Answers have been given, which I shall now remove; so that the strength of it may appear to remain, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it.  
Some say, That the Apostles words are to be understood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge, and the different conceptions and opinions which they had concerning the Truths of the Gospel. 
Vindication of Non-conform●ts. p. 25, 30.  Thus Dr. O. understands the Text; whose sense is somewhat obscurely and intricately expressed; but as far as I can apprehend his meaning, he makes this to be the Apostles; viz.  
I. That although the best Christians in this life cannot attain to a full measure and perfection in the comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel, or the enjoyment of the things contained in them; yet they ought to be pressing continually after it.  
II. That in the common pursuit of this design, it is not to be supposed, but the Men will come to different attainments, have different measures of light and knowledge, yea and different conceptions, or opinions about these things.  
III. That in this difference of opinions, those who differed from others should wait on the Teachings of God, in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoyed.  
IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other, as far as they had attained, they should walk by the same Rule, namely, which he had now laid down, and mind the same things as he had enjoined them.  
From whence he infers, That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with Schism, who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel, do yet descent from others, in some things; that it enjoins a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded. And again, he saith, The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties, is, that whereunto they have attained, wherein they do agree, which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God, they should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, that is, forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ; which, saith he, is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists.  
For the clearing of this matter, there are Three things to be debated, 

1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions, or different practices?  
2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual forbearance?  
3. How far the Apostles Rule, hath an influence on our present case?    
First, Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions, or of different practices? For the right understanding of this, we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design. It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution against the Teachers of the Circumcision, Verse 2. Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. But speaking so reproachfully of them, he shows in the next words, that every thing that was excellent in the design of the Law, was accomplished in the Gospel; and so he proceeds to declare, how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest privileges of the Law, in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel, which shows, that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers, who were very busy in disturbing the Peace of the Churches, and drawing Disciples after them, pleading the necessity of observing the Law; and dividing the Christians into different Communions on that account, as appears by their proceedings at Antioch, where they did separate themselves from the Gentile Christians, and St. Peter for a time complied with them. 
Act. 16. 13.  If such as these had not been busy at Philippi (where it appears that jews inhabited) What need St. Paul give so much caution against them? What need all this dispute concerning the Privileges of the Law? If it be allowed, that they were there carrying on the same designs, which they did in other Churches, than it follows, he had great reason to persuade them to Unity so earnestly, as he doth, Philip. 2. 1, 2. and to give so much caution against them; and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law; which being done, the Apostle after his usual method, makes a digression, concerning himself, viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at, and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward, toward Christian perfection; making no longer any account of legal privileges. Which I take to be his meaning, when he saith, Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward, etc. So St. Hierome understands it, Legis obliviscens ad perfecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo. Forgetting the Law, I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel. This being understood, the Apostles sense naturally follows, according to his former design; Let us therefore, as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity (so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14.) agree in pursuing our main end. But than comes the case of those, who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law; there being many and plausible Arguments on their side; well, saith the Apostle, if they are doubtful, I advise them however, not to hearken to these false Teachers, for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you, wait patiently upon God, which is the best means, for your satisfaction. If any be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you, i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase, If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law, let them make no disturbance in the Church about it. And so Erasmus saith, It ought to be understood of the judaizing Christians, who did not yet discern, that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished, however, saith he, they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it. But, What sense can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded: Otherwise than what? As many as be perfect be thus minded, to pursue your main end; but, if any be otherwise minded; Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end? that is incredible; Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat, about which there were then very different apprehensions; and that it is certain there were about the Law among the Christians then. The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into; but of such as were at that time among them; and so one Copy reads it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded; they had no difference concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things before them; viz. the happiness of the Gospel, but they had concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things behind, viz. the force and obligation of the Law. And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion, but was carried on so far, as to break the Peace of the Church about it; it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions, but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians.  
Secondly, Whether the Rule which the Apostle lays down, be only a Rule of mutual forbearance? Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. The sense according to Dr. O. is this, That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion, should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences. Which is a sense very uncertain, and doth not reach to the differences then among them▪ It is very uncertain, because it sets no bounds to differences; and supposes the continuance of such differences among them, which he designed to prevent, by persuading them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind, 
Phil. 1▪ 27. 2. 2.  of one soul; as well as to mind the same things. Besides, the difference then on foot, was none of the smaller differences of opinions, but that about which they differed was urged on one side, as necessary to Salvation, 
Act. 15. 1.  by the false Apostles; and opposed on the other, as pernicious and destructive to it. One of my Answerers saith, 
Rector of Sutton, p. 15, 16.  That the judaizing Christians were leavened with such a corrupt Opinion, as was by no means to be born with; which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain. And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main, showing the dreadful consequences of it. And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbearance, 
Gal. 5. 2.  in such a case as this? especially, when in the same Chapter, he gives so great a caution against them, with so much unusual sharpness of expression; Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance, as to the differences then among them? these we know there were, let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion, which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mutual forbearance. But now, if we suppose the Apostle to speak to the difference about the Law, about which the Churches were then divided, the sense is plain, easy, and pertinent. For so, either (1.) It takes in those who hitherto differed about the Law; and then the sense is, although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have, yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians, you live with; keep within one Rule; break not the bounds of Peace and Unity which Christ hath set you; run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing courses. (2.) It is directed to those who have got the start of others, and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them, especially so have a mighty regard to the Peac● and Unity of Christians; not to break the Common●ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments, nor to Separate from others, as meaner and lower Christians, because they are not come up to that perfection, which you have attained to. And so either way, it contains an excellent Rule, and of admirable use to the Christian Church, not only at that time, but in all Ages of the World, viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things, should go as far as they can towards preserving Peace and Communion among Christians; and not peevishly separate and divide the Church, because they cannot in all things think as others do; nor others on the account of greater sanctity and perfection, despise the inferior sort of Christians, and forsake their Communion, but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace, and the Unity of the Church.  
Thirdly, How far this Rule hath an influence on our case? (1.) It follows from hence, that as far as Communion is lawful, it is a duty, since, as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule. And so much Dr. O. doth not deny; when he saith, Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion, or in the Principles of Faith and Obedience, should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ. Then as far, as they agree, they are bound to join together, whether it be as to Opinion, or Communion. Because the obligation to Peace and Unity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion, as far as that is judged to be lawful. (2.) That the best Christians are bound to Unite with others, though of lower attainments, and to keep within the same Rule; which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race, and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judged necessary to hold the Members of a Christian Society together. 
Vindication of Non-conformists, p. 26.  But, saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his, and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it. This is the Apostles Rule, to go as far as they can; and if they can go no farther, to sit down quietly, and wait for farther instruction, and not to break the Peace of the Church, upon present dissatisfaction, nor to gather new Churches out of others upon supposition of higher attainments.  
If the Rule reach our Case, 
Page 27.  saith he again, it must be such as requires things to be observed, as were never divinely appointed, as National Churches, Ceremonies and Modes of Worship. And so this Rule doth in order to Peace, require the observation of such things, which although they be not particularly appointed by God, yet are enjoined by lawful Authority, provided, they be not unlawful in themselves, nor repugnant to the World of God.  
But the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves, 
Page 28,  about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies, Feasts, Fasts, Liturgies, etc. What then? It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule, That all lawful things are to be done for the Church's Peace: And without this no Unity, or Order can be preserved in Churches. The Apostles, saith he, gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule, 
Page. 28▪ 31.  viz. of mutual forbearance, Rome. 14. And herein the Apostle acted not upon mere Rules of Prudence, but as a Teacher divinely inspired. That he was Divinely inspired, I do not question, but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances, which resolution may not always bind, when the circumstances are changed. For then, the meaning of the Apostle must be, that whatever differences happen among Christians, there must be no determination either way. But the direct contrary to this, we find in the Decree of the Apostles at jerusalem, upon the difference that happened in the Christian Churches. 
Act. 15, 28.  And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way; yet the Apostles made a determination in the case, contrary to their Judgement. Which shows, that the Rule of Forbearance, where Conscience is alleged both ways, is no standing Rule to the Christian Church; but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Welfare of that Church, which they are bound to preserve. And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation, as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers: whereas, it is most evident, that the true Apostles made this peremptory Decree, in a matter of great consequence, and against the pretence of Conscience on the other side.  
But saith Dr. O. further, 
Page 7, 8.  The jewish Christians were left to their own liberty, provided they did not impose on others; and the Dissenters at this day, desire no more, than the Gentile Churches did, viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied, it is the mind of Christ should be imposed upon them. I Answer, 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church, that the jewish Christians should be left to their own liberty, out of respect to the Law of Moses; and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church, which might have been extremely hazarded, if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the jewish Customs among the jews themselves. 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it, which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters. For, (1.) They were none of their lawful Governors, but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them. (2.) They imposed the jewish Rites as necessary to Salvation, and not as merely indifferent things. And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians, as to the Impositions of the false Apostles. Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text.  
The Author of the Letter saith, (1.) That I ought to have proved, 
Letter cut of the Country, p. 24.  that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures; and, (2.) That other Church-Guides had the same Power, as the Apostles had. But what need all this? If it appear (1.) That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches, which are not extant in Scriptures, as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule, for omitting some Divine Rules; or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government, (2.) That it is a standing Rule of Scripture, that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church. And this I have showed, was the Apostles design in the words of this Text.   

Sect. 20. Others pretend, that the Apostle means no more by these words, but that Christians must live up to their knowledge, and mind that one thing. This is a very new Exposition; and the Author of it intends to set up for a Critic upon the credit of it. It is pity therefore it should pass, without some consideration. 
Mischief of Imposit. p. 6, 7.  But, I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Canon, viz. that is not taken in a Military notion, because great Guns were not then invented; that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation; which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools; unless, perhaps, they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text; but however, methinks they come not in very suitably in a weighty and serious debate.  
I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius, is left out in one MS (it may be the Alexandrian) but, What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies? not only the Modern, but those which St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact had, who all keep it in. But suppose it be left out, the sense is the very same to my purpose. No, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And what then? Then, saith he, the sense is, What we have attained let us walk up to the same; Which comes to no more than this, unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached, let us walk suitably to it.  
But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge; but of the union and conjunction of Christians, as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to mind the same thing. No such matter, saith Mr. A. that phrase implies no more than to mind that thing; or that very thing, viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark. But if he had pleased to have read on, but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify Unanimity. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12▪ 25▪ opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That there be no Schism in the Body, but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one for another: and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, minding the same things, is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions. I should think St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase, as well as our Author, and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians. Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek, yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place; and he particularly applies it to the Peace of the Church, 
De Baptismo, ●c, Donat. l. 2. c, 4, 5.  in St. Cyprians case. By this taste, let any Man judge of the depth of that Man's learning, or rather the height of his Confidence, who dares to tell the World, That the Universal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current, besides Grotius, who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine, viz. That those who differed about the legal Ceremonies, should join with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine; he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy, and then cries, In a word, they all conspire against my Interpretation. If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors, he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers. Had it not been fairer dealing, in one word, to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis? For, if he had looked into Zanchy himself, he would have found, how he applied it sharply against Dissensions in the Church. Mr. B. saith, 
〈…〉  That the Text speaketh for Unity and Concord is past Question; and that to all Christians, though of different attainments; and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians, notwithstanding other differences. And if he will but allow, that by virtue of this Rule, Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church, we have no farther difference about this matter: For then, I am sure, it will follow, that if occasional Communion be lawful, constant Communion will be a Duty.  
And so much for the first sort of Dissenters, who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful.   

Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism, or Sinful Separation, against Those, who, though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion, yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful. I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion, 
Vindicat. p. 14.  which Dr. O. calls Comm●●●● Faith and Love, this they do allow to the Church of England, but no otherwise, than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians; yet he seems to go farther, as to some at least of our Parochial Churches, that they are true Churches: But in what sense? Are they Churches rightly constituted, with whom they may join in Communion as Members? No; that he doth not say. But his meaning is, that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practice in Worship, as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches. And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches? I had thought, every Parochial Church was true, or false, according to its frame and constitution; which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England, as it is established by Law; and if no such Errors in Doctrine, nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England, than every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it, is a true Church. But all this amounts to no more, than what they call a Metaphysical Truth; for he doth not mean, that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion. And he pleads, for the necessity of having Separate Congregations, from the necessity of Separating from our Communion: (although the time was, when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches, was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches, or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church; and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now.) But however, I shall take things as I find them; and he insists on, as the grounds of this necessity of Separation, the things enjoined by the Law's of the Land, or by the Canons and Orders of the Church; as Signing Children Baptised with the Sign of the Cross; Kneeling at the Communion; Observation of Holidays▪ Constant Use of the Liturgy; Renouncing other Assemblies, and the People's Right in choice of their own Pastors; Neglect of the Duties of Church-members; submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline, which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it, of the Authority of Christ, or Rule of the Gospel. This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Church's Communion.  
That which I am now to inquire into, is, Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for Separation from a Church, wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practice in Worship; for if they be not, such Separation must be a formal Schism; because such persons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church, but set up other Churches of their own.  
Now the way I shall take to show the insufficiency of these Causes of Separation, shall be, by showing the great Absurdities, that follow upon the allowance of them.  
These Five especially, I shall insist upon.  

(1.) That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation.  
(2.) That it hinders all Union between the Protestant-Churches.  
(3.) That it justifies the ancient Schisms, which have been always condemned by the Christian Church.  
(4.) That it makes Separation endless.  
(5.) That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians, to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church.    

Sect. 22. (1.) The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation. Which I shall make appear, not from the Testimonies of our own Writers, who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church; but, from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France, who can be the least suspected of partiality to our Church. 
Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n. 9  I begin with Calvin; against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken.  
(1.) In the General, He assigns two marks of the Visible Church, the Word of God truly Preached, and Sacraments administered according to Christ's Institution.  
(2.) He saith, Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies, those are true Churches, howsoever they are distributed according to humane conveniencies.  
(3) That although those stand as Members of particular Churches, (who may not be thought worthy of that Society) till they are duly cast out; yet the Churches themselves having these Marks, do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches, and aught to be so esteemed.  
(4.) Men ought not to Separate from, 
Numb. 10.  or break the Unity of such Churches. And he hath this notable saying upon it: God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church, that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion, who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society, which hath the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments. And a little after, he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ, a destruction of his Truth, a mighty provocation of his Anger, a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse, it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People. 
Numb. 11.  In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks.  
(5.) That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church, yet as long as it retains those Marks, Separation from it, is not justifiable: nay, although some of those faults be about Preaching the Word, and Administration of Sacraments: for, saith he, all truths are not of equal moment: but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness, and the true Use of Sacraments is kept up, Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences; but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss, continuing in the Communion of the Church; and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it. And he at large proves, 
Numb. 13, 14, 15, 16.  what great allowance is to be made, as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches: and he saith, Mens Moroseness in this Matter, although it seems to flow from zeal, yet it much rather comes from Spiritual Pride, and a false opinion of their own holiness above others. Although, saith he, there were such universal corruptions in the jewish Church, 
Numb. 18.  that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah; yet they never set up new Churches, nor erected other Altars, whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices: but whatever the People were, as long as God's Word and Ordinances were among them, they lifted up pure hands to God, although in such an impure Society. The same he proves, as to Christ and his Apostles. From whence he concludes, That Separation from such Churches, 
Numb. 19  where the true Word of God and Sacraments are, is an inexcusable fault. But how then comes he to justify the Separation from the Church of Rome? 
Cap. 2. n. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed, and so many Errors obtruded on men's Minds in stead of it; and the Worship of God so corrupted, that the Public Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness. And the truth of the Gospel, being the Foundation of the Church's Unity, it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communion of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions: especially, when they Anathematise those who will not comply with them? But doth he mean any indifferent Rites, 
Numb. 9, 10, 11, 12.  or Ceremonies, where the Doctrine is sound? No; but False Doctrine, and Idolatrous Worship; as he frequently declares. And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church, on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed, and some Corruptions remaining in it, must overthrow the fundamental grounds of the Reformation, as they are explained by Calvin himself.   

Sect. 23. Among their later Writers, no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology. And the Grounds he goes upon are these.  
(1.) That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those, 
Apology, c. 3.  who go about to destroy and ruin Christianity.  
(2.) If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith, offends our Consciences, and overthrows the service which we believe due to God; if the differences have been small, and such as we might safely have yielded unto; 
Cap. 4.  then he will grant, that their Separation was rash and unjust, and they guilty of the Schism.  
(3.) He proves, that they had weighty reasons for their Separation; 
Cap. 5.  which are these, (1.) Imposing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith: and yet, not all errroes in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation; 
Cap. 7.  but such as are pernicious and destructive to Salvation: for which he instanceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Presence in the Sacrament, which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments, nor requires the adoring it, it neither divides nor mutilates it, nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin; all which follows from the Popish Doctrine. From whence he concludes, That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors, is an unjust Separation. 
Cap. 8.  (2.) Requiring such Worship, as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity; which, saith he, proves the necessity of our Separation; and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host; which the Church of Rome strictly requiring, and the Protestants believing it to be a mere Creature, they cannot give it without Idolatry: from whence he concludes our Separation to be ●ust, because it was necessary. Besides this he gives instances in the Worship of Images, 
Cap. 18.  Invocation of Saints, etc. By which we see the justice of the Cause of Reformation doth not depend on any such Ceremonies, as ours are, nor on the want of Discipline, nor on the bare Dissatisfaction of Conscience, but on such great and important Reasons, as obtruding new Articles of Faith, and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Communion of the Roman Church.  
Amyraldus goes so far, 
De secess. ab Eccles. Rom. &c, p. 233.  as to say, That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism, and other things, beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion, they had still continued in its communion; For, saith he, a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions, if he be otherwise faithful and skilful. But if he mixes Poison with his Medicines, and besides adds abundance of Prescriptions, both needless and chargeable, than the Patient hath great reason to look out for better help, and to take care of his own safety and freedom. By which he plainly declares, that bare Ceremonies, although many more than ours, are no sufficient Ground for Separation.  
Of late years, a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation, charging it with Schism, 
Prejuges legitimes contre les Calvinistes.  because of the Separation from the Roman Church; which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines, M. Claude, M. Pajon, and M. Turretin. But, Do any of these insist upon matters of mere Ceremony where the Doctrine is sound, the constant use of Liturgy, bare neglect of Discipline, etc. No, they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these, which they knew, could never bear that weight as to justify Separation from a Church; and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men, if they could have alleged no more Substantial Reasons than these.  
But they all agree in such common reasons, 
Claude sa Defence de la Reformation. 8. part. Pajon Examen du liure, etc. 3. party. Turretini disput. 1. de necessariâ secessione ab Ecclesiâ. Rom. Sect. 11.  which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justifiable, viz. Great corruption in Doctrine, Idolatrous Worship, and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expressly saith, No slight errors, no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience (as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine) not any corruption of Manners, nor defect in Government, or Discipline, are sufficient grounds for Separation. In one word, saith he, the Patient is not to be forsaken, unless his Disease be deadly and infectious, nor then neither but with great difficulty.  
Le Blanc showing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists, 
Le Blanc. Theses de Reunione.  goes upon these 3 grounds.  
1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and without Anathematising all those who have opposed them. For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less, than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith.  
2. That the Public Worship practised, and allowed in that Church is Idolatrous, he instanceth in Adoration of the Host, the Worship of Saints and Images.  
3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Usurpations of the Pope.  
Let our Brethren now consider, what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us, if we had nothing to justify our Separation from them, but only that we could not have our Children Baptised without an Aerial Sign of the Cross, nor receive the Communion without kneeling; that we must observe holidays, and use a Liturgy; and that Men are not so good as they should be, nor Discipline so exact as were to be wished; How should we be hissed and laughed at all over the Christian World; if we had nothing to allege for our Separation from the Roman Church, but such things as these? And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allegations, they are hardened in their own ways; and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these, by which, unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation.   

Sect. 24. (2.) This Pretence of Separation would make Union among the Protestant Churches impossible, supposing them to remain as they are. For the Lutheran Churches have the same, and more Ceremonies, and unscriptural Impositions (as they are called) than our Church hath. They use the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Communion; and the observation of holidays and times of Fasting, and Set-Forms of Prayer, etc. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most reformed Churches, by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad, and at home. I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love, as Dr. O. speaks, but to join together so, as to make the same Bodies of Churches. A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France, at Charenton, A. D. 1631. declared, that there was no Idolatry, or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches, and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them, without renouncing their own opinions or Practices, Which shows, that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation; for than they would not have admitted them as Members of the Lutheran Churches, but have told them, they ought to forsake their Communion, and embrace that of the Reformed Churches. Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines, who have projected or persuaded an Union with the Lutheran Churches and others; and see, if any of them make the particulars mentioned any cause of Separation from them. 
Praefat. ad Confess. Helot. & art. 17, 27.  The Helvetian Churches declare, That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies, where there is an Agreement in Doctrine: and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him. And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger, Myconius and Grynaeus, and subscribed afterwards by all their Ministers; and by those of Geneva and other places. And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things, yet, say they, because of our consent in Doctrine, these things cause no Breach in our Churches. And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremonies used in the Lutheran Churches, except those of the Mass and Images in Churches. 
Consens. Polon. p. 220.  At Sendomir in Poland, A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian, Auspurg, Bohemian Confessions, came to a full agreement, so as to make up one Body, notwithstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them; which, they say, ought not to break the Communion of Churches, as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine, and the same foundation of Faith and Salvation; 
Confess. August. art. 7.  and for this they appeal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions. The Auspurg Confession declares, That agreement in Doctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Church's Unity; then Separation cannot be lawful merely on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditions. 
Confess. Argent. c. 14.  And the Confession of Strasburg saith, That they look on no Human Traditions as condemned in Scripture, but such as are repugnant to the Law of God; and bind the Consciences of Men; otherwise if they agree with Scripture, and be appointed for good ends, although they be not expressly mentioned in Scripture, they are rather to be looked on as Divine than Human: and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself: nay, they say, though the Laws seem very hard and unjust, a true Christian will not stick at obeying them, if they command nothing that is wicked.  
joh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremonies. 
Croc. de Ecc●es unit. & Schism. c. 6. ●. 4.   

The First Commanded,  
The Second Forbidden,  
The Third neither Commanded, nor Forbidden.   
The Unity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First, and yet for every omission the Communion of the Church is not to be broken. The Second breaks the Church's Unity; yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these, if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men: but for the Third, Men ought not to break the Unity of the Church. And in another place he gives particular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches, 
Comment. de Aug. confess. 9 c. 4. p. 33. c. 29. Page 435.  the Exorcism in Baptism, the Linen Garments and Wax Candles, the holidays and Confession, etc. and declares, That we ought not to break off communion with Churches, or make a Schism for these things. 
Zanch. 1. de. Re●. p. 765.  Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of indifferent ceremonies; and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches. 
Amyrald. de Secess. ab Eccl. Rom. Deque pace cum Evangel. constit. p. 23.  Amyraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Lutheran Churches, saith, That those which came in use after the Apostolic times, have no other obligation on us, than that for the sake of indifferent things, though at first appointed out of no necessity, nay though there be inconveniency in them, yet the Church's Peace ought not to be disturbed.  
And he very well observes, That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them; if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so, or at least, are tolerable: if it be false, than they are troublesome, and not to be born; if it be impure, and lead to Idolatry, than the ceremonies are tainted with the Poison of it. 
Hornbeck de Consociat. Evang. Sect. 1. n. 3.  But, saith he, the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites; and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches, as their occasions serve: and so do others. And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine, not only congratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland, but Prayed for the same in Germany too, 
Sencent. D. Daven. p. 5.  as Bishop Davenant tells us; who proves at large, that there is no sufficient Reason to hinder it; which he makes to lie only in three things.  

I. Tyranny over men's Faith and Consciences.  
II. The Practice of Idolatry.  
III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith.   
And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches, the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear.  
And now I desire our Brethren, who justify their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful, to reflect upon these things. Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad, which have harder Terms of communion than we? What would they think of the Exorcism of Infants, of Auricular Confession, of Images in Churches, and some other things, besides what are observed among us? Do we want Discipline? Do they not in other Churches abroad?  
The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Union of Protestant Churches, 
Iren●c. tract. Pror. p. 55.  declared, That little or none was observed among them. Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches? Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings? Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Union with them? For, What Union can be justifiable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful? They may pity them, and pray for them, and wish for their Reformation, but an Union doth suppose such a Communion of Churches, that the Members of one may communicate in another. Do they allow this to the Lutheran Churches? If not, than they render Union among the Protestant Churches impossible, because unlawful. If they do, will they be so unjust, as not to allow the same favour and kindness to our own Church? Can they think Separation necessary from our Church on those grounds, which are common to us with other Protestant Churches; and yet think Union desirable and possible with them notwithstanding? Do they think that 〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Lutheran Churches, although they have the Cross in Baptism, K●e●●g at the Communion, the Surpless, and other Ceremonies which we have not? and yet, Is it necessary to Separate from our Church's Communion on the account of such things as these; where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion? Either therefore they must differ from the judgement of the Reformed Churches, and the most eminent▪ Protestant Divines abroad, or they must renounce this Principle of Separation.   

Sect. 25. (3.) This will justify the ancient Schisms which have been always condemned in the Christian Church. For setting aside the Ceremonies (of which already) and the use of the Liturgy and holidays (which is 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 other Reasons for Separation are such, which will justify the greatest Schismatics that ever were in the Christian Church, 
Vindication of Nonconformists, p. 13. 36.  viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Discipline, and due means of Edification, and depriving the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors, whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel, in providing for their own Edification. For, What gave occasion to the Novatian Schism, which began so soon, and spread so far, and continued so long, but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Discipline, and better means of Edification, and humouring the People in the choice of their own Pastors?  
There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on, as to Evangelical Discipline.  

1. The Power of the Keys.  
2. The Purity of the Church.   
1. As to the Power of the Keys, they said, That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church, but under certain restrictions, which if Men exceeded, the Church had no Power to release them: and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men, when Men fell in time of Persecution.  
2. The Church's Purity ought to be preserved, by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being received into communion again. 
Cyprian. ad Anton. Ep. 52. n. 13.  They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance, but they said, the Church could not. And this they pleaded, would tend very much to the Edification of Christians, and would make them more watchful over themselves, when they saw no hopes of recovering the Church's Communion, if they once fell from it. Add to this, that Novatus, or Novatianus (for the Greeks confounded their Names) in his Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria, 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.  saith, That he was forced to do what he did, by the importunity of the Brethren, who out of their zeal for the Purity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline, would not comply with the loser part which joined with Cornelius, 
Pacian. Epist. 3. ad Sempron.  and therefore chose him to be their Bishop. And so much appears by Pacianus, that Novatus coming from Carthage to Rome▪ makes a party there for Novatia●us in opposition to Cornelius, which consisted chiefly of those who had stood firmest in the Persecution; in their Name he Writes to Novatianus, declaring, That he was chosen by the zealous Party at Rome, whereas Cornelius had admitted the lapsed to Communion, and consequently corrupted the Discipline of the Christian Church.  
Here we have a concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas, Zeal for Reformation of Discipline, the greater Edification of the People, and the asserting their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was not likely to promote their Edification. But notwithstanding these fair pretences, 
Cyprian. Ep●st. 51, 52. 〈◊〉 unit. Eccl. de latsis. Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.  the making a Separation in the Church, was every where condemned as a great Sin; as appears by St. Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others. Dionysius tells the Author of the Schism, 
Theod. haeret, fab, l 3. 5. Epiph. haer. 59  that he had better have suffered any thing, than thus to have made a Rent in the Church: and it was as glorious a Martyrdom to die to prevent a Schism, as to avoid Idolatry, and he thinks it a much greater thing; the one being a Martyrdom for the Church, the other only for one's own Soul. St. Cyprian charges those who were guilty of this Schism with Pride and Arrogance, and doing unspeakable mischief to the Church, by breaking the Peace of it: and will hardly allow those to be Christians who lived in such a Schism: when as Epiphanius observes, 
Cyprian. de Vnit. Eccl. n. 11, 12, etc.  they still pleaded they had the same Faith with the Catholic Church; and yet St. Cyprian will not allow that to be true Faith which hath not charity; and saith, That there can be no true charity, where Men do thus break in pieces the Unity of the Church.  
The Meletians in Egypt agreed with the Catholic Christians in the Substantials of Religion, 
Epiph. haer. 68  holding the same Faith with them, as Epiphanius relates the Story; and their Schism began too about preserving the Discipline of the Church, and the best means for the Edification of the People. They allowed a Restitution for the lapsed to the Communion of the Church, but after a very severe Discipline, and an utter incapacity of those in Orders as to any parts of their Functions. But Peter Bishop of Alexandria thought the milder way the better; whereupon a Separation followed: and the Meletians had distinct Churches; which they called, The Churches of the Martyrs. This Schism grew to that height, that they would not pray together in Prison, nor in the Quarries whither they were sent. Meletius being a Bishop was deposed by Peter of Alexandria, 
Theod. l. 1. c. 9  but he went on still to promote the course of Separation in Thebais, and other parts of Egypt, upon which the Council of Nice, in their Synodical Epistle, deprived him of all Episcopal Power, and the People that adhered to him, of the Power of choosing their own Pastors (or rather of proposing the names of those who were to be ordained.) And so, according to Dr. O. they had just cause to continue their Separation still, although it were condemned by the Council of Nice.  
Audaeus began his Schism out of a mighty zeal for the Discipline of the Church, 
Epiph. haer. 70.  and a great freedom which he used in reproving the faults of the Bishops and Clergy; but meeting with ill usage, he withdrew from the Church's communion, with his Disciples, although he still retained the same Faith, and agreed in the Substantials of Religion with the best Christians; 
Sect. 15.  but forbore all communion with them; which Epiphanius accounts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most dreadful thing in the World: and yet upon Dr. O's Principles of Separation, they did a very commendable thing as long as their design was to restore the Church's Discipline, and to consult their own greater Edification.  
The followers of Eustathius Sebastenus are on this account likewise excused, who withdrew from the public Congregations on a pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia, and stand condemned in several Canons of the Council at Gangrae; so are those mentioned and condemned in the Councils of Constantinople and Carthage; and the Separation of Felicissimus and his Brethren from St. Cyprian; all which are set down together in my Sermon, but are gently passed over by Dr. O. and Mr. B. and the rest of their Adversaries.  
Only one saith, 
Rector of Sutton, etc. p. 42.  That the Errors of the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus, both in Opinion and Practice, were very gross, which the Council takes notice of and condemns. Yet, as gross as they were, there was a pretence of greater Sanctity and Purity in them. For their abstaining from Marriage, and peculiarity of Habits, and Separate Meetings, were all carried on with the same Pretence.  
To proceed then. On the same accounts the Donatists will be vindicated in the main grounds of their Schism, although they were mistaken in the matter of fact concerning Coecilian; for their great pretence was to preserve the purity of the Church's Discipline, as may at large be seen in Optatus, and St. Augustin; and yet they frequently, and deliberately call it, a most Damnable and Sacrilegious Schism.  
The Luciferians pretended such a zeal for the true Faith, and the Discipline of the Church, that the only pretence for their Schism was, that they could not communicate with those who had subscribed to Arianism, or received Ordination from Ari●n Bishops; as may be seen at large in the Book of Marcellinus and Faustinus. And they joined with the party of Vrsinus at Rome against that of Damasus, and complained, they were deprived of the liberty of choosing their own Pastors.  
So that upon these grounds, there hath scarce been any considerable Schism in the Christian Church, but may be justified upon Dr. Owen's Reasons for Separation from our Church.   

Sect. 26. (4.) Another Argument against this course of Separation, is, That these grounds will make Separation endless. Which is, to suppose all the Exhortations of Scripture to Peace and Unity among Christians, to signify nothing. For nothing being more contrary to Unity than Division and Separation; if there be no bounds set, but what the fancies of Men dictate to them, be sufficient Grounds to justify Division and Separation; any People may break Communion with a Church, and set up a new one, when they think fit; which will leave the Christian Church in a remediless condition against those who break its Peace and Communion. 
Cotton 's Answer to R. Williams p. 121.  It being a true saying of Mr. Cottons of New-England, That they that separate from their Brethren farther than they have just Cause, shall at length find cause (or at lest think they have found cause) just enough to separate one from another. I never heard, saith he, of any instance to the contrary, either in England, or Holland. The substance of this I had objected before in the Preface to my Sermon; 
Mischief of Imposit. in the Preface.  To which Mr. A. Replies after this manner; That though some petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies, some little trouble may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of men's Minds; yet this is no Reason why they should enslave their judgements or Consciences to others. And Is this all the Antidote against the Mischief of Separation? Is it a Sin, to break the Church's Communion, or, Is it not? If it be a Sin in some cases, but not in others; Why do you not show us what those cases are; and that it is a sinful Separation in other cases, but not in them? But to talk of small inconveniencies by the levity of People's minds, is Childish trifling, and not Answering. Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty inconvenience? Is this an Answer becoming a Christian, To swell every small imposition into a huge insupportable Mountain, and to make themselves lie groaning under the weight of a Ceremony or two, as though their very heartstrings were cracking, and as if Nero had begun a fresh Persecution; and at the same time to lessen the guilt of Division and Separation, as though it were nothing but a little wantonness in the Lambs of their Flocks, frisking up and down from one Pasture to another; some small and inconsiderable inconveniencies may happen by it, but not worth speaking of; and it is pity they should be deprived of their pleasure for it? What a rare Advocate had this Man been for the Novatians, Donatists, Luciferians, or what Schismatics soever rend the Church in pieces in former times? And supposing St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine, and other great opposers of the ancient Schisms, to be met together, we may gather from these words, and the Principles of Separation, which he lays down, after what manner he would accost them.  
Alas (saith he) What do you mean, Cyprian, and Austin, and other Reverend Fathers, to talk with so much severity and sharpness against separation from the communion of the Church, as though it were such a damnable sin, such a sacrilegious impiety, such a horrid wickedness? Will you make no allowance to the levity and volubility of men's Minds? What! you would have Men enslave their judgements and consciences to others, would you? you would have us be mere Brutes to be managed by your Bit and Bridle? If the Novatians do think your Discipline too loose, Why should not they join together for stricter? If Felicissimus and his Brethren dislike some things in the Church of Carthage, Why may not they go to the Mountains for separate Meetings? If the good People were imposed upon against their Wills in the choice of Cornelius, Why may not they choose Novatian for their Pastor? What a stir do you Cyprian make in your Epistles about keeping the Peace of the Church, and submitting to your Rules of Discipline? As though there were not more mischief in your imposing, than in the People's separating. And as for you, Augustin, Who can with patience read your long and fierce Declamations, against the sober Donatists? For, there were mad harebrained fanatics, called Circumcellians, who were troubled with more than ordinary levity and volubility, running from place to place, and taking away other men's lives, and their own too, out of pure zeal; These I grant have an extraordinary Worm, which ought to be picked out in time; but for the rest of the Brethren that only separate on the account of impurity which they apprehend in your Church, Why should you be so severe against them? Why do you so often cry out of the sacrilegiousness of this Schism? we know no other sacrilege, but the sacrilegious desertion of our Ministry, in obedience to the Laws; this is a Sacrilege we often talk of, and tell the People, it is far worse than robbing Church-Plate, considering what precious Gifts we have. 
Aug. c. Ep. Parmen. l. 1. c. 7. l. 2. c. 1, 3, 11. l. 3. c. 1.  But for the Sacrilege of Schism, that we can never understand; although I perceive you have it over and over; besides many other hard words, 
De bapt. c. Donat. l. 2. c. Crescon. l. 2. c. 14.  wherein you would seem to make it the greatest of all Wickedness; and you say, That God punished it more severely than Idolatry; since those who were guilty of the latter, were to be destroyed by the Sword, but Schismatics were swallowed up of the Earth; 
Aug. Ep. 43. & 51.  as Corah, and his Company. Whereas we that have greater light, look upon Separation but as an effect of the levity and volubility of men's Minds, and though some little trouble may come to the Church by it, yet it is far better than submission to others impositions. And is not this an intolerable imposition, for you to force these honest Donatists to Communicate in a corrupt and impure Church, as they do believe yours to be? When the Cause was strictly examined at Carthage, 
Col● at. 3. Carthag. n. 258.  What was it their Party pleaded for, but Purity of Discipline, and that the Church was defiled for want of it? and therefore they were forced to Separate, for greater Purity of Ordinances. And, Is this the Damnable, Devilish, Sacrilegious Schism you talk of? Methinks you should consider better the Mischief of your Impositions, when you require Communion so strictly with you, or else they must presently be Separatists and Schismatics. I pray Sirs have a little patience with me; if I do not fetch off my good friends the Donatists in this matter, we will all be content to be called Schismatics, 
Mischief of Imposi●ions in the Preface.  as well as they. For if our Principles do clear ourselves, I am sure they will do as good a turn for them. Now, the main Principles of our present Separation are these.  
(1▪) That every particular Church, upon a due balance of all circumstances, has an inherent right to choose its own Pastor, and every particular Christian the same Power to choose his own Church. I say not to mischoose, do you mark me, but, a power to choose; not to choose any, but one that may best advance their own Edification; at lest that no Pastor be forced upon a Church, no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent. Now I pray consider, Why might not Lucilla, and Donatus, and Botrus, and Celeustus, with their Party among the People at Carthage, choose Majorinus for their Pastor; although the rest had chosen Caecilian? For they were not well satisfied with Mensurius his Predecessor, whom they suspected for a Traditor; but when they had their liberty to choose, Why should they be debarred of their inherent right of choosing their own Pastor? Why should Caecilian be obtruded upon them? Why should not they choose one, who would best advance their Edification? For Caecilian was at lest under suspicion of compliance in time of Persecution; and therefore for my part, upon our Principles, I think the Donatists very free from the charge of Schism.  
(2.) That it is the duty of every Christian to Worship God, not only in purity of heart, but according to the purity of Gospel-Administrations. Now observe, that there was nothing the Donatists pleaded so much, and so vehemently for, as the purity of Gospel-Administrations. This was that which Parmenian, Petilian, and the rest still contended for, as appears by the Plea they put in for themselves in the last Conference at Carthage. We are they (say they) that have suffered persecution for maintaining the Purity of the Church, 
Collat. 3. Carthag. n. 258.  this hundred years, because we would not comply with their corruptions, we have been turned out of our Churches, and been sent to Prison, and had our Goods taken from us, and some of our Brethren have been killed, and others hardly used for so good a Cause; And, Can such Men as you condemn them for a horrible Schism? I tell you, they are as Innocent as ourselves, for they went upon the same grounds.  
(3.) That every Christian is obliged to live in the use of all God's Ordinances and Commandments. Now, Is not Discipline one of God's Ordinances? And, Do we not make want of Discipline, one of the Reasons of our Separation? And therefore the Donatists were very honest Men, for they were just of our mind. And these being the chief grounds we go upon, we cannot but in Brotherly kindness speak this in vindication of them, against your unreasonable severity. I know you tell them often, There will be no end of Separation upon these terms; for why might not Maximia●●us do the same by Primianus, that Majorinus did by Caecilian? and so make frustum de frusto, by which they did minuta●im concidere, 
Aug 〈…〉 ●6.  cut the Church into so many little pieces, 
C. Parmen. l. 1. c. 5. l. 2. c. 18.  that could never be joined together again: But, let me tell you, that the force of your Argument comes to this, That Men may choose one Pastor to day, and another to morrow, and a third the next; and so turn round till they are giddy, and run themselves out of breath in a wild Goose chase, till they sit down and rest in Irreligion and Atheism. And is this all? (these are his own words.) The Apostle commands us to prove all things (What! By running from one Communion to another?) M●●t we needs therefore never hold fast that which is good? unsettled heads, and unsettled hearts will be ●●ndring; let them go, 'tis a good riddance of them 〈◊〉 they be obstinate; but where this humour has destroyed one Church, this rigorous forcing of Pastors on the People (as Caecilian on the People of Carthage) has divided and destroyed hundreds.  
Thus far the Advocate-General for Schismatics.  
Judge now, Reader, whether the Causes of the present Separation, as they are laid down by my Adversary, do not equally defend the Donatists in their Schism; and his making so light a matter of Schisms doth not give encouragement to Men to make more.   

Sect. 27. But I shall not send him so far back as St. Cyprian, and St. Augustin, for better instruction in this matter; but I shall refer him to one whose Writings I perceive he is better acquainted with, even Mr. Baxter. Who hath very well, in several Books, set forth the great Mischief of Divisions, and Separations. He doth not look upon them as petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies, little troubles to the Church, 
Cure of Divisions, Direct. 7. Defence of the Cure, p. 3.  the effects of levity, and volubility of men's Minds; but he quotes above Forty places of Scripture against them, and saith, That the World, the Flesh, and the Devil are the causes from whence they come; that they are as much the Works of the Flesh, as Adulteries, Fornications, etc. that contentious dividers are carnal Men, and have not the Spirit; that Divisions are the Wounding, 
Christian Directory, p. 739, etc.  nay the Killing of the Church, as much as lieth in the Dividers; and that to Reform the Church, by dividing it, is no wiser, than to cut out the Liver, or Spleen, or Gall to cleanse them from the filth that both obstruct them, and hinder them in their Office: that Divisions are the deformities of the Church, the lamentation of Friends, and the scorn of Enemies: the dishonour of Christ and the Gospel: the great hindrance of the Conversion and Salvation of the World, and of the Edification of the Members of the Church: That they fill the Church with sins of a most odious nature; they cherish Pride, and Malice, and Belying others (the three great Sins of the Devil) as naturally as dead flesh breedeth Worms. In a word, the Scripture telleth us, that where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. (And, is not this a lamentable way of Reformation of some imaginary, or lesser evil) Yet farther, he saith, They are uneasy to the persons themselves, and rob them of the sweetest part of Religion; they lead directly to Apostasy from the Faith, and shake States and Kingdoms, having a lamentable influence on the Civil Peace. Is all this nothing but the natural effect of the levity or volubility of People's Minds? 
Mischief of Impoes. Sect. 1.  This learned Author begins his Book with a very starched relation of his admirable Reading, That in his time he hath read an Elegant Oration in praise of a Quartan Ague; another upon the Gout, a third upon Folly; but there wants one yet in the praise of Schism; and I never met with one that doth offer fairer toward it, than he doth. For he not only excuses it, from the natural cause of it, and the small trouble that attends it; but he implies it to be the consequence of men's using their Reason, and not being made Bruits to be managed with a strong bit and bridle. But Mr. Baxter will teach him another Lesson; for, he saith, that Schism is a sin against so many, 
Christian Directory, p. 741.  and clear, and vehement words of the Holy Ghost, that it is utterly without excuse; Whoredoms, and Treason, and Perjury are not oftener forbidden in the Gospel, than this: that it is contrary to the very design of Christ in our Redemption, which was, to reconcile us all to God, and to unite and centre us all in him: that, it is contrary to the design of the Spirit of Grace, and to the very nature of Christianity itself: that it is a sin against the nearest bonds of our highest Relations to each other; that it is either a dividing Christ, or robbing him of a great part of his inheritance: and neither of these is a little sin: that it is accompanied with Self-ignorance, and Pride, and great unthankfulness to God: that Church-dividers are the most successful servants of the Devil, being enemies to Christ in his Family and Livery: and that they serve the Devil more effectually than open enemies: that Schism is a sin which contradicteth all God's Ordinances and Means of Grace, which are purposely to procure and maintain the Unity of his Church. That it is a sin against as great and lamentable experiences, as almost any sin can be: and this is a heinous aggravation of it, that it is commonly justified, and n●t repent of by those that commit it; and it is yet the more heinous, `that it is commonly fathered upon God: Lastly, that it is most unlike the Heavenly State, and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil, for he would not destroy it by dividing it against itself. Remember now, saith he, that Schism, and making Parties and Divisions in the Church, is not so small a Sin, as many take it for. I conclude this, with his Admonition to Bag shaw, upon his lessening the Sin of Separation. Alas, dear Brother, that after so many years Silencing and Affliction, 
Defence of his Cure, 2 Except. p, 6.  after Flames and Plagues, and Dreadful judgements, after Twenty years' Practice of the Sin itself, and when we are buried in the Ruins which it caused, we should not yet know, that our own Uncharitable Divisions, Alienations, and Separations are a Crying Sin! Yea, the Crying Sin; as well as the uncharitableness and Hurtfulness of others. Alas! Will God leave us also, even us, to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh? Doth not judgement begin with us? Is there not Crying Sin with us? What have we done to Christ's Kingdom, to this Kingdom, to our Friends (dead and alive) to ourselves, and (alas) to our Enemies, by our Divisions. And, Do we not feel it? Do we not know it? Is it to us, even to us, a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance? Woe to us! Into what Hardheartedness have we sinned ourselves? Yea, that we should continue, and Passionately defend it! When will God give us Repentance unto Life?  
Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously, and then consider, Whether he can go on to Excuse, and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM.  
But it may be said, That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively, with enslaving our judgements and Consciences to others, which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle; and he saith, This is a Medicine worse than the Poison, even as 'tis much better to have a Rational Soul, though subject to Mistakes, than the Soul of a Brute, which may be managed as you will, with a strong bit and bridle. To make it plain, that he makes little, or nothing of the Sin of Separation, we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer; which was, That if it be lawful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity, where there is an Agreement in Doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship, as is agreed in our Case, than a bare difference of Opinion, as to some circumstances of Worship, and the best Constitution of Churches, will be sufficient Ground to break Communion, and to set up new Churches; which considering the great variety of men's fancies about these matters, is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches, without any possible stop to farther Separation. Where we see plainly the inconvenience urged is endless Separation: Doth he set any kind of bounds to it? No; but only talks of inconsiderable and petty inconveniencies, and some little trouble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of men's Minds, i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will▪ ●his is the worst of it; and he must grant, that though Separation be endless, there is no harm in it. But he that could find out a medium between Circumstances of Worship, and Substantials; can find out none between endless Separation, and the enslaving men's judgements and Consciences: for he supposes, one of the two must of necessity be: Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists. For this is their Argument, Either we must give up our judgements and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides, or there will be endless Separation. He grants the consequence, and cries, What then? It is nothing but the levity and volubility of men's Minds, and this is much rather to be chosen, than the other. But any sound Protestant that understands the State of the Controversy between us and them (as this Author apparently doth not) will presently deny the Consequence: because a prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over men's Consciences, and endless Separation. But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together, and leaping over Hedge and Ditch, being kept within no bounds. And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose, that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Principle, of enslaving men's judgements and Consciences, forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure? and if he doth not suppose it, his Discourse is frivolous and impertinent. For, a due submission to the Rules of our established Church, without any force on the Consciences of Men, as to the Infallibility of Guides, or necessity of the things themselves; will put a sufficient stop to Separation; which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions.   

Sect. 28. (5.) Lastly, I Argue against this Separation, from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians, to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church. And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men, who it may be will little regard other inconveniences, if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God. Which I now undertake to prove, upon these Suppositions.  
(1.) That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church. For it is not possible to suppose, that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men, with plainer Precepts, and stronger Arguments than this is. The places are so many, that it were endless to repeat them; and therefore needless, because this is agreed on all hands. So that violation of the Unity of the Church, where there is no sufficient reason to justify it, is a Sin, as much as Murder is, and as plainly forbidden. But it happens here, as it doth in the other case, that as Murder is always a sin; but there may be some circumstances, which may make the taking away a Man's life, not to be Murder; so it may happen, that though Schism be always a sin, yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism; but then they must be such Reasons, as are not fetched from our Fancies, no more than in the case of Murder; but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law. For, he only that made the Law can except from it.  
(2.) The Unity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love, but in a joynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church. For although the former be a duty, yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian, which is to join together, as Members of the same Body. And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together; and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church, it is said, The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, 
Heb. 10. 25.  and in breaking of Bread, 
Act. 2. 42.  and in Prayers. And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body, by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. 
1 Cor. 10. 17.  We being many are one Bread, and one Body; for we are all partakers of that one Bread. 
1 Cor, 12. 13.  And by one Spirit, we are all Baptised into one Body; whether we be jews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The Unity of the Christian Church, 
Ephes. 4. 3, 4, 5.  St. Paul saith, is to be preserved by the bond of Peace; and that Unity supposeth One Body and One Spirit; and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head, whom he calls One Lord, so they are joined together by One Faith, and One Baptism. Therefore as the Unity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds, as well as Internal, that is, One Faith, and One Baptism, as well as One Lord, and One Spirit; so the manifestation of this Unity ought to be by External Acts; for, How can this Unity be discovered by Acts merely Internal and Spiritual; as inward love to the Members of the Body, being present in Spirit, & c? Therefore, the Obligation to preserve the Unity of the Church, doth imply a joining together with the other Members of the Church, in the Common and Public Acts of Religion.  
(3.) Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members, but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles, as a sufficient Reason for it. Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution; and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoined, we are to suppose it still to hold, where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear. Although God hath, with great severity, forbidden Killing: yet when himself appointed particularly cases, wherein men's Lives were to be taken away; we are thereby assured, that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden; so in the present case, if it appear that although Separation from the Communion of Christians be a thing condemned; yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions, we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin. But then, as in the former case, no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood, who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute justice; so here, no Man's imagination that he doth separate for a good end, will justify his Separation; for the guilt of the sin remains as great in itself. And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this; it being so directly contrary to that Unity of his Church, which our Saviour prayed for, 
Joh● 17. 21.  and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians; and use so many Arguments to persuade Men to persevere. From hence Irenaeus saith, That Christ will come to judge those who make Schisms in the Church, 
Iren. l. 4. c. 62.  and rather regard their own advantage, than the Church's Unity; who, for slight causes, or for any, make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ, and do what in them lies to destroy it. They speak for Peace, saith he, but they mean War: they strain at a Gnat, and swallow Camels. The benefit they hope to bring to the Church, cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism. 
Chrysost in. Eph. 4. p. ●22,  Nothing provokes God more, saith St. Chrysostom, than to divide his Church: Nay, saith he, the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it. The Mischief the Church receives by it, is greater than it receives from open Enemies: for the one makes it more glorious, the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies, when it is set upon by its own Children. This, saith he, I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism; and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church. If their doctrine be contrary to ours, for that reason they ought to abstain; if not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they ought to do it so much the rather. Do no you know, what Corah, Dathan, and Abiram suffered? and not they only, but those that were with them. But you say, they have the same Faith, and they are very Orthodox; Why then, saith he, do they Separate? One Lo●d, one Faith, one Baptism. If they do well, we do ill; if we do well, they do ill. If they have the same Doctrines, the same Sacraments, For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours? It is nothing but vain glory, ambition and deceit. Take away the People from them, and you cut off the disease. And after much more to that purpose; I speak these things, saith he, that no Man might say, he did not know it to be such a sin: I tell you, and testify this to you, that Separation from the Church, or dividing of it, is no less a sin, than falling into Heresy. If the sin then be so great and dangerous, Men ought to examine with great care, what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin.  
And I do earnestly desire our Brethren, as they love their own Souls, and would Avoid the Gild of so Great a Sin, Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus, and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us, and set up other Churches in opposition to ours, which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox, and to agree with them in the same Doctrine, and the same Sacraments.  
4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation.  
First, In the case of Idolatrous Worship. For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry, as that they should preserve the Unity of the Church. Neither be ye Idolaters. Flee from Idolatry. 
1 Cor. 10. 6. 14.  Keep yourselves from Idols. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 
1 St. John 5.  And to the case of Idolaters, St. Paul applies the words spoken of old to the Babylonians, 
Matt. 4. 19  Come out from among them, 
2 Cor. 6. 17.  and be separate; and touch not the unclean thing. Now in this case, where there is so plain a Command, there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation; if Men cannot join with a Church in their Religious Worship, without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden.  
Secondly, In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true. 
Heb. 13. 7. 17.  For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church; 
1 Thess. 5. 12. 13.  yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel, or to corrupt the true one; St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them: 
Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8.  and that implies, that they should have no Communion with them, but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body (like putrid Members) lest they should corrupt the rest. St. Paul commands Titus, 
Tit. 3. 10.  when there is no hopes of reclaiming such, to exclude them from the Society of Christians. St. john forbids all familiar conversation with such. The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans; 
2 John 10.  and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine. 
Revel. 2. 6. 15.   
Thirdly. In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account. And this was the case of the false Apostles, 
A●t. 15. 2.  who urged the Ceremonies of the Law, as necessary to Salvation; and to propagate this Opinion of theirs, they went up and down, and endeavoured to draw away the Apostles Disciples, and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians; and to allow none to partake with them, that did not own the Necessity of the jewish Ceremomonies to Salvation. Now although St. Paul himself complied sometimes with the practice of them; and the jewish Christians especially in judaea, generally observed them; yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them, as necessary to Salvation, than he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them, 
Phil. 3. 3.  i. e. to fly their Communion, and have nothing to do with them. These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament, wherein Separation from Public Communion is allowed; but there are two others, wherein S. Paul gives particular directions, but such as do not amount to Separation.  
1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks; 
Rom. 14. 2▪  some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence, from all Flesh; some for a jewish Abstinence, from some certain sorts; others for a full Christian Liberty. Now this being a matter of Diet, and relating to their own Families, the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another; but notwithstanding this difference, to join together as Christians in the Duties common to them all. For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks; 
〈…〉  i e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit; but that requires innocency, and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters; which he calls Peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; which is provoked and grieved by the dissensions of Christians. And he, saith he, that in these things serveth Christ, 
18,  is acceptable to God, and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace, 
19  and things wherewith we may edify one another. In such Cases then, the Apostle allows no Separation from the public Communion of Christians. It was the same case as to the observation of Days then; for some Christians went then on jewish Holidays to the Synagogues; others did not; but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship. And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions; but to show, that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians, and so the Apostles discourse, Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation, on these and the like Accounts.  
2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Church's Censure. When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth, no wonder if some of them, put the case to them, what they should do, in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives; although the offences were not scandalous, by being publicly known; Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these? 
1 Cor. 5. 11.  To this St. Paul Answers, That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such; If any one that is a Brother, be a fornicator, etc. with such a one, no not to eat. Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians; but if the Scandal be public, as that of the Incestuous persou, the Church had power to vindicate its own honour, by casting such out: not as though the Church Communion were defiled, 
Vers. 12. 13,  if they continued in; but the reputation and honour of the Church suffered by it; the preservation whereof, is the true cause of the Church's Discipline. But the Apostle gives not the least countenance to private men's withdrawing from the Church's Communion, though such persons still continued in it. For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity, which will not hold as to public Communion. For our Communion in public, is a thing which chiefly respects God, and a necessary duty of his own appointing, the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises, and all the communion they have with other Men, is only joining together for the performance of a common Religious Duty: but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with, and a thing of mere choice, and hardly to be imagined without approbation at jest, if not imitation of their wickedness. And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable.  
The matter of Separation being th●s stated according to the Scripture, there can be no way le●t to justify the Separation from our Church, but to prove, either that our Worship is Idolatrous, or that our Doctrine is false, or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation; which are all so remote from any colour of Truth, that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it. But however, what Pleas they do bring to justify this Separation must in the next place be examined.    

PART III.  
The Pleas for Separation examined.  

Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these 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.  
1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church: which are these, 

1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution.  
2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawful.  
3. That our National Church hath no foundation.  
4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastors.    
1. I begin with our Parochial Churches; because it is Separation from these, with which we principally charge our Adversaries; for herein they most discover their principles of Separation, since in former times, the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them. But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England, the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it, whatever their principles are, at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches, and joining together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship. This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined. And the main foundation of that way, I said, was, that Communion in Ordinances must be only in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules, which were only particular and Congregational Churches. Concerning which I laid down two things. (1.) That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution, this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches, which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them. (2.) That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations.  
In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things, (1.) That they do not deny, at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches: but why then do they deny Communion with them? But, he saith, he hopes it will not be made a Rule, that Communion may not be withheld (so the sense must be although not be left out) or withdrawn from any Church in any thing, so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so. This is somewhat oddly and faintly expressed. 
〈◊〉.  But as long as he grants, that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errors in Doctrine, or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches, I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them. Not but that I think, there may be a separation without sin, from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church; but then I say, the reason of such separation is, some heinous Error in Doctrine, or some idolatrous Practice in Worship, or some tyranny over the Consciences of men; which may not be such, as to destroy true Baptism; and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church. And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter.  
(2.) He answers, That they do not say, that because Communion in Ordinances must be only in such Churches as Christ hath instituted, that therefore it is lawful and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches, but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them, it is the duty of them who do so, to join themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation.  
To which I reply, that This is either not to the business, or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency. For, wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations, when not one of the things, now particularly alleged against our Church, was required of them? But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches, than they are such things, as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches; And then I entreat him to tell me, what difference there is, between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is only to be enjoyed in such Churches as Christ hath instituted; and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches? Is not this the primary reason of Separation, because Christ hath appointed unalterable. Rules for the Government of his Church; which we are bound to observe, and which are not observed in Parochial Churches? Indeed, the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution; but the primary ground is, that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed. Let us then (1.) suppose, that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist only of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation, so qualified; and that these by entering into Covenant with each other become a Church, and choose their Officers, who are to Teach, and Admonish and Administer Sacraments, and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation; And let us (2.) suppose such a Church not yet gathered, but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes. (3.) Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church. (4.) Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members; neither the aëreal sign of the Cross, nor kneeling at the Communion, etc. I desire then to know, whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches, on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church, according to Christ's Institution? Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules, and the Institution of Christ; or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches. If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches, do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation? It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church, which is the true Cause of their separation; but such Reasons as are common to all Churches, that are not form just after their own model. If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches, those must be observed, and separation made in order to it; and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds, not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us, but because our Parochial Churches are not form after the Congregational way. But this was a necessary piece of art at this time, to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party, and to make them believe (if they can be so forgetful) that they do not own separation from their Churches, but only from ours, the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren, and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days, that they must be forgetful indeed, who do not remember it. Have those of the Congregational way since altered their judgements? Hath Dr. O. yielded, that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon, they would give over separation? Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations? And if Presbytery had been settled upon the King's Restauration, would they not have continued their Separation? Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation, when it is notoriously otherwise; and they did separate and form their Churches, upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches? This is more artificial than ingenuous.   

Sect. 2. As to the Second, Dr. O. answers, that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact, 
〈◊〉. p. 37.  and so necessary from the nature of the thing, that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations, that many wise men, wholly unconcerned in our Controversies, do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute. And for this two Testimonies are alleged, of justice Hobart, and Father Paul; but neither of them speaks to the point. All that Chief justice Hobart saith is, That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity, was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles, and after to other Pastors. Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin, it signifies so very little to the purpose; or rather, quite overthrows his Hypothesis; as appears by these two Arguments. (1.) Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set, were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church; but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set, are those of which justice Hobart speaks. And therefore it is plain he spoke of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles, which he calls voluntary Congregations. (2.) Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastors after their decease, were no particular Congregations in one City; but those of whom justice Hobart speaks, were such; for he saith, they first submitted to the Apostles, and after to other Pastors. But justice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City. And therefore, if he consults justice Hobart 's honour or his own, I advise him to let it alone for the future. As to the Testimony of Father Paul, it only concerns the Democratical Government of the Church, and I wonder how it came into this place; I shall therefore consider it in its due season.   

Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now, the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches; concerning which, 
Serm. p. 26.  these are my words. It is possible at first, there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship; but where doth it appear, that when they multiplied into more Congregations, they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government? Of this I am well assured, there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament, or the whole History of the Primitive Church. I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man, that the 5000 Christians in the Church of jerusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship; not, if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired: but if this were granted, where are the unalterable Rules, that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly, they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority? To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars.  
1. That an account may e'er long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution: which although at first it began in matters of small moment; yet still they increased until they issued in a fatal Apostasy; Or as he after expresses it, leaving their Infant state, by degrees, they at last brought forth the Man of Sin. But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches; but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity, I shall not only so far take notice of it, as to let him know, that when that is done, I do not question, but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England: but I desire that undertaker to consider, what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion, if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution, not for one Age after the Apostles. I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after, if not in the Apostles days; but the question is not concerning these, but the purest and best Churches; and about them, not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise, and humane infirmities be discovered; but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ, and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church? This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others: That Government is so nice and tender a thing, that every one is so much concerned for his share in it, that men are not easily induced to part with it. Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first, as Dr. O. seems to do; is it probable, that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it? Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage; 
Vindic p. 41.  and others say, a great deal longer: there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after. And why should we imagine it otherwise, as to extent of Power and jurisdiction? Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation; the Pastor of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation, than Dr. O. by being Pastor over one Congregation in London, could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it; and appoint their several Teachers, and call them to an account for their proceedings. I appeal now to any man of consideration, whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance? Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more, think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights? And if they could be drawn into the design, would the People submit? Let us put the case, as to New-England. Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since, had planted such Congregational Churches there, as have been form within these last 50 years at Plymouth, Boston, Hereford, Newhaven, etc. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys, the execution whereof they had entrusted with the several Elderships, within their own Congregation; but so, as not to have any Power or Authority, over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation: let us then suppose, that after the decease of the Apostles, these Churches gradually declined so far, that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys, and not only so, but appoint Pastors over other Congregations, and keep a great number of Elders under him, and challenge the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets, of which Boston is the chief Town, and so three others do the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies; would not this be a wonderful alteration of the Church Government? And is it possible to conceive, such a change should be brought about insensibly, without any complaint of the subordinate Elders, or the members of the Congregations, who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ, and so late an establishment by the Apostles? Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions, through the carelessness and unskilfulness of People: but in matters of Government, the meanest People are sensible, and look big with an opinion of it. If therefore it be not conceivable in this case, the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time; let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles.   

Sect. 4. I shall, to prevent all cavils, choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions, and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to, and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time. Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs; 
Cotton's way of Congregational Churches cleared, p. 98, 99  but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgement of the Elders, the Votes of the Congregation, and the Consent of neighbour Ministers; in short, he hath found there, the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline; and the same for substance wherein they walk (as he calls it) at this day. Hitherto then, there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider, what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was: concerning which these things may be observed.  
1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage, and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation. This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement. 
Cyprian l. 5. Ep. 2. in the late Edit. Ep. 5.  In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessors in Prison, which he would have them to do by turns, every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious: and considering the number of Confessors and the frequent attendance upon them, the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable. When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage, 
L. 4. 10. Ep. 35.  he gives this reason of it, that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men, it being now impaired by the fall of some, during the persecution. 
L. 5. Ep. 3.  In the case of Philumanus, Fortunatus and Favorinus, he declares he would give no judgement, cum multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint, when many of his Clergy were absent. And in another Epistle he complains, 
Ep. 28.  that a great number of his Clergy were absent, and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work. 
L. 3. Ep. 22. Ep. 24.  At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage; and then he mentions Britius, Rogatianus and Numidicus, as the chief Presbyters remaining with them; 
Ep. 40.  besides Deacons and inferior Ministers. About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City. 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 35.  And in Constantinople of old, saith justinian in his Novels, 
Phot. Nomocan. tit. 1. c. 30.  were 60 Presbyters (for in one he saith, The custom was to determine the number, and in another, that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople.) Let any one now consider, whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations; and at Carthage, we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians; that in the time of Persecution, although very many stood firm, yet the number of the lapsed was so great, 
L. 3. Ep. 5. Ep. 15.  that Saint Cyprian saith, Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessors in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church: and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons, 
L. 3. 15. Ep. 11.  the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation?  
2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop. Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline, 
L. 3. Ep. 14. Ep. 10.  without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement. Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command, nor their own Place, nor the future judgement of God, nor the Bishop who was set over them, and had done that which was never done in foregoing times, to challenge those things to themselves, with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop, which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy. Wherein, 
L. 3. Ep. 15. Ep. 11.  he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessors in his following Epistle, saying, that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will: for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop, that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over. In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion, 
L. 3. Ep. 10. Ep. 12.  he complains of these Presbyters, that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui & Cathedrae reservare, reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place: and therefore charges, that nothing further be done in this matter till his return, 
Ep. 21.  when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops. Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessor, to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen. Lucian returns him answer, 
Ep. 22.  that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name, and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be showed to the lapsed; but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop, and upon such Discipline as he should impose, they were to be received to Communion. 
Ep. 25.  So that though Lucian was extremely blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church; yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to do any thing without the Bishop. Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessors; 
Ep. 26.  they return him answer, that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office, especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence. In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church merely by Presbyters without him; 
Ep. 28.  and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to do it. The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See, take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop, 
Ep. 30.  as an argument of their great modesty, and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them: and they declare their resolution, 
Ep. 31.  to do nothing in this matter, till they had a new Bishop. By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation, or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys; but that it was in the Bishop as superior to the Presbyters. And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People, to appoint and ordain their own Officers, 
Ep. 33.  Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage, that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy; although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before, and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one: 
Ep. 34.  which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers: the same he doth soon after, concerning Celerinus and Numidicus. 
Ep. 35.  When he could not go among them himself, by reason of the persecution, he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops, 
Ep. 38.  and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters, to visit in his name; and to take care of the poor, and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy. Who give an account in the next Epistle, 
Ep. 39  that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation.  
3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People, but from the Institution of Christ. 
Ep. 27.  So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church, he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter, Thou art Peter, etc. And whatsoever you shall bind, etc. From whence, saith he, by a constant succession of times, such a course hath been always observed in the Church, that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops, and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct. Since this, saith he, is a Divine Institution, I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me (concerning the lapsed) since the Church consists in the Bishop, the Clergy and the standing People. In his Epistle to Antonianus, 
Ep. 52.  he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world: 
Ep. 55.  and in that to Cornelius, that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him, which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God: 
Ep. 65.  and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ; and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders. To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus, 
Ep. 69.  and to Pupianus; where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop; 
Ep. 75.  and to Stephanus, that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course.  
Let the Reader now judge, whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way; and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church. But we have this advantage from this appeal, that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution, and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgement any one may see; when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church, but what was generally observed over the Christian world. And now let Dr. O. give an account, how a change so great, so sudden, so universal, should happen in the Christian world, in the Government of the Church; that when Christ had placed the Power in the People, the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled, and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs, without any control from the People: which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear, that the Power was at first lodged in them, and not in the People. For, as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues, It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power, as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History, 
Moses and Aaron, p. 62.  and that over all the world; and in a way of ambition, in such humbling times, without all manner of opposition for 300 years together, and immediately after the Apostles; had it been usurpation or innovation. When and where is innovation without opposition? Would not Elders, so many seeing and knowing men, at least some of them, have contended for Truth, wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed? Aërius his opposing of Bishops, so long after their rise and standing, is inconsiderable. The force of which reasoning, will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind, than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side. So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease.   

Sect. 5. (2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches, that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture. 
Vindic. p. 39  The matter of fact is, that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City, than a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers, with a separate Power of Government. Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it. For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers: i e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture: yet, saith he, there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province. But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way? The thing I desired was, that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations, they would prove, that they did make new and distinct Churches; and to exemplify this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province. Who ever denied or disputed that? On the contrary, the proof of this, is a great advantage to our Cause; for since, where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province, it speaks of them as of different Churches; but when it mentions the Christians of one City, it calls them the Church of that City (as the Church of jerusalem, the Church of Ephesus; 
Act. 9 31.  but the Churches of judea, Galilee and Samaria) what can be more evident, than that the Christians of one City, though never so numerous, made but one Church? If one observe the language of the New Testament, one may find this observation not once to fail: that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number, 
1 Thess. 2. 14.  they are the Churches of a Province, as the Churches of judea, 
1 Cor. 16. 19  the Churches of Asia; the Churches of Syria and Cilicia; 
Act. 15. 41.  the Churches of Galatia; the Churches of Macedonia; 
1 Cor. 16. 1.  but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of, 
Gal. 1. 2.  it is still c●lled the Church of that City; 
2 Cor. 8. 1.  as the Church at Antioch; the Church at Corinth; and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together, they are the 7 Churches; but when spoken to single, it is the Church of Ephesus, the Church of Smyrna, etc. Which being spoken, without any discrimination, as to the difference of these places, in greatness and capacity, or the number of Believers in them, doth evidently discover that what number soever they were, they were all but the Church of that City. For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus, Sardis, Pergamus and Laodicea, which were great and populous Cities, than in Thyatira and Philadelphia, which were much less; especially, considering the time Saint Paul stayed at Ephes●s; 
Act. 20. 19 31.  and the mighty success which he had in preaching there; which will amount to no great matter, 
1 Cor. 16. 9  if in three years' time, he converted no more, than made up one single Congregation. And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power, and prevalency of the Gospel. I cannot but wonder, what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province, 
Vindic. p. 40.  as Galatia and Macedonia, he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations: who denies that? but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved, but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone: whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City, though never so great, made but one Church; and uncontrollable evidence from Antiquity, that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City. All that he saith further to this matter, 
p. 4●.  is, that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves, because in every one of them Elders were ordained, Act. 14. 22. which is again an argument on our side: for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City, as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here; and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies, all which together make up but one City.   

Sect. 6. (3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation, although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them, and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship. Then, say I, the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation: For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship, why not for others? if the number of Elders be unlimited, than every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship, and yet all together make up the Body of one Church; to which, if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these, he had made up that representation of a Church, which we have from the best and purest Antiquity. 
Orig. c. Cels. l. 3.  And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens, Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities; the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities; and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate. But Dr. O. adds, that when they did begin to exceed in number, beyond a just proportion for Edification; they did immediately erect other Churches among them, or near them. Name any one new Church erected in the same City, and I yield. And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification? But he names the Church at Cenchrea, which was a Port to the City of Corinth; because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth, Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer, (1.) It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth, as made them plant a distinct Church; and yet at Ephesus, where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence, and had great success, there was no need of any new and distinct Church. And at Corinth he stayed but a year and six months, 
Act. 18. 11.  but at Ephesus three years; 
Act. 20. 31.  as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably? (2.) Stephanus Byzant. reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth; 
S●t. l. 8.  and so doth Strabo, who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain; and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth: 
Thucyd. l. 4. & l. 8.  and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there, and not form from the too great fullness of the Church of Corinth.  
As to the Church of jerusalem, 
p. 41.  he saith, that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed, that some years after, there was such a Church there, as did meet together in one place, as occasion did require, even the whole multitude of the Brethren; nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella. To which I answer (1.) the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church, 
Act. 4. 4.  before any dispersion, or persecution. In which time we must suppose a true Church to be form, and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion: the Question than is, whether it be in the least probable, that 5000 persons should at that time, make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion? What place was there large enough to receive them, when they met for Prayer and Sacraments? Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience, and therefore only speaks of the Church of jerusalem when these were dispersed; but my question was about them, while they were together. Were they not a Church then? Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers? But how could 5000 then do all this together? Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation. (2.) A Church consisting of many Congregations, may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together; as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment, which yet manage their particular interests apart: so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves; but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together; 
S●●. l. 9 Eustar. ad Il. ●.  as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did, 
Euseb. l. 3. c. 5.  at their general Assemblies; which Strabo and Eustathius say, were 174. (3.) There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella, 
Epiph. haer. 29.  neither by Eusebius, nor Epiphanius who relate the story, so that nothing can thence be concluded; but if the force lies, in his calling Pella a Village, I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea, beyond jordan; and Epiphanius adds, that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria, and Decapolis, and Basanitis. So that all this put together makes no proof at all, that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations.   

Sect. 7. (4.) He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter, 
p. 42.  since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it. But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches, and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world, 
Evangel. Love. p. 59  are the same, stable and unalterable? Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing? Is it not Dr. O. that saith, that no religious Union or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them, 
p. 65.  but what is appointed and designed for them by jesus Christ? Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Union among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them? The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship; for all Parties are agreed therein; but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Unions of Christians? whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in itself, and unaccountably, as to subordination to any other? How doth this appear from the nature of the thing, and the necessary duties of Christians? I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification: And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things. Whatever tends to Peace and Unity among Christians, in my judgement tends to Edification. Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Unity among Christians: much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter. And here the main Controversy lies, between us and the Congregational Churches. Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter? then it follows as much from the nature of the thing, that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons, every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to itself, but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are entrusted with the immediate care of the Church's Peace. And I cannot yet see, by all that hath been said, how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound, and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it, can acquit themselves from the Gild of Schism, how great and intolerable soever it be thought. 
p. 43.   
As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila, and Nymphas and Philemon, I say, 
p. 44.  that this is to be understood, not of a Church meeting in their Houses, but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say, 
Reasons against the Instances, etc. p. 83.  most of our Divines are of that Opinion: and therefore the Argument holds against them. And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before, what obligation of Conscience can be upon any, when they may serve God in their Families, in opposition to Laws, to keep up such public Congregations as are forbidden by them. For (1.) he grants that a Church may be in a Family; although a Family as such be not a Church. Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastor are a true Church: for a Church, he saith, may consist only of the Persons that belong to a Family. Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion; especially, when the addition of four more, may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church. (2.) All that he saith, is, that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures, as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families. And what then? the Question is not now whether they be lawful, but whether they be necessary; for nothing less than a Divine Command can justify the breach of a plain Law; but where is that Command? Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing, and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches, as his great Rule in these cases? But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law? so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families. All that he saith further, as to this matter is, 
p. 46.  that if through noncompliance any disturbance happen, the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution. Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of noncompliance; which in this case amounts to separation. But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved, before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land; and much more, before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them. All men no doubt that ever broke Laws, if this Plea would be admitted, would transfer the blame upon those that made them. And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party.   

Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those, who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawful. In my Sermon, as it is printed, I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter, 
p. 24.  That to devise new species of Churches (beyond Parochial or Congregational) without God's Authority, and to impose them on the world (yea in his name) and to call all Dissenters Schismatics, 
True and only way of Concord. p III.  is a far worse usurpation, than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies. Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ; that any other Constitution above these is both unlawful and insupportable: which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert. Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning, we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted. 1. He saith, Christ hath instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches. 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority, and imposed in such a manner, that those are called Schismatics who descent from it. 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies; and consequently affords a better plea for Separation. But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning, I will set down his own Cautions. 
Premonition to the true way of Concord.  1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons: i.e. whether every rector of a Parish be not a Bishop, if he hath Curates under him. This he calls Parochial Episcopacy. 2. Nor, whether these should have Archbishops over them, as Successors to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. 3. Nor, whether Partriarches, Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawful, as Officers of the King, exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings, to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit. 4. Nor, if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes, all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chapels, whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them. You will ask then, where lies this horrible imposition, and intolerable usurpation? It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy; and joining with Parochial Churches as parts of it. But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that? 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority. 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making: which, according to Mr. B. requires two things. 1. Local and presential Communion, as he calls it, i.e. That it consists only of so many, as can well meet together for Church Society. 2. The full exercise of Discipline within itself by the Pastors; which being taken away, they are only Curates, and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches. This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter. Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable, and to justify separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church; Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church, I shall undertake these three things.  

1. To show that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church.  
2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ, nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority.  
3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches.   
1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church. This I begin with, because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter. And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches; 
Plea for peace, p. 66. Church-History. p. 37.  because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others; for in Saint Cyprian 's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world; and that the Bishops there were the most godly, faithful, peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times. And of the following times he thus speaks, 
p. 73.  Most of the African Councils, saith he, were the best in all the world. 
Church-History, p. 57  Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils, no Bishops being faithfuller than they. Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised, I shall lay down these two Observations.  
Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them, That there was to be but one Bishop in a City, though the City were never so large, or the Christians never so many. This one Observation made good, quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis. For upon his principles, where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great, 
Answ. to Serm. p. 74.  that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence, as he speaks; there either they must alter the instituted species of Government, or they must have more Bishops than one in a City. For, he saith, the Church must be no bigger, than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion, and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 7, 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach, and have Conversation with. But that this was not so understood in the African Churches, appears by their strict observance of this Rule; of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was. And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it, will appear by this one Instance, That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened, might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City; and that was the Schism of the Donatists, upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian; as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian. Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City, unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them? When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome, had it not been fair to have divided them? or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share? But instead of this, how doth Saint Cyprian, even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian, as Saint Augustin calls him, 
Aug. de Bapt. l. 2. c. 4.  aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City, where there was one chosen before? His words are so considerable to our purpose, that I shall set them down. 
Cypt. Ep. 52. n. 4.  Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit, quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat, factus est, non jam secundus ille sed nullus est. Since there cannot be a second after the first, whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already, who ought to be alone, he is not another Bishop, but none at all. Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can. What! in such a City of Christians, as Rome then was, where were 46 Presbyters, to pronounce it a mere nullity to have a second Bishop chosen? Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops; but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times, and I am apt to think, knew as well the Constitution of Churches then, thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City. At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government, or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one, chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there: 
Cypr. Ep. 55. n. 6, 9  with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius; and there tells him, how far they had proceeded, and what mischief this would be to the Church, since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms. After the election of Cornelius, some of the Confessors who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party, 
Ep. 46. n. 3.  and were received back again at a solemn Assembly, where they confessed their fault, and declared, That they were not ignorant, that as there was but one God, and one Christ, and one Holy Ghost, so there aught to be but one Bishop in the Catholic Church. Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius, who would have it understood of one Pope; but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church, there ought to be but one Bishop in a City. After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome, 
Ep. 58. n. 2.  Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was, that was chosen in his place. And the necessity of this Unity, 
De Vnit. Eccl. n. 3, 4.  he insists on elsewhere; and saith, Our Saviour so appointed it, unam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdem originem, ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair; for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy, saying, all the Apostles were equal; and a little after, Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. But this is sufficient to my purpose, to show that these holy men, these Martyrs and Confessors, men that were indeed dying daily, and that for Christ too, were all agreed that a Bishop there must be, and that but one in a City, though never so large and full of Christians. 
S. August. Ep. 162. N. E. Ep. 43.  Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists, gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus, and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper, offered for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus, with this Proviso, that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City, he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop, and the other to have another People provided for him. For which Saint Augustin commends him, as an excellent man, a true Son of Peace, and Father of Christian People. By which we see the best, the wisest, the most moderate Persons of that time, never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City. In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholic and Donatist Bishops, the Rule on both sides was, 
Collat. Carthage 1.  but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese; and if there had been any new made, to increase their number, as it was objected on both sides; if it were proved, they were not to be allowed: for generally then, every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties; but in some places they had but one, where the People were of one mind; and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa; both Parties striving to increase their Numbers.   

Sect. 9 Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop, there were several Congregations and Altars, and distant places. Carthage was a very large City, 
Aug. Ep. 43.  and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time, as I have already showed. 
Victor Vitens. l. 1.  And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major & Restituta 
a Aug. Serm. 4. 14. 102. de diversis. , in which the Bishops always sat, as Victor Vitensis saith; there were several other considerable Churches, in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage; 
b Serm. 12. 122. de diversis.  as the Basilica Fausti; the 
c De divers. 11.  Basilica Leontiana; the 
d 96. de Temp.  Basilica Celerinae mentioned by 
* Vict. l. 1.  Victor likewise, who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum. The 
f 110. de Temp.  Basilica Novarum. The 
g 251. de Temp.  Basilica Petri. The 
h 24. de divers.  Basilica Pauli. And I do not question there were many others, which I have not observed; for Victor saith, that when Geisericus entered Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop, & maximam turbam Clericorum, a very great multitude of Clergy, all which he immediately banished. And without the City there were two great Churches, saith Victor; one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom, and the other where his body was buried, at a place called Mappalia. In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage, 
Victor Vit. l. 5.  taking in those who were trained up to it; And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation? or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion, as he calls it, in one Church; and at one Altar? Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop; and so setting up one Altar against another, was setting up one Bishop against another, as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin; sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate, and so there were as many Altars as Churches. So Fortunatus a Catholic Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist, that in the City where he was Bishop, 
Collat. 1. Carthage n. 139.  the Heretics had broken down all the Altars: which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them. 
Optat. l. 6.  And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence, that not only the Oblations were made there, and the Communion received, but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them: as not only appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin (which I have mentioned elsewhere) but from Optatus, who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches, he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Church's Prayers, for, saith he, illàc ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio. The People's Prayers went up to Heaven that way. And that distant places from the City were in the Bishop's Diocese and under his care I thus prove. In the African Code, 
Cod. Eccl. Afric. c. 71.  there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church, and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside; which evidently proves, that there were not only more places, but more Churches in a Bishop's Diocese. And where the Donatists had erected new Bishoprics, as they often did, the African Council decrees, that after the decease of such a Bishop, 
c. 98, 99  if the People had no mind to have another in his room, they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop. Which shows, that they thought the Dioceses might be so large, as to hold the People that were under two Bishops. And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops. In one it was determined, that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them, without limitation of distance; 
c. 117.  after that, that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before: 
c. 118.  but if the Donatist Bishop were converted, than the Diocese was to be divided between them. If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese, he that did take the pains in it, was to have those places laid to his Diocese; 
c. 121.  unless sufficient cause were showed by the Bishop, that he was not to blame. Let Mr. Baxter now judge, whether their Bishoprics were like our Parishes; 
Church History, p. 73.  as he confidently affirms. Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo, 
De Curd pro Mortuis c. 12.  where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government: and he tells this particular story of it; that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance, in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout, and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptised of Augustin who was Bishop there; the man did accordingly, and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptised, and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages. It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo, whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman Precedent, 
Aug. Ep. 60.  to complain of their insolence, and to crave his assistance, which he saith, he did, lest he should be blamed for his negligence, who was the Bishop of that Diocese. And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo? While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo, in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter, 
Aug. Ep. 203.  for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena, and he saith, he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it. 
Ep. 204.  At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will, to be better instructed, as being under his care, but the obstinate man rather endeavoured to make away himself, 
Ep. 262.  upon which he writes a long Epistle to him. In another Epistle he gives an account, that there was a place called Fussala, which with the Country about it, belonged to the Diocese of Hippo; where there was abundance of People, but almost all Donatists; but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them, those places were all reduced; but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo, he took care to have a Bishop placed among them; but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care. For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop, he was fain to resume it; as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala, 
Ep. ad Quodvultdeum ante lib. de haeres.  which he mentions afterwards. However it appears, that a place 40 miles' distance was then under the care of so great a Saint, and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was. And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches? How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala, and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him? And it is no hard matter to guests what answer Saint Augustin would have given him.  
But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses, we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches. Quidam de Episcopis in Provinciâ nostrâ, 
S. Cyprian. Ep. 52. n. 13.  saith Saint Cyprian; and yet he speaks of his Predecessors times, which shows the very ancient extent of that Province, 
Ep. 23. n. 2.  In provinciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates, saith he again; which shows that more Cities than Carthage were under his care. Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra, in his Epistle to Cornelius. 
Ep. 45. n. 2.  In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place; in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration. Victor mentions one Crescens, 
Victor Vit. l. 1.  who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan. And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops, Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy.   

Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was only in these parts of Africa, let us inquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria. And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points, but had some for the right Constitution of Churches; and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him. 
Epiph. haer. 68 n. 6.  It is observed by Epiphanius, that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches, especially those in Maraeotis; of which Athanasius himself gives the best account. 
Athanas. Ap. p. 781. 802.  Maraeotis, saith he, is a Region belonging to Alexandria, which never had either Bishop or 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; and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate. All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself, whence we observe, (1.) That here were true Parochial Churches; for so Athanasius calls them Churches, and not bare Oratories. (2.) That these had Presbyters fixed among them, who performed divine Offices there. (3.) That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria, so that the whole Government belonged to him. (4.) That these were at that distance, that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria. Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy. So in Alexandria itself, 
Haeres. 68 n. 4. 69. n. 1.  there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them, as Epiphanius several times observes: and it would be a very strange thing indeed, if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria, and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop. 
Abridgement of Chur. hist. p. 9  But Mr. Baxter's great argument is, from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity; whence he concludes, that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly. 
Athanas. Ap. p. 682.  Whereas all that Athanasius saith, amounts to no more than this, that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches, and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church; Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches; the People grew impatient, and so at last he yielded to them. But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present, and that this Church would hold them all? If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion, and finding themselves too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished, because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number, would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London? Athanasius saith not a word more, than that it was Easter, and there appeared a great number of People, such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City. Doth he say, or intimate, that all the Christians of the City were present? that none of them went to the lesser Churches? or were absent, though the Crowd was so great? Doth he not say, the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies, that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead? And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time. In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the jews made but one Congregation; because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present, that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them. But the argument is of greater force in this respect, that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the jews: and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church. But to serve this hypothesis, Alexandria itself must be shrunk into a less compass; 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 21.  although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great City; and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Vetus Orbis descript. p. 18.  an exceeding great City; so great that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past men's comprehension: 
Amm. Marc. l. 22.  and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities. 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 11.  And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius, Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great persecution, when he was banished, he kept up the Assemblies in the City; and at Cephro he had a large Church, partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him, and partly from other places, and when he was removed thence to Colluthion, which was nearer the City, such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him, that they were forced to have distinct Congregations: so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify, and so Athanasius useth them, 
Athan. Apol. p. 683.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Christians meeting in several Congregations. If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before, under the sharpest persecution, is it possible to imagine, in so great a City, after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire, that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation? There is no hopes of convincing men, that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities. I shall only add one Instance more from Antiquity, which is plain enough of itself to show the great extent of Diocesan Power then; and that is of Theodoret, a great and learned Bishop; and although his Bishopric was none of the largest, yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith, 
Theodor. Ep. 113.  he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches; for so many Parishes, saith he, are in my Diocese, which he had then enjoyed twenty six years. Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret? And yet these Parishes did not change their species, for he saith, they were Churches still.  
This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory, 
Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 67.  that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it, but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle. But without any considerable ground, unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis. For, what if Theodoret' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy? Is that a sufficient argument to reject them, unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles, with the History of those times, or with his other Writings? 
Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c. 21.  Which are the Rules, Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them. That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious, is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant; which show a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death. And it is supposed, that john of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril; which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it. But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo? when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles? As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him, (which was the occasion of writing it) his other Epistles are so full of it, that Mr. B. never read the rest, if he calls this into question upon that account. That Hypatius, Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account, appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius, 
Theod. Ep. 116. Ep. 117.  which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost, which Nicephorus saw, doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit? But he is much mistaken, if he thinks, there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius; 
Sirmond. Praef. ad Theod. Opera.  for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples, which he compared with the Vatican, and published the various Readins of the Epistles from it. What if Leontius saith that Heretics feigned Epistles in Theodoret' s name? Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresy, to be spurious? What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret' s Works, I do not well understand, unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings, without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them. But there are two things he objects which seem more material. (1.) That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time. (2.) That he proves from other places in Theodoret, that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches.  
1. As to the first; certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove, that one such City as Cyrus then was, had 800 Churches in it. But by Cyrus, Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus; as will afterwards appear. If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy, 
Ptolem. l. 5. c. 15.  Strabo and Pliny, then there would not appear the least improbability in it, 
Strab. l. 16.  since many considerable Cities were within it; 
Plin. l. 5. c. 24.  as Beroea (now Aleppo) and Hierapolis, and extended as far as Euphrates; Zeugma being comprehended under it. The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large, and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis, 
Amm. Marcel. l. 14.  which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata (but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others) in that Province there was a Metropolitan, 
Notitiae Antiq. Append. ad Car. à S. Paulo, p. 59  who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis, which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus, or Cyrrhus. But notwithstanding, I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province, but of his own peculiar Diocese; 
Theodor. Ep. 16.  for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under. By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City, which was under Theodoret's care; within which he was confined by the Emperor's Order, 
Theodor. Ep. 79, 81.  as he complains in several Epistles, and there it is called by him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Regio Cyrrhestica; and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius, 
Ep. 42.  where he saith, it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth. And he saith in another Epistle, 
Ep. 72.  that Christianity was then so much spread among them, that not only the Cities, but the Villages, the Fields, and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace. And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop, appears expressly from a passage in the Life of simeon; 
Religios. Hist. Vit. simeon. p. 879.  where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them, and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop, than Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown. 
Ep. 81.  In his Epistle to Nomus, he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresy of Martion, another with the Eunomian, another with the Arian Heresy; which were all converted by his care: 
Ep. 145.  and in another place he saith, he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism. In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion' s Doctrine in his Diocese, 
Vita Jacobi jun. p. 860. 861, etc. 858, 869, 876, 877, 878, 879.  and the great pains he took to root it out; and the success he had therein. And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives, as Tillima, Targala, Nimuza, Teleda, Telanissus, which are sufficient to show, that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church, and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches; his Diocese being forty miles in length, and as many in breadth. So that Mr. B. must reject, not only that Epistle to Leo, but the rest too, and his other Works, if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy; which is too hard a task to be undertaken, without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought.  
2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to show the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches. The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses, which all men know to have been very different; but about the extent of Episcopal Power, whether it were limited to one Parochial Church, or was extended over many. And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this? I extremely failed of my expectation, as to the other places of Theodoret, which he promised to produce; 
Treatise of Episcopacy, part 2. p▪ 49, 50.  For I find five or six places cited out of his History, but not one that comes near any proof of this matter. The (1.) proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria, nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia, where there were no Christians. 
Theod. Hist. l. 4. c. 19  Therefore in Theodoret's time, there was no Diocesan Episcopacy. The (2.) shows that in a small City of Thebais, 
l. 4. c. 15.  Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished, and there were but a few Christians, yet there was a Bishop. Who ever denied this, where there was a prospect of converting more, as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there? But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased, new Bishops were made, which this is very far from. The (3.) proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force, 
l. 4. c. 19  without any Synod of Bishops, or Choice of the Clergy, or Request of the People. I suppose by this time, Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder, how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church: which I am sure he had not from Theodoret, nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria. 
l. 4. c. 21.  The (4.) is intended to prove, that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly, which met only in one place at once. But it is very unhappy, that Theodoret shows just the contrary in that place, for he saith, that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are his very words: to whom, he saith, jovianus had likewise given the new built Church. Which Mr. B. thus translates, Valens found the Orthodox, even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church, which good Jovinian the Emperor had given them, of which he dispossessed them. I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters, but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret; and I dare say, he will see cause to admire it. But if any one can imagine that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation, for my part, I must give him over, as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me. I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to, but of what it was in its settled state. 
l. 4. c. 2▪  The (5.) is, from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens; which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers. I am ashamed to read, much more to confute such arguments as these. For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London, doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation? 
l. 5. c. 4.  The (6.) proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism. It is true, Theodoret saith, Doliche was a little City, and so he tells us, Cyrus was no great one; but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese; which for any thing we see in Theodoret, might be as large, as, we have evidently proved from him, the Diocese of Cyrrhus was. Let the Reader now judge, whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy.  
But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ; and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches, viz. for personal Communion, and men make another, is not this a violation of Christ's Command, and setting up Man against God? I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ, which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation; and therefore the extending it to more, can be no violation of Christ's Command, or setting up a new species of Churches, as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular. Yet Mr. B. according to his wont meekness towards his Adversaries, charges me, for speaking against this principle of his, 
Answ. to Serm. p. 73.  with pleading for presumption, profanation, usurpation, uncharitableness, schism, what not? What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness? Why, I set down a saying of his, as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority, and to impose them on the world, yea in his name, and call all dissenters Schismatics, a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies. But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed? That is not to the business; for that which I quoted it for, was to show that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial, as Churches merely of men's devising; and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable; and that the imposing it as Divine, is an intolerable usurpation; and all this at the same time, when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord. My business is now to show   

Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here, and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this, I need no more than one of Mr. B. ' s own Cautions in his Premonition; viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops, as he calls them, over Parochial Bishops, as Successors to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace: 
p. 263.  There are some of us, that much incline to think that Archbishops, that is, Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastors, are lawful Successors of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work. But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter' s Arguments to prove, that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office, 
Christian Directory. Eccles. Cases, Q. 56. p. 831.  was settled for all following Ages. 1. Because we read of the settling of that form, but we never read of any abolition, discharge, or cessation of the Institution.  
〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of Government for one Age only, and no longer. 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastors, Sacraments, etc. and to say, they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with, to the end of the world, Matt. 28. 20. Which being joined with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles, that the Apostles did leave Successors in the care and Government of Churches, have a great deal of weight in them, and overbalance the difficulties on the other side. As upon this occasion I think fit to declare. From whence I argue thus, That which is only a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy. We intent no quarrel about names: If it be Mr. B. ' s pleasure to call our Bishops, Archbishops, let him enjoy his own fancy. It already appears from Saint Cyprian, and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needful, that the Bishops of the several Churches were looked on as Successors to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches. Now the Office of Mr. B.'s Parochial Bishops was only to attend to one particular Congregation; but the Apostolical Office was above this, while the Apostles held it in their own hands; and did not make a new species of Churches, nor overthrow the Constitution of Parochial Churches. It seems then a strange thing to me, that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church, should be called the devising a new species of Churches.  
But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake, that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordinary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Churches; but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church, which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters, and leaves them only a bare name of Curates, and destroys the being of Parochial Churches. But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church, I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government, and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in People's minds against it.   

Sect. 12. Now to examine this, let us consider two things. (1.) What Power is left to Presbyters in our Church. (2.) What Authority the Bishops of our Church have over them.  
I. What Power is left to presbyters in our Church: and that may be considered two ways. 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church. 2. With respect to their particular Congregations or Cures.  
1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church: and so (1.) There are no Rules of Discipline, no Articles of Doctrine, no Form of Divine Service, are to be allowed or received in this Nation; but, by the Constitution of this Church, the Presbyters of it have their Votes in passing them, either in Person, or by Proxy. For, all things of that Nature, are to pass both Houses of Convocation; and the lower House consists wholly of Presbyters; who represent the whole Presbytery of the Nation; either appearing by their own Right, as many do; or as being chosen by the rest, from whom by Indentures they either do, or aught to receive Power to transact things in their names. And the Custom of this Church hath sometimes been, for the Clergy of the Dioceses to give limited Proxies in particular Cases to their Procuratours. Now I appeal to any man of understanding, whether the Clergy of this Church have their whole Power swallowed up by the Bishops, when yet the Bishops have no power to oblige them to any Rules or Canons but by their own consent; and they do freely vote in all things of common concernment to the Church; and therefore the Presbyters are not by the Constitution deprived of their share in one of the greatest Rights of Government, viz. in making Rules for the whole Body. And in this main part of Government the Bishops do nothing without the Counsel of their Presbyters, and in this respect our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches, which had their Councils of Presbyters together with their Bishops; only, there, they were taken singly in every City; and here they are combined together in Provincial Synods; modelled according to the Laws of the Nation. And when the whole Body of Doctrine, Discipline and Worship are thus agreed upon by a general consent, there seems to be far less need of the particular Councils of Presbyters to every Bishop; since both Bishops and Presbyters are now under fixed Rules, and are accountable for the breach of them. 
Can. 31. & 35.  (2.) In giving Orders; by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to assist the Bishops; and to examine the Persons to be Ordained (or the Bishop in their presence) and afterwards to join in the laying on of hands upon the Persons ordained. And is all this nothing but to be the Bishop's Curates, and to officiate in some of his Chapels?  
2. As to their particular charges; one would think those who make this objection, had never read over the Office of Ordination; for therein (1.) For the Epistle is read the charge given by Saint Paul to the Elders at Miletus, Act. 20. or the third Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy; concerning the Office of a Bishop. What a great impertinency had both these been, if the Presbyters Power had been quite swallowed up by the Bishops? But it hence appears, that our Church looked on the Elders at Ephesus, and the Bishop in Timothy to be Presbyters, as yet under the care and Government of the Apostles, or such as they deputed for that Office, such as Timothy and Titus were. Which I suppose is the true meaning of Saint Jerome and many other doubtful passages of Antiquity, which relate to the community of the names of Bishop and Presbyter, while the Apostles governed the Church themselves. And at this time Timothy being appointed to this part of the Apostolical Office of Government, the Bishops mentioned in the Epistle to him, may well enough be the same with the Presbyters in the Epistle to Titus, who was appointed to ordain Elders in every City, Titus 1. 5. (2.) In the Bishop's Exhortation to them that are to be ordained, he saith, Now we exhort you in the name of the Lord jesus Christ, to have in remembrance into how high a dignity, and to how chargeable an Office ye be called, that is to say, the Messengers and Watchmen, the Pastors and Stewards of the Lord, to teach, to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord's Family, etc. have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge; for they be the Sheep of Christ which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you must serve is his Spouse and Body. And if it shall chance the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hindrance, by reason of your negligence, you know the greatness of the fault and of the horrible punishment which will ensue, etc. Is this the language of a Church which deprives Presbyters of the due care of their flocks, and makes Parochial Congregations to be no Churches? (3.) The person to be ordained doth solemnly promise to give faithful diligence to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God, so that he may teach the People committed to his Cure and charge, with all diligence to keep and observe the same. Here we see a Cure and charge committed to the Presbyters; Preaching and Administration of Sacraments required of them; and the exercise of Discipline as far as belongs to them, (of which afterwards): but now in the Consecration of a Bishop, this part is left out, and instead of that it is said, That he is called to the Government of the Church; and he is required to correct and punish such as be unquiet, disobedient and criminous in his Diocese. So that the more particular charge of Souls is committed to every Pastor over his own Flock, and the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop; as that which especially belongs to his Office as distinct from the other.   

Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be considered, viz. What Authority the Bishop hath, by virtue of his Consecration, in this Church? And that, I say, is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority; which lies in three things, Government, Ordination and Censures. And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office, I shall make appear by these things. (1.) In the Preface before the Book of Ordination, it is said, That it is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. What is the reason that they express it thus, from the Apostles time, rather than in the Apostles times, but that they believed, while the Apostles lived, they managed the affairs of Government themselves; but as they withdrew, they did in some Churches sooner, and in some later, as their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and the qualification of Persons were, commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto? Of which, we have an uncontrollable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus; for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist; and all their removes do not invalidate this, because while the Apostles lived, it is probable there were no fixed Bishops, or but few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled in their several Churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church, so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the different Testimonies of Antiquity. For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times, for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian, and others, are so plain; hereby room is left to make good all that Saint jerom hath said; and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at first. So that we may allow for the Community of names, between Bishop and Presbyter, for a while in the Church, i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves; but afterwards, that which was then part of the Apostolical Office, became the Episcopal, which hath continued from that time to this, by a constant succession in the Church. (2.) Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church. 
Defence of the Answer to the Admonit. p. 218.  As for this part of the Apostles function, saith he, to visit such Churches as were before planted, and to provide that such were placed in them, as were virtuous and godly Pastors, I know it remaineth still, and is one of the chief parts of the Bishop's function. And again, there is now no planting of Churches, 
p. 424.  nor going through the whole world, there is no writing of new Gospels, no prophesying of things to come, but there is Governing of Churches, visiting of them, reforming of Pastors and directing of them, which is a portion of the Apostolical function. 
p. 427.  Again, Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is ceased; yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City, by moderating and Governing them, by visiting the Churches, by cutting off schisms and contentions, by ordering Ministers remaineth still, and shall continue, and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops, as most meet men to execute the same. Bishop Bilson fully agrees, as to these particulars. (1.) That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops, 
Perpetual Government of Christ's Church. ch. 12. p. 224.  but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands. (2.) That upon experience of the confusion and disorder which did arise through equality of Pastors, did appoint at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops. 
ch. 13 p. 244.  (3.) That these Bishops did succeed the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches, as he proves at large; and therefore he calls their function Apostolic. Instead of many others, which it were easy to produce, I shall only add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy, who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it, and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason. In his third Paper to Henderson, he hath these words, Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same (which I deny to be always so) it is in the Apostles times; now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles, and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour. In his first Paper at the Treaty at Newport, he thus states the case about Episcopal Government. I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God, and of an Apostolical Institution, as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successors therein (as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others) and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ, and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government. In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines, he saith, that mere Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis only, they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, public Prayer, Exhorting, Rebuking, etc. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis & Pastorum too, having the oversight of Flock and Pastors within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government. And that, although the Apostles had no Successors in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraordinary in them, as namely the Measure of their Gifts, the extent of their charge, the infallibility of their Doctrine, and the having seen Christ in the flesh: but in those things that were not extraordinary (and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times, as the Office of Teaching and the Power of Governing are) they were to have and had Successors; and therefore the learned and godly Fathers and Councils of old times did usually style Bishops the Successors of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat. Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose, but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successors to the Apostles, and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches, and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches.   

Sect. 14. 3. It now remains, that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution? To make this clear, we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion; or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards.  
1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members. The Rubric after Confirmation saith, That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation, it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice, as they are contained in the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism; and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the judge. For he is either to bring or send in writing, with his hand subscribed thereunto, the names of all such persons within his Parish, as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed. Now, if this were strictly observed (and the Church is not responsible for men's neglect) were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper? And I do not see, but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed, if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it, were duly practised; and might attain to as great purity, as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline. For, even the Churches of New-England do grant, 
Synod of New-England concerning the subject of Baptism, etc. 1662.  that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents, and when grown up are personally under the Watch, Discipline and Government of that Church. And, that Infants baptised have a right to further privileges, if they appear qualified for them. And the main of these qualifications are, understanding the Doctrine of Faith, and publicly professing their assent thereto, not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church. Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant, and not their Church Covenant, our Church owns the same thing, only it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation. But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications, 
Baxter of Confirmation, p. 20.  which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case. Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church; and then adds, that such profession is to be tried, 
p. 49, 52.  judged and approved by the Pastors of the Church to whose Office it belongs; because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed; and they are the Stewards of God's House, etc. which he there proves at large by many Arguments. 
p. 155.  But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation. This is a thing indeed to be lamented, that it is too hastily and cursorily performed: but let the fault then be laid, where it ought to be laid; not upon the Church, whose Rules are very good, but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty. But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches; than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline, and to reject Communion with our Church on that account? And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words, That the practice of so much Discipline, 
p. 172.  as we are agreed in, is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest, than all our dispute will do without it. Yea Mr. Baxter grants, That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubric the Trial and Approbation of those, that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation; and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England, 
p. 262.  is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire. This is a very fair confession, and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters, as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion.   

Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal, who have been Church-members. In case of open and public Scandal, 
Rubric before Communion.  our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repent and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before was offended. And in case the offender continue obstinate, he may repel him from the Communion; but so, that after such repelling, he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days; and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon. Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament, whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation; but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power, but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary. Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline? Is it that they have not Power to exclude men, whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not? Or is it, that they are bound to justify what they do, and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion? Or is it, that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication, that being reserved served to the Bishop, upon full hearing of all parties concerned? But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders, it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy. 
Defence of the Plea. p. 58.  Mr. B. saith, that if it could be proved, that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers, it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy; but if it be so, he hath been in a sleep these 50 years, that could never hear or read of any such thing. It is strange, in all this time, he should never read or consider the 26 Canon, which saith, that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock, or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper, who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin. This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which he mentions as an abortive thing, published by john Fox, (which last any one that hath seen them, knows to be a mistake) nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt; yet not so destroyed, but with some diligence he might have seen it (but it was for nothing of this kind, that Book underwent so severe a censure; as Mr. B. insinuates; but for seeming to encroach too much on the King's Prerogative.) But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons; which I think are plain in this case. But Mr. B. saith, this is not the lesser excommunication, but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons. Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth; this is certain, the Minister is empowered, is required to do this; the question than is, whether this be not such a Censure of the Church, as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament; and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister? I grant, this is not the lesser excommunication, according to the Use of this Church, for that supposeth the sentence passed; and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person, upon extraordinary occasions. But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders, and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church; for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication; 
Epist. 108.  as appears by several passages in S. Augustin, produced by Spalatensis to this purpose, 
Post collat. c. Donat. c. 20.  viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication. But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to show that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament. 
Spalat. l. 5. c. 9  Which is very true of the greater Excommunication; but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders, whereby they were suspended from full Communion; but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given. These were said to be in the state of Penitents. 
Albaspin. l. 2. c. 4.  It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state; and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion; others only on their deathbeds; others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance; of which those were left to be judges, who were particularly entrusted with the care of the Penitents. Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Privileges of Church-communion; but he saith, the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithful, being still Candidates, as he calls them; so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion; but not wholly cast out of the Church; because the Christians might as freely converse with these, as with any, but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries. But there was no question, wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion, there was a Power of Discipline; because the Church's Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication; no more than a judge's power lies only in condemning men to be hanged; but in so governing the Members of the Church, that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion, and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it. Since than our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion, it is thereby evident, that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline. But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publicly admonish another by name, 
Defence of the Plea. p. 65, 72.  not censured by the Ordinary, the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him. I answer, 1. What need this public Admonition by name? Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that? Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself, is not this sufficient? I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo, 
De T●mp●re Serm. ●52.  he persuaded them to examine their own Consciences, and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendered them unfit for the holy Communion, he advised them to withdraw themselves from it, till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences, and then they might come to it. Here is no public Admonition by name; and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders, and yet the Church be a true Church, and Christians obliged to communicate with it; as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists. 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law: the question than comes to this, whether the obligation to admonish publicly an Offender, or to deny him the Sacrament, if he will come to it, be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law; made by public Authority, with a design to preserve our Religion? But my design is only to speak to this case, so far as the Church is concerned in it.   

Sect. 16. If it be said, that notwithstanding this, the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified, and too notorious to be concealed; I answer,  
1. That is not our question, but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline? and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy? which we have showed sufficient Reason to deny. And what other abuses have crept in, aught in an orderly way to be reform, and no good man will deny his assistance in it.  
2. It is far easier to separate, or complain for want of Discipline, than to find out a due way to restore it. 
Of Confirmation. p. 174, etc.  No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it, than Mr. Baxter hath done; especially in that, it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it; and be most likely to do good on those who need it least.  
3. The case of our Churches now, is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times. For, the great Reason of Discipline is not, that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled (for to assert that, were Donatism) but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained. If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Church's honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders, there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline. To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable. 
His Majesty's final Answer to the Divines at Newport, n. 4.  But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of jurisdiction should be at all times as large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been; the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times. And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of jurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely, as was exercised in the Primitive times, by Bishops before the days of Constantine. The reason of the difference being evident, that in those former times under Pagan Princes, the Church was a distinct Body of itself, divided from the Commonwealth, and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers; the Bishops therefore of those times, though they had no outward coercive power over men's Persons or Estates, yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church, did ipso facto, and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government, they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus, in making Ecclesiastical Canons, receiving accusations, converting the accused, examining Witnesses, judging of Crimes, excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper, enjoining Penances upon them, casting them out of the Church, receiving them again upon their Repentance, etc. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others. But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Commonwealth, whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power, the jurisdiction of Bishops (in the outward exercise of it) was subordinate unto, and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power, and hath been, and is at this day, so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm.  
4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty, that the greatest Zealots for it, have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation. 
Calvin. Ep. 136.  Calvin declares, that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication: not only because of the invidiousness of the thing, and the danger of the example; but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into, and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice. And to the same purpose, Beza delivers his judgement, who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva, 
Bez. Ep. 20.  that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition; but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline, and as they judge fit either give admonition, or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper; or, which is a rare case, and when no other remedy can prevail, they go on to public Excommunication. Where we see, every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us; nay, the Minister here hath no power to repel, but all that he can do there is to admonish; and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true, and not ours? Besides, why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop, as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery? 
Codex Eccles. Afric. c. 6, 7, 9, 43.  since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop, that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop; and Saint Augustin proposed it, that whosoever received one that declined the judgement of his own Bishop, should undergo the same censure which that person deserved; and it was allowed by the Council. Alipius, Saint Augustins' great Friend and Legate of the Province of Numidia, 
c. 10.  proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop, who out of pride and vainglory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church; 
c. 11.  and he desired to know the judgement of the Council about it; and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism, and aught to be anathematised, and to lose his place. And this was the judgement even of the African Bishops, for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others; and saith, their Councils were the best in the world; and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline. But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there, was but like one of our Parishes, which I have already refuted at large, by showing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops. So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church, is contrary to the practice of Antiquity, as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad, which plead most for Discipline; and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders, by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication; as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands, and by their foolish and passionate, and indiscreet use of it, brought more dishonour upon their Churches, than if they had never meddled with it at all. And in such a matter, where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned, it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that; and whether the good, men promise themselves by Discipline, will countervail the Schisms and Contentions, the heart-burnings, and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it. The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say, 
p. 5.  That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation, as Landmarks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon; and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication. 
p. 9  For they saw plainly, they could never hold their People together if they did; since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough, at least to make breaches among them; and they holding together by mutual consent, such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces. Besides, this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of judicature in every Parish; because there are no certain Rules to proceed by; no standing determination what those sins and faults are, which should deserve excommunication; no method of trials agreed upon; no security against false Witnesses; no limitation of Causes; no liberty of Appeals, (if Parochial Churches be the only instituted Churches, as Mr. Baxter affirms:) besides multitudes of other inconveniencies, which may be easily foreseen; so that I do not question, but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London, and proceeded by his own Rules; his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time, as more arbitrary and tyrannical, than any Bishop's Court this day in England: Let any one therefore judge, how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches, for want of that, which being set up according to his own principles, would destroy the Peace and Unity, if not the very being, of any Parochial Church whatsoever.  
5. That want of Discipline, which is in Parochial Churches, was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old, destructive to the Being of them. Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright, Hildersham, Giffard, and many others.   

Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgement of their own Consciences, as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion, we may observe these things; which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches.  
(1.) That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves; not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing, as they account the holy Communion to be, for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving. So that, the most constant Communicants, are the most pious and sober and devout Christians.  
(2.) That if any such do voluntarily come, it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience; some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life; after some dangerous sickness, or under some great affliction; when they are best inclined, and have strong convictions, and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations. So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not, by God's Institution, yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it, puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace; if they be not looked on as the effects of it.  
(3.) That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared, if those who are not, do come to it; any more than in joining in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them. And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated, do overthrow the being of a Church; then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church, when judas was present with them; as in probability he was, at his last Supper. At least, if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary, it would never have been left so doubtful, as it is by the Evangelists; since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church, to have set it down expressly; not only that he was not present, but that he ought not to be; and therefore was cast out before.  
(4.) That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them; nor so much as the Lord's Supper administered. And were these true Churches all that while, and are not ours so now? 
Plea for Peace, p. 243.  Nay Mr. Baxter saith, That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptise, 
Answ. 10 Serm.  or administer the Lord's Supper, or to be Pastors of any Churches. Now I would fain know, what Churches these men are of? Some or other they must own, if they be Christians; New Churches they have not, they say; either than they must own our Churches to be true, notwithstanding the defect of Discipline, or they must be of no Church at all.  
(5.) That our Church is but in the same condition, the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in, when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it, or rather took it quite away. For, the Poenitentiary, whom he removed for the scandal given, was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church, and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoined them, for satisfaction of the Church. And, the consequence of it Socrates saith was, 
Socr. l. 5. c. 19  That every one was left to the judgement of his own Conscience, as to the participation of the holy Mysteries. And this Socrates saith, he had from Eudaemon himself, who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away; which was accordingly done; 
Soz. l. 7. c. 16.  and no more restored, saith Sozomen: the consequence whereof was, saith he, that every one went to the Lord's Table, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as his Conscience gave him leave, and as he was assured in his own mind. And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches, saith Sozomen; and so the Discipline of the Church decayed. But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being, by the loss of Discipline. And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government.   

Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church. 
Serm. p. 19  By the Church of England, I said, we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith, the same Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine Worship. And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church, I proved from the first notion of a Church, which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion. And since, the lowest kind of that Society, viz. Congregations for Worship, are called Churches; since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholic Church; and both from their union and consent in some common thing; I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith, and under the same Government and Discipline, might not be as truly and properly a Church, as any particular Congregations? Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing: the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom, as the small Kingdom of Ivetot: and as several Families make one Kingdom, so several lesser Churches make one National. And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I showed, that at Athens, from whence the word was taken, it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together, although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too; and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church, the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governors and People of whole Cities, and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion. This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject; against which all my Adversaries have something to say, though not with equal strength, clearness, or temper. Dr. Owen saith (1.) That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, 
Vindicat. of Non-conform. p. 16.  it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches, and therefore they are not concerned in it: because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution, and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves, independently as to any National Constitution. To which I answer, that if the Churches of Christ's Institution be not limited to particular Congregations, as I have already proved, than the gradual increase of Churches, till they came to be National, doth not alter any Institution of Christ; and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determine that of particular Congregations; or else nothing but disorder and confusion will follow, if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith, without being liable to an account to any superior Church Authority. Which is all one, as to suppose that every Family may govern itself, because a Kingdom is made up of Families, without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom. No, 
p. 17.  saith Dr. O. the case is not the same. For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families. And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations? But God by the Light and Law of Nature, by the ends and use of the Creation of man, by express Revelation in his Word, hath by his own Authority, appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government. So say I, that God by the Light and Law of Reason, by the ends and use of a Christian Society, by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare, that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations. For, if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Flood, had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions, it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves; but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment; so in the case of Churches; since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant, settle and govern Churches, and set up Rulers in them, but still under their Authority, can any thing be plainer, than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves? But as in the former case, if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions, and to have placed them in convenient Seats, and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint, and as they found themselves decaying, should nominate so many Successors as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies, were they not then obliged to submit to such Governors? Without breaking in pieces into so many Families, every Master governing his family by himself; which would certainly ruin and destroy them all; because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves. So it is again in the case of Churches, The Apostles planted them, and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them, still reserving the main care of Government to themselves; but giving excellent Rules of Charity, Peace, Obedience and Submission to Governors; and as they withdrew from particular Churches (within such a precinct, as Crete was) they appointed some, whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches, and to constitute inferior Officers to teach and rule them; and therefore in this case, here is no more independency in particular Congregations; than in the other, as to private Families; which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Unity of Christians, and their mutual preservation and defence, as in the former case. In which, we believe the civil Government to be from God, although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion; and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles, when the matter of fact is attested by the most early, knowing, honest and impartial Witnesses? Lastly, as in the former case, several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joint-consent for their common interest and security, and become one Kingdom: so in the latter case; several Bishops with the Churches under them, might for promoting the common ends of Christianity, and the Peace and establishment of their Churches, join together under the same common bonds and become one National Church: which being intended for the good of the whole so united, and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution, and not usurping upon the Rights of others, nor assuming more than can be managed, as an universal Pastor must do; will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel, as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is. Which I therefore mention that any one may see, that the force of this Reasoning will never justify the Papal Usurpations.  
But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution, 
p. 17.  before they can be allowed to have their power given them by jesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction; 
p. 42.  for the Nature of the thing itself, and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches, is sufficient for it. And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches, viz. What the nature of a Christian Society, and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require. For, whatever tends to the support of Religion, to the preserving Peace and Unity among Christians, to the preventing dangerous Errors and endless confusions, from the very nature of the thing, and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty. For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it. It being then taken for granted among all Christians, 1. That Christ is the Author or founder of this Society which we call the Church; 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it; 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Union of the members of it; provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it: We may reasonably infer, that whatever tends to promote this Union, and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it, is within the design of the first Institution; although it be not contained in express words.   

Sect. 19 We are now therefore to consider, whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation; or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith, Government and Worship, be the more likely way to promote Religion, to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church.  
Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason, as to these ends.  
In the Congregational way, there may be as many Religions as Churches. I do not say there are, but we are arguing now upon what may be, from the nature of the thing. Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within itself; what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians, another of Papists, another of Arians, another of Quakers, another of Anabaptists, etc. and it may be no two of them of the same mind. But if they be, it is mere chance and good hap; there being no obligation upon them to have any more than mutual forbearance towards each other. Let now any rational man judge, whether it appear probable, that so loose and shattered a Government as this is, should answer the obligation among Christians, to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and to uphold Peace and Unity among Christians? But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds, that the Preacher is accountable to superiors; that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith, and promise obedience; that public legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Church's Peace: here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us. And that this is no mere theory, appears by the sad experience of this Nation, when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government, there came such an overpowering inundation of Errors and Schisms among us, that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it. And in New-England, two or three men, as Williams, Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government: which being very material to this business, I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them. Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem, and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him: 
William's his Answer to Cotton's Letter, p. 1.  he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches; but being a thinking man, he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit, for he thought it unlawful to join with unregenerate men in prayer, or taking an Oath; and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions. etc. These Doctrines, and some others of his not taking, he proceeded to Separation from them, and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs; this gave such a disturbance to them, that the Magistrates sent for him, and the Ministers reasoned the case with him. He told them, he went upon their own grounds, and therefore they had no reason to blame him. Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them; Mr. Williams replied, this would return upon themselves; for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England? In short, 
Cottons Answer to R▪ Williams, p. 57  after their debates, and Mr. William's continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches, a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates, and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches. For these are Mr. Cotton's words, That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private, to a neglect or deserting of public Ordinances, and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations, provoked the Magistrates, rather than to breed a Winter's spiritual plague in the Country, to put upon him a Winter's journey out of the Country. This Mr. Williams told them, was falling into the National Church way, which they disowned; or else, saith he, why must he that is banished from the one, be banished from the other also? And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way; 
〈…〉 p. 46.  and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly, to live in the same air with them, if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised. Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before: and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches, confesseth that by the Laws of the Country, 
Cobbet's Answer to Clerks Narrative, p. 40, 47.  none are to be free men, but such as are members of Churches. I now appeal to any man, whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches? why had not Mr. William's his liberty of Separation as well as they? why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them? Because these ways would disturb their Peace, and distract their People, and in time overthrow their Churches. Very well: but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation, the mean while? Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth? The plain truth is, they found by experience, this Congregational way would not do alone, without civil Sanctions, and the interposing of the Pastors of other Churches. For when Williams, and Gorton, and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People, they bestirred themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopped, and their persons banished. This I do only mention, to show, that where this way hath prevailed most, they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion, and of Peace and Unity among themselves. And in their Synod at Boston, 1662., the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Con●eciation of Churches, in case of divisions and contentions; and for the rectifying of maladministrations, and healing of errors and scandals, 
Synod of New-England. p. 30. Defence of the Synod, p. 1●2.  that are unhealed among themselves: For, Christ's care, say they, is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons. Of which Consociation they tell us, that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death. Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not, in such cases? If not, why do they do any thing relating to Church Government, for which they have no Command in Scripture? If there be a Command in Scripture, than there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches. It is but a slender evasion, which they use, when they call these only voluntary Combinations, for what are all Churches else? Only, the antecedent obligation on men to join for the Worship of God makes entering into other Churches a Duty; and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions, will make such Consociations a Duty too. And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superior to that of Congregational Churches; which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters join together. Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine, and Rules of Worship and Discipline, are the National Church representative; and these being owned and established by the civil Power, and received by the Body of the Nation, and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship; these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion, make up the complete National Church.   

Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtleties about this matter; which being spread abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose, I shall reduce to these following heads, wherein the main difficulties lie.  
1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom. 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church; which he calls the Constitutive regent part. 3. Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church.  
1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church. 
Answ. p. 31, 32.  A Christian Kingdom, he saith, they all own, but this is only equivocally called a Church, but, he saith, the Christian Bishops for 1300 years, were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church, or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys. If there be any such Christians in the world, that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church, let Mr. Baxter confute them; but I am none of them; for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes, that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes, and will be such, if there were none left. I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing, 
Difference between the Power of the Magistrates and Church Pastors, 1●●1.  from the Office of the Civil Magistrate; and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion, he should have rather sent it to his learned, sincere, and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin; if he had been still living. But if I only mean a Christian Kingdom, 
p. 〈◊〉, 40.  who denies it? saith he; If all this confused stir, be about a Christian Kingdom, be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command. Nay farther, 
〈…〉  if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals, we deny it not. What is it then, that is so denied and disputed against, and such a flood of words is poured out about? It seems at last it is this, that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head, personal or collective, Monarchical or Aristocratical. Before I answer this Question, I hope, I may ask another; whence comes this zeal now against a National Church? For, when the Presbyterians were in power, they were then for National Churches, and thought they proved them out of Scriptures; and none of these subtleties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex, or trouble them. Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches; 
〈…〉 p. 12, 13, 14.  and particularly the Church of England; in these words. And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church; let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England, be called the Church of England. But this you will say, is by association of equal Churches. No, they say, it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government, agreeing in Doctrine and Worship, are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies, and in this sense, say they, we assert a National Church. 
Hudson of the Church. p. 15.  Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church. 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship. 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body, in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government. The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England, and thought they understood what was meant by it. Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter? Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly? But some men's Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions, and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples.  
To give therefore a plain answer to the Question, what we mean by the National Church of England. By that is understood either (1) the Church of England diffusive. Or (2) The Church of England representative.  
1. The National Church of England diffusive, 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. And by this description, any one may see, how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side, and the Dissenters on the other. Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say, they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England. For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth? Hath not the same Doctrine, the same Government, the same manner of Worship, continued in this Church? (bating only the interruption given by its Enemies.) How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy, so plain, so intelligible a thing? If all the Question be, how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church? I say, by unity of consent; as all particular Churches make one Catholic Church. If they ask, how it comes to be one National Church? I say, 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 those Laws. And t●is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes, that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England.  
2. 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. And this is determined by the allowed Canons of this Church. 
Can. 139.  We do not say, that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England, as the Church of England is a National Church; for that is only representative of this Province, there being another Convocation in the other Province; but the Consent of both Convocations, is the representative National Church of England.   

Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty, concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church. I say, 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition. 2. It is capable of a plain resolution.  
1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition: which is, that wherever there is the true Notion of a Church, there must be a Constitutive Regent part, i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power, which is an essential part of it. Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself. He asserts, that there is one Catholic visible Church; and that all particular Churches, 
Christian Directory. Eccl. Cases Q. 5●. p. 830.  which are headed by their particular Bishops, or Pastors, are parts of this Universal Church, as a Troop is of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom. If this Doctrine be true, 
Answer to my Sermon, p. 77.  and withal it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it, than it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholic visible Head, to a Catholic visible Church. And so Mr. Baxter's Constitutive Regent part of a Church, hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness, and made a very plausible Plea for his Universal Pastourship. But there are some men in the world, who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery; so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England. But doth not Mr. Baxter say, that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself? I grant he doth; but this doth not remove the difficulty; for the Question is about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts; and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them; therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part, i. e. a visible Head of the Church; as if a Troop hath an inferior Officer, an Army must have a General; if a City hath a Mayor, a Kingdom must have a King, that is equally present and visible as the other is. This is indeed to make a Key for Catholics, by the help of which they may enter and take possession.  
2. The plain resolution is, that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part, or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church. For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church; as an Universal Consent to make a Catholic Church. But if the Question be, by what way this National Consent is to be declared? then we answer farther; that by the Constitution of this Church, the Archbishops, Bishops, and Presbyters being summoned by the King's Writ are to advise and declare their judgements in matters of Religion; which being received, allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom; there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law. And all Bishops, Ministers, and People, taken together, who profess the Faith so established, and worship God according to the Rules so appointed, make up this National Church of England: which notion of a National Church being thus explained, I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter's Queries and Objections about this matter.   

Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is (3.) concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church. For Mr. B. would know, 
Anws. p 34.  whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a mere humane Rule. If it be a Divine Rule, they are of the National Church as well as we; if it be a humane Rule, how comes consent in this to make a National Church? how come they not to be of it for not consenting? how can such a consent appear, when there are differences among ourselves? This is the substance of what he objects. To which I answer (1.) Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule, viz. the Holy Scriptures, which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith; and according to which, all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable. (2.) Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it, as agreeable to the word of God. And so the Churches of New-England do, to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches; and annex civil Privileges to them; and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them. And although they profess agreement in other things, yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches, they do not own them as members of their Churches. Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us, not to account those members of the Church of England, who contemn and disobey the Orders of it? (3.) There is no difference among ourselves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church, or the duty of submission to them. If there be any other differences, they are not material, as to this business: and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things, which may happen in the best Society in the world, without breaking the Peace of it. As about the difference of Orders; the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed; the true explication of one or two Articles; which are the things he mentions. 
p. 39  A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us, as to make us not to be members of the same National Church.   

Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries, the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these, will admit of a quicker dispatch. Mr. A. objects, 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 27.  (1.) That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves, than so have Congregational; and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation. I grant it, if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it, than a National Church hath: i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Usurpations. When he doth prove that, 
ibid.  he may have a farther answer. (2.) That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them; this I utterly deny, and there wants nothing but Proof; as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet, only his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
p. 29.  (3.) By my description the Parliament may be a National Church, for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government, according to the Rules of the Christian Religion. But did I not immediately before say, that National Churches are National Societies of Christians, under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship? from whence it is plain that in the next words, when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches, I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church. 
p. 30.  (4.) He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational; because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants; and that is only for Worship, and not to destroy their own being. This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill; still round about the same thing. And therefore the same answer may serve. 
p. 31.  (5.) Out come Mr. B.'s Objections, against a visible Head of this National Church; and the manner of union, and the differences among ourselves; as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments, and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour; and makes them appear again in the field, in another dress, and if they could not stand the field in the former habit, they can much less do it in this.  
The Author of the Letter saith, 
Letter out of the country, p. 24.  I only prove a National Church a possible thing. He clearly mistakes my design; which was to show that if there be such a thing as a National Church, than no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith. To prove that there was such a thing, I showed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it, then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches, and the Catholic Church, we are to own a National Church; so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing; but the truth and reality of it. 
p. 25.  But, saith he, Can it be proved that Christ hath invested the Guides of this Church, not chosen by the People, with a Power to make Laws and Decrees, prescribing not only things necessary for common order and decency, but new federal rites, and teaching signs and symbols, superadded to the whole Christian Institution? etc. I answer, that such a Church hath Power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the word of God, which on that account others are bound to submit to; and to take such care of its preservation, as to admit none to its privileges but such as do submit to them; and if any disturb the Peace of this Church, the Civil Magistrate may justly inflict civil Penalties upon them for it. All which is no more than any settled Church in the world asserts, as well as ours. And I wonder this should be so continually objected against our Church, which all Societies in the world think just and necessary for their own preservation. As to the Guides of the Church not being chosen by the People, I shall speak to that afterwards. One objection more he makes, which the others did not, viz. I had said that by whole or National Churches, I understood the Churches of such Nations which upon decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of Governing themselves, and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society, under the same common ties and Rules of Order and Government. Such Churches, I say, have a just right of Reforming themselves, and therefore are not liable to the imputation of Schism from the Roman Church. Would one think, what unlucky Inferences he draws from hence? (1.) Then all that remain within the Empire, 
p. 26.  were bound to continue in the Communion of the Roman Church. What, if I should deny the continuance of the Roman Empire? then all would be safe. But do I any where say, that being in the Empire, they were bound to submit to the Roman Church? No; but as the Nation resumed its just civil Rights, the Church might as rightfully recover itself from Papal Usurpations; not laying the force of one upon the other, but paralleling them together: and the advantage of the argument is on the Church's side. (2.) Then where Princes have not resumed their just rights as to Reformation, they are Schismatics that separate from Rome. 
Part 2.  That doth not follow: for in the cases before mentioned separation is lawful; but no Reformation is so unexceptionable, as when there is a Concurrence of the Civil Power.  
My last Adversary doth not deny a National Church from consent in the same Articles of Religion, 
Rector of Sutton, etc. p. 2●.  and Rules of Government and Order of Worship; but then he saith, such aught to be agreeable to the established Rule of Holy Scriptures. And therein we are all agreed. So that after much tugging, this point is thought fit to be given up.   

Sect. 24. The next thing to be considered, is, the interest and Power of the People as to the choice of their Pastors; for want of which great complaints are made by my Adversaries, as a thing injurious to them, and prejudicial to the Church, and that we therein go contrary to all Antiquity. 
Vindication, etc. p. 3●.  Dr. O. puts the depriving the People of their liberty of choosing their Pastors among the Causes of Separation. Mr. Baxter is very Tragical upon this argument; and keeps not within tolerable bounds of discretion, in pleading the People's Cause, 
Answ. p. 15, 16.  against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws: and he tells me, I go against all the ancient Fathers and Churches for many hundred years, and am so far a Separatist from more than one Parish Priest; and therefore my charge of them is schismatical and unjust, and recoileth on myself; who instead of God's Rule, accuse them that walk not by our novel crooked Rules, which may make as many modish Religions as there are Princes. When I first read such passages as these, I wondered what I had said, that might give occasion to so much undecent Passion, as every where almost discovers itself in his Answer: and the more I considered the more I wondered; but at last I resolved as Mr. A. doth about the Assembly, that Mr. B. is but a man, as other men are; and for all that I see, of equal passions, and that upon little or no provocation. For I had not said one word upon this Argument. What then? would Mr. B. seek a Cause to express his anger against me? as if I had allowed Princes to set up what Religions they please. Surely, he thought himself writing against Hobbs and Spinosa then. No: but thus he artificially draws me into this snare. I spoke much against Separation. How then? They would never have separated, if they had not been silenced; therefore my being against their separation, shows I am for their silencing. As though these necessarily followed each other. What is this to Princes imposing what Religion they please? Thus▪ Than Magistrates by their Laws may put out Nonconformists and put in Conformists. But have we not the same Religion still? But, saith Mr. Baxter, these must be my supposed Grounds; that Magistrates may appoint what Religion they please, and those are Separatists who do not obey them. Is not this admirable ingenuity, to rail upon a man, for suppositions of his own making? However Mr. Baxter will have it so, let me say what I will. The People's part he will take, and let me take that of the Magistrates and Laws, if I think good; and since they are fallen to my lot, I will defend them as well as I can, as to this matter. Mr. B. appearing very warm in this business, what doth Mr. A. coming after him, but make it the very first and fundamental Ground of their Separation? viz. 
Mischief of 〈◊〉, Preface.  That every particular Church upon a due balance of all circumstances, has an inherent right to choose its own Pastor, and every particular Christian the same Power to choose his own Church. Nay then, I thought, we were in a very fair way of settlement; when the Anabaptists in Germany never broached a loser principle than this; nor more contrary to the very possibility of having an established Church: for it leads to all manner of Schisms and Factions in spite of all Laws and Authority in Church or State. The Author of the Letter goes upon the same principle too, 
Letter out of the Country, p. 25.  and saith, The Guides of the Church are to be chosen by the People, according to Scripture and Primitive practice. This I perceive is a popular argument, and a fine device to draw in the common People to the dissenting Party; whatever becomes of Laws, and men's just and legal Rights of Patronage, all must yield to the antecedent Right of the People. But to bring this matter to a strict debate, we must consider these three things. 1. What Original, or inherent Right and Power the People had. 2. How they came to be devested of it. 3. Whether there be sufficient ground to resume it. And from thence we shall understand, whether some of the People's consenting to hear the Nonconformists preach, notwithstanding the Laws, can excuse them from Separation? for this lies at the bottom of all.  
1. As to the Original, inherent Right and Power of the People. Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People; for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way, he quotes a saying of F. Paul; 
Vindicat. p. 37.  out of a Book of his, lately translated into English, that in the beginning, the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form; which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable, that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person. For was there not a Church to be form in the beginning? Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end? Where was the Church power then lodged? Was it not in the Apostles? Did not they in all places, as they planted Churches, appoint Officers to teach and govern them? And did they not give them Authority to do what they had appointed? Were not then the several Pastors and Teachers invested with a Power superior to that of the People and independent upon them? And if they had such Power and Authority over the People, how came their Power to be derived from them, as it must be, if the Church Government then were Democratical? Besides, Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers, and convey the Power of the Keys to them; which never were in their hands? And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities, when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands? For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them. But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles, in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons, no more is required, as to the People, than barely their Testimony; therefore it is said they must be blameless, 
1 Tim. 3. 2, 7, 10.  and men of good report. But, where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys, must meet together, and choose their Pastor, and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves, to them? If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical, the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury; for they have said no more of their Power in the Church, than they have done of the Pope's. It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle: 
Act. l. 14.  but were not the Women so too? And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too? Suppose not, doth this prove that the Church's Power was then Democratical? then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power; which I do not think any man would say, much less F. Paul. As to the election of Deacons; it was no properly Church Power which they had; but they were Stewards of the common Stock; and was there not then, all the reason in the world, the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men? 
Act. 6. 3, 5.  When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith, he gave an account of it to all the Church. And what then? Must he therefore derive his power from it? Do not Princes and Governors give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds? But here is not all the Church mentioned; 
Act. 11. 3.  only those of the Circumcision at jerusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert. And what is this to the power of the Church? But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene, and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders, Apostles, Priests and faithful Brethren. I grant it; but is it not expressly said, that the Question was sent up from the Churches, to the Apostles and Presbyters? 
Act. 15. 2.  Is it not said, that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it; and that the multitude was silent? 
6. 12.  Is it not said, that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters, without any mention of the People? 
16. 4.  And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power; but in the other place, it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made. In success of time, it is added, when the Church increased in number, the faithful retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families, and having left those of the Congregation, the Government was retained only in the Ministers, and so became Aristocratical, saving the election which was Popular. Which account is neither agreeable to Reason, nor to Antiquity. For, was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times? How came it to be changed, from that to a Democratical Form? Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches, and charged the People to obey them? And was this an argument the Power was then in the People? It was not then the People's withdrawing (of which there can be no evidence, if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power, in Antiquity) but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles.   

Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections, as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity; but yet not such, as to fix any inherent, or unalterable Right in the People. As I shall make appear, by these following observations.  
1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon, 
1 Tim. 3. 2, 7.  That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report.  
2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections, caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church.  
3. That to prevent these, many Bishops were appointed without their choice, and Canons made for the better regulating of them.  
4. That when there were Christian Magistrates, they did interpose as they thought fit, notwithstanding the popular claim; in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State.  
5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parliaments, and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes, and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons.  
6. That things being thus settled by established Laws, there is no reasonable Ground for the People's resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws.  
If I can make good these Observations, I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded, concerning the Right and Power of the People, which my Adversaries build so much upon.  
(1.) That the main ground of the People's interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon, that a Bishop must be blameless, and of good report. For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy, If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, How much rather of the Brethren, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom. So it is said concerning Timothy himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium. 
Act. 1●. 2.  And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's taking him into the Office of an Evangelist. So in the choice of the Deacons, the Apostles bid them find out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. 6. 3.  men of good reputation among them. And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose; 
Clement. Epist. p. 54, 55, 56, 57  where he gives an account, how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries, did appoint their First-fruits, having made a spiritual trial of them, to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe. Here it is plain, that they were of the Apostles appointment, and not of the People's choice; and that their Authority could not be from them, whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern; and although their number was but small at first, yet as they increased, though into many Congregations, they were still to be under the Government of those, whom the Apostles appointed over them. And then he shows how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others: and he brings the Instance of Moses, when there was an emulation among the Tribes, what method he took for putting an end to it, by the blossoming of Aaron's Rod; which, saith he, Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel, and thereby to bring Glory to God; now, saith he, the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church; which the sense shows to be his meaning: therefore, foreseeing these things perfectly, they appointed the persons before mentioned, and left the distribution of their Offices, with this instruction, that as some died, other approved men should be chosen into their Office. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or other eminent Men, the whole Church being therewith well-pleased, discharging their Office with humility, quietness, readiness, and unblameableness, being men of a long time of good report, we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office. It seems, some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church, and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more, and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal, not only on themselves, but the Christian Church; which made Clemens write this Epistle to them; wherein he adviseth those busy men rather to leave the Church themselves, than to continue making such a disturbance in it; and if they were good Christians they would do so; and bring more glory to God by it, than by all their heat and contentions. Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain, (1.) That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People, but appointed by the Apostles, or other great Men, according to their Order? (2.) That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church, about those who should bear Office in it. (3.) That all that the People had to do, was to give Testimony, or to express their approbation of those, who were so appointed. For he could not allow their power of choosing, since he saith, the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it. And it seems very probable to me, that this was one great reason of the faction among them; viz. that those few Popular men in that Church, who caused all the disturbance, represented this, as a great grievance to them; that their Pastors and Officers were appointed by others, and not chosen by themselves. For they had no objection against the Presbyters themselves, being allowed to be men of unblameable lives; yet a contention there was, and that about casting them out; and such a contention, as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordained; and therefore it is very likely, they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen. But it seems, the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church, took 〈…〉 them, leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained. And this is plain, even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter, 
Answ. p. 27.  in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis, to which Mr. Baxter refers me. For, the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last only to this giving Testimony; 
Cypr. Epist. 68  therefore, saith he, God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People, thereby showing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be, sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ, in the Presence of the People: for what reason? that they might give them Power? no; that was never done under the Law; nor then imagined, when S. Cyprian wrote; but he gives the account of it himself; that by their presence, either their faults might be published, or their good acts commended; that so it may appear to be a just and lawful Ordination, which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgement of all. The People here had a share in the Election, but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person. And therefore, he saith, it was almost a general Custom among them, and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice, that when any People wanted a Bishop, the neighbour Bishops met together in that place, and the new Bishop was chosen, plebe praesente, the People being present, (not by the Votes of the People) quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit, which best understands every man's Conversation: and this, he saith, was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus, who was put into the place of Basilides. Where he doth express the Consent of the People, but he requires the judgement of the Bishops; which being thus performed, he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus. For, Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry, and joined blasphemy with it, had of his own accord laid down his Bishopric, and desired only to be received to Lay-Communion, upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room; after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf, that he might be restored; Sabinus finding this, makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops, who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides, saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad. Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the People's Power; and yet here we are to consider (1.) It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned. (2.) Another Bishop was put into his room, not by the Power of the People, but by the judgement and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops. (3.) They had the judgement of a whole Council of African Bishops for their deserting him. (4.) For a notorious matter of fact, viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession. (5.) All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this, doth amount to no more, than that the People were most concerned to give Testimony, as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops. This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus, who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People, to hear what they had to object against them, and said it was a hard case, when the Christians and jews did so about their Priests, the same should not be done about Governors of Provinces, who had men's lives and fortunes in their hands. But no man could ever from hence imagine, that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governors of Roman Provinces. 
Orig. hom 6. in Levit.  Origen saith, The People's presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop, that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop; it must be astante Populo, the People standing by; and this is that Saint Paul meant, when he said, A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without.  
(2.) That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church. 
Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 59  Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop, by the Divisions of the People, that they were like to have shaken the Emperor's Kindness to the Christians. For, such a flame was kindled by it, that he saith, it was near destroying both the Church and the City: and they had certainly drawn Swords, if the Providence of God, and fear of the Emperor had not restrained them. Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet: and after much trouble to the Emperor and many meetings of Bishops, 
Greg. Naz. Orat. 19  at last Eustathius was chosen. Greg. Nazianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop, saying it came to a dangerous sedition, and not easy to be suppressed: and he saith, the City was very prone to it, on such occasions. And although there was one Person of incomparable worth above the rest, yet through the Parties and Factions that were made, it was a hard matter to carry it for him. He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections, that he wishes them altered; and the Elections brought to the Clergy; and he thinks no Commonwealth so disorderly as this method of Election was. 
Evagr. l. 2. c. 5.  Evagrius saith, the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable, upon the division of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius; the People rising against the Magistrates and Soldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order: and at last they murdered Proterius. Such dangerous Seditions are described at Constantinople, upon the Election of Paulus and Macedonius, by Sozomen; and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius, 
Socr. l. 4. c. 14.  and after the death of Atticus by Socrates; 
Soz. l. 3. c. 5.  and after the deprivation of Nestorius. 
Socr. l. 7. c. 26, 35.  And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius; and about the Election of Flavianus; at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom, at Verselles by Saint Ambrose; 
Ambros. Ep. 82.  at Milan by Socrates, and many other places. 
Socr. l. 4. c. 30.  I shall only add a remarkable one at Rome on the choice of Damasus: which came to bloodshed for several days; 
Soz. l. 4. c. 28.  and is particularly related by Ammianus Marcellinus; 
Socr. l. 5. c. 9 l. 6. c. 11.  and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum. Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the People's consenting Power, 
Amm. Marc. l. 27.  and so there are in all humane affairs. 
Answ. p. 15.  But are these tolerable inconveniencies? Is this Power still to be pleaded for, in opposition to Laws, as though Religion lay at stake; and only Magistrates were bad men, and the People always good and wise and virtuous? A man must have great spite against Men in Power, and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wicked, debauched, and enemies to Piety, and at the same time dissemble, and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People; besides their Ignorance and incapacity of judging in such matters, and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreasonable contentions on such occasions. 
De Sacerd. l. 3.  But Saint Chrysostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases. 
Hieron. adversus jovin. in Ezek. c. 33.  Saint Hierom saith, they are apt to choose men like themselves: and saith elsewhere, they are much to be feared whom the People choose. 
Orig in Num. hom. 22.  Origen saith, the People are often moved either for favour or reward.  
(3.) That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People, and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections. 
Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr.  In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters; as Saint jerom and others show. For by the Constitution of that Church, before the alteration made by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria was not only to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters, but by them. So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarches, 
Ecc●ellens. de Orig. Eccl. Alex. c. 6.  saith, that after the death of their Patriarch, the Presbyters met together and prayed, and proceeded to election; and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop, and to the other Bishops to consecrate him. To which the Bishops assented, only saying, if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose, but not otherwise. Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church; and saith it continued to the time of the Nicene Council: 
Ambros. Comment. in 4 Eph.  and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith, the custom was altered, by a Council among themselves, which determined that they might choose the most deserving person, whether of that Body or not. And there could be no room for popular elections, wherever that Custom obtained, which the Counterfeit Ambrose speaks of, ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet; speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding. But if this be only a particular conceit of that Author, yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches without any mention of choice made by the People. So, when Narcissus retired from jerusalem, 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 10.  Eusebius saith, the neighbour Bishops assembled, and consecrated one Dius in his room; 
c. 11.  and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius, in whose time Narcissus returned: but being grown very old, Alexander was brought in to assist him, by Revelation, and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren. Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successor, and acquainted the Clergy with it, but not the People; great disturbance was feared hereupon; the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them, 
Aug. ep. 110.  and to settle their new Bishop; who went, and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly. S. Augustin himself declares, the sad effects he had often seen of the Church's Election of Bishops, through the ambition of some, and the contention of others, and therefore he desired to prevent any such disturbance in his City, when he was dead. And for that reason, he acquainted the People that he designed Eradius, or as some Copies have it, Eraclius for his Successor. So Paulus the Novation Bishop at Constantinople, 
Socr. l. 8. c. 46.  appointed his Successor Marcianus to prevent the contentions that might happen after his death; and got his Presbyters to consent to it.  
The Greek Canonists are of opinion, that the Council of Nice took away all power of election of Bishops from the People, 
Concil. N●cen. c. 4.  and gave it to the Bishops of the Province. And it is apparent from the Council of Antioch, 
Concil. Antioch. c. 18.  that Bishops were sometimes consecrated in the East, without the consent of the People; for it doth suppose a Bishop after consecration may not be received by his People, which were a vain supposition if their election necessarily went before it. And withal, it puts the case of a Bishop that refused to go to his People after consecration; 
c. 17.  which shows, that the consecration was not then performed in his own Church. Gregory subscribed at Antioch as Bishop of Alexandria, 
Socr. l. 2. c. 10.  before ever he went thither. So Saint Basil mentions his consecration of Euphronius to be Bishop of Nicopolis, without any consent of the People before; it being then performed by the Metropolitan in his own See; 
Basil. Ep. 194.  but he persuades the Senate and People to accept of him. If the People did agree upon a Person to be Bishop, their way then was, to petition the Metropolitan and his Synod, who had the full Power either to allow or to refuse him. And it is evident from the twelfth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, that although all the People chose a Bishop, if he intruded himself into the possession of his See without the consent of a Provincial Synod, he was to be turned out or rejected by them. Which shows how much the business of elections was brought into the Bishop's Power in the Eastern parts. And by virtue of this Canon, Bassianus and Stephanus were rejected in the Council of Chalcedon. 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 11.  By the Law of justinian, the common People were excluded from elections of Bishops; 
Novel. Justin. 123, 137.  and the Clergy and better sort of Citizens were to nominate three to the Metropolitan; out of which he was to choose one. 
C. de Episc. lex. 42.  By the Canon of Laodicea▪ the common People were excluded from the Power of choosing any into the Clergy: 
Can. Laod. c. 13.  For they were wont to raise tumults upon such occasions; 
Aug. Ep. 225.  such as Saint Augustin describes in the case of Pinianus; but some of the Greek and Latin Canonists enlarge the sense of the Laodicean Canon to the election of Bishops too. The second Council of Nice restrained the election only to Bishop; 
Conc. Nic. 2. c. 3.  which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church; 
Concil. 8. c. 28.  as Can. 28. Concil. Constantinopol. against Photius; and the People are there excluded with an Anathema. So far were popular Elections grown out of request in the Eastern Church.  
(4.) That when there were Christian Magistrates, they did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient. 
Soz. l. 2. c. 19  So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch, when there was great dissension there, upon the deposition of Eustathius, he recommended to the Synod Euphronius of Cappadocia, and Georgius of Arethusa, or whom they should judge fit, without taking any notice of the interest of the People: and they accordingly consecrated Euphronius. After the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, 
Socr. l. 2. c. 6, 7.  the People fell into Parties, some were for Paulus, and others for Macedonius; the Emperor Constantius coming thither puts them both by, and appoints Eusebius of Nicomedia to be Bishop there. 
c. 13.  Eusebius being dead, the Orthodox Party again choose Paulus, Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force: 
c. 16.  and was very angry with Macedonius for being made Bishop without his leave; although afterwards he placed him in his throne. 
c. 23.  When Athanasius was restored, Constantius declared, it was by the decree of the Synod, and by his consent. And he by his Authority restored likewise Paulus and Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius to their several Sees. 
Soz. l. 7. c. 7.  When Gregory Nazianzen resigned the Bishopric of Constantinople, Theodosius commended to the Bishops the care of finding out a Person, who recommending many to him, the Emperor himself pitched upon Nectarius, 
l. 8. c. 2.  and would have him made Bishop, though many of the Bishops opposed it. When Chrysostom was chosen at Constantinople, 
Socr. l. 7. c. 29.  the royal assent was given by Arcadius, the election being made, saith Sozomen, by the People and Clergy; but Palladius gives a more particular account of it, 
Pallad. Vit. Chrys. p. 42.  viz. That upon the death of Nectarius many Competitors appeared, some making their application to the Court, and oaths to the People; in so much that the People began to be tumultuous, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Palladius) upon which they importuned the Emperor to provide a fit man for them. Eutropius being then chief Minister of State, recommended Chrysostom to the Emperor, and immediately an express was sent to the Comes Orientis, that he should with all privacy, for fear of a tumult at Antioch, send him away to Constantinople: whither being brought, he was soon after consecrated Bishop. So that here was no antecedent election of the People, as Sozomen saith, but whatever there was, was subsequent to the Emperor's determination. After the death of Sisinnius, the Emperor declared, That to prevent disturbance they would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen Bishop there; 
So●r. l. 7. c. 40.  and so Nestorius was brought from Antioch. Maximianus being dead he gave order that Proclus should be made Bishop, before the others body was buried. These instances are sufficient to show, that Christian Princes did from the first think fit, when just occasion was given, to make use of their Authority in this matter.  
(5.) Upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than before. For upon the endowment of Churches by the great liberality of the Northern Princes, it was thought at first very reasonable, that the Royal assent should be obtained, though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People: which at first depended only on tacit consent; but after the solemn Assemblies of the People came to be much used, these privileges of Princes came not only to be confirmed by the Consent of the People, 
Concil. Aurelian. A. D. 549.  but to be enlarged. 
V. Concil. Tarracon.  For, the Princes obtained by degrees not only the confirmation of the elected, but the liberty of nomination; 
A. D. 599. Can. 3.  with a shadow of election by the Clergy and others of the Court; 
Concil. Tolet. 12. c. 6. & ibi Loaisam.  as appears by the Formulae of Marculphus. This way was not always observed in France where frequently according to the Edict of Clotharius, 
Grati. Dist. 63.  the Clergy and People chose, the Metropolitan consecrated, and the Prince gave his Royal assent: 
Concil. Vernense Can. 2.  but in doubtful or difficult cases, he made use of his Prerogative, and nominated the Person, 
Sirmond. Append. ad To. 2. Concil. Gall.  and appointed the Consecration. Afterwards, there arose great contests between the Papal and Royal Power; which continued for several Ages; and at last among us, 
Lup. ferrarians.  the royal Power overthrowing the other, 
Ep. 81, 98, 99  reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops, 
V. Grotii Piet. p. 91.  as part of the Prerogative; which being allowed in frequent Parliaments, the Consent of the People is swallowed up therein: since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation. For not only the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares, The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King; but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared, That the Right of disposing Bishoprics was in the King by Right of Patronage, derived from his Ancestors before the freedom of elections was granted. Which shows not only the great Antiquity of this Right, but the consent of the whole Nation to it. And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said, 
Walsingh. in Edw. 3. p. 161.  That the King did dispose of them, jure suo Regio, by his Royal Prerogative; as his Ancestors had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here. This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People, than here in England; and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here. As to the inferior Right of Patronage; it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness. For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches, where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters, as in a College together; a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them. For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Country Presbyters, c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures, and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice. In the time of the first Council of Orange, A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches, c. 10. viz. If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese, yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him. And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles, c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperor Zeno. 
C. si quis 15. Cod de Sacros. Eccles.  A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established, upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches. This Constitution was confirmed by justinian, 
Nou. 57  A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk: 
Nou. 123. c. 18.  And the same were settled in the Western Church; as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo, about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage, and the endowments of Churches, till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs, and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented, 
Matt. Paris ad A. 1239.  and to give institution to the Benefice. The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX. plead, That their Ancestors had the Right of Patronage, from the first planting of Christianity here. For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built, and at whose cost and charges they were erected, and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed, thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves. 
Joh. Saris●. Ep. 6. & 119.  And this joh. Sarisburiensis saith, was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom. So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration; and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us. And the only Questions now remaining are, whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons, who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their own Pastors? and supposing, that it might be done, whether it be reasonable so to do? And I conclude, that,  
6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections: (1.) because it was no unalterable Right, but might be passed away; and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations, and (2.) because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings, but may be remedied by Laws; far easier, than those which will follow upon the People's taking this Power to themselves, which cannot be done in a divided Nation, without throwing all into remediless confusion. (3.) Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence. Beza declaims against it, 
Epist. 83.  as a thing without any ground in Scripture, or any right in Antiquity, and subject to infinite disorders. In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King: and so are the Bishops in Denmark; In other Lutheran Churches, the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates: 
Rittershus. ad Novel. p. 1. c. 7. n. 36, 37.  and in these the Patrons present before Ordination. The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage, Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers; at Geneva by the Council of State, which hath Power to depose them. And it would be very strange, if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should only be discovered here; where it is as unfit to be practised, as in any part of the Christian world.  
But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter; 
Treatise of Episcop. p. 2. p 123.  for when the objection is put by him, That the People chose the Parliament who make the Laws which give the Patron's Power, and therefore they now consent; he saith, this seemeth a jest; for, he saith, 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power. 2. They never consented that Parliaments should do what they list, and dispose of their Souls, or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls. 3. They may as well say, that they consent to be baptised and to receive the Sacraments because the Parliament consented to it. 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting. 5. The obligation on the People was Personal, and they have not God's consent for the transmutation.  
So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine, all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves; and all Rights of Advowson in the King, or Noblemen and Gentlemen, or Universities are mere Usurpations, and things utterly unlawful among Christians, since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastors to lie on the People, that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny, that the freedom of Public Churches and the endowments of them, do lie within the Magistrate's Power, and so binding Laws may be made about them; unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives. And if these may be justly settled by Laws, than the Rights of Patronage are as just and legal Rights as men have to their Estates; and consequently every Minister duly presented hath a legal Title to the Temple and Tithes, as Mr. B. calls them. But this doth not, saith he, make a Minister for their Souls, and the Parliament cannot dispose of their Souls. The meaning of all which is, if the People be humoursome and factious, they may run after whom they please, and set up what Minister they please, in opposition to Laws. And so for instance, suppose a Parish be divided in their Opinions about Religion, (as we know too many are at this day) all these several parties, viz. Anabaptists, Quakers, yea and Papists too, as well as others, will put in for an equal share in what concerns the care of their Souls, and consequently, may choose a several Pastor to themselves, and leave the Incumbent the bare possession of the Temple and Tithes. But if there be no other objection, this may be thought sufficient, that he was none of their choosing, being imposed upon them by others, who could not dispose of their Souls. By which means, this pretence of taking care for their Souls, will be made use of, to justify the greatest disorder and confusion, which can happen in a Church. For, let the Person be never so worthy in himself, the People are still to have their liberty of choosing for themselves. And who are these People? Must all have equal Votes? then according to Mr. B.'s opinion of our Churches, the worst will be soon chosen; for why should we not think the worst People will choose their like as well as the worst Patrons, and the worst Bishops? But if the Profane must be excluded, by what Law? Is it because they have no right to the Ordinances? But have they no right to their own Souls and to the care of them? therefore they are equally concerned with others. Yet let us suppose all these excluded, as no competent judges; shall all the rest be excluded too, who are incompetent judges? then I am afraid, there will not be many left. And whatever they pretend, the People wher● they do choose, do trust other men's Judgements, as well as where the Patrons present; and to prevent popular tumults, such elections are generally brought by a kind of devolution to a few Persons who are entrusted to choose for the rest. But if all the People were left to choose their own Pastors, it is not to be imagined, what parties and factions, what mutual hatreds, and perpetual animosities, they would naturally fall into on such occasions. Do we not daily see such things to be the fruits of popular elections, where men are concerned for the strength and reputation of their Party? What envying and strife, what evil speaking and backbiting, what tumults and disorders, what unchristian behaviour in general, of men to each other, do commonly accompany such elections? Which being the natural effects of men's passions stirred up by such occasions, and there being so much experience of it in all Ages of the Christian Church, where such things have been; I am as certain, that Christ never gave the People such an unalterable Right of choosing their own Ministers, as I am, that he designed to have the peace and unity of the Church preserved. And of all Persons, I do the most wonder at him, who pretends to discover the Only way of unity and concord among Christians, that he should so much, so frequently, so earnestly insist upon this; which if it be not the only, is one of the most effectual ways to perpetuate disorder and confusion in a broken and divided Church. And so much for the Plea for Separation, taken from the People's Rights to choose their own Ministers.   

Sect. 26. Having thus dispatched all the Pleas for Separation, which relate to the Constitution of our Church, I come to those which concern the Terms of Communion with us; wh●● are said to be unlawful.  
One of the chief Pleas alleged for Separation, by Dr. O. and Mr. A. is, 
Mischief of Impositi●ns, p. 41.  that many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men, which are not according to the mind of Christ. These are very general words; but Dr. O. reckons up the particulars, which (setting aside those already considered) are, the use of the Aëreal sign of the Cross, 
Vindic. of Non-conf. p. 13.  kneeling at the Communion, the Religious observation of holidays; and the constant use of the Liturgy in all the public Offices of the Church. As to this last, I shall say nothing, it being lately so very well defended by a learned Divine of our Church. 
Dr. Falkner's Vindication of Liturgies, 1680.  To the other, Mr. B. adds, the use of Godfathers and Godmothers; and now I am to examine what weight there is in these things, to make men seriously think Communion with our Church unlawful.  
When I found our Church thus charged with prescribing unlawful terms of Communion, I expected a particular and distinct proof of such a charge, because the main weight of the Cause depended upon it. And this is the method we use in dealing with the Church of Rome. We do not run upon general charges of unscriptural Impositions, and things imposed on men's Consciences against the mind of Christ; but we close with them upon the particulars of the charge, as Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the Host, and we offer to prove by plain Scripture, that these are forbidden and therefore unlawful. But I find no such method taken or pursued by our Brethren; only we are told over and over, that they judge, they think, they esteem them unlawful; and they cannot be satisfied about them; but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful I find none; which makes the whole charge look very suspiciously. For men do not use to remain in generals, when they have any assurance of the Goodness of their Cause. Yet, to let the Reader see that I decline nothing that looks like argument in this matter, I shall pick up every thing I can find, which seems to prove these terms of our Communion to be unlawful, or to justify their Separation.  
In the Epistle before my Sermon I had used this Argument against the present Separation, that if it be lawful to separate on a pretence of greater purity, where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship, as is acknowledged in our Case; then a bare difference of opinion, as to some circumstantials of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches; which, considering the great variety of men's fancies about these matters, is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches, without any possible stop to further Separation.  
This Argument others were willing to pass over, but Mr. A. in his Preface, undertakes to answer it in all the parts of it; which being so material to our business, I shall now distinctly consider: and like an able Disputant he allows nothing at all in this Argument; for he denies the Supposition, viz. that there is any such agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship; he denies the first consequence; and as though that were not sufficient, he denies the remoter consequence too. And what Argument can stand before a man of such prowess in disputing?  
1. He denies an Agreement in Doctrine, which I have already showed was allowed by all Dissenters before him, from the days of R. Brown to Mr. A. But we must not mistake him, for as fierce as he seems to be at first, yet let him but have scope to show some tricks of Wit, and trials of his skill in fencing; and he is as tame and yielding as you would wish him; for at last he confesses they generally agree with the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles; and but for mere shame, he would have said all; for I never heard of one before him made any scruple of it. And this is the Doctrine established in this Church; and if there be an Agreement in this, than this Supposition is granted.  
2. As to substantial parts of Worship; he denies an Agreement in this too: 
Vindication, p. 22.  although Dr. O. saith, we are agreed in the substantial parts of Religion; and I hope the parts of Worship are allowed to be some of them. But he pretends not to know what we mean by the difference between the parts of Worship, making some substantial, and others circumstantial; and then he offers to prove that our Church appoints new substantial parts of Worship, and therefore he must know one from the other; and after he hath spent some leaves in the proof of that, at last he fairly concludes, that there is a difference at least in a circumstantial part of Worship.  
But because this is a weighty charge against our Church, I shall take the more pains to consider it, because the main objection against our Ceremonies lies under it, and that which most sticks with the more sober Nonconformists.  
Mr. A. 's charge about a substantial part of Worship being appointed by our Church, is thus drawn up. An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace, whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of, and subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. Now this he chargeth our Church with, but gives no instance; but the sign of the Cross after baptism, 
Answ. p. 49.  is that which he means: which Mr. B. calls the transient dedicating Image of the Cross. For the clearing of this, it will be necessary to show,  
1. What we mean by a substantial part of Worship.  
2. How it appears that the sign of the Cross is made no substantial part of Worship by our Church.  
1. What we mean●●y a substantial part of divine Worship. For I have observed, that the want of a clear and distinct notion of this, hath been one of the greatest occasions of the Scruples of the most conscientious Non-conformists. For being afraid of displeasing God, by using any other parts of Worship, than himself hath appointed; and looking on our Ceremonies, as real parts of divine Worship, upon this reason they have thought themselves obliged in conscience, at least to forbear the use of them. The great principle they went upon was this, that whatever 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 necessary to make a part of Worship; their answer was, that Divine Institution did not make that a part of Worship which was none, but that to be a part of true Worship, which otherwise would be a part of false Worship. In the mean time, they did not deny the lawfulness of the application of common circumstances to Acts of Religious Worship, as Time and Place, etc. but the annexing any other Rites, or Ceremonies to proper Acts of Religious Worship (as the sign of the Cross to Baptism) they supposed to be the making new substantial parts of Divine Worship; and therefore forbidden by all those places of Scripture, which imply the Scripture itself to be a perfect Rule of Worship. This as far as I can gather is the strongest Plea of the Non-conformists side, which I have represented with its full advantage, because my design is, if possible, not so much to confute, as to convince our Dissenting Brethren.  
Let us then seriously consider this matter, and if we can find out a plain discernible difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and mere accidental appendices, this discovery may tend more to disentangle scrupulous minds, than the multiplying of arguments to prove the lawfulness of our Ceremonies. And that we may better understand where the difficulty lies, these following things are agreed on both sides.  
1. That besides proper Acts of Worship there are some Circumstances which may be differently used, without setting up new parts of Worship. As for instance, Adoration is a substantial and proper Act of Divine Worship; but whether that Adoration be performed by prostration, or by bowing, or by kneeling, is in itself indifferent; and no man will say, that he that makes his adoration kneeling makes another new part of Worship, from what he doth who performs it standing or falling on his face. And so, if the Ancient Eastern Church did at certain times forbid kneeling in acts of Adoration; this doth not prove that they differed in point of Adoration from the Western Church which requires kneeling in the same Offices of Divine Worship; because they agreed in the act of Adoration, but only differed in the manner of expressing it.  
2. That Divine Institution makes those to be necessary parts of Worship which of themselves are not so. As is plain in the Sacraments of the New Testament; which of themselves are no necessary substantial parts of the worship of God; but only become so, by being appointed by Christ. So under the Law, many things merely ritual and ceremonial in themselves, yet by virtue of Divine appointment became substantial parts of Divine Worship.  
3. That for men to make new Parts of Divine Worship is unlawful. For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship; and that Superstition is no fault; and consequently that our Saviour, without cause, found fault with the Scribes and Pharisees for their Traditions.  
4. That there are many things which may be done in the Worship of God; which are not forbidden to be done unless they be Parts of Divine Worship. For, if the supposed reason of their prohibition, be their being made Parts of Divine Worship, if it be made appear, that they are not so, than it follows they are not forbidden.  
5. That what is neither forbidden directly, nor by consequence is lawful and may be practised in the Worship of God. For although Mr. A. quarrels with me, for saying, they require express Commands to make things lawful in the Worship of God; 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 29.  yet he allows, that what is not required either directly or by consequence is unlawful; and by parity of Reason, what is not forbidden in the same manner must be lawful.   

Sect. 27. It remains now to find out those certain notes and marks of distinction in this matter, as may give satisfaction to the consciences of men, in the difference between innocent Ceremonies, and superstitious parts of Divine Worship. For the difference here doth not lie in supposing some things of Divine Institution which are not, but in making those to be parts of Divine Worship which are not. And that may be done these ways.  
1. By supposing them to be so necessary, that the doing them would be a thing pleasing to God, and the omitting of them would be a thing displeasing to God, although there were no humane Law which required the doing of them. For, where there is no obligation by virtue of any humane Law and yet men suppose they should please God by doing, or displease God by not observing some particular Ceremonies; it is a sign they esteem those to be parts of Divine Worship. And this was the case of the Scribes and Pharisees whom our Saviour reproved, not so much for their frequent washings, as for supposing that a man's Conscience was defiled, 
Matt. 15. 11. 19, 20.  if he did not observe them. For they had taken up an opinion among them, (as H. Grotius observes) that any thing that was touched by a Person unclean by the Law, did communicate an uncleanness first to their Bodies, and then to their Souls; but that this ceremonial washing did purify both Body and Soul: upon which supposition, they concluded this washing so necessary a part of God's Worship, that the doing of it was a thing very pleasing to God, and the omission of it must be displeasing to him, because it left an inward defilement upon their Consciences, which might have been removed by the use of it. But it is lately pleaded by Mr. A. that this washing of hands among the jews condemned by our Saviour, 
Exercit. on Matt. 15. 1, 9  was just of the nature of our Ceremonies, being only observed as a command of their Superiors not repugnant to the Law of God, 
p. 23, 25.  but rather more agreeable to it than our Ceremonies are: from whence he infers, that all Traditions, 
p. 28.  Canons, Injunctions, concerning unnecessary things are contrary to the Law of God, and consequently invalid and not obligatory. But I say, the Reason of our Saviour's opposing the Pharisees about this matter, was not because a thing in itself unnecessary, was determined by their Superiors, but because of the superstitious opinion which the Pharisees had concerning this washing with respect to the Consciences of men. And that I shall prove 1. From the force of our Saviour's reasoning. 2. From the general sense of the jews concerning it.  
1. From the force of our Saviour's reasoning: which will appear, by observing what He proves, viz. that they set up their Tradition above the Law. v. 3. Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God by your Tradition? and v. 6. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition. v. 9 Full well ye reject the Commandment of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition. Our Saviour here proves by a plain and undeniable Instance about the Vow Corban, that they did believe their Traditions to have a force superior to the Law; else it were impossible they should suppose such an arbitrary Vow should supersede the obligation of the Law, as to the duty which Children owe to their Parents; but from hence it appeared that they believed the keeping of this Vow to be a thing more pleasing to God, than relieving their Parents, and so they esteemed it a more necessary and substantial part of Divine Worship. The force of his Argument then extends to all things which they looked on as things pleasing to God, on the account of the Tradition of their Elders; for he argued against the main supposition, the truth of which he proves by a clear instance, where the Tradition did contradict the Law. And since by this, it appeared, that they thought their Tradition to overrule the Law, it was no wonder they set up others equal to it; and thought men's consciences strictly obliged to observe them. But how doth the argument reach to the present case, viz. Because that when their Traditions contradicted the Law, they were not to be observed; therefore, not, when agreeable; unless he rejected all kind of Traditions? I answer, the Pharisees did think a man's Conscience defiled if he did not observe that Tradition, as appears by what follows, when he taught the People upon this occasion, v. 11. That which entereth into the mouth defileth not a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth defileth a man. This was the Doctrine Christ taught the People with respect to this dispute with the Pharisees: which signified nothing, unless the opinion among them was, that eating of bread with unwashen hands, did really defile a man's Conscience towards God. At which the Pharisees were much offended, as the Disciples told him, v. 12. and they were not so very well satisfied, but they desire a further explication of this matter from himself; which he gives them, v. 17, 18, 19 where he shows that no defilement could come to men's Consciences merely by what they did eat; but that men's inward lusts were the things which defiled them, for these were the source of those wicked actions, which were most displeasing to God. And so he concludes his Discourse, v. 20. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. From whence it follows, that the main thing in dispute was, whether this Ceremony of washing hands could be omitted, without defiling the conscience? or else our Saviour's conclusion doth not reach the Question. But if the conclusion was contrary to the Pharisees Doctrine, than they must look upon this Ceremony of washing of hands, as a part of Worship equal to the Law of God, and which men pleased God by doing, and displeased him by omitting it; not merely with respect to the command of Superiors, but as they supposed some lesser guilt upon the Conscience might be expiated by it, which would remain, if they did not use it.  
2. From the general sense of the jews. Even Mr. A. himself, in the very same discourse, where he would make this washing of hands like our Ceremonies, quotes several passages of the Talmudists, 
p. 17.  to prove that they equalled their Traditions with the Laws of God; and sometimes set them above them; and particularly of this Tradition he saith, It is a saying of the Talmud, that he that eats bread with unwashen hands, sins as grievously as if he lay with a Whore. Which is a saying of R. Ascanio in Sota; 
E●ce. pta G●mar. c. 1. ● 6.  and abundantly proves, that this was not looked on as an indifferent Ceremony, but as a thing, whose omission brought a guilt on the Conscience. And I wonder Mr. A. did not discern, that by this one saying, he overthrew all the rest of his discourse: but this opinion is not built on the saying of any Rabbi, but on a constant Tradition among them, which they derive from the days of Solomon; who, they say, appointed it first, when they did eat of Sacrifices; afterwards, the wise men applied it to the Terumah, and at last Hillel and Schammai decreed it ought to be observed for their greater purification, before the eating their common Meals. And the Pharisees placing the greatest part of their Religion in the nice observance of such Traditions, thought themselves so much more holy than others, as they did more carefully avoid the defilements of common Conversation; and for that reason they observed this washing especially when they had been in promiscuous company. 
Ma●k 7. 4.  For they thought themselves defiled by any touch from the ordinary sort of People; and this, Maimonides saith, They looked on, as a peculiar part of Sanctity; and the more strict and punctual they were in this, the more holy they were accounted. Therefore in the Talmud one john the Son of Gudged is particularly admired for his Sanctity, 
Chagiga c. 2. § ult.  because he exceeded others in the niceness of washing his hands. And they have a saying in the Misna to this purpose, The Garments of the common People, are a pollution to the Pharisees, the Garments of the Pharisees to those that eat the Terumah, and theirs to those that eat of the Sacrifices, and theirs to those that touched the water of cleansing. So that they had different degrees of Sanctity about this matter of washing, none of which was imposed for the sake of cleanliness, but from the supposition of some inward purification they obtained by it, from the common filthiness of the world. And upon this principle, even the vessels of the Temple were to be washed all over, if they were but touched by the common People. In the washing their hands, they put a difference between that before, and that after meat; the latter they accounted a matter of liberty, or at least only for health to wash off the dangerous saline particles which they supposed to remain; but the former was required for inward purification; which they require so strictly, that if water may be had within four miles, a jew is bound not to eat till he hath washed, no not with a fork; and in case none can be had, than he is to cover his hands and so eat; nor can he take meat from another in his mouth, until his mouth be first washed. If there be no more water than will serve for his drink, he must part with enough of it to wash his hands; 
Erub i● f. 21.  and therefore R. Akiba in prison said, He would rather perish with thirst than want water to wash his hands. And they say, Whosoever disesteems this Custom, deserves not only excommunication but death too. Since all this is evident from the most authentic Writers among the jews, I cannot but admire at Mr. A.'s design, who would make the world believe, that this was no more than an indifferent Ceremony among the jews, that was only required for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are, when those very citations he brings from Buxtorf and Dr. Lightfoot do manifestly prove the contrary. This I thought necessary to be cleared, because this is the chief place in the New Testament which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies.  
From hence it now appears that the reason of Christ's condemning that Ceremony of washing of hands, was not upon the account of Decency, but a superstitious Opinion they had concerning it, that it did expiate a lesser kind of guilt and spiritual filthiness which they contracted by the impure touches of men less holy than themselves. And this the Pharisees more wondered at in Christ's Disciples, because it was a Rule among them, that the Disciples of the Wise aught to be more strict in these cases than others, because these things tended to advance the reputation of their holiness, among the People. And where such an opinion prevails, there such Ceremonies are made parts of Divine Worship.   

Sect. 28. And thus it is in many of the Ceremonies of the Roman Church, 
Bellarm. de effectu Sacra. l. 2. c. 31. Sect. tertia.  which their Divines assert to have a purifying and cleansing faculty as to the Souls of men; not for justification of men from mortal sins, but for other spiritual effects, and taking away the guilt of venial sins. For say they, no doubt they are effectual for the ends to which the Church appointed them, and of this, there is no dispute among Catholics. And withal, they add, That it is probable that the Church hath power to appoint Ceremonies in such a manner, that they may produce these effects, ex opere operato, as the Sacraments do justification, because Christ hath left it in the power of the Church to apply his merits for lesser effects, having appointed the Sacraments himself for the greater. But Bellarmin thinks this latter part disputable concerning the opus operatum of Ceremonies; but as to the former, viz. by way of impetration, he saith, it is passed all doubt among Catholics. So, as to the sprinkling of Holy Water, 
Bell. de cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. § Nota.  Bellarmin saith, it is no mere significant Ceremony; but it is effectual for the blotting out of venial sins; and he quotes Saint Thomas, and Dom. à Soto, and Gratian for it; who produceth the Canon of Alex. 1. whereby it appears it was first instituted ut eâ cuncti aspersi sanctificentur & purificentur; that all that were sprinkled might be sanctified and purified by it. 
Benedict. Salis ad aquam lustral. Pastoral. de Sacr. Bap.  In the prayer of Consecration for the Salt to make holy Water, one expression is, that it might be wholesome both to Body and Soul; 
Azor. Instit. Moral. l. 4. c. 11.  and the Water is consecrated to drive away the power of the Devil. Azorius saith, that holy Water cleanseth venial sins, 
Greg. de Valent. To. 4. disp. 7. q. 4. puncto 1.  ex opere operato, and drives away Devils. Greg. de Valentia agrees in the thing, but is not so peremptory in the manner. But Marsilius Columna hath written a whole Book of the admirable effects of this Ceremony. 
Marsil. Columnae Hydragiologia. Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 30.  And so for the sign of the Cross, Bellarmin attributes wonderful effects to it, for driving away Devils and Diseases, and sanctifying the things it is applied to: 
Thyrae. de locis infested. p. 3. c. 68  and he saith, it hath power against the Devil ex opere operato. Pet. Thyraeus the jesuit, attributes a proper efficiency to the sign of the Cross against the power of the Devil. 
Thesaur. Cathol. To. 1. l. 2. art. 9  Coccius saith it is a terror to the Devils, and very beneficial to mankind. Which makes me wonder at Dr. Ames his disingenuity, when he would go about to make the Doctrine of our Church about Ceremonies not to differ from that of the Church of Rome. 
Fresh Suit against Cerem. p. 70. p. 427. Cassand. Consult. art. 7. & 9  It is true, Cassander and some few others, talk at another rate; and Cassander himself saith, the best men on both sides were agreed about these matters. But we are not to take their general sense from such as Cassander; especially when their public Offices speak the sense of their Church better than Cassander. Greg. de Valentiâ indeed, 
To. 4. disp. 3. q. 1. p. 4.  saith, it is a lie that they attribute as much to Ceremonies as to Sacraments: and in truth they do it not; for they attribute justification to the Sacraments, and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies. However, since they attribute so spiritual effects to them; it is an argument they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship, as much as they do on Prayer, with which they compare them in point of efficacy. But with what face can this be objected against our Church; which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy, as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us; and declares that they are no otherwise received in our Church, 
Preface to the Common-Prayer. Can. 30.  than as they are purged from Popish Superstition and Error. And therefore all opinion of merit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them; which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship; which being removed, they remain only naked Ceremonies, i. e. as Cassander well expresses it, Words made visible, or teaching Actions; whose design and intention being towards us, and not towards God, they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship, although they be used in the performance of them. As if the Christians in the East did wear the b●dge of a Cross upon their Arms, at some solemn days, as on good Friday at their devotions, to distinguish them from Turks and jews; would any one say, that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship? But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix, they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Worship. So that the distinction between these two, is not so hard to find, if men apply their minds to the consideration of it.  
2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable, and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians: for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution. If men do assert so great a Power in the Church, as to appoint things for spiritual effects, and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them; it is all one as to say, the Church may make new parts of Worship. But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as expressly as it is possible, 
Preface to Common Prayer.  that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein, as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable; and that changes and alterations may be made, as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority; And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies; 
〈…〉  and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremony any parts of Divine Worship than these things d● And thus I have at once showed, what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship, and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so.   

Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examine the charge against our Church. For Mr. A. saith, An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace, whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. I answer,  
1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another, is no part of Divine Worship at all, much less a substantial part of it. There are some visible signs from God to men, representing the effects of his Grace to us; and those we call Sacraments; there are other signs from men to God, to testify their subjection and dependence, and these are acts of Worship; and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action; and these are significant Ceremonies, such as the Cross in Baptism is. For, after the Child is baptised and received into the Church, the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, etc. To whom is this token made? Is it to God? no certainly. If it were a permanent sign of the Cross, would it be for a Testimony to God, or to Men? When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, was this a dedicating sign to God, or a declarative sign to men? And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer? must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace, as the Sacraments are? It represents the Duty and not the Grace; the Duty is ours and may be represented by us; but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that, because he alone is the Giver of it.  
2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God, but of obligation on the person. It is true, that in the 30 Canon it is said, that this Church retains the sign of the Cross, following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches; and accounteth it a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof, we must consider, That Baptism is declared to be complete before; so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or virtue of it, nor being omitted, takes nothing from it; as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church. This therefore, is no part of the Baptismal Dedication. And the Minister acts in a double capacity, when he doth baptise, and when he signs with the sign of the Cross: when he baptizeth, he acts by virtue of Authority derived from Christ, I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, etc. Which being done, and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism; he than speaks in the name of the Church, varying the number; We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, etc. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number; and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one, do make use of this sign of the Cross, as the Rite of Admission into the Church, and of his obligation to behave himself, as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense, as no doubt it was so intended, 
Plea for Peace, p. 178, 179.  all the difficulties about a Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental Sign, concerning which some have made so great a stir, 
Defence of the Plea, p. 4●.  will soon appear to be of no force. For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism? Let us suppose an adult person to be baptised, and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church; and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant, i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to do among them; the Pastor of the Church than baptises him, and immediately after, upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant, he saith in the name of the Church, we receive thee into this Congregation, and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thyself as a Church-member ought to do among us. What harm is there in all this? And yet is not this a Professing, Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental Sign, as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us? Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent? Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony? Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person? Is it not therefore dedicating, covenanting, and sacramental, as much as the sign of the Cross? Why then should this be scrupled more than the other?  
And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter; 
plea 〈…〉 p. 18.  who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross; and as God's Officer from him, and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross; whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church, as evidently appears by those words, We receive him into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock; and then follows, as the solemn rite of Admission, And do sign him with the sign of the Cross, etc. All public and solemn Admissions into Societies, having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them. And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholic Church; so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England: in which this Ceremony is used, without any prescription to other Churches.   

Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawful, 
Christian Directory.  as a transient, arbitrary, professing sign; 
Ecclesiastical Cases, Q. 113.  yet not as a dedicating sign, and as the common professing symbol of baptised Persons. If it be lawful in the former sense, I cannot understand how it should be unlawful in the latter. Yes, saith he, the instituting of the latter belongs to God only. How doth that appear? Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end. True, but not only for that end; but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men; which none but God himself can do, and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end. And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches, for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution; which is the only possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments; but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament, then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament, because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ; then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament, because it is a professing sign of Reverence; then laying on the hand, and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments, because they are public symbolical Rites. But saith Mr. B. it belongeth only to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects. Yet I hope, every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason. And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body? But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians. And is not every Church-member bound to perform these? That which is peculiar, is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross; and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members, i. e. makes it necessary to none else; and to show it to be only a solemn Rite of Admission, it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism. But saith Mr. B. Christ's Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient, we need not devise more, and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency. If it be lawful, the Church is to judge of the expediency; and not every private person. And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ, by challenging any effect peculiar to them, is no charging them with insufficiency. Well, saith Mr. B. but it is unlawful on another account, viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship, and so forbidden in the Second Commandment. He may as well make it unlawful to use Words in God's Worship, for are not they Images and represent things to our minds, as well as a transient sign of the Cross? Nay, doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawful to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God? as he instanceth in a Crucifix, or historical Image of Christ, or some holy man. If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose, what out-cries of Popery had been made against us? How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry? How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted, to show, that they went no further and desired no more than this? Yet the transient sign of the Cross, without any respect to Worship, is condemned among us, as forbidden by the Second Commandment; and that by the same person and in the same page. But it is used as a medium in God's Worship. Is our Worship directed to it? or, do we kneel before it, as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix? Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God? No; all these are rejected by our Church. How then is it a medium in God's Worship? Why forsooth, it is not a mere circumstance but an outward act of Worship. What, as much as kneeling before a Crucifix? and yet that is lawful according to him, supposing the mind be only excited by it. Suppose then we only use the sign of the Cross to excite men's consideration in the act of Worship; what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground? But our Church allows not so much, only taking it for a lawful outward Ceremony, which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it; how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship? For Mr. B. saith, in the same place, there is a twofold medium in God's Worship. 1. Medium excitans, that raises our minds to Worship God, as a Crucifix, etc. 2. Medium terminans; or as he calls it terminus, in genere causae finalis, a worshipped medium or the terminus, or the thing which we worship mediately, on pretence of representing God, and that we worship him in it ultimately. And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment, viz. to worship a Creature (with mind or body) in the Act of Divine Worship, as representing God, or as the mediate term of our Worship, by which we send it unto God, as if it were more acceptable to him. So that it is lawful, saith he, by the sight of a Crucifix to be provoked to worship God, but it's unlawful to offer him that Worship, by offering it to the Crucifix first, as the sign, way, or means of sending it to God. Observe here a strange piece of partiality. 1. It is allowed to be lawful to pray before a Crucifix, as a medium excitans, as an object that stirs up in us a worshipping affection; and so all those Papists are excused from Idolatry who profess they use a Crucifix for no other end, although they perform all Acts of adoration before it; and it will become a very hard Question whether the mind in its consideration, uniting the Image with the Object may not give the same Acts of Worship to one as to the other, but in different respects. For the Image being allowed to excite the mind to consideration of the object to be worshipped, the object is considered in the mind as represented by the Image, and consequently is so worshipped; and why then may not the worship be as well directed to the Image as representing, as to the Object represented by the Image; provided, that the Act of the mind be still fixed upon the Object as represented by the Image? And thus even Latria may be performed to a Crucifix. Is not this a very fair concession to the Papists? But on the other side, 2. The sign of the Cross, even the aëreal sign, as Dr. O. calls it, must be made a medium in God's Worship, though it be utterly denied by our Church; and there be no colour for it, from his own grounds. For it is neither medium excitans, being not intended by our Church for that purpose, a Crucifix being much fitter for that purpose; and our Church calls it only a lawful ceremony and honourable badge; much less can it be thought to be any mediate object of our Worship, there being nothing like Worship performed towards it. But if all his meaning be, that whatever is used in the time of Worship that is not a mere circumstance must be a medium of Worship, that is so weak a pretence, that I shall consider it no farther.   

Sect. 31. But suppose it be no medium of Worship, 
Defence of the Plea, p. 41.  yet it cannot out of Mr. B. 's Head, but that it must be a new Sacrament; For, saith he, If Christ had instituted the Cross as our Church doth; would you not have called this a Sacrament? And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction, it wanteth indeed a due efficient, but it is still a Human Sacrament though not a Divine, and therefore an unlawful Sacrament. If Christ had instituted it with such promises, as he hath his other Sacraments, no doubt it had been one; but then the use of it had been quite changed, from what it is now. For than its signification had been from God to us; and the Minister had signed in Christ's Name and not in the Churches; and than it had been in token that Christ will not fail of his Promise, if we perform our Conditions. But here it is quite contrary, as hath already appeared.  
There is one thing yet remaining in Mr. B. about this matter to be considered, 
Defence of the Plea, p. 49.  viz. That according to the Rule of our Church, the Cross in Baptism hath a Sacramental efficacy attributed to it; for, saith he, As the Water of Baptism worketh morally, by signifying the washing of Christ's Body; so the Cross is to operate morally, by signifying Christ's Crucifixion, the benefits of his Cross and our Duty. And then he adds, That it is the common Doctrine of Protestants that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically, but only morally; and that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain only such moral Causality in Sacraments. And so by this means he would make the sign of the Cross to have the nature of a Sacrament with us. But that he hath misrepresented or misapplied both the Popish and Protestant Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments to serve his purpose, I shall now make appear,  
1. Concerning the Popish Doctrine; that which overthrows the strength of all that Mr. B. saith is, that it is unanimously agreed among them as a matter of faith, that the Sacraments do confer grace, ex opere operato, where there is no actual impediment; and that it is no less than heresy to assert, that they are bare outward professing signs, i. e. 
Concil. Florent. Decret. Union. Concil. Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 6.  That they are mere Ceremonies. This not one of them, whom I ever saw, either denies, or disputes; and it is expressly determined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent. But then they have a very nice and subtle question among them about the manner how the Sacraments do confer Grace, whether physically or morally. By physically, they mean, when a thing by its own immediate action hath influence on producing the effect; by morally, they mean that which doth effectually concur to the producing the effect, but after another manner, as by persuasion, by entreaty, etc. As he that runs the sword into another's bowels, kills him physically; he that persuades and incourages him effectually to do it, is as really the cause of his death as the other; but then they say, he is but a moral and not a physical cause of the murder. They all agree, that the Sacraments do effectually convey Grace, where there is no obstacle put; but the only question is, about the manner of producing it. And as to this they agree, that the Sacraments do work as moral Causes, not principal but instrumental; the principal they say is the Merit of Christ, the Instrumental the Sacraments as deriving their efficacy from the former; as the Writing from the Seal, and the Seal from the Authority of the Person; or as Money from the Stamp, and the Stamp from the King: but besides this, they question whether there be not a proper efficiency by Divine Power in the Sacraments, to produce at least the character from whence Divine Grace immediately follows. And about this indeed they are divided. Some say, there is no necessity of asserting more than a bare moral Causality; because this is sufficient for the infallible efficacy of the Sacraments, 
Gamachae Sum. Theol. To. 3. qu. 2. c. 5.  sublato obice, as Gamachaeus a late Professor in the Sorbon delivers their Doctrine: and of this opinion, he reckons Bonaventure, Altissidore, Scotus, Durandus, Canus, Ledesma, and many others: and with this he closes, because this is sufficient, and the other is to make Miracles without cause; as long as the effect follows certò, infallibiliter & ex opere operato, as he there speaks. And for the same reason Card. de Lugo yields to it, 
Lu●o de Sacram. disp. 4. Sect. 4. n 32.  although he there saith, that a Sacrament is signum practicum infallibile Gratiae. So that those who do assert only this moral Causality of Sacraments, do not suppose any uncertainty in the effect, any more than the others do, but only differ about the way of producing it. Yet Ysambertus, 
Ysambert. de Sacram. ad. Qu. 62. disp. 4 art. 3.  another late Professor of the Sorbon proves the Doctrine of a Physical efficiency to be much more agreeable to the sense of their Church; and that the argument is of no force against it, because it is so hard to be understood, for than they must quit many other Doctrines besides this. joh. Baptista Gonet, a late learned Thomist not only contends earnestly for this opinion, but saith, The greater part of their Divines assert it, 
Clypeus Theolog. Thomist. To. 5. disp. 3. art. 2. § 1.  and those of greatest reputation, as Ruardus Tapper, Vega, Sayrus, Ysambertus, Suarez, Valentia, Bellarmin, Reginaldus, Moeratius, Ripalda and many more. And Conquetius, he saith, reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament. So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools, and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments, as it is asserted by their Divines, to the significancy of our Ceremonies.  
2. As to the Protestant Doctrines, he represents that in very ambiguous terms; for, he saith, That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically, but only morally. If it be their Doctrine, that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all, which he seems to yield; (and if he did not, might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad, as well as at home) This is sufficient to show that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us; since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace.  
And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing only invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons. There being not the least ground for it, that I can discern; and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds, and have filled them with strange fears and scruples; yea, some who have conquered their prejudices as to other things, have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block; which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way.  
And yet after all, 
Christian Directory Eccles. Cases Q. 49. p. 826.  Mr. B. declares, That if it be a sin, it is the Ministers, and not the Person's who offers the Child to be baptised; and another man's sinful mode will not justify the neglect of our duty. And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it, yet it can be no pretence for Separation.   

Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church, 
Mischief of Imposit. Preface.  for allowing worshipping towards the Altar, the East, and at the sound of the word jesus; which, he saith, are made the Motive of Worship, if not something else. The lawfulness of these things, so far, as they are required by our Church, I had formerly defended against the Papists, and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them; although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used. I had said, that bowing at the name of jesus, was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell, the Worship being not given to the Name, but to Christ at the sound of his Name. Why may not, saith he, an Image give warning to the Eye, when to worship God, as well as a Bell to the Ear? I will tell him, since he needs it, because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being; it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image; it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages; this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists, that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant. But such men do too much discover, whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England. He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs, 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. When I read this, I began to pity the man, being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy. For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church? If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans, he had some reason to have answered him, but I have none. But he brings it home to us; for, saith he, If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship, then how shall we excuse our own adorations? What doth the man mean? I am yet afraid, all things are not right somewhere. We acknowledge no adorations, but what are due to the Divine Majesty; and do these need to be excused? And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images, against our worshipping of God? Let him first prove, that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty, before we shall go about to excuse our adorations. But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship (whoever said they did not? I am sure, not our Church. But let this pass, what follows?) then, saith he, why do we not introduce Images into our Churches? Ask Mr. B. that Question, and not us of the Church of England. If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawful, this were a pertinent Question; but since we deny it, what makes all this against us? which if our Churchmen shall venture upon; I pray stay till they do, before you charge us with it. Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate? But, he saith, they may do it with equal reason. Here is something now fit to be proved. We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason, that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body; or to jesus at the mention of his name. Hold now to this, and prove it. Instead of that, he shows the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell, and bowing at the name of jesus; viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it; but the sound of the word jesus is in the middle of Worship, when men's minds should be intent on devotion, and not sit listening and watching, as Whittington' s Cat watched the Mouse, (there 'tis for you, viz. what he hath laboured for all this while) for the casual starting of a word, and the dropping of two syllables. But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God, which no body contends for, that I know of, but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service, when we hear the name of jesus repeated in the Lessons, or the Creed; and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom, and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly; and although it be said, or otherwise in the Church pronounced, yet by the manner of showing this Reverence, viz. with lowness of courtesy and uncovering of heads of mankind; it supposeth them at that time not to be employed in any other Act of Devotion. And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it; nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word, as though all our Worship consisted in it; but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony, we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times; unless it can be proved unlawful in itself. Which I say, can never be done, as long as the Worship is directed to a true object, viz. the Person of Christ; and the mention of his name, only expresses the time, as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church. Neither doth it signify any thing to this purpose, whether Persons be in the Church or out of it, when the Bell rings; for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell; which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it; and if the Object of their Worship were true, as it is false, that would make him better understand the parallel.  
But, saith he, if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God, when ever the word jesus is mentioned, there is more need of it in our ordinary converses, and the secular affairs of the world; and so, he adds, this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets, at which all are bound to fall down and worship. Now, what a strange piece of crossness is this, to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church, because we do it not at the Marketplace? My business is to defend what our Church requires, if he will allow that, and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation, let him defend his own new invented ways of Reverence; as for us, we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship, and that it is not enough to do what is lawful, unless it be done at its convenient time, but there are some men, who know no mean between doing nothing, and overdoing. But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God, as our Church declares, Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host, when it is carried up and down the streets? At last, he commends the moderation of the Canon, 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar, that they which use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and they who use it not, condemn not those that use it: but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites, as the sign of the Cr●s●, and kneeling at the Lords Supper? It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church. But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church, ever since the Reformation▪ and as to some customs, which although in themselves lawful, yet were never strictly enjoined, but left indifferent. And therefore the moderation used in the Canon, 1640, was very suitable to the principles of our Church; but how doth it follow, that because some things are left at liberty, therefore nothing should be determined; or being determined ought not to be obeyed? It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary (as to practice) than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation; but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled, for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless, I do not take upon me here to determine. But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles 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 then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration. And so those who do not worship the Host, or Images, or use Auricular Confession, must not censure those that do, unless he will say, that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience, as to such things; but if notwithstanding these scruples, our Laws put a just restraint upon them, than the Rule of Forbearance, Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages; and consequently, notwithstanding that, our Church may justly require the observation of some things, though it leaves others undetermined.  
But he saith, these Customs though left indifferent, are still observed among us, and practised by all the leading Churchmen. And what then? are they lawful, or are they not? If not, why are they not proved to be unlawful? And if that were proved, what is all this to the point of Separation, unless they were enjoined to all People, and made terms of Communion; i. e. that persons were not allowed to join in all Acts of Communion with us, unless they did them. However, he thinks this will prove (What, that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship? No, he dares not say that: but what then?) that we differ in more than a circumstance, even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship, yet we must be supposed to be agreed. To convince the Reader, what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath, let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove. I had said, that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship; this he undertakes to disprove, for two or three leaves together, and the conclusion is, that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship, and his consequence must be, therefore we differ in a substantial, or else it is idle and impertinent talk. T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion: but they are to be pitied, they both do as well, as their Cause will bear.  
Yet Mr. A. cannot give over, for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church, although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it. My argument was, If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity, where there is an agreement in doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship, than a bare difference in opinion, as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches. Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent; and the charge he hath brought against our Church, about new substantial parts of Worship; we now come to his denying the Consequence, viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship, yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches. To understand the consequence we must suppose, 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship. 2. A Separation, for greater parity of Worship. And what then can justify this Separation, but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship? Hold, saith he, the consequence is not good, for there are certain middle things, between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances, about which it will be lawful to divide, though otherwise we agree in doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship. So that here a Separation is justified (1.) on the account of such things, which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship, (2.) Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship; and consequently, although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship. For that he charged us with in the Antecedent; and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence, he must grant, that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies, although they be made no parts of worship at all. For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship, they can be none at all; and yet he saith, it is lawful to divide about them. And which is more pleasant, when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things, he doth it by undertaking to show, that they are made substantial parts of Worship. For thus he argues, The Church of England hath exalted these things, i. e. Ceremonies, to a high preferment in worship, to signify the same things with the Sacramental Elements, to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them; and therefore they conclude them sinful. If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful, than they must be either substantial, or circumstantial parts of Worship, and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies, but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship, which I have answered already.   

But after all our arguings about these matters, 
§. 33.  Mr. A. saith, the Controversy stands still, where it did these hundred years, and more: I utterly deny that, for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years, than they did in a hundred years before; as appears by the foregoing discourse. However, they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters, and so long they cannot join with us, and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies; so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation; and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful. This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation, which I shall consider both ways. (1.) As it respects the Church's censures. (2.) As it respects the judgement of Conscience.  
1. As it respects the Church's censures. 
1. Answer to Serm. p. 47, 48.  This Mr. B. often insists upon. The Canons, saith he, excommucate ipso facto, all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful. 
Plea for Peace, p. 232, 233.  If this be unjust, is it separation to be so excommunicated? And who is the Schismatic here? Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you? And if men be wrongfully excommunicate, are they thereby absolved from all public Worshipping of God? or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion? To this I answer, That the Excommunication denounced, is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed, but against those who obstinately affirm it? The words of the Canon are not, as Mr. B. quotes them, If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy, Ceremonies, etc. to be unlawful are excommunicate, ipso facto; 
Ca●. 6.  but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England, established by Law, to be impious, Antichristian, or Superstitious, let him be Excommunicate ipso facto. Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon; for to say, if any man do but affirm, etc. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurs excommunication ipso facto; but when the Canon saith, if any shall affirm, &c, it implies, these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication, viz. that it be done publicly and obstinately: (Both which the word Affirm will bear.) For, as S. Augustin very well saith, 
Aug. 〈◊〉 R●ig. c. ●.  every man's error is born with, until he either finds an accuser, or he obstinately defends his opinion. Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujus●ibet, donec aut accusatorem inveniat, aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat. All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition, according to the Rule, If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen, or a Publican. Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak, do not affect particular persons, until the evidence be notorious, not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joined with it. Besides, such excommunications which are de jure & latae sententiae, are rather to be looked on, as Comminations, than as formal excommunications. 
〈…〉  For Gerson putting the question, what the effect of such excommunications is? he answers, that it is no more than this, that there needs no new judicial process, but upon proof or confession the judge may pronounce the sentence. Which, he saith, he learned from his Master, who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray. And if it requires a new sentence, 
〈…〉  than it doth not actually excommunicate. But of this the learned Archbishop of Spalleto hath discoursed coursed at large; to whom I refer the Reader. As to the practice of Canon Law in England, 
De Constit. c. quia incontinent. ipso facto.  Lyndwood saith, that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary, notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto. And it is a Rule in our Church, 
Can. 65.  that Persons excommunicate are to be publicly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months, that others may have notice of them; and until the sentence be thus declared, I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication, though it be said to be ipso facto. For although the sentence seem peremptory, yet ipso facto, doth suppose a fact, and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church; of which there must be evident proof brought, before the sentence can take hold of the Person. And to make the sentence valid as to the person, there must be due execution of it; and the question in this case than is, whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication, be bound to execute this sentence upon himself? which he must do, if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication. 
Plea for Pea●e p. 2●●.  And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point; Although, saith he, we are excommunicated ipso facto, yet we are not bound ourselves to execute their sentence; but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact, and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us. And so he hath fully answered his own objection. But can those be called Schismatics for not communicating with a Church, who are first excommunicated by that Church? Yes, in these cases they may (1.) when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence. For, otherwise, no Church could condemn any excommunicated Persons for Schism; if it declared before hand, that all those who held such Doctrines, or condemned such Practices, should be excommunicated. To make this plain by Instances: Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sentence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism; R. Williams and his Company oppose it; they upon this are actually excommunicated; may the Churches of New England call these men Schismatics or not? If they are Schismatics notwithstanding the sentence of excommunication; then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism. 
Dis●ipl. de France, Des Minist. art. 5.  By the Constitution of the Churches of France, every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatic; Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatic, because this amounts to an excommunication, ipso facto? So in Scotland 1641. Subscription to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication; if any had been excommunicated on this account, would this excuse them from the charge of Schism, in the judgement of the Covenanters? By the Constitutions of Geneva, any one that opposes, or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together, is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year; as Calvin himself relates it. Suppose this were merely excommunication for so long; 
Calvin. Epist. 〈◊〉. p. 311.  would not Calvin have thought them Schismatics for all that? For he fully declares his mind in this case, 
p. 122.  on occasion of a certain Nonconformist in an Epistle to Farell; where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate; if that did not prevail, they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church; which, saith he, is agreeable to ancient Councils and the mind of God in Scripture; therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it. Here we see excommunication justified against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church; and much more certainly, if they publicly affirm them to be Impious, Antichristian or Superstitious as 8. Canon expresseth: and no Church in the world, but will think excommunication reasonable upon the like grounds; and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism, they may be guilty of it still, although excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts. (2.) If they proceed to form new Churches; as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances; and let him judge, whether all persons so excommunicated, would not have been condemned much more for Schismatics, if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs. 
〈…〉. c. 6.  S. Augustin puts the case of good men unjustly excommunicated; and he saith, they are to bear it with patience, for the peace of the Church, and such will still maintain the true faith, sine ullâ Conventiculorum segregatione, without running into separate Meetings; although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated. Such as these, saith he, the Father which seeth in secret, will reward and crown in secret. This kind seems very rare, but there want not instances, yea, there are more than can be believed.   

2. As to the judgement of Conscience. 
§. 34.  The Author of the Letter out of the Country lays the Foundation of the separation upon the force of Scruples, 
Letter out of the Country, p. 5, 6, etc.  mighty Scruples, Scruples of a long standing, and of a large extent, Scruples that there is no hopes to remove, without some very overpowering impression on men's minds. I am so much of another mind, that I think a little impartiality, and due consideration would do the business; but as long as men read and hear and judge only of one side, and think it a temptation to examine things as they ought to do, and cry out, they are satisfied already, there is not much hopes of doing good upon such, but I think they can have no great comfort in such Scruples. Men that really scruple things out of tenderness of Conscience, are sincerely willing to be better informed, and glad of any light that brings them satisfaction, and do not fly out into rage, and violent passion against those who offer to remove their Scruples. Hath this been the temper of our scrupulous Brethren of late? Let their Scruples be touched never so tenderly, they cannot bear it, and take it extremely ill of those who would better inform them. 
Answ. p. 81.  Mr. B. freely tells me, that he that thinks his own, or others reasonings will ever change all the truly honest Christians in the Land (as to the unlawfulness of the things imposed) knoweth so little of matters, or of men, or of Conscience, as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest. What is the reason of such a severe saying? Where lies the strength and evidence of these Scruples? Why may not honest men be cured of their errors and mistakes, as I am persuaded these are such which they call Scruples? Is there no hopes to bring the People to a better temper, and more judgement? For I know nothing more is necessary for the cure of them. Here is no depth of learning, no subtlety of reasoning, no endless quotation of Father's necessary about these matters. The dispute lies in a narrow compass, and men may see light if they will. But what if they will not? Then we are to consider, how far a wilful mistake or error of Conscience, will justify men? I say it doth not, cannot justify them in doing evil; and that I am sure breaking the Peace of the Church for the sake of such Scruples, is. And this I had said in my Sermon, which I take to be very material for our scrupulous persons to consider. For suppose they should be mistaken, doth this error of Conscience justify their separation, or not? If not, they may be in an ill condition, for all their Scruples, or their confidence. And so Mr. Baxter hath long since declared, 
5. Disputations of Church Gou. p. 48●.  that if we do through weakness, or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful, that will not excuse us in our disobedience. Our error is our sin, and one sin will not excuse another sin. But Mr. A. saith, (1) That I do ill to put together wilful Error and mistake of Conscience, 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 72.  when I say they do not excuse from sin, since there is so great a difference between a wilful Error and a mistake of simple ignorance. What strange cavilling is this? When any one may see that I join wilful both to Error and Mistake. And is not a mistake or error of Conscience all one? If I had said a mistake of simple ignorance doth not excuse from sin, I had contradicted the whole design of that discourse, which is to show that there must be wilfulness in the error or mistake which doth not excuse. For I say expressly, if the error be wholly involuntary, it doth excuse. This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience.  
2. If no error will excuse from sin, why is the Question afterwards put by me, What error will excuse? I answer, (1.) it is an exercise of patience, to be troubled with a cavilling adversary. (2.) Do not I say as plainly, as words can express it, that a wilful error doth not excuse from sin? And the question afterwards put, concerns the same thing; and the Answer I give to it is, if the error be wholly involuntary, it doth excuse, but if it be wilful it doth not. Is this man's conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate, with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute?  
3. He saith, I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put, 
P. 73.  viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation, that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it. For (1.) It may be justly questioned, whether it be possible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation. What Sophisters arguments are these? As though we did not commonly speak of the thing as it is, and not as the Person apprehends it. S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution, although he did not think it so, when he did it. The jews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles, which was wilful murder, and yet they were men in their wits. The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation. How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing itself? for I was not so foolish to put the case concerning men, who thought themselves bound to commit a sin, knowing it to be a sin. (2.) He much questions, whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church, he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it. If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church, it is sufficient to my purpose. And did not the false Apostles do so, and have not others followed their examples? And thus, after other trifling Cavils to the same purpose, after his manner, he yields all that I say, and saith, It is freely granted by all the world, that wilful Error doth not excuse from sin. And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience, 
P. 77.  he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common doctrine of all Casuists; only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand. Why so? was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule? And was it not very pertinent to this, to show how far an erroneous conscience may, or may not excuse from sin? But Mr. A. saith, it should have been about the Power of Conscience, concerning an established Rule of man's making; and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make. Is not this indeed to the purpose? First to suppose an unlawful rule imposed, and then to inquire what conscience is to do about it. My business was to show, that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfy themselves with this, that they followed their consciences; because their consciences might err, and if that Error happened to be wilful, being contracted for want of due care, what they did, might not only be sinful in itself, but imputed to them as sins. Which all men who pretended any regard to conscience ought to have an eye to: for why do they pretend conscience, but to ●void sin? And if under a wilful error of 〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins, as the Ie●● and S. Paul were, than men ought not to satisfy themselves barely with this pretence, that they do as 〈…〉 direct them. This was the plain 〈◊〉 of that ●art of my Sermon; and I leave any 〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent.  
But he saith, 〈…〉, 
P. 78.  if they be such, are wholly 〈…〉 invincible Ignorance. If 〈…〉 better for them. I hope they have 〈…〉 in their own breasts for it, than what appears in some of their late Books; for neither a peevish, angry, scornful, provoking way of writing about these matters; nor a light, scurrilous, cavilling, Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse, are any great signs of such an impartial endeavour after satisfaction, as Mr. A. boasts of. I cannot tell how much they have read the Scriptures, and studied this Controversy; nor how earnestly they have prayed for direction; but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates, which give me no great satisfaction in this matter. But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge; being very willing to hope and believe the best.   

To return to the Author of the Letter. 
§. 35.  The main force of what he saith, lies in this, that those who cannot conquer their scruples as to communion with our Church, 
p. 4.  must either return to the State of Paganism, or set up new Churches by joining with the ejected Ministers. This is new doctrine, and never heard of in the days of the old Puritans; for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church, although there were some things they scrupled, and could not conquer those scruples. And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism.  
But they scruple the Use of the Sacraments with us; 
p. 8.  and much more living under some of our Ministers. I never heard this last alleged for a ground of separation till very lately, and it hath been considered already. And it is a very hard case with a Church, if People must fly into Separation, because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be. But if they do scruple joining in communion with our Church, I would fain know, whether as often as men do scruple joining with others, their Separation be lawful? If it be, it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church; whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent; for this Principle overthrows them all. I will instance particularly in the last, as most favourable to such kind of Liberty. And I need not suppose a case, since such hath already happened several times in New England. R. Williams is one remarkable Instance, who scrupled many things in their Churches, and therefore could join no longer with them; and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them; and the People who scrupled as well as he, chose him for their Pastor. What is there in this case, but is every whit as justifiable, as the present separation? But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause? 
Answ. to Cotton's Letter. Bloody Tenent.  so far from it, that R. William's published grievous complaints to the world, of the persecution he underwent for it. Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton, 
Defence of the Cure of Divis. p 124.  an eminent Minister of New England, viz. of a Church that separated from a Church, on the account of their Preachers having human learning; and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them, their answer was, That is your judgement, and this is ours, i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples, and therefore must persist in separation, or return to Paganism. Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance; 
〈…〉. to Magist●a●es Power, ●. 〈◊〉.  one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth, withdraws from their Communion, and sets up another Assembly in the Town; and upon his obstinate continuance therein, was solemnly excommunicated by them. And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to, time will discover. I would only know, whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod, should proceed to Separation, whether this Separation be justifiable or not? This is certain, that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasy from their first principles; 
First Principles of New England by I. Mather, 1675.  and say, their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees: and if they proceed, those Churches may be broken in pieces, by these principles of Separation. As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countries, most of them were by new Scruples, which the People could not conquer; for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members, and carried away many of them. And so they had done in New England, and dissolved those Churches before this time, if this principle had been allowed there, viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples, they may proceed to Separation. No, they tell them, they must preserve the Peace of their Churches, and if they cannot be quiet among them, the world is wide enough for them. So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies; notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians. This I only mention, to show that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation, because men cannot conquer their Scruples. And upon the same ground, not only Anabaptists and Quakers, but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations. For, I suppose this Gentleman will not deny, but they may have Scruples too, many Scruples, and of long standing, and among great numbers, and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them. And by that time all these have set up among us, shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion?  
These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles, that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation, have taken any care to put any stop to it, or to let us know, where we may fix and see an end of it; what scruples are to be allowed, and what not: and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling, and say they cannot conquer their Scruples. Are there no Scruples among us, but only against the sign of the Cross, and Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism, and kneeling at the Lords Supper? Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us? Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper, saying they are not to be literally understood? Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry? Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations, and say, we can have no true Churches, because we renounce Communion with the Pope? What is to be done with all these, and many more scruplers, who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies, and such weighty things as the use of Godfathers and Godmothers.   

This I mention, 
§. 36.  because this Gentleman seems to look on it, as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. 
p. 6.  For, having spoken of that, he adds, Nor is it in itself of less weight (perhaps 'tis of much greater) that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children, but others must appear and undertake for them: 
p. 8.  which he repeats soon after. And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters, as any that have come after him, in the Admonitions declared, that this was a thing arbitrary, and left to the discretion of the Church. 
T. C. 's first Answer to W●itg. p. 13●.  And in his first Answer he saith, For the thing itself, considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches, they do not mislike of it. So that, on the same ground it seems, all o●●er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at, as well as ours; and yet not only this Gentleman, but Mr. B. several times mentions this, 
Answ. p. 49. Plea for Peace, p. 143. 100LS.  as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the People's joining in Communion with us: nay, he calls this, his greatest objection; and yet he confesseth, 
Defence of his Plea. p. 26. Plea for Peace, p. 149.  that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents, our Baptism is valid and lawful. Now where is it, that our Church excludes such a representation? Indeed by Canon 29, the Parents are not to be compelled to be present, nor suffered to answer, as Susceptors for their Children; but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office. 
Ratio Discip. Fratr. c. 3. Sect. 2.  In the Bohemian Churches, there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors; but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one, as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties. For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them; and so they may be said to represent the Parents. If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉 against the consent of the Parents; then none cou●● in reason suppose, that there was any implicit compact between them. But since they are of the Parents choosing, what they do in that office, is supposed to be with their full consent. If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old, at some certain seasons only, and indispensable occasions required the Parent's absence, might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves? Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence; and the intention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents, but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance. If men be negligent in doing their duty, must the Church bear the blame, and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion?  
But there is something beyond this, which lies at the bottom of this scruple; viz. that the Childs Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents, and therefore if the Parents be excluded, and only Sponsors admitted, the Children so baptised have no right to Baptism. B.'s first Question is, 
Def. of the Plea. p. 25.  which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism, any more than all the Infidels Children in the world? And his next is, whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant, besides the Sponsion of the fore-described Godfathers, and Gods general promise?  
I answer, (1.) The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism, which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents. For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity. 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism; and so whatever right the Parents have, that is challenged, when the Child is brought to be baptised. 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism; which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church; for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins' time; 
Aug. ep. 23.  and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's; 
Chrysost. in Psal. 14.  and hath so continued ever since; but the Aethhiopic and Armenian Churches do still observe it. 3. In their own capacity; when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith; in the charge given to them, after Baptism. So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another, they all succeeding each other, there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents.  
(2) If the Parents be supposed to have no right, yet upon the Sponsion of Godfathers, the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children. Not, as though their Sponsion gave the right, but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Child's name and Sureties for performance. To make this clear, we must consider, that administration of Baptism, is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys, which Christ first gave to the Apostles, and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church. By virtue of this Power, they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects. The Church of Christ, as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity, hath always allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church; but lest the Church should fail of its end, and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty, it required Sponsors for them, 
Tert●l. de Baptismo. c. 18.  who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratify their part of the Covenant which Baptism implies. And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this, for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects; since the Catholic Church did always judge Infants capable, there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name. All this appears from S. Augustine's Epistle, ad Bonifacium; where he saith (1.) That the Child's benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him. For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism, not for any spiritual benefit, but for corporal health; notwithstanding this, saith S. Augustine, if the due form of Baptism be observed, the spiritual effect of it is obtained. (2.) That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants. For, saith he, the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby, not so much by those in whose arms they are carried (for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms) as by the whole Society of the Faithful. Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit, quia tota omnes, tota singulos parit: so that it is by the Churches right, that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it. (3.) That there is no necessity, that the Parents themselves offer their Children. For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism, as to the remission of Original Gild, or the account of their Parents offering them. For many are offered to Baptism by strangers, and slaves sometimes by their Masters. And when Parents are dead, Children are offered by such as take pity upon them; and sometimes Children exposed by Parents, and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins, which neither have Children, nor intent to have any. (4.) That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism. Not as though the Child did really believe, yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith. For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them, do carry the name of the things represented; as, saith he, the Sacrament of Christ's body after a certain manner is called his Body; and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood, so the Sacrament of faith is called faith, i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part, the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors, which cannot be performed by the Children. Thence he saith, ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti, so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering, as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism. Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith, 
Serm. 116. de Tempore.  that the fidejussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works; and in another place he declares, that he would not baptise a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil, 
De peccat. meritis & remiss. l. 1. c. 34.  and turn to God, and that they believed he was baptised for the remission of sins.  
(3.) Those who think themselves bound to baptise Children only by virtue of the Parents right, must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptising Children, and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered. For, (1.) They are not well agreed, what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptised; whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient, or a justifying faith be necessary? If saving faith be necessary, whether the outward profession of it be sufficient? Whether that aught to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind, or that only which is really so? Whether profession be required for itself, or as a discovery of something further? Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient, or real seriousness be required? What we must judge real seriousness in profession, as distinct from inward sincerity? What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious? Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession? and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical? Whether besides mere practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary? And whether besides all these, actual confederation and joining in Church Covenant be not necessary? And if it be, whether the Children of confederated Parents not being confederated themselves, can convey a right to their Children? About these, and other such like Questions, those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes, and can neither give others, nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them. (2.) The consequence of this is, that they must baptise many with a doubting mind; and must exclude many more, than they can baptise. For Mr. B. saith, 
Preface to Right to Sacraments.  if he took a dogmatical faith itself, or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit, I would baptise none, because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith, and who not. The like others are as ready to say, of his serious, voluntary, not prevalently contradicted, practical profession; or at least, that no man can baptise with a good Conscience, till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents, and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession. Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace; or are not actually confederated with them. And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right, how few Children will be left, that a man can baptise with a safe Conscience? Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation? Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Use of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers, as Mr. B. calls them; and have showed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches, Communion.  
As to kneeling at the Communion, I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration, 
Conference first Part.  which I have not answered in another place.   

Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Church's Communion, 
§. 37.  viz. 
Mischief of Impoes. p. 85, 86, 87.  that upon the same Reason these are imposed, the Church may impose some use of Images, Circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer,  
(1.) That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed; and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required, because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds? A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him, or else he shall not stay in his House; at first the Son demurs upon putting off his Hat to his Father, because he hath some scruples, whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not; not merely on the account of its significancy, but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature. This he thinks so weighty a scruple, that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition, on his continuing in his house, and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Father's House, and drawing away as many of his servants from him, as he can infuse this scruple into. But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship, yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justify his disobedience. For faith he to his Father, Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence, and to make this the condition of my staying in your House? Is it not enough that I own myself to be your Son, and ask you blessing Morning and Evening, and am very willing to sit at your Table, and depend upon you for my subsistence? Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son, but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat? You say, it is a token of respect; I say for that reason I ought not to do it. For, how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect? It is true, you require no more now, but I consider what you may do, and for all that I know, the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoes before you, for that is a token of respect in some Countries; next you may require me to kiss your Toe, for that is a token of respect used some where; and who knows what you may come to at last; and therefore I am resolved to stop at first, and will rather leave your House, than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence. Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father. Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other, that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns, that may represent the Trade and Company they are of; would this be thought a just excuse for any man's refusing it, to say, What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last; it is true, the matter is small at present, but I consider, it is a Badge, it is a moral significant ceremony, a dangerous teeming thing, no man knows what it may bring forth at last; for how can I or any man living tell, but at last I may be required to wear a Fool's Coat. Would such an unreasonable jealousy as this justify such a man's refractoriness, in rather choosing to lose the privilege of his Company, than submitting to wear the Badge of it? So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required. (2.) There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies, than what it hath already done, supposing that it might do it, on the same ground: Because the Church hath rather retrenched than increased Ceremonies; as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required, as a condition of communion. But besides, our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies: because the very number of them, 
〈…〉 to the 〈…〉.  supposing them lawful is a burden; of which S. Augustin complained in his time, and others had much more cause since; and therefore for that cause many were taken away, And withal, it is declared that Christ's Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law. So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine, which it must do, if it increased our Cermonies, so as to make a new argument against them, from the number of them. (3.) There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Use among us. For, (1.) As to the Use of Images, our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Use of them, in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry; and that from such reasons, as cannot extend to our Ceremonies: viz. from the express Law of God, and the general sense of the Primitive Church; which allowed and practised the sign of the Cross, at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images. (2.) For Circumcision, which he tells us, may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart. He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies; and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions, should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us. Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law, that he saith, If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing: which was never said of any of our Ceremonies. And whereas he saith, it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony; he is much mistaken, if their Emperor Claudius say true; 
Confe●●o Fid●i Claudii Regis Aethiopiae.  for he saith, it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion, like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia, and boreing the ear among the Indians. And Ludolphus proves it to be no other, because it is done by a woman in private, without any witnesses. (3.) As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us; We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typify Christ to come, than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past. Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb; since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation. But why are things never used by the Primitive Church (for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false, it is nothing to us) brought to parallel our Ceremonies, when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, which observed the same kind of Ceremonies?   

The only remaining pretence for the present Separation, 
§. 38.  is, that there is a parity of reason, as to their Separating from us, and our Separating from the Church of Rome. For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument, we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain, 
Mischief of 〈…〉.  false for true, new for old, absurd for reasonable; then this will hold for themselves because they think so; and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike? When (1.) They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true, we reject all their additional Articles, in Pius 4. his Creed, not only as false, but some of them as absurd and unreasonable, as men can invent, viz. that of Transubstantiation; which is made by them the great trying and burning point. But what is there, which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine, as new, as false, as absurd? nay, they all yield to the Antiquity, to the Truth, to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine; and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel. But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it? You may be sure it is some mighty thing; for, he saith, presently after it, that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness, and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice. Alas for him, that his modesty should ever hurt him! But what is this dangerous Secret, that they have hitherto kept in, out of mere veneration to the Church of England? Let us prepare ourselves for this unusual, this kill charge. Why, saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church, this Doctrine is contained (It is matter of Doctrine then, I see; although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles, as far as they concern▪ Doctrine. But what is this notorious doctrine?) It is, saith he, that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties. Did I not fear, it was some dreadful thing; some notorious heresy, condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils? But is it said so, in plain words? or is it wiredrawn by farfetched Consequences? No, it is plain enough; for the Question is, What is required of Persons to be baptised. Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin; and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament. Quest. Why then are Infants baptised, when by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform them? Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties; which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform. But I pray doth it hence follow, that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties? Are not the words express, that they promise both by their Sureties? And is promising and performance all one? I do not find it so by this Instance. For here was a great matter promised, and nothing performed. It is true the Catechism saith, Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptised: which supposeth the persons to be baptised capable of performing these things themselves. And then comes a Question, by way of objection; why then are Infants baptised, etc. to which the sense of the Answer is, that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing; yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them; which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children, and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised. And now let the Reader judge, since this horrible Secret is come out, whether this aught to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous, absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church. And I know nothing can do them greater Service, than such Parallels as these.  
(2.) We charge them with those Reasons for Separation, which the Scripture allows; such as Idolatry, perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ, and Tyranny over the Consciences of men, in making those things necessary to salvation, which Christ never made so: But not one of these, can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England, since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God; we worship no Images; we invocate no Sains; we adore no Host; we creep to no Crucifix; we kiss no Relics. We equal no traditions with the Gospel; we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language; we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did; we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christ's, and to dispense with his Laws and Institutions. We mangle no Sacraments, nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself. We pretend to no skill in expiating men's sins when they are dead; nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a quick motion of the hand. We do not cheat men's souls with false bills of exchange, called Indulgences; nor give out that we have the Treasure of the Church in our keeping, which we can apply as we see occasion. We use no pious frauds to delude the People, nor pretend to be infallible, as they do when they have a mind to deceive. These are things which the Divines of our Church have with great clearness and strength of Reason made good against the Church of Rome; and since they cannot be objected against our Church, with what face, can men suppose the cases of those who separate from each of them to be parallel?  
(3.) As to the Ceremonies in the Roman Church and ours, there are these considerable differences,  
(1.) They have a mighty number, as appears by their Rituals and Ceremonials, and the great volumes, written in explication of them; we, very few, and those so very easy and plain; that it requires as great skill not to understand ours, as it doth to understand theirs. (2.) They place great holiness in theirs, as appears by the Forms of consecration of their Water, Oil, Salt, Wax, Vestments, etc. but we allow none of these, but only the use of certain ceremonies, without any preceding Act of the Church importing any peculiar holiness attributed to them. (3.) They suppose great virtue and efficacy to be in them, for the purging away some sorts of sins; we utterly deny any such thing to belong to our ceremonies, but declare, that they are appointed only for Order and Deceny. (4.) They make their ceremonies being appointed by the Church to become necessary parts of Divine Worship; as I have already proved; but our Church looks upon them, even when determined as things in their own nature indifferent, but only required by virtue of that general obedience which we owe to lawful Authority. So that as to ceremonies themselves there is a vast disparity between the Roman Church and ours; and no man can pretend otherwise, that is not either grossly ignorant, or doth not wilfully misunderstand the state of the Controversy between them and us.  
Thus I have gone through all the Pleas for the present Separation I could meet with, in the Books of my Answerers: and I have not concealed the force or strength I saw in any of them. And however Mr. A. reproaches me with having a notable talon of misrepresenting my Adversaries, 
Mischief o● Impo●. ●. 〈◊〉.  (a thing which I have always abhorred, and never did it wilfully in my life, it appearing to me an act of injustice as well as disingenuity) yet I do assure him, I have endeavoured to understand them truly, and to represent them fairly, and to judge impartially. And although I make no such appeals to the day of judgement as others do; yet I cannot but declare to the world, as one that believes a day of Judgement to come, that upon the most diligent search, and careful Inquiry I could make into this matter, I cannot find any Plea sufficient to justify in point of conscience, the present Separation from the Church of England.     



Monseigneur,  
DEux voyages que j'ay été obligè de faire, m'ont empéché de répondre aussi tost que je l'aurois souhaitè a la lettre dont Vôtre Grandeur m'a fait la grace de m'honorer. Comme j'étois sur le point de vous en faire des excuses, Monsieur de L' Angle est arriuè en ceste ville, quime les a fait encor differer, dans l'esperance, qu' il voudroit bien se charger de ma reponse, & qu' elle pourroit par ce moien vous étre plus fidellement rendue. Il est uray, Monsieur, que si j'en croyois mon déplaisir, je la remettrois encor a une autre fois; car je ne peux vous ecrire sans un extreme douleur, quand je songe a la matiere surla quelle vous me commandés de vous dire mon sentiment. je croy que vous le sçaués dejá bien, et que vous ne me faites pas l'honneur de me le demander comme en ayant quelque sorte de doute; vous me faites plus de justice que cela; & vous ne me comprenéz pas au nombre de ceux, qui ont touchant l' Eglise d' Angleterre une si mechante opinion. Pour moy, je n'en avois pas une si mechante d'aucun veritable Anglois, & je ne pouvois pas me persuader qu' il y en eut un seul, qui crût qu'on ne peut éstre dans sa communion sans hasarder son propre salut. Pour ceux qui sont engagés dans le parti de l' Eglise Romaine, j'en jugeois tout autrement. Ils ont des maximes particuliers, & agissent par d'autres Interests. Mais pour ceux qui n'ont aucune liaison avec Rome, c'est une chose bien singuliere de les voir passer jusqu' a cette extremitè que de croire que dans l' Eglise Anglicane on ne peut faire son salut. C'est n'avoir gueres de conoissance de la Confession defoy, que tout le monde Protestant a si hautement approuveé, & qui merite en effect les louanges de tout ce qu'il y a de bons Chrestiens. Car on ne pouvoit rien faire de plus sage que cette Confession, & jamais les articles de foy n'ont eté recueillis avec un discernment plus juste, & plus raisonnable que dans cette excellent● piece. On a raison de la garder avec tant de veneration dans la Bibliotheque d' Oxford, & le grand Iuellus pour l'avoir si dignement defendüe, est digne d'une louange immortelle. C'est d'elle dont Dieu se servit dans le commencement de la Reformation d' Angleterre, & si elle n'avoit pas été comme son ovurage, il ne l'auroit pas benit d'une façon si avantageuse. Le succes qu' elle out, deuroit fermer la bouche a ceux qui sont les plus animés, & l'avoir veue trionpher de tant d' Obstacles deuroit faire reconnoitre a tout le monde, que dieu s'est declarè en sa faveur, qu'il est visiblement mélé de son établissement, & qu'elle a la verité & la fermeté de sa parole, a qui elle doibt en effect sa naissance, & son origine. Elle est aujourdhuy ce qu'elle ètoit quand elle ●toit formeé, & on ne peut pas reprocher a Messieurs les Euéques qu'ils y ayent depuis cette terme lá, apporté quelque changement. Et comment donc s'imaginer qu'elle ayt changé d'usage? & peut on rien voir de plus inique, que de dire, qu'un Instrument que Dieu employa autrefois pour l'instruction de tant de gens de bien, pour le salut de de tant de peuples, pour la consolation tant de fidelles soit aujourdhuy devenüe quelque chose de funeste, & pernicieuse. Si votre Confession de foy est pure, & innocente, votre service divin l'est aussi Car on n'y voit rien de tout qui tende a l'idolatry; vous n'adorés que Dieu seul; dans uôtre culte il n'y a rien qui se termine a la creature, & si l'on y trouve quelques ceremonies qui ne se rencontrent pas ailleurs, c'est faire profession d'une terrible Theologie, avoir depovillé toute charité, ne sçavoir guere ce que valent les ames, ne conoitre point la nature de choses indifferentes, que decroire qu'elles sont capables de perdre eternellement ceux qui s'y veulent assujettir. C'est avoir une méme dureté que de croire que uôtre discipline ecclesiastique est capable de damner les hommes. Car ou a t'on jamais vú que pour des articles de Discipline le salut des hommes se trouve interessé, & de choses qui ne regardent que le dehors, & L'ordre de L' Eglise, et qui ne sont que comme L'ecorce, & les envelopes de la veritè, peuvent elles causer la mort, & glisser du poison dans une ame? Certes on ne les comprend jamais au nombre de verités essentielles, & comme il n'y a que celles cy qui sauvent, il n'y a qu'elles aussi qui peuvent exclurre du salut. Pour le gouvernement Episcopal, qu'a t'il qui soit dangereux, & qui puisse raisonnablement alarmer des consciences? & s'il est capable de priver de la gloire eternelle, & de boucher les avenües du ciel, qui estce qui y est entré l'espace de plus de quinze cents ans? Puisque pendant tout ce temps lá, toutes les Eglises du monde n'ont point eu d'autre gouvernement. S'il étoit contraire a la verité & a l'aquisition du bonheur eternel, est il croyable que Dieu l'eut si hautement approvué, & qu'il eut permis que pendant tant de siecles son Eglise en eust été tyrannisé? Car qui estce qui l'a gouverné, qui estce qui a composé ses conciles tant generaux que particuliers, qui estce qui a combatu les Heresies dont elle a esté de tout temps attaqué? ont ce pas été les Euéques, & n' estce pas a leur sage conduite, que la parcle de Dieu est redevable, apres Dieu, de ses victoires & de ses Triomphes. Et sans remonter jusq' au berceau, & la naissan ce de l' Eglise, qui estce qui dans le siecle precedant delivra l' Angleterre, de l' Erreur dont elle étoit envelopée? Qui estce qui y fit resveiller si miraculeusement la verité? fut ce pas le zele, & la fermeté des euéques, leur ministere? degagea t'il pas les Anglois de l'oppression sous laquelle ils gemissoient de puis si long temps; & leur exemple aida't y pas puissamment a la Reformation de toute l' Europe? En verité je croy qu'ils en povuroient user comme fift autre fois Gregoire de Nazianze au milieu de Constantinople. Quand il y arriva, il trouva que L' Arrianismey avoit fait de fort grand progres, cependant, son courage, son zele, son sçavoir affoblioent si fort le parti des Heretiques, qu'en peu de temps la verité y apparut plus belle que jamais, & il voulut que le Temple ou il l'avoit si fortement appuiée portoit le nom d' Anastasie, parce qu'il L'y avoit comme deterrée, & degagée de dessous L'erreur, & par ses soins continuels, il y avoit comme fait sortir du tombeau, & glorieusement resusciteé, c'est ce qu'ont fait aussi Les Evesques d' Angleterre. Ils voyoient non une verité seulement, mais quasi toutes les verités fondamentales ensevelies sous un nombre espouvantables d' Erreurs. Ils voyoient le joug de Rome plus pesant au milieu d'eux qu'il n'étoit nulle part ailleurs. La difficulté qu'il y avoit a reüssir dans la Reformation étoit capable de décourager des personnes d'une capacité, & d'un zele mediocre, & neantmoins rien ne les detourne d'un si gene reux dessein. Les ennemis de dehors, ceux de dedans, tous terribles qu'ils parussent, ne les intimident point; ils entreprenent ce grand ovurage, et ne l'abandonnent point qu'ils n'en soient venus au bout, & qu'ils n'ayent remis sur le throne la verité resuscitée. En sorte qu'ils powoient lusser par tout des monuments de ce miracle & nommer justement toutes leur Eglises du nom d' Anastasie & de resurrection. Mais si ce Tiltre manque a leur Temples, la chose en soy leur convient, & l'on n'entend ressonner au milieu d'eux que les Lessons, & Les louanges de la pure Verité. Ce que doit obliger tous les gens de bien à ne s'en ecarter pas, & a regarder L' Eglise Anglicane comme une Eglise tres Orthodoxe. C'est ce qui font Les Protestants de France, ceux de Geneva, Ceux de Suisse, & d' Allemagne, & ceux d' Hollande aussi. Car ils se firent un fort grand Honneur, d'avoir dans leur Concile de Dordrecht des Theologiens d' Angleterre, & monstrerent bien qu'ils avoient pour L' Eglise Anglicane une profonde veneration. Et d'oú vient donc, que des Anglois mémes en ont aujourdhuy si mechante opinion, & rompre si temerairement comme ils font, avec Elle? estce pas rompre avec toute L' Eglise Ancienne, avec toutes les Eglises Orientales, avec toutes les Eglises Protestants qui ont toujours fort consideré la pureté de celle d' Angleterre? estce pas une horrible dureté que de l'excommunier sans misericorde, & s'en faire etrangement a croire que de s'imaginer qu'ils soient le seuls en Angleterre & méme au milieu de tout le monde chrestien, qui soient destinés au bonheur eternel & a soustenir, comme il faut, le verites necessaires au salut. Certes on pourroit faire un parallele fort odieux entre ces Docteurs, & le Pape Victor, qui volut excommunier les Eglises d' Asie par ce qu'elles ne celebroient le feste de Pasque au méme jour que Rome le faisoit; entre eux & les Audiens, qui rompoient avec les Chrestiens, & ne vouloient point souffrir d' Euéques riches. Entre Eux & le Donatistes, qui ne vouloient point de communion avec ceux qui avoient esté ordines par des Euéques laches, & qui s'imaginoient que leur societé étoit la veritable Eglise, & l'épouse bien aimée qui paissoit son troupeau vers le midi. Entre eux & ceux de la communion Romaine, qui ont si bonne opinion de leur Eglise, que hors d'elle ils ne s'imaginent pas qu'un puisse jamais acquerir le Salut. Pour moy quelque enclin que je sois a la tolerance, je ne pourois pourtant me persuader qu'il en faille avoir pour ceux qui en ont si peu pour les autres, & que s'ils étoient les maitres feroient assurement un mauvais quartiér a ceux qui dependroient d'eux. je regarde ces gens lá, comme de perturbateurs de l'Estat, & de l'Eglise, & qui sont infalliblement animés d'un esprit de sedition. I'ay méme de la paine a croire qu'ils soient justement ce qu'ils disent estre, & je craindrois bien que sous ces Docteurs il n'y eust des ennemis tres dangereux qui fussent cachés. Des Societés composées detelles personnes seroient extrement perilleuses, & on ne les pourroit soufrir sans ovurir la porte au disordre, & travailler asa propre ruine. Ily en a de composées de personnes plus raisonnables. Mais j'y voudrois qu'elles le fussent assez, pour ne se point separer de celles qui composent l' Eglise Anglicane; particulierement au terme ou nous sommes elles deuroient tout faire pour une bonne Reconciliation; & dans le conjuncture des affaires presentes ils deuroient bien s'aperçevoir qu'il n'y a qu'une bonne reunion qui puisse prevenir les maux dont l'Angleterre est menacée. Car pour dire la verité, je ne voi pas que leue Meetings soient de fort grande utilité, & qu'on puisse s'y consoler davantage, que dans les Eglises Episcopales. Quand j'estois a Londres, il y a bien tost cinq ans, je me trouvay en plusieurs assemblées particulieres pour voir comme on l'y prenoit pour l'instruction du peuple, & la predication de la parole de Dieu. Mais j'avoue que je ●'en receus aucune edification. I'entendis un de plus fameux Non-conformistes. Il pre-choit en un lieu ou il y avoit trois hommes & soissante, ou quatre vingt ●emmes. Il avoit choisi un texte touchant le restablissement des ruines de jerusalem, & pour l'expliquer il cita cent fois Pliny & Vitruve, & n'oublia pas de dire en Italien ce proverbe, duro con duro non fa muro. Tout cela me parut hors de propos, fort peu a propos pour des femmelettes, & tres eloigné d'un esprit qui ne cherche que la consolation & l'edification de ses auditeurs. Se Cantonner & faire un schisme pour avoir la liberté de debiter de telles vanit●s est une fort m●●vaise conduite; & les peuples paroissent bien ●●ibles de quitter leur mutuelles assemblées pour de choses qui m●ritent ●i peu leur estime, & leur preference. je n'estime pas, qu'on soit en obligation de souffrir ce dereglement. Il est uray qu'autrefois on souffroit les Assemblées de Novatiens á Rome & à Constantinople, & que le Donatistes a voient en la premiere place quelque sorte de liberté. Mais c'estoit les Estrangers, & cela méme ne dura pas long temps & comme il'y en avoit peu, cela ne tiroit pas en consequence. Mais c'est un autre fait en Angleterre, & comme le bien de l' Estat, & de l' Eglise depend absolument de l'union du peuple sur le poinct de la Religion, on n'y pourroit trop presser une union universelle. Mais il la faut procurer par les bonnes voyes, & comme Messieurs les Euéques sont de personnes d'une grande experience, d'un Scavoir extraordinaire, d'un zele, & d'une bonté, envers leur peuples veritablement paternelle, j'espere qu'ils s'employeront a c●grand O●rage avec toute la prudence & la charitè qui s●nt necess●ires pour faire reüssir une si louable entreprise. t'ous particulierement, Monseigneur, dont la moderation & la capacité sont reconnües de tout le m●nde, il semble que 〈◊〉 soit un dessein reserué pour votre grande Sag●sse, & 〈◊〉 vous n'y reuscistes pas, apparemment que tous les autres ' y travailleront inutilement. Pour mor, je re 〈◊〉 ●●●tribuer d'icy que de vo●us, & que de pr●res; 〈◊〉 bien protester que j'en fais tous les jours de f●●r sinceres pour la prosperité de 〈…〉 qu'il plaise a Dieu faire en sorte, que tous les Protestants d'Angleterre ne soyent a l'avenir qu'un coeur, & qu'une Ame. je prie Vostre Grandeur d'en estre bien persuadé, & de croire qu'il n'est pas possible d'estre avec plus de respect que je le suis,  
A Leyden 3 Septemb. 1680. Monseigneur, Votre tres humble & tres Obeissant Serviteur, Le Moyne.   

First Letter.  
A Letter from Monsieur le Moyne, Professor of Divinity at Leyden, to my Lord Bishop of London, concerning the nature of our present Differences, and the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England.  
My Lord,  
TWo Journeys that I have been obliged to take, have hindered me from answering the Letter, with which your Lordship did me the favour to honour me, so soon as I could have wished. Just as I was about to excuse myself to you for it, Monsieur de l' Angle came to this Town, which made me defer it longer yet, in hopes that he would charge himself with my answer, and that by that means it might be brought unto you more safely. It is true, my Lord, that if I should hearken to my own unwillingness, I should put it off still to another time; for I cannot write unto you without being extremely grieved, when I think upon the matter, of which you command me to tell you my opinion. I believe that you know it already, and that you do not do me the honour to ask it of me, as if you had any kind of doubt of it. You do me more right than so; and you do not account me of the number of those that have so ill an opinion of the Church of England. For my part I had not so bad a one of any true Englishman, and I could not have persuaded myself that there had been so much as one, which had believed that a man could not be of her communion, without hazarding his own salvation. For those that are engaged in the party of the Church of Rome, I judged quite otherwise of them; they have particular Maxims, and act by other interests. But for those that have no tye to Rome, it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extreme, as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England. This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith, which all the Protestant World has so highly approved, and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are. For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession, and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece. There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford; and the great jewel deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it. It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England. And if it had not been as it were his work, he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner. The success that it has had, aught to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate, and it's having triumphed over so many obstacles, should make all the World acknowledge, that God has declared himself in favour of it, and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment; and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word, to which in effect it owes its birth and original. It is the same at present as it was when it was made, and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time. And how then can it be imagined, that it has changed its use? And can there be any thing more unjust, than to say, that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people, for the consolation of so many good men, for the salvation of so many believers, is now become a destructive and pernicious thing? If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent, your Divine Service is so too: for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry: You adore nothing but God alone; in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature: And if there be some Ceremonies there, which one shall not meet with in some other places; this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity, to put off all Charity, not to know much what souls are worth; not to understand the nature of things indifferent, to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally, that are willing to submit themselves unto them. It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any. For where has it been ever seen, that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline, and things that regard but the outside, and order of the Church, and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth? Can these things cause death, and distil poison into a soul? Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths; and as there is nothing but these that can save, so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation. For the Episcopal Government, what is there in it that is dangerous, and may reasonably alarm men's consciences? And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory, and shutting the Gates of Heaven, who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years, since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government? If it were contrary to the truth, and the attainment of eternal happiness, is it credible that God had so highly approved it, and permitted his Church to be tyrannised over by it for so many Ages? For who was it that did govern it? Who was it that did make up its Councils, as well General, as particular? Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted? Was it not the Bishops? And is it not to their wise conduct, to which next under God, his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs? And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church; who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was enveloped? Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again? Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops, and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long? And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe? In truth I think they might make the same use of this, as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople. When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place; but then his courage, his zeal, his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Heretics that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever; and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it, he would have to bear the name of Anastasia; because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth, and cleared it from the error that lay upon it, and by his continual cares had caused it, as it were, to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection. It is this too that the Bishops of England have done; they saw not only one truth, but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors; they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them, than it was any where else: The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation, was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal. Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design; the enemies without, and those within as terrible as they seem, do not fright them; they undertake this great work, and do not leave it till they had brought it about, and raised up the truth, and placed it again upon the Throne, in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle, and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection. But if their Churches have not that title, the thing itself belongs unto them; and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these, but lectures and praises of the pure truth. Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it; but to look upon the Church of England, as a very Orthodox Church. Thus all the Protestants of France do, those of Geneva, those of Switzerland and German, and those of Holland too; for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort, and showed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England. And from whence does it then come, that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present, and divide rashly from her, as they do? Is not this to divide from all the ancient Churches, from all the Churches of the East, from all the Protestant Churches, which have always had a very great respect for the purity of that of England? Is it not horrible impudence to excommunicate her without mercy, and to make themselves believe strangely of her, for them to imagine that they are the only men in England, nay, in the Christian World, that are predestinated to eternal happiness, and to hold the truths necessary to salvation, as they ought to be held? Indeed one might make a very odious Parallel betwixt these Teachers and Pope Victor, that would needs excommunicate the Churches of Asia, because they did not celebrate the Feast of Easter the same day they did at Rome. Betwixt them and the Audeans that divided from the Christians, and would not endure rich Bishops. Betwixt them and the Donatists, that would have no communion with them that had been ordained by lapsed Bishops, and imagined that their Society was the true Church, and the well beloved Spouse, that fed her flock in the South. Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion, who have so good an opinion of their own Church, that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved. For my part, as much inclined to Toleration as I am, I cannot for all this persuade myself, that it ought to be allowed to those that have so little of it for other men; and who, if they were Masters, would certainly give but bad quarter to those that depended upon them. I look upon these men as disturbers of the State and Church, and who are doubtlessly animated by a Spirit of Sedition. Nay, I can scarce believe, that they are just such as they say they are; and I should be something afraid, that very dangerous enemies might be hid under colour of these Teachers. Societies composed of such persons, would be extreme dangerous; and they could not be suffered without opening the Gate to disorder, and advancing towards one's own ruin. There are some of these that are composed of more reasonable men, but I could wish they were reasonable enough not to separate from those of which the Church of England is composed. Especially in the case we are in, they should do all for a good agreement; and in the present conjuncture of affairs, they should understand that there is nothing but a good reunion, that can prevent the evils with which England is threatened. For to speak the truth, I do not see that their Meetings are of any great use, or that one may be more comforted there, than in the Episcopal Churches. When I was at London almost Five years ago, I went to several of their private assemblies, to see what way they took for the instruction of the people, and the preaching of the Word of God. But I profess I was not at all edified by it. I heard one of the most famous Non-Conformists, he preached in a place where there were three men and three or fourscore women: he had chosen a Text about the building up the Ruins of jerusalem, and for the explication of it, he cited Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times, and did not forget to mention a Proverb in Italian, Duro con duro non fa muro. All this seemed to me nothing to the purpose, and very improper for the poor women, and very far from a Spirit that sought nothing but the comfort and edification of his hearers. To cantonize themselves, and make a Schism, to have the liberty to vent such vanities, is very ill conduct, and the people seem very weak to quit their mutual Assemblies for things that so little deserve their esteem and preference. I do not think that any one is obliged to suffer this irregularity. It is true, that the Assemblies of the Novatians were sometimes suffered at Rome and Constantinople, and that even the Donatists had some kind of liberty in the first of these places. But they were only strangers; and that neither did not endure any long time; and as there were but few of them, that is not to be drawn into example. But it is another case in England; and seeing the good of the State and Church depends absolutely upon the union of the people in the point of Religion, one cannot there press an universal union too much. But it ought to be procured by good means; and since the Bishops are persons of great experience, of an extraordinary knowledge, of a true fatherly zeal and goodness towards their people, I hope that they will employ themselves in this great work with all the prudence and charity that are necessary to the succeeding of such a commendable undertaking. You particularly, My Lord, whose moderation and capacity are acknowledged by all the World; it looks as if it were a design reserved for your great Wisdom; and if you do not succeed, it is clear, that all others will labour in it but in vain. For my part, I can contribute nothing to it where I am, but Vows and Prayers; and of these I can protest that I make very sincere ones every day for the prosperity of the English Church; and that it would please God to order things in such manner, that all the Protestants of England for the future, might be of one heart and of one soul. I beg your Lordship to be well assured of this and to believe that it is impossible to be with more respect than I am,  
Leyden Sept. 3. 1680. My Lord, Your most Humble and most Obedient servant, Le Moyne.    


A Paris l' 32. d'Octob. Monseigneur,  
RIen ne vous a deu paroistre si estrange ny si incivil que mon silence sur la lettre que vous me fîstes l'honneur de m'escrire il y a environ trois mois; Il est pourtant uray que je n'ay rien a me reprocher sur cela, & a fin que vous le croyiez comme moy, vous voulez bien me permettre de vous dire comment la chose s'est passée. Quand on m'apporta vostre lettre, j'estois retombé dans une grande & violente fiebure dont Dieu m'a affligé durant quatre ou cinq mois, & qui m'a mené jusqu'a deux doits de la mort. je priay un de mes amis, qui estoit alors dans ma chambre, de l'ouvrir & de me dire le nom de celuy qui me l'escrivoit, mais il se trouva que vous aviez oublié de la signer, sur quoy je me l'a fis apporter, pour voir si je n'en connoistrois point le caractére; Et ce fut encore inutilement, par ce que jusqu'alors je n' avois rien veu de vostre main: Cela me fit croire qu'elle avoit esté escrite par celuy lá mesme qui l'avoit apportée, pour m'attrapper dix ou douze sous de port; car ce petit stratageme est assez commun en cette ville & aprez cela, je ne me mis pas fort en peine de ce qu'elle deviendroit. Elle se conserva pourtant dans mon cabinet par le plus grand hazard du monde, & m'estant heureusement tombée sous la main, il y a deux ou trois jours, je la relus; & l'aiant trovuée trop sage & trop grave pour avoir esté escrite par un homme tel que je me l'estois imaginé, je la monstray à Monsieur Claude qui y reconnut d'abord vostre escriture, & qui me dit que vous en estiez l'Auteur. je pense Monseigneur que cela suffit pour me justifier auprez de vous d'un silence, qui bien que je n'en sois aucunement coupable, ne laisse pas de me donner quelque espece de confusion. Mais pour venir au contenu de vostre lettre, je ne vous puis exprimer avec quelle douleur j'apprens que vos divisions continuent, en un temps auquel il y a des raisons si pressantes de se réünir; Ce que vous me dites sur tout des escrits que l'on publie a cette heure, pour faire croire que la communion avec l' Eglise Anglicane est illégitime, & que les Ministres ne la peuvent permettre aux particuliers sans crime, me paroist une chose si deraisonnable en elle mesme, & si fort à contre-temps, que j'aurois peine a la croire si elle ne m'estoit attestée par une personne de vostre mérite & de vostre poids. Vous savez bien Monseigneur quels sont & quels ont toujours esté mes sentimens sur cela, & la maniére dont j'en uzay il y a deux ans dans mon voiage d' Angleterre, en fréquentant vos assemblées, & en preschant mesme dans un troupeau qui est sous la Iurisdiction de l' Eglise Anglicane, monstre assez que je suis bien éloigné de croire que sa communion soit illégitime; Et cela mesme prouve d'une maniére bien évidente, que mon sentiment a cet égard est celuy de nos Eglises, parce qu'il n'est pas imaginable que j'eusse voulu faire, sans nécessité, une chose qui m'eust attiré l'indignation de mes fréres, & qui, a mon retour, m'eust expose à leurs reproches ou a leurs censures. Pleust a Dieu, Monseigneur, que tout ce qu'il y a de Chrestiens égarez dans le monde voulussent recevoir vostre Réformation, que je répandrois de bon coeur tout ce que j'ay de sang pour leur procurer un si grand bien. Et que je suis asseuré de la joye extresme avec laquelle nos Eglises entreroient dans leur Communion, Si en estant dans la pureté de vos sentimens pour les dogmes, ils ne differoient plus d'avec nous que par des Surplis, par des Cérémonies innocentes, & par quelque diversité d' Ordres dans le gouvernement de l' Eglise. Et cela Monseigneur vous fait assez comprendre, ce que j'ay a respondre a vostre seconde question. Car puis que l' Eglise Anglicane est une uéritable Eglise de nostre Seigneur, Puis que son Culte & ses Dogmes sont purs, & n'ont rien de contraire a lu parole de Dieu, Et puis que quand la Reformation y a esté receüe, elle y a esté receüe avec l'Episcopat. Et en y establissant la Liturgie & les Cérémonies qui y sont aujourdhuy en uzage, il est sans doute du devoir de tous les Réformez de Vostre Royaume de se tenir inséparablement unis a Cette Eglise; Et ceux qui ne le font pas, sous ombre qu'ils desireroient, plus de simplicité dans les Cérémonies, & moins d'inegálité entre les Ministres commettent asseurément un tres grand péché. Car le schisme est le plus redoutable mal qui puisse arriver à l' Eglise; Et pour l'éviter la charité Chrestienne oblige tous les gens de bien a supporter en leurs fréres des choses bien moins supportables que ne le doivent paroistre celles dont il s'agit, aux yeux de ceux lá mesmes qui les ont le plus en aversion: Et c'estoit lá si bien le sentiment de nostre Grand & Excellent Calvin que dans son traitté de la necessité de la Réformation il ne fait point de difficulté de dire, Que s'il se trouvoit des gens assez deraisonnables pour refuser la Communion d'une Eglise pure dans son culte & dans ses Dogmes, & pour ne pas se soumettré avec respect a son Gouvernement, sous ombre qu'elle auroit retenu l' Episcopat conditionné comme le vostre, il n'y auroit point de censure ny de rigueur de discipline qu'on ne deust exercer contre eux. 
* C●lv. Edit. Amstel. ●om. 8 p. 60.  Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant, in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab illo tanquam ab unico capite pendeant & ad ipsum referantur, in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati, tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt qui non eam revereantur, summaque obedientia observent. Et Beze mesme, qui n'approuvoit pas en général le gouvernement Episcopal, fait une telle distinction du vostre, et est si éloigne de croire que l'on puisse, ou que l'on doive en prendre sujet de se séparer de vostre Eglise, qu'il prie Dieu ardenment qu'elle puisse toujours de meurer dans l'heureux estate ou elle avoit esté mise et conseruée, par le sang, par la pureté de la foy, et par la sage conduite de ses Excellens Evesques. 
* Bez. contra Sarrav. ad cap 8. art. 3. pag. 27● Edit. Fran●o●. ann. 16●1  Quod si nunc Anglicana Ecclesia instaurata suorum Episcoporum & Archiepiscoporum authoritate persistat, quemadmodum hoc nostra memoria contigit, ut ejus ordinis homines non tantum insignes Dei Martyres, sed etiam praestantissimos Pastores & Doctores habuerit, fruatur sane ista singulari Dei beneficentia, quae utinam illi sit perpetua. Mais, Monseigneur, quoy que les premiers Auteurs de la séparation qui vous trouble soient extraordinairement coupables, et que ceux qui la continuent et qui la fortifient par leurs escrits dé raisonnables et emportez le soient aussy extrém●ment, est neanmoins certain que dans la multitude qui les suit, il y a une infinité de bonnes gens dont la foy est pure et la pieté sincére; et qui ne demeurent cloignez de vous que parce que leur simplicité est surprise, et qu'on les a effrayez par ces grands mots de Tyrannie, d' Oppression, de supposts de l' Antechrist dont on leur bat perpetuellement les oreilles: je les mets au rang de ces foibles qui disoient qu'ils n'estoient point du corps et dont St. Paul dit qu'ils estoient du corps pourtant; Et il me semble que les bons et charitables Evesques comme vous, en doivent dire, quoy qu'en un sens un peu différent, ce qu' Optat de Miléve disoit des Donatistes de son temps, Si collegium Episcopale nolunt nobiscum habere, tamen fratres sunt: Au nom de Dieu donc Monseigneur faites tout ce qui vous sera possible pour les ramencr a leur devoir par la douceur et par la Charité qui seule est capable d' opérer de grandes choses en ces occasions. Car les hommes qui ont toujeurs de l'orgueil, se soulevent ordinairement contre tout ce qui leur paroist n'agir que par la seule Authorité, mais ils ne manquent presque jamais de se rendre au support et a la condescendance, Mansuetus homo, cordis est medicus. je ne pretens pas Monseigneur m'ingérer de vous donner la dessus aucun conseil particulier; Vous qui voiez les choses de prez, et qui avez le coeur tout pénetré de la charité Chrestienne jugez mieux que personne des remedes qui sont les plus propres a un si grand mal; Et je suis asseuré que s'il ne falloit pour le guérir que s' abstenir de quelques expressions, que quitter quelques cérémonies, et que changer la couleur de quelques habits, vous vous y resouàriez avec grand pla s●r, et a quelque chose de plus difficile. Il me semble m●sme avoir leu en quelque endroit des Vindiciae de Monsieur le Doien de Windsor que ce furent lá les sentimens charitables que fit paroistre l' Eglise Anglicane par la bouche de trois ou quatre de ses Evesques dans une Conférence qui se fit sur les moiens de réunion, en la preniére année du restablissement de sa Majesté Britannique, et qu'il ne tint qu'a quelques Ministres de ceux qu'on appelle Presbyteriens que la chose ne passast plus avant. Quoy qu'il en soit je prie Dieu de tout mon coeur qu'il ovure les yeux des uns pour leur faire connoistre la foiblesse des raisons sur lesquelles ils fondent une séparation si affligeante, Et qu'il conserve et qu'il augmente de plus en plus dans les autres, la piété, le zéle et la charité dont ils ont besoin pour travailler heureusement a une réünion qui réjonira les hommes et les Anges, et qui attirera mille bénédictions de la terre et du Ciel sur ceux qui y auront le plus contribüé: Et je vous avouë Monseigneur que je ne servis pas consolable si je voiois qu'on ne fist pas au moins quelque nouvel effort pour réüssir dans un ovurage si saint et si important dans un temps qui m'y paroist si propre. Car outre que les interests de Vostre Estat et de Vostre Eglise le demandent extraordinairement, I' apprens que par une admirable bénédiction du Ciel, toutes vos Chaires Episcopales sont maintenant remplies par d' Excellens Serviteurs de Dieu, qui aiment jesus Christ et son Eglise, et qui ont tous les qualitez de la teste et du coeur qui sont necessaires pour pouvoir et pour vouloir contribuer a cette bonne oevure. Et a en juger par vous Monseigneur, et par Monseigneur l' Archevesque de Canterbery, et Monseigneur l' Evesque d' Oxford que j'ay eu l'honneur de voir durant mon séjour en Angleterre, je n'ay pas de peine a me le persuader. Mais j'ay peur de vous avoir ennuyé par cette longue lettre, je vous en demande tres humblement pardon, Et je vous supplie d'estre bien persuadé que je conserve toujours une extresme reconnoissance de l' amitie dont vous m'honorez, et que je suis avec tout le respect que je vous dois  
Vostre tres humble & tres obeysant Serviteur, De l'Angle.  
Monseigneur,  
Monsieur Claude mon Excellent Collegue a qui j'ay monstré cette lettre, m'a prié de vous dire, en vous asseurant de son tres humble service, qu'il la souscriroit de bon coeur et qu'il est absolument dans mes sentimens.   

Paris, Octob. 31. 1680. Second Letter.  
From Monsieur de L' Angle one of the present Preachers of the Reformed Church meeting at Charenton near Paris, upon the same subject.  
My Lord,  
NOthing may seem so strange and so uncivil to you, as my silence upon your Letter you did me the honour to write me about three months ago. But yet it is true that in this case I have nothing to blame myself for; and that you may believe it, as well as I, you will give me leave to tell you how the matter happened. When your Letter was brought me, I was relapsed into a great and violent Fever, with which God has afflicted me for the space of four or five months, and which has brought me very near the grave; I prayed one of my friends, which was then in my Chamber, to open the Letter, and to tell me the name of him that wrote it; but it chanced that you had forgotten to subscribe it, upon which I made it be brought to me, to see if I did not know the Character; but it was to no purpose, because till then I had not seen any thing of your hand. This made me believe that it had been written by the same man that brought it, to get ten or twelve Sons for the carriage; for that little stratagem is common enough in this Town. After this, I did not much trouble myself what became of it; but yet it was preserved in my Cabinet by the greatest chance in the world; and being happily fallen into my hands two or three days since, I read it over again; and having found it too prudent and grave to have been written by such a one as I had imagined, I showed it to Monsieur Claude, who presently knew your hand, and told me that you were the Author of it. I think, my Lord, this is enough to excuse me to you, for a silence, for which though I am not any way faulty, yet I cannot choose but be something ashamed.  
But to come to the contents of your Letter; I cannot express to you with how much grief I understand that your divisions continue, at a time in which there are such pressing reasons for being Reunited. Above all, that which you tell me of writings that are at this time published, to make men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful, and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private persons without sinning, seems to me a thing so unreasonable in itself, and so very unseasonable now, that I should scarce believe it, if it were not attested by a person of your merit and consideration. My Lord, you know well what my sentiments are, and always have been in this matter; and the way which I used two years ago, when I was in England, in frequenting your assemblies, and preaching too in a Congregation that is under the jurisdiction of the Church of England, sufficiently shows that I am very far from believing that her Communion is unlawful. And this also proves very evidently that my opinion in this matter is the same that is holden by our Churches; because it is not imaginable that I would without any necessity, have done a thing which would have drawn the displeasure of my Brethren upon me, and which at my return would have exposed myself to be blamed, if not to be censured by them. My Lord, I would to God that all the mistaken Christians that are in the world would receive your Reformation; I would with all my heart spend all the blood I have to procure them so great a good. And I am sure with what an exceeding Joy our Churches would enter into their Communion, if being pure in their opinions for Doctrine, they differed no more from us, than by Surplices, and innocent Ceremonies; and some diversity of Orders in the Government of the Church.  
And by this, my Lord, you may perceive what I have to answer to your second question. For since the Church of England is a true Church of our Lord; since her Worship and Doctrines are pure, and have nothing in them contrary to the word of God; and since that when the Reformation was there received, it was received together with Episcopacy, and with the establishment of the Liturgy, and Ceremonies, which are there in use at this day; it is without doubt the duty of all the Reformed of your Realm, to keep themselves inseparably united to the Church. And those that do not do this, upon pretence that they should desire more simplicity in that Ceremonies, and less of inequality among the Ministers, do certainly commit a very great sin. For Schism is the most formidable evil that can befall the Church: and for the avoiding of this, Christian charity obliges all good men to bear with their Brethren in some things much less tolerable than those, of which the dispute is, aught to seem, even in the eyes of those that have the most aversion for them. And this was so much the opinion of our great and excellent Calvin, 
Calvin ●pera Edit. 〈…〉 38. p. 6●.  that in his Treatise of the necessity of the Reformation he makes no difficulty to say; That if there should be any so unreasonable as to refuse the Communion of a Church that was pure in its Worship and Doctrine, and not to submit himself with respect to its Government, under pretence that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours is; there would be no Censure nor rigour of Discipline that ought not to be exercised upon them. Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant, in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant, et ad ipsum referantur; in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant, ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati; tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt▪ qui non eum revereantur, summaque obedientia observent. And Beza himself, who did not in the general approve of the Episcopal Government, makes such a distinction of yours, and is so far from believing, that one may, or that one ought to take occasion from thence to separate from your Church, that he prays earnestly to God that she may always remain in that happy estate in which she had been put and preserved, 
〈…〉 cap. 8. art. 3. pag. 〈◊〉 Edit. 〈◊〉 anno 1601.  by the blood, by the purity of the Faith, and by the wise conduct of her excellent Bishops. Quod si nunc Anglicana Ecclesia instaurata suorum Episcoporum et Archiepiscoporum authoritate persistat, quemadmodum hoc nostrâ memoriâ contigit, ut ejus ordinis homines, non tantum insignes Dei Martyrs, sed etiam praestantissimos Pastores et Doctores habuerit, frautur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ, quae utinam illi sit perpetua.  
But, my Lord, although the first Authors of the Separation, which troubles you, be extraordinarily to blame, and though those that continue it, and strengthen it, by their unreasonable and passionate Writings, be extremely so too; it is certain yet that among the multitude that follows them, there is a very great number of goodmen, whose faith is pure, and whose piety is sincere, and who remain separate from you only because their simplicity is surprised, and because they have been frighted with the bugbear words of Tyranny, Oppression, Limbs of Antichrist which are continually beaten into their ears. I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body; and of whom St. Paul said they were of the Body for all that. And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops, such as you, aught to say of them, though in something a different sense, as Optatus Milevitanus said of the Donatists of his time, Si Collegium Episcopale nolunt nobiscum habere, tamen Fra●res sunt. In the name of God then, my Lord, do all that possibly you can to bring them back to their duty by sweetness and charity, which is only able to do great things on these occasions. For men, who have always something of pride, do commonly oppose every thing that seems to them to act by bare Authority only: but they scarce ever fail to yield themselves up to forbearance and condescension. Mansuetus homo cordis est medicus.  
I do not pretend, My Lord, to thrust myself in to give you any particular advice in this case; you that see things near at hand, and that have a heart deeply affected with Christian Charity, will judge better than any man, what remedies are the most proper for so great an evil; and I am sure that if there were nothing wanting to cure it, but the a staining from some expressions, the quitting some Ceremonies, and the changing the colour of some habits, you would resolve to do that, and something more difficult than that, with great pleasure. And I think I have read in some part of the Vindiciae of Mr ●ean of Windsor, that these were the charitable sentiments which the Church of England declared by the mouth of three or four of her Bishops, in a Conference that was held concerning the means of reunion, the first year that his Majesty was restored; and that nothing hindered the matter from going farther, but some of those Ministers they call Presbyterians. However it be, I pray God with all my heart, that he would open the eyes of the one to make them see the weakness of the reasons upon which they ground such an afflicting Separation; and that he would preserve, and increase more and more in the other, that piety, that zeal, and that charity which they have need of for the happy proceeding to a reunion, which will rejoice men and Angels, and bring down a thousand blessings of Heaven and Earth upon those that shall contribute the most unto it. And I assure you, My Lord, I should be 〈◊〉 ●●mpt at all Comfort if I should see that some new 〈◊〉 lest were not made for the success of a 〈…〉 so holy, and of such consequence, in a time 〈…〉 to me so proper for it. For besides that the interest of your State, and Church do require it in such an extraordinary manner; I hear that by a wonderful blessing of Heaven, all your Episcopal Sees are filled at this time with excellent servants of God, who love jesus Christ and his Church and who have all the qualities of the head and the heart, which are necessary to make them able, and willing to contribute to this good work. And to judge of it by you, My Lord, and My Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and My Lord Bishop of Oxford, whom I had the honour to see during my stay in England, I am easily persuaded of it.  
But I am afraid I have tired you with this long Letter; I humbly beg your pardon for it; and I beseech you to be very well assured that I always preserve a very grateful acknowledgement of the Friendship with which you honour me, and that I am with all the respect that I owe  
My Lord, Your most Humble and most Obedient Servant, De L' Angle.  
Mons. Claude my excellent Colleague, to whom I have showed this Letter, has prayed me to tell you, with assurance of his most humble service, that he would subscribe this with all his heart, and that he is absolutely of my Opinion.    

The Third Letter, from Monsieur Claude, on the same Subject.  

A Paris 29. Novemb. Stilo Novo. Monseigneur,  
MOnsieur de l' Angle m'ayaut rendu la Lettre qu'il vous a plû m'écrire, j'ay esté surpris d'y voir que vous m'aviez fait l'honneur de m'en écrire une autre que je n'ay point receüe, & à laquelle je n'eusse pas manquè de faire réponse. Vous me faites beaucoup d'honneur de vouloir bien que je vous dise ma pensée sur le different qui vous trouble depuis long-tems, entre ceux qu'on appelle Episcopaux, & ceux qu'on nomme Presbyteriens. Quoy que je m'en sois deja diverses fois expliquè & par des Lettres que j'ay faites sur ce sujet à plusieurs personnes, & dans mon liure mesme de la Defense de la Reformation, où parlant de la distinction de l' Evesque & du Prestre, j'ay dit formellement que je ne blame pas ceux qui l'observent comme une chose fort ancienne, & que je ne voudrois pas qu'on s'en fist un sujet de querelle dans les lieux où elle se trouve établie, pag. 366. & quoy que d'ailleurs je me connoisse assez pour ne pas croire que mon sentiment doive estre fort considerè, je ne laisseray pas de vous temoigner dans cette occasion, comme je feray toujours en toute autre, mon estime Chretienne, mon respect, & mon obeissance. C'est ce que je feray d'autant plus que je ne vous diray pas simplement ma pensée particuliere, mais le sentiment du general de nos Eglises.  
Premierement donc, Monseigneur, nous sommes si fort éloignez de croire qu'on ne puisse en bonne conscience viure sous vostre discipline, & sous vostre Gouvernement Episcopal, que dans nostre pratique ordinaire nous ne faisons nulle difficultè, ni de donner nos chaires, ni de commettre le soin de nos troupeaux à des Ministres receus & ordinez par Messieurs vos Evesques, comme il se pourroit justifier par un assez grand nombre d'exemples, & anciens, & recens, & depuis peu Mr. Duplessis ordinè par Monsieur l' Evesque de Lincoln à esté establi, & appellè dans une Eglise de cette Province, & Monsieur Wicart, que vous, Monseigneur, avez receu au S. Ministere nous fit l'honneur il-n'y-a que quelques mois de Prescher à Charenton à l'edification universelle detout nostre troupeau. Ainsi ceux qui nous imputent à cet égard des sentimens éloignez de la paix & de la concorde Chretienne, nous font assurement injustice.  
je dis la paix & la concorde Chretienne, car, Monseigneur, nous croyons que l'obligation à conserver cette paix & cette concorde fraternelle, qui fait l'unité exterieure de l'eglise, est d'une necessitè si indispensable que S. Paul n'a pas fait difficultè de la joindre avec l'unité interieure d'une mesme foy, & d'une mesme regeneration, non seulement comme deux choses qui ne doivent jamais estre separées, mais aussi comme deux choses dependantes l'une de l'autre, parce que si l'unité exterieure est comme la fille de l'interieure, elle en est aussi la conservatrice. Cheminez, dit il Ephes. 4. comme il est convenable à la vocation dont vous estes appellez, avec toute humilitè, & douceur, avec un esprit patient, supportant l'un l'autre en charité. Estant soigneux de garder l'unitè de l'esprit par la lien de la paix. D'un cotè il fait dependre cette charitè fraternelle, qui nous joint les uns avec les autres, de nostre commune vocation, & de l'autre il nous enseigne qu'un des principaux moyens de conserner en son entier cette commune vocation qu'il appelle l'unitè de l'esprit, est de garder entre nous la paix. Selon la premiere de ces maximes nous ne pouvons avoir de paix, ni de Communion Ecclesiastique avec ceux qui ont tellement degenerè de la vocation Chretienne qu'on ne peut plus reconnoitre en eux une veritable & salutaire foy, principalement lors qu' à des erreurs mortelles ils ajoutent la tyrannie de l'ame, & qu'ils voulent contraindre la conscience, en imposant la necessitè de croire ce qu'ils croyent & de pratiquer ce qu'ils pratiquent. Car en ce cas le fondement & la veritable cause de la communion exterieure n'estant plus, la communion exterieure cesse aussi de droit, & il-n'y-en peut plus avoir de legitime. Selon la seconde maxime nous ne croyons pas qu'une simple difference de gouvernement, ou de discipline, ni mesme un difference de ceremonies innocentes de leur nature, soient un sujet suffisant pour rompre le sacrè lien de la communion. C'est pourquoy nos Eglises ont toûjours regardè & considerè la vostre, non seulement comme une soeur, mais comme une soeur aisuée pour qui nous devons avoir des tendresses accompagnées de respect & de veneration, & pour qui nous présentons sans cesse à Dieu des voeux tresardens. Nous n'entrons point dans la comparaison de vostre ordre, aver celuy sous lequel nous vivons. Nous savons qu'il-n'y-en a, ni n'y-en peut avoir aucun entre les hommes, qui par nostre corruption naturelle, ne soit sujet à des inconveniens, le nostre à les siens comme le vostre, & l'un & l'autre sans doute ayant leurs avantages & leurs desavantages à divers égards, alternis vincut & vincuntur. Il nous suffit de savoir que la mesme Providence Divine qui par une necessitè indispensable, & par la conjoncture des choses, mit au commencement de la Reformation nos Eglises sous celuy du Presbyterat, à mis la vostre sous celuy de l' Episcopat, & que comme nous sommes assurez que vous ne meprisez point nostre simplicitè, nous ne devons pas aussi nous élever contre vostre dignitè. Ainsi, Monseigneur, nous desapprouvons entierement, & voyons avec douleur, de certeines extremitez où se jettent quelques uns de part & d'autre, les uns regardant l' Episcopat comme un ordre si absolument necessaire que sans luy il-n'y peut avoir ni de societè Ecclesiastique, ni de legitime vocation ni d'esperance de salut, & les autres le regardant avec indignation comme un reste d' Antichristianisme. Ce sont également des chaleurs & des excés qui ne viennent point de celuy qui nous appelle, & qui pechent contre les loix de la sagesse & de la charité.  
Voylà, Monseigneur, nos veritables & sinceres sentimens communs, pour ce qui vous regarde, & puisque vous desirez que je descende un peu plus particulierement à l'état où se trouve vostre propre Eglise, par les divisions intestines qui la travaillent, Permettez moy que je ne vous dise mes pensées qu'en vous expliquant mes souhaits, & les desirs de mon coeur, sur une chose aussi importante que l'est celle là. je souhaiterois donc de toute mon ame que ceux qui sont allez jusqu' à ce point que de songer à rompre les liens exterieurs, & la dependance mutuelle de vos troupeaux, pour donner à chaque Eglise particuliere une espece de souveraigntè de gouvernement, considerassent bien si ce qu'ils prétendent faire n'est pas directement contraire à l'esprit du Christianisme qui est un esprit d'union, & de societè, & non de division. Qu'ils considerassent que sous prétexte que le principe des Reformez est d'avoir en horreur la domination humaine sur la foy, & sur la conscience, comme une chose destructive de la Religion, il ne faut pourtant pas ni rejetter tout frein de discipline, ni secoüer tout joug de Gouvernement, ni se priver des secours que nous pouvous tirer de l'union generale pour nous affermir dans la uraye foy, & dans la uraye pietè. Qu'ils considerassent enfin que la mesme raison qui leur fait desirer l' Independence des troupeaux, peut estre aussi employée pour établir l' Independance des personnes dans chaque troupeau. Car un troupeau n'a pas plus de droit de vouloir estre Independant des autres troupeaux, qu'une personne en auroit de vouloir estre Independante des autres personnes. Or ce seroit' aneantir toute discipline, jetter l' Eglise entant qu'en nous seroit dans une horrible confusion; & exposer l'heritage du Seigneur à l'opprobre de ses adversaries.  
Pour ce qui regarde ceux qu'on appelle parmy vous Presbyteriens, comme je suis persuadè qu'ils ont de la lumiere, de la sagesse, & du Zele, je souhaiterois aussi de tout mon coeur qu'ils gardassent plus de mesure dans le scandale qu'ils croyent avoir autrefois receu de l'ordre Episcopal, & qu'ils distinguassent les personnes d'aves le Ministere. Les personnes qui occupent les charges non seulement ont leurs defauts, mais il peut mesme quelquefois arriver que les plus saintes, & les plus eminentes charges soient possedées par des méchans, & en ce cas la raison & la pietè voulent également qu'on ne confonde pas le Ministere avec le Ministre. A present que Dieu par sa grace a ôtè ce scandale de devant leurs yeux, & qu'il leur a fait voir dans les personnes de Messieurs les Evesques de la pietè, du Zele, & de la fermetè, pour la conservation de la Religion, j'espere que cela mesme ne contribuera pas peu à l'adoucissement des esprits. D'ailleurs je souhaiterois qu'il leur plust de considerer que si dans le Gouvernement Episcopal il-y-à des inconveniens facheux, comme je ne doute pas qu'il-n'y-en-ayt, il-y-en-à aussi & de tres-facheux dans le Presbyterien, comme je l'ay deja dit. Nul ordre dont l'exercice est entre les mains des hommes n'en est exempt, l'egalitè à ses vices, & ses excés à craindre, de mesme que la superioritè. Le plus sur & le plus sage n'est donc pas de voltiger de l'une à l'autre, ni de risquer de faire un ébranlement general, sur l'esperance d'estre mieux, quand mesme on seroit en autoritè & en pouvoir de le faire. La prudence, la justice, & la charitè Chretienne ne permettent pas d'en venir à ces éclattantes & dangereuses extremitez, pour une simple difference de Gouvernment. Le plus sur, & le plus sage est de tacher d'apporter quelque temperament pour éviter, ou pour diminuer autant qu'il se peut les inconveniens qu'on apprehende, & non de recourir à des remedes violens.  
je ne craindray pas d'appeller de ce nom celuy de faire des assemblées à part, de se separer des assemblées communes, & de se soustraire de vostre gouvernement. Il-n'y-a personne qui ne voye que ce seroit un veritable schisme, qui en luy-mesme & de sa nature ne peut jamais estre qu'odieux à Dieu, & aux hommes, & dont les auteurs, & les protecteurs ne sauroient eviter qu'ils ne rendent conte devant le Tribunal de nostre commun Maitre. Quand S. Paul nous a defendu de delaisser nostre commune assemblée, il a non seulement condamnè ceux qui ne s'y trouvent point en demeurant dans leur particulier, mais ceux aussi sans doute qui en font d'autres opposees aux communes, car c'est rompre le lien de la charitè Chretienne qui ne nous joint pas seulement avec quelques uns de nos freres, mais avec tous nos freres, pour recevoir d'eux de l'edification, & pour leur en donner de nostre part, en vivant ensemble dans une mesme societè. El il ne servirot de rien de pretexter que la conscience resiste à se trouver dans des assemblées qui se font sous un Gouvernement qu'on n'approuve pas, & que ce seroit approuver exterieurement, ce que l'on condamne interieurement. Car outre qu'il faudroit bien examiner la question si ces resistances ne viennent pas d'une conscience trompée, par un jugement precipitè, puisque les plus gens de bien sont souvent sujets à se former de tels scrupules qui au fond ne sont pas tout à fait legitimes. Outre cela, il faut distinguer trois sortes de choses, les unes que la conscience approuve, & recoit, & ausquelles elle acquiesce pleinement, les autres qu'elle regarde comme insupportables, & comme destructives de la gloire de Dieu, de la uraye foy, on de la uraye Pieté, & de l'esperance du salut, & les autres enfin qui tiennent le milieu, c'est-a-dire qu'on n'approuve pas à la veritè pleinement, mais qu'on ne croit pourtant pas mortelles à la uraye pietè & au salut, en un mot qu'on regarde comme des taches & des infirmitez supportables. I'avoüe que quand on trouve dans des assemblées des choses de ce second ordre, ou que la conscience les juge telles, on ne peut y assister, & toute la question se reduit à savoir, si l'on ne se trompe pas, sur quoy il faut bien prendre garde de ne pas faire de jugemens temeraires. Mais de s'imaginer qu'on ne puisse en bonne conscience assister à des assemblées, que lors qu'on y approuve pleinement & generalement toutes choses, c'est assurement ne pas connoitre ni l'usage de la charitè, ni les loix de la societè Chretienne. Ce principe renverseroit toutes les Eglises, car je ne say s'il-y-en a aucune dont le Gouvernement, la Discipline, la forme exterieure, les usages, & les pratiques soient dans une telle perfection, qu'il-n'y-ayt absolument rien à redire, & quoy qu'il en soit comme les jugemens des hommes sont fort differens, ce seroit ovurir la porte à des separations continuelles, & abolir les assemblées. Il est donc constant que la conscience n'oblige point à se soustraire des assemblées, mais qu'au contraire elle nous oblige de nous y tenir attachez, lors que les choses qui nous y choquent sont supportables, & qu'elles n'empechent pas l'efficace salutaire de la parole, du culte divin, & des Sacremens. Et c'est à la faveur de ce support de la charitè qu'est couverte l'assistance que nous donnons à des choses que nous n'approuvons pas entierement. Voyez ce que S. Paul dit à ses Philippiens, chap. 3. Si vous sentez quelque chose autrement, Dieu vous le revelera aussi. Toutefois cheminons en ce à quoy nous sommes pervenus d'une mesme regle, & sentons une mesme chose. Cela est bien éloiguè de dire, des que vous aurez le moindre sentiment contraire separez vous, la conscience ne vous permet pas de demeurer ensemble. Consilia separationis, dit S. Augustin contre Parmenian, Inania sunt & perniciosa, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos, quàm corrigant animosos malos. Quels funestes effets ne produiroit pas une telle separation si elle s'établissoit au milieu de vous? De la maniere que les esprits des hommes sont faits, on verroit bien-tôt naitre de là la difference des interets, celle des partys, celle des sentimens à l'égard mesme de la societè civile, la hayne mutuelle, & toutes les autres tristes suites que la division, qui n'est plus temperée par la charitè, produit naturellement. je laisse à part le scandale qu'en receuroient toutes les Eglises reformées de l' Europe, la joye qu'en auroient leurs adversaires, & les avantages qu'ils en retireroient, qui selon toutes les apparences ne seroient pas petits. I'ay trop bonne opinion de ces Messieurs qui croyent que la Gouvernement Presbyterien est preferable à l' Episcopal, pour n'estre pas persuadè qu'ils font de sages & de serieuses reflexions sur toutes ces choses, & sur tant d'autres que leurs lumieres leur fournissent, & que la conscience, & l'amour de la Religion Protestante les empechera toujours de rien faire, qui puisse estre blamè devant Dieu, & devant les hommes. Car enfin je ne saurois croire qu'il-y-en-ayt aucun parmy eux, qui regarde ni vostre Episcopat, ni vostre Discipline, ni quelques Ceremonies que vous observez, comme des taches & des erreurs capitales, qui empechent qu'on ne puisse faire son salut, & mesme avec facilitè dans vos Assemblées & sous vostre Gouvernement. Il ne s'agit icy ni de l' esse, ni du bene esse, mais seulement du melius esse, qu'ils disputent avec vous, & cela estant ainsi la justice, la charitè, l'amour de la paix, la prudence, & le zele pour le general de la Religion ne consentiront jamais qu'ils se détachent de vous.  
Mais, Monseigneur, puisque vous m'avez mis la plume à la main sur ce sujet, Pardonnez je vous supplie à ma libertè si elle uà jusqu'à vous dire ce que je croy que vous aussi devez faire de vostre part. I'espere donc que dans ces occasions que Dieu vous presente vous ferez voir à toute la terre, & en convaincrez les plus incredulez que vous aves de la pietè, du zele, & de la crainte de Dieu, & que vous estez de dignes ouvriers, & de dignes serviteurs de jesus Christ. C'est deja le temoignage que vous rendent les gens de bien, & que nul quelque mal intentionnè qu'il soit, n'ose contredire, & je ne doute pas que vous ne poussiez vostre vocation jusqu'an bout. Mais outre cela, Monseigneur, j'espere que vous ne defaudrez point aux devoirs de la charitè, & de l'esprit de paix, & que quand il ne s'agria que de quelques temperamens, ou de quelques Ceremonies qui servent d'achoppement, & qui en elles mesmes ne sont rien en comperaison d'une entiere reünion de vostre Eglise sous vostre saint Ministere, vous ferez voir que vous aymez l'Epouse de vostre Maitre plus que vous mesmes, & que ce n'est pas tant de vostre grandeur, & de vostre dignitè Ecclesiastique que vous desirez tirer vostre gloire & vostre joye, que de vos vertus Pastorales, & des soins ardens que vous avez de vos troupeaux. I'espere aussi que ceux que vous avez choisis, & appellez au S. Ministere, & ceux que desormais vous y appellerez avec un prudent discernement, reglez non seulement par la donceur, mais aussi par la severitè de la Discipline, quand la severitè sera necessaire, marcheront sur vos traces, & suiront heureusement l'exemple que vous leur donnerez, pour estre eux-mesmes en exemple, & en edification aux Eglises qui leur sont commises. je finis, Monseigneur, par des prieres tres-ardentes que je présente à Dieu de tout mon coeur, afin qu'il luy plaise de vous conserver à jamais le flamebeau de son Evangile, de repandre sur tout le corps de vostre Ministere, une abondante mesure de son onction & de sa benediction celeste, dont celle de l'ancien Aaron n'estoit que l'ombre, afin qu'elle soit non l'embleme & l'image de la concorde fraternelle comme cette ancienne, mais qu'elle en soit la cause & le lien. je le prie qu'il veu●lle de plus en plus ramener le coeur des enfans aux peres, & des peres aux enfans, afin que vostre Eglise soit hevereuse, & agreable comme un Eden de Dieu. je le prie enfin qu'il vous conserve, vous, Monseigneur, en parfait & longue santè pour sa gloire, & pour le bien & l'avantage de cette grande & considerable pertie de son champ qu'il vous a donnè cultiver, & que vous cultivez si heureusement. je vous demande aussi le secours de vos saintes prieres, & la continuation de l'honneur de vostre affection, en vous Protestant que je seray toute ma vie avec tout le respect que je vous dois,  
Monseigneur, Vostre tres-humble & tres-obeissant Serviteur & Fils en Jesus Christ, CLAVDE.   

Paris Novemb. 29. Stilo Novo. My Lord,  
MOnsieur de L' Angle having given me the Letter which you have been pleased to write me, I was surprised to see by that, that you had done me the honour to write me another which I have not received, and to which I had not failed to make an answer. You do me a great deal of honour to desire that I should tell you my thoughts of the difference that has troubled you so long, betwixt those they call Episcopal, and those they name Presbyterians. Although I have already explained myself about this divers tims, both by Letters which I have written upon this Subject to several persons, and in my Book too of the Defence of the Reformation, where speaking of the distinction betwixt the Bishop and the Priest, I have said expressly, That I do not blame those that observe it as a thing very ancient, and that I would not that any one should make it an occasion of quarrel in those places where it is established, pag. 366. And though I otherways know myself sufficiently not to believe that my opinion should be much considered, I will not forbear to assure you upon this occasion, as I shall always do upon any other, of my Christian esteem, my respect, and my obedience. This I shall do the rather because I shall not simply tell you my private thoughts, but the opinion of the generality of our Churches.  
First then, my Lord, we are so very far from believing that a man cannot live with a good Conscience under your Discipline and under your Episcopal Government, that in our ordinary practice we make no difficulty, neither to bestow our Chairs, nor to commit the care of our Flocks to Ministers received, and ordained by my Lords the Bishops; as might be justified by a great number enough of Examples both old and new: And a little while since Mr. Duplessis that was ordained by my Lord Bishop of Lincoln has been established and called in a Church of this Province. And Monsieur Wicart, whom you, my Lord, received to the Holy Ministry, did us the honour, but some months ago, to preach at Charenton to the general edification of our Flock. So that they who in this respect do impute unto us any opinions distant from peace, and Christian concord, do certainly do us wrong.  
I say Peace and Christian concord: for, my Lord, we believe that the obligation to preserve this Peace, and this Brotherly concord, which make up the external unity of the Church, is of a necessity so indispensable, that St. Paul has made no difficulty to join it with the internal unity of the same Faith, and the same Regeneration; not only as two things which ought never to be separated, but likewise as two things depending the one upon the other; because if the external unity be as it were the Daughter of the internal, she is likewise the preserver of it. Walk, says he, Ephes. 4. worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. On the one side he makes this brotherly love, which joins us one with another, to depend upon our common vocation; and on the other side he teaches us that one of the principal means to preserve our common vocation entire, which he calls the unity of the spirit, is to keep peace among ourselves. According to the first of these maxims we cannot have peace, or Ecclesiastical communion with those that have so degenerated from the Christian vocation, that one cannot perceive in them a true and saving Faith; especially when with mortal errors they join tyranny over the Soul, and that they will force the Conscience, by imposing a necessity to believe that which they believe, and to practise that which they practise. For in this case the foundation and true cause of external communion being no more, the external communion to its self ceases of right, and there is not any that is lawful to be had any more with such. According to the second maxim we do not believe that a single difference of government or discipline, nor even a difference of Ceremonies innocent in their own nature is a sufficient occasion to break the sacred bond of Communion. Wherefore our Churches have always looked upon and considered yours, not only as a Sister, but as an Elder Sister, for which we ought to have a kindness accompanied with respect, and veneration, and for which we do present most ardent prayers unto God without ceasing. We do not enter into the comparison of your Order, with that under which we live. We know that there is not neither can there be any amongst men, which by reason of our natural corruption is not subject to inconveniencies, ours has hers, as well as yours; and the one and the other without doubt have their advantages, and disadvantages in divers respects: alternis vincunt, & vincuntur. It is enough for us to know that the same Divine Providence which by an indispensable necessity, and by the conjuncture of affairs, did at the beginning of the Reformation put our Churches under that of the Presbytery, has put yours under that of the Episcopacy; and as we are assured that you do not despise our simplicity, so neither ought we to oppose ourselves against your preeminence. So that, my Lord, we utterly disapprove and see with grief, certain extremes whereinto some of the one side, and the other do cast themselves. The one looking upon Episcopacy as an order so absolutely necessary, that without it there can be no Ecclesiastical society, nor lawful vocation, nor hope of Salvation; and the other looking upon it with indignation as a rellque of Antichristianism. These are equally heats and excesses which do not come from him that calls us, and which do offend against the laws of wisdom and charity.  
These, my Lord, are our true and sincere common opinions. For what concerns you, since you desire that I would descend a little more particularly into the state that your own Church is in, by reason of the intestine divisions that trouble it; give me leave not to tell you my thoughts, without declaring my wishes, and the desires of my heart, upon a matter so important as this is. I could wish then with all my sold that those that are gone so far as this point, to think to break the external bonds, and the mutual dependence of your Flocks, to give every particular Church a kind of sovereignty of government, would consider well whether that they pretend to do be not directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity, which is a spirit of union, and society, and not of division. That they would consider that under the pretence that the principle of the Reformed was to abhor men's domineering over Faith, and Conscience, as a thing destructive of Religion, we ought not for all that to reject the bridle of Discipline, nor to shake off the whole yoke of Government, nor deprive ourselves of the succours we might draw out of a general Union, for to strengthen us in the true Faith, and in true Piety. That they would consider, in fine, that the same reason which makes them desire the Independency of the Flocks, may be likewise employed to establish the Independency of the persons in every Flock. For a Flock has no more right to desire to be Independent upon other Flocks, than a person might have to desire to be Independent upon other persons. But this would be to bring all discipline to nothing, to throw the Church, as much as in us lies, into a horrible confusion, and to expose the heritage of the Lord to the reproach of its adversaries.  
For what concerns those which amongst you they call Presbyterians, as I am persuaded that they have light, and wisdom, and zeal, so I could wish with all my heart, that they would observe more moderation in the scandal they believe they have heretofore received from the Episcopal Order, and that they would distinguish the Persons from the Ministry. The persons that possess the places have not only their faults, but it may happen too sometimes that the most holy, and most eminent places may be possessed by wicked men; and in that case reason and peity do equally require that we should not confound the Ministry with the Minister. At present that God by his grace has taken away this scandal from before their eyes, and made them see piety, zeal, and constancy for the preservation of Religion in the persons of the Bishops, I hope that this will not a little contribute to the sweetening of their spirits. Besides, I could wish that they would be pleased to consider that if there be some unpleasant inconveniencies in the Episcopal Government, as I do not doubt but there are, there are too some very unpleasant ones in the Presbyterian, as I have said already. No order whose execution is in the hands of men, is exempt from them; an equality has its faults and excesses to be feared, as well as a superiority. Therefore it is not the most safe and wise way to leap from the one to the other, nor to hazard the making a general concussion, upon the hopes of being better, though one should be in authority and power to do it. Christian prudence, justice and charity do not permit us to proceed to such daring and dangerous extremes, for a single difference of Government. It is most safe and wise to endeavour to provide some kind of temper to avoid, or to lessen as much as may be, the inconveniencies that are feared, and not have recourse to violent remedies.  
I shall not be afraid to give that name to the holding of assemblies apart, and separating from the public assemblies, and withdrawing themselves from under your government. There is no man that does not see that this would be real schism, which in itself and of its own nature cannot choose but be always odious to God and men, and of which the Authors and Patrons cannot avoid the rendering an account before the Tribunal of our common Master. When Saint Paul forbade us to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, he did not only condemn those that did not come thither, but stayed at home; but those too without doubt that held other assemblies in opposition to the public ones. For this is to break the bond of Christian charity which does not only join us with some of our brethren, but with all our brethren, to receive from them, and to give them edification by living together in the same communion. And it would be to no purpose to pretend that our conscience did oppose our being present at those assemblies that are held under a Government that we do not approve; and that that would be to approve outwardly, what we inwardly condemn. For besides that it would be necessary to examine well the question, whether these oppositions do not proceed from a conscience mistaken by a precipitate judgement; since that the best men are often subject to fram to themselves such scruples, as are not altogether lawful at the bottom. Further than this it is necessary to distinguish three kinds of things; the one those which the conscience approves, and admits of, and in which it does fully acquiesce; the other which she looks upon as intolerable, and destructive to the glory of God, and the true faith, or true piety, and the hopes of salvation; and others last which are between these, that is to say such as we do not fully approve as to the truth, but yet we do not believe them mortal enemies to true piety and salvation; in a word such as we look upon as stains, and tolerable infirmities. I affirm that when we find things of this second rank in any Assemblies, or those which the Conscience judges such, we cannot be present there; and the whole question will be reduced to this, to know, whether we be not mistaken, where we ought to take good heed that we do not make a rash judgement. But to imagine that we cannot with a good Conscience be present at Assemblies, but only when we do fully and generally approve of all things in them, it is certainly not to know neither the use of charity, nor the laws of Christian society. This principle would overturn all Churches, for I cannot tell whether there be any, whose government, discipline, outward form, usages, and practices be of such perfection, that there is nothing at all in them to blame; and however it be, as the judgements of men are very different, this would be to open the gate to continual separations, and to abolish all Assemblies. It is therefore certain that Conscience does not oblige us to withdraw from the Assemblies, but on the contrary it obliges us to join with them, when the things that offend us are tolerable, and do not hinder the salutary efficacy of the Word, of the Divine Worship, and of the Sacraments. 'Tis the favour of this charitable patience that justifies our being present at those things which we do not perfectly approve. See what St. Paul says to the Philippians, chap. 3. If in any thing ye be otherways minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. This is very far from saying, as soon as ye have the least contrary sentiment separate yourselves, Conscience will not allow you to remain together. Consilia separationis, says St. Augustin against Parmenian, inania sunt & perniciosa, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos, quam corrigant animosos malos. What deadly effects would not such a separation produce if it were established amongst you? As the dispositions of men are, one should quickly see to spring from hence a difference of interests, of parties, of opinions, even in respect of the civil society, mutual hatred, and all the other sad consequences which a division not tempered with charity does naturally produce. I let alone the scandal which all the Reformed Churches of Europe would receive by 〈…〉 which their Adversaries would have, and we advantages which they would draw from it, which in all appearance would not be small. I have too good an opinion of those Gentlemen who believe that the Presbyterian Government is to be preferred before the Episcopal, not to be persuaded that they make wise and serious reflections upon all these things, and many more which their own knowledge furnishes them with; and that conscience, and the love of the Protestant Religion will always hinder them from doing any thing, that may be blamed before God and men. For in fine I cannot believe that there is any one amongst them that looks upon your Episcopacy, or your Discipline, or certain Ceremonies which you observe, as blots, and capital errors, which hinder a man from obtaining salvation, even with facility in your Assemblies, and under your Government. The question here is not about the Esse, or the bene Esse, but only about the melius Esse, that they dispute with you; and this being so, justice, charity, the love of peace, prudence, and zeal for Religion in the general will never allow that they should divide themselves from you.  
But, my Lord, since you have put the pen into my hand upon this subject, I beseech you pardon my freedom if it go so far as to tell you what I think you also aught to do on your part. I hope then that on these opportunities that God presents unto you, you will make all the world see, and convince the most incredulous, that you have piety, zeal, and the fear of God, and that you are worthy labourers, and worthy servants of Jesus Christ. This is the tetimony which all good men do already give you, and none how spiteful soever he be dares to contradict it, and I do not doubt but that you will carry on your calling to the end. But besides this, my Lord, I hope you won't be wanting in the duties of charity, and the spirit of peace, and that when the dispute shall be only of some temperaments, or of some Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block, and which in themselves are nothing in comparison of an entire reunion of your Church under your holy Ministry, you will make it seen that you love the Spouse of your Master more than yourselves; and that it is not so much from your greatness, and your Ecclesiastical dignity that you desire to receive your glory, and your joy, as from your pastoral virtues, and the ardent care you take of your Flocks. I hope too that those you have chosen and called to the holy Ministry, and those which hereafter you shall with a prudent diseretion call unto it, being governed not only by sweetness, but likewise by severity of discipline, when severity shall be necessary, will tread in your steps, and happily follow the example which you shall give them, that they may be themselves for an example, and edification to the Churches that are committed to them.  
I conclude, my Lord, with very earnest prayers which I present to God with all my heart, that it would please him always to preseve unto you the light of his Gospel, and to pour out upon the whole body of your Ministry, an abundant measure of his unction and heavenly benediction, of which that of the old Aaron was but a shadow; that it may be not the emblem, and image of brotherly concord, like the unction of old, but the cause and bond of it. I pray him that he would more and more bring back the heart of the Children to the Fathers, and of the Fathers to the Children, that your Church may be happy and pleasant as the Paradise of God.  
Lastly I pray that he would preserve you, my Lord, in perfect and long health, for his glory, and the good and advantage of that great and considerable part of his field which he has given you to cultivate, and which you do cultivate so happily. I desire too the help of your holy prayers, and the continuance of the honour of your affection, protesting to you that I will be all my life with all the respect that I owe you,  
My Lord, Your most humble and most obedient Servant and Son in jesus Christ, CLAUDE.  
FINIS.     

A Catalogue of some Books Printed for Henry Mortclock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of canterbury's Relation of a Conference, etc. from the pretended answer of T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared, and the false discovered; the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of Schism, and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome, throughly examined. The Second Edition corrected, by Edw. Stillingfleet, D. D. Folio.  
Sermons preached upon several occasions, with a Discourse annexed concerning the True Reason of the Sufferings of Christ, wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered, by Edw. Stillingfleet, D. D. Folio.  
Irenicum: A Weapon Salve for the Church's Wounds, by Edw. Stillingfleet, D. D. Quarto.  
A Discourse concerning the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome, and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it, in Answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant, with a particular Account of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church, by Edw. Stillingfleet, D. D. Octavo.  
An Answer to several Late Treatises occasioned by a Book entitled a Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it, by Edw. Stillingfleet, D. D. the first part, Octavo.  
A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith, against the pretence of Infallibility in the Rom. Church, in Answer to the Guide in Controversies, by R. H. Protestancy without Principles, and Reason and Religion, or the certain Rule of Faith, by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church, by Edw. Stillingflect, D. D. Octavo.  
A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, in Answer to a Book cutituled Catholics no Idolaters, by Edw. Stillingfleet, D. D. Dean of S. Paul's, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty.  
THE END.