SEPARATION YET NO Schism: OR NON-CONFORMISTS' NO SCHISMATICS: BEING A full and Sober VINDICATION of the NON-CONFORMISTS', from the Charge and Imputation of SCHISM. IN Answer to a Sermon lately Preached before the Lord Mayor By J. S.  Isaiah. 66.5. 
Hear the Word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his Word; your Brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my Names sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified, but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.  
London, Printed in the year, 1675.   

To the Reader.  
Reader,  
IF thou wouldst have a reason of publishing these sheets, the Author will tell thee, That it is now about four years since the People he pleads for (among whom he believes there are thousands in the Land, that are Worshippers of God in Spirit and Truth, according to the Gospel) have through the good Providence of their great Shepherd the Lord Jesus Christ, and through the granted licence of an indulgent Prince, enjoyed a sweet and blessed Calm. But observing lately the Clouds again to gather, and to have begun to discharge themselves upon many of this People about England; and withal lately meeting with a Sermon, wherein this People are not sparingly charged with Schism, and the penalties where with the laws threaten them, are pleaded for as very innocent harmless things, that Sober men (as he says) may be ashamed to call persecutions; I could not but thence conclude, that the Author's drift was to stir up and encourage the chief Magistrates of the City (for to them the Sermon was preached) to a rigorous Execution of those gentle punishments, which are but such little things as banishing, or imprisoning, or spoiling them of their Goods, and so undoing them and their Families, which are very trifles in his account. Now what can probably be the consequents hereof (except the Magistrates as David prove wiser than their Teachers) but that this people must needs be smitten, impoverished, scattered, and as to their outward concernments ruined. But if this shall come to pass (and who knows what their God may permit for a time for their trial?) what will they have left to support and comfort them under such pressures, except the innocency of their Consciences, and the Righteousness of the cause for which they suffer. And this I say, whether their cause be good or bad, doth not as to the determination, depend upon the mere dictates of any Mortals; and I am very verily persuaded, it is not prsedtsdih be bad by all this Author hath said, although he ha' oved to cour and reasoned against it, as if (in his conceit) he had spoke nothing but demonstrations, which I should now have immediately begun to reply to, but that I thought it most expedient, first to give the Reader a view of the case and cause of the Non-conformists, for which they are charged of Schism, and are thought to have deserved all those severities which the law threatens.  
The Non-Conformists case is this,  
There are some hundreds of true Ministers of Jesus Christ, commissioned by him to Preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments, (for so all true Ministers are) those according to their commission do Preach, and there are many thousands likewise of visible professors of Christianity, do willingly hear and join with these Ministers in the Worship of God, and in a participation of Sacraments as the Gospel requires.  
These meet in dictinct Congregations, separate from the legally established Congregations in the Land, with whom they Will not, because they Cannot hold Communion.  
Because they thus separate and refuse Communion they are charged with Schism.  
The reason why they thus separate and refuse Communion, is, because they cannot have it with them; I say, they Cannot have it, because they cannot or ought not to sin; or to speak modestly, because they cannot do such things which they extremely suspect to be sinful, and if they do but strongly suspect them it is enough, for no man can be bound to act against a doubting Conscience, and herein I have the suffrage of the Apostle, which every good Christian ought much to prefer before any other who may presume to Philosophise to the contrary, who says, Rom. 14. he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith, for whatsoeover is not of Faith is sin.  
If it be demanded, what those things are which this people suspect as sinful. It may be answered, they are too well known, as that any among us should stand in need of an information: but briefly, those that are Ministers, either they suspect the sinfulness of admitting a re-ordination, or of abjuring, or of assenting and consenting to the use of all and every part of the Liturgy, and therein of every Ceremony. Now this I say, though the Friends of these impositions shall, with the highest confidence, affirm the lawfulness of them all, yea and endeavour with a thousand arguments to prove them such; yet if those Ministers herein concerned, upon a serious weighing of these arguments find them too light, and after much prayer to God for a resolution, yet find themselves to doubt, in this case they ought not, upon the Apostles rule now named, to yield to any such impositions against their doubting Consciences.  
If it be here replied, why do they not then degrade themselves, or quietly suffer themselves to be degraded of their Ministry, and in the condition of private Christians Communicate with this Church, for so they may do and free themselves from these impositions?  
It will be answered, that this is an imposition they suspect as sinful as the rest, for so long as they are persuaded that their mission is originally from Christ, they cannot believe that it is either in their own Power, or in the Power of any other Inferior to Christ, to give them a discharge from executing this their Office, except it be for Heresy or obstinate scandal against some known laws of Christ, and then indeed Christ hath left an order, not only for excluding them from their Office, but also from the Church, but neither of these latter are in the least pretended, and therefore it is they cannot without suspicion of sin, either degrade themselves, or quietly suffer themselves to be degraded. And still I add, if any reasons be urged for the lawfulness of this degradation, but such that are short of their conviction, so that still they doubt, it will continue yet their duty to serve the Church as Ministers, and not to list themselves among private Christians; as is advised.  
If it be asked, but may not supreme Magistrates (if they cannot divest Ministers of their Office) may not they within their Dominion suspend some of them from the exercise thereof, when they conceive it is for the Peace of the rest?  
It will be answered, that that Lord of Lords who giveth the Office and the Commission, and hath by divers Providences designed the men thereto, hath certainly with the Office designed them to the exercise thereof, (for else verily the Office is in vain) and hath therein placed, not only the Office, but the exercise thereof above the restraint of any Powers whatever, that hold of and under him on Earth, so long as the exercise thereof continue to be regulated by the laws of Christ. But if any men on Earth shall appoint new Laws, different from those of Christ's, and impose them on Ministers as conditions to be obeyed, without which they will restrain them the exercise of their Ministry, as being disturbers of the Peace; in such a case it is evident, that such Ministers may continue to Preach according to the Laws of Christ, but are restrained only by the Laws of men; whilst then their Consciences lie under a superior obligation to Preach, than that by which they are restrained from Preaching, it is easy to conceive what they will or aught to do, i. e. whether they will or aught to Obey God or man.  
If it be said, such Ministers are mistaken about the nature of such imposed Laws, as if they were different from, or contrary to the Laws of Christ, when they are no other but what Christ hath entrusted them with a Power of appointing, for the Peace of his Church.  
It will be still answered, that this People are persuaded of the contrary; and that Christ hath not entrusted any men with such a Power, but do believe that they are things rather destructive of the true Peace of the Church. And this I say, whilst they are so persuaded (though they should be mistaken) they ought not to go against their Consciences; for as the Apostle saith, he that doubteth and eateth is damned. So that from the whole it is evident, the reason why these Ministers cannot conform and why they yet continue to Preach, is, because they cannot do the one, nor forbear the other without sin; which is a just ground of their separation, and of persevering in the exercise of their Ministry, and therefore separation in this case (as to them) is no Schism. Some will be ready to say, but what is all this to the common People? they are Schismatics without doubt; for they have no such impositions upon them.  
It may be answered, that if the Ministers now named are yet true ministers of Jesus Christ, and that the exercise of their ministry hath not been according to any Law of Christ restrained, it will follow, it can be no sin in the Disciples of Christ to own them whom their Lord owneth; or to hear them whom their Lord hath commissioned to that end, and by no Law of his are restrained from acting according to that Commission.  
Again, in as much as Christ is supposed to continue his Commission to these ministers to Preach, it necessarily follows, that Christ hath a People to whom he sends them: for it's absurd to conceive, that Christ should send his ministers to preach to no body; if then they may preach, it cannot be unlawful for the people to hear them, no nor to partake of any ordinance from them, which as ministers they may administer.  
Yet again, multitudes of the people did own them as Christ's ministers, and did join with them in all Ordinances, as such, and this for several years together, and certainly during those times they could not be esteemed Schismatics, for so doing, since there were no other ministers ordinarily to be found. If then they were no Schismatics, how come they to be so since? if it be said the Law of the Land makes them such: it may be answered, that since Schism (of which we speak) is a sin peculiar and proper to a Church, it is a wonder how a Law of a Land, that is perfectly extraneous to a Church, can make that at one time a Schism, which at another time cannot be said to be such. Nor do I think, that those that now think themselves the Church, and that all that separate from them are Schismatics, in case they had a Law of the Land to establish Presbytery, or Independency, or Anabaptistry, would conceive of themselves as Schismatics if they continued in that way they are in, and refused to hold Communion with that the Law established: and in Truth I cannot possibly conceive how that may be said justly to day, that it is no Schism, and yet to morrow it may be justly called so, merely because of an intervening humane Law.  
Lastly, as for the people, it may be further answered, that though they be not under the same impositions as their ministers are, yet they are not altogether free from impositions which they extremely suspect as sinful: as that they cannot enjoy Baptism for their Children without the Cross; nor receive the Lords Supper without kneeling; to name no more. If you say these are not sinful; it is answered, suppose they be not, yet in case they suspect them vehemently as such, and all your arguments cannot resolve their doubts, it is evident they would go against, and wound their Consciences, in case they should submit to the one, or the other.  
If therefore these people shall, for these reasons, join with those ministers in all Ordinances, I see no ground to charge this people with Schism, no more than their ministers.  
Thus having, with as much brevity as I could, stated the case and cause of this people, we shall now come to take an account of Mr. J. S. his Sermon before the Mayor, which contains an impeachment of Schism, and a pretended proof thereof against this people. They are now upon their trial, and say, not guilty, and offer themselves to be tried by the Laws of Jesus Christ, which are the only Laws of his Church.   

The Sermon of Mr. J. S. Examined.  
THE design of that Sermon, one would be apt to think, was to promote Peace among the Protestant professors in England; whose differences are Universally acknowledged, to be about matters of no fundamental concernment, as to the Doctrine of Christianity. His text, Rom. 14.19. was well suited to that purpose, Let us follow after the things which make for Peace. And doubtless if he had prosecuted this his design, by the same means and methods as the Apostle there doth, viz. not so much by setting himself to resolve their controversies, or to determine which side held the truest opinion; as to silence their disputes, and to allay their bitternesses to each other, by showing that they had nothing to do to judge or censure their brethren, because they were God's Servants, and to him only they stood or fell: and rather for Peace sake, to forbear doing that which they might lawfully do, than by any undue use of their liberty to cast a stumbling block before the weak uninstructed dissenters: This he confesseth pag. 1.2. was the way the Apostle took, and certainly if he had followed so great an example, he had (like a man of Wisdom as well as of Peace) prosecuted an excellent end by most excellent means: but instead thereof he takes a quite contrary method, for instead of persuading Christians to lay aside their Controversies, he himself raiseth them; instead of dissuading them from censuring their brethren, as being to stand or fall to a higher Master, he censureth them as guilty of Schism; obstinately maintained pag. 7. And instead of persuading them to forbear doing those things (which some think) they may lawfully do, (as the making use of prescribed Prayers and Ceremonies) lest a stumbling block should be cast before their weak brethren, he falls pag. 5. into Encomiums of the excellency of the present Church Government, the easiness of the Terms of Communion, the Lawfulness of the use of the public Service, and Antiquity of the Ceremonies, and then doth conclude that Sober men should be ashamed to call the penalties which the Laws inflict on those that separate from the Church in these things, Persecutions. The plain English of all this is, that the great Apostle and this Person are of two minds concerning these things which make for Peace, the Apostle is for not judging the Lords Servants, and he is for judging them: The Apostle is still for holding Communion, notwithstanding those differences remain, but he is for forcing them to say and do as the Church doth, or else for punishing them with fines, imprisonments as the Laws require. But certainly, as he herein leaves the Apostle, so the Apostle leaves him, and in this deserted Condition as we find him I hope it will be no presumption to call his reasonings about this matter to an account.  
The strength of what he hath said to justify his charge of Schism against this people he hath comprised in five Propositions, which we shall examine in order.  
His first Proposition gins pag, 10. which is this.  That every Christian upon the very account of being so, is a member of the Church of Christ, and is bound to join in external Communion with it where it can be had. 
I answer, this Proposition is very obscurely laid down, nor is it relieved by any light afforded in the after explication: and certainly if it be to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and phrases therein contained, (as it ought to be;) I shall not scruple to call the Truth thereof into Question, For.  
First, If we consider a Christian upon the very account of his being so, which is the Subject of the Proposition; who can think but thereby as you phrase it, you intent to affirm nothing of him as such, but what doth necessarily and essentially belong to him, without which he could be no Christian, and consequently if he be a Christian he must necessarily be a Member of Christ's Church, in the sense of [Church] in the Proposition which is such as therewith an external Communion may be held.  
If this be your meaning, as I suppose it is, because in your explication of this Proposition you seem to hold, that Christ died primarily for his Church, and but in a secondary sense for individual Believers, so that it seems to follow, that none can be true Christians or in a salvable state, but as they are considered incorporated into, and so made one of this Church, so that Church-Member-ship is essential to them. If this I say be your meaning, then give me leave to take the boldness to deny the Proposition, for I cannot understand that a Christian as such, includes any essential relation to a Church in your sense.  
That I may clear up this matter a little, give me leave to tell you that this term Christian may fall under divers considerations, as first, by a Christian we may understand a man whose Nature is changed by the Preaching of the Gospel, so as thereby he is of an ignorant Infidel and wicked man, made an intelligent Believer, and a good man; certainly in this sense it is easy to understand a Christian without any such correlate as a Church, so that in this sense a Christian as such, is no more related to a Church, than a man considered as a man, speaks any Relation to a Kingdom or Commonwealth: and therefore your Proposition in this scence cannot be true.  
But because this change of Nature, can't be wrought in any man but by the Power of God coworking with the Gospel: and since this exertion of Power is called Regeneration, upon this account a Christian is to be considered as a relative viz. as a Son of God. the correlate is God his Father, and the Foundation of this Relation is Regeneration. But here a Christian is not considered as any ways related to a Church, but only as realted to God, and who is not able to understand a Christian as well as Adam to be a Son of God without any Relation to any Society of men whatever.  
But since it is certain that God hath exerted this Regenerating Power to more than one, and that he hath many Sons and Daughters, hence it is that every Son of God stands in an other Relation, and that is to all the rest that are in the same manner born of God, which in conjunction make up God's family or Church.  
But them I say, that the Church here is to be taken for the invisible Church for the Father or Head of this Family is the invisible God, and the Children are Members who considered as to their Regeneration, that is the Foundation of the Relation are also invisible; and therefore neither in this sense can the Proposition be true, for every Christian upon the account of his internal Membership is not therefore a Member of a visible Church, for there may be 7000 such invisible Members in Israel, when there was no appearance of a visible Church as to them, where any external Communion was held; and yet this is that the Proposition drives at, that every Christian as such, is a Member of such a Church with which external Communion may be held, which is in this sense apparently false.  
Yet again all these internal Members of God's Family, may be considered as outwardly professing their Faith and associateing together as they can, for the Worship of God: among whom creep in many Hypocrites, by professing the same Faith and joining in the same Worship with them, which together make up the Catholic Visible Church, in this sense I grant that every professing Christian may be reckoned as a Member of the Catholic visible Church.  
But yet I deny, that this relation is essential and necessary to him, upon the very account of his being a Christian; for he might be a Believer and a Son of God, and internally related to all invisible Members without this Catholic visible Membership, nor doth he indeed deny it, for in case (says he) that no such visible Church can be found, or in case they be scattered by extreme Persecution, or in case of an unjust excommunication, Christians may be Christians without being members of Christ's visible Church, which indeed are concessions that overturn the Truth of his Proposition; for if a man may be a Christian without being a Member of Christ's visible Church, than it can not be true that every Christian upon the very account of his being so, is a Member of such a Church: for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society, than it must be false to say, that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society.  
But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition, and his sense of it; which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ, of which he saith, every Christian upon the very account of his being so, is a member; and that he is bound to join with it in external Communion. By Church (as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition) he understands a Society of particular Persons, gathered out of mankind and form into a Body Politic of which Christ is the Head. This I confess is somewhat, but not sufficient to give us his determinate sense thereof, for as he hath here described it, for aught we know, he may mean only an internal invisible Church, which is an internal invisible body Politic, of which the invisible Christ is Head, and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith, are invisible Members. This certainly is an invisible Church, for not only the Head is invisible as to us, but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers, for no man can see the Truth of another's Faith clearly and certainly.  
But methinks he should not take [Church] in this sense, because first, he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion, but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible. And secondly, because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous, as is employed by his supposition (if it can be had,) now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers, for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot.  
But if he by Church means the Catholic visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine throughout the world, united to Christ their Head, which is most likely to be his meaning, than the sense of the Proposition is this,  
3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven, being joined to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politic (whether he will call this Body Politic visible or invisible I know not, but sure I am, the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible.) But this he saith, that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to join with this Church in external Communion if it may be had.  
To this I say, it is well he puts in (if it may be had) for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause, and that is, because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politic as he calls it.  
First, Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politic body, where no Head is owned but what is invisible; for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politic is the Head, and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible, it cannot be truly said that we may have, or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politic. I wonder who ever talked at that rate, as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind, as making up a body Politic under the invisible God the Creator and supreme Governor.  
Secondly, I say no such external Communion can be had, because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth, that no such Communion can possibly be obtained, so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind, as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World:  
This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot (saith he) Communicate with the Catholic Church, but by Communicating with some part of it.  
But I say, by Communicating with some part of it, we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole, for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politic Communion with all mankind, and what is it that you can say for the one, but I can say much alike for the other.  
Do you say, but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ, so (say I) are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governor.  
Do (you say) all Christians Communicate in some external privileges, so (say I) do all mankind, they are enlightened by the same Sun, breath in the same air, feed on the Fruits of the same Earth.  
Do you say, but they have not the same Laws as Christians have, which are necessary to unite them in one body Politic. I answer, but if all mankind had the very same Laws, yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different King's hands that had jurisdiction over each other, this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politic Communion; no more do the same Laws amongst Christians (since the publication and execution thereof, is in the hands of different visible Church Governors, that have no jurisdiction over each other) speak any external Politic Communion among all Christians.  
Thus have I shown, of what words and phrases, of an uncertain and undetermined sense, the parts of the Proposition consist, and how hard it is, to give any tolerable sound sense of the whole; we shall now further inquire of the interpretation given, whether it can afford any further light to understand it better.  
For the clearing of this (he saith) you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us, was, not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society, but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politic, of which himself is the Head, and particular Christians the Members, and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation.  
If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition, it is this that you would prove; that every Christian upon the very account of his being so, must needs be a Member of the Church, because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church.  
I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false, there would be weight in what is said: But let it be tried.  
You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church, and but secondarily individual Christians, as incorporated in this Church.  
I pray tell me, do you take Church here, as you do in the Proposition? certainly you ought so to do; why else do you call this a clearing of that? now it is evident you take Church in the Proposition, for the Catholic visible Church existing in the World, with whom you say an external Communion is to be sought, as hath been before showed. But how absurd is what you say if you take Church in this sense! For,  
First, you hereby say that Christ did primarily design to save this present existing Catholic Church; what can be more absurd? did not Christ, think you, as primarily design all those parts of his Church that in their past Generations did once exist here on Earth, and doth not he alike design to save that part that is yet to be born? Again, you herein say, that Christ primarily designed to save the Catholic visible Church, which is evidently false; for Christ never designed to save his visible Catholic Church, much less considered as visible, and therefore cannot be said Primarily to design Their Salvation: for Christ's design was to save only a part of his visible Church, and that part not considered as visible, but as invisibly united to himself by a liwing Faith.  
Yet again if the quite contrary be true, viz. That Christ first designed the Salvation of particular Christians and but in a secondary sense the Church that is made up of them, than what you say must needs be false, viz. that Christ designed Salvation to the Church primarily, and to particular Members secondarily, as in Union with the Church. The former of which I affect for these reasons.  
First, Because all individual sincere Christians have all qualifications that are absolutely necessary to Salvation, antecedently to a visible Church state, as actual Faith and Repentance if they be adult; or the promise of the Covenant upon their Parent's Faith if they be Infants, which are Foundations of, and give Title to a visible Church State. Therefore our Saviour primarily designed to save them as such, and as for his designing such to be admitted into a visible. Church State by Baptism, it was but to Seal that Salvation to them, and to promote and carry on that Salvation that was antecedently secured to them by the Covenant, upon their Repentance and Faith in the Lord Jesus: the very Truth is, Christ did not intent at all to save men as visible Church Members, but only as true Believers, for the fundamental saving Doctrine of the Gospel doth not run thus, he that is a Member of the visible Church shall be saved, but he that Believeth shall be saved, and he that Believeth not shall be damned.  
If it be objected, But doth not the Apostle Peter, Preach not only Repentance, but likewise Baptism as necessary to Remission of sins; and consequently to Salvation: when he says Repent and be Baptised every one of you, for the Remission of sins? And is not Baptism an Ordinance of admission into a visible Church State? 
Acts 2.30.   
I answ. they are both indeed commanded, but not as equally necessary, for Repentance gives the fundamental title to remission, Baptism doth only give the Seal; the former is so necessary that without it no remission can be obtained: the other is but for the more comfortable assurance of that privilege to the penitent; but not absolutely necessary as the other: and this our Saviour most clearly intimates when he saith, Mark 16.16. He that Believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved; but he that Believeth not shall be damned. Men shall be damned merely upon the account of their unbelief, and not merely for want of Baptism, provided they have Faith. And yet Baptism hath its great use, as I have acknowledged, but as I said not absolutely necessary, for if men only Believe and never have an opportunity of being Baptised, and so of being admitted into a visible Church state thereby, then Salvation is not at all hazarded.  
My next reason is this, It cannot be true that Christ only designed to save particular Christians as Members of the visible Church: because it were impossible then that any Christians that were not visible Church Members should be saved, for if it must far with particular Christians, with respect to this body Politic (as he is pleased to call it) the Church, as it doth with the Members of the natural Body, where it is confessed that God by his Providence only intends to give life to each Member, and likewise the continuance of Life as united together in one body, it will certainly follows that if any Member of the Church be separated from the Church it must necessarily perish, as if a hand or a foot were separated from the natural body it doth certainly perish. But by his leave this is very false, as to particular Christians with respect to the Church: for, first all Christians do not spring out of the Church as the Members of the natural body do out of that body, for when Infidels believe, they spring out of the World or Mass of mankind, and not out of the Church; and by believing are first united to Christ, and then as Saul converted, they essay to join themselves to the Church, so that first they are internal members of a Church, or are fit matter to be made members of, and afterwards making a profession of Faith, are made formal Members of a visible Church, which is solemnised by Baptism. Secondly, and if it so happen that by unjust excommunication any true Christian be cut off from the visible Church, yet it keeps its Life, as no Member in a natural body can do. The conclusion is this, that if Christians are in a salvable state before Union to a visible Church, and if they may be in a salvable state, when wrongfully cut off by Excommunication; than it cannot be true, that Christ did but in a secondary way intent the Salvation of particular Christians viz. as united to a Church.  
My third and last reason is this, I say Christ did not primarily design to save his Church, and but secondarily particular Members as he asserts: which I thus prove. That respect which individual men have to civil Society, as Kingdoms or Republics; that respect have particular Christians to the visible Church of Christ, according to his own notion of a Church which he considers as a body Politic. Now I say, God in making the World, did not primarily design Kingdoms and Commonwealths, but he primarily designed the giving of particular men their existences: and secondarily, Kingdoms and Republics for their better accommodation; Men were not made for Kingdoms, but Kingdoms for Men. Therefore so did Christ, he first designed the putting of particular men into a State of Salvation by giving to them Faith and Repentance and Remission of sins, and then designed, as a consequent thereof, to collect them into a Society or Societies, under Governors of his appointment, to be ruled by Laws of his own Ordination, for the building them up in their Faith and comforts to his Glory: so that this Society or Societies, of Church or Churches, with the Laws and Ordinances thereto belonging, are but for the sakes and subordinated to the welfare of particular Christians, and therefore it is necessary that Christ should first intent the welfare or Salvation of particulars, before the mere associating them into Church or Churches under government, which is but a means to that great end of saving particulars. For certainly, that which is more excellent in the Nature of things, is primarily designed by every rational Agent, before that which is less excellent: so certainly is the restauration of particular Persons, in giving them renewed Natures, Remission of sins, and a Title to Salvation, before that mere order that ought to be amongst them for their security and comfort, which is acquired by associations or Church Government.  
If it yet be not clear, give me leave to illustrate this matter yet further by this similitude: Let us consider Christ as the general of an Army, who is by the Apostle called the Captain of our Salvation, and the Church under him as an Army under several Officers, for their better Order and Government; and all particular Christians as so many particular Soldiers. Now let us consider the several ends which a general hath in gathering his Soldiers into an Army, and which end is more principally intended, and which end less principally or subordinately intended. His first end is to subdue his Enemies, to the Praise of his Justice and Valour: the next end intended is the preservation of his Soldiers, without which the more principal end cannot be obtained; and that which is an end subordinate to both these, is the keeping his Soldiers in Union and Order under their several Officers, for without this Union and Order, the particular Soldiers cannot so well be preserved: so that here it is evident that the uniting of his Men and keeping them under Discipline, is subordinately intended for the preservation of particulars. In like manner God in Christ designing to save sinners, First, he intends the Praise of his Glorious Grace; Secondly, he intends the Salvation of particular sinners, by Regenerating and pardoning of them: And lastly, he intends the Collection of them into a body or bodies under Discipline, for their better safety and security; this last is not principally or less principally, but that which is subordinately intended to both the other. The conclusion that ariseth hence is this, that this Author is much mistaken when he saith, that Christ did primarily intent the Salvation of his Church, and secondarily the Salvation of particular Christians; cujus contrarium verum est; as I have showed.  
We shall now further consider what he hath said for the confirmation of this his nation, concerning Christ's primary intention to save his Church, etc.  
This (saith he) is no more than what is the sense and Language of the Holy Scriptures, wherein, whatever Christ is said to have done and suffered for mankind, he is said to have done for them, not as scattered individuals, but as incorporated into a Church. Thus Christ saved the Church, 
Eph. 5.25. Act. 20.25. Eph. 5.23.  and gave himself for it. Christ Redeemed the Church with his own precious Blood. Christ is the Saviour of his Body.  
The plain consequence from hence is (saith he) that every person so far as he is a Christian, so far he is a Member of the Church; and by virtue of that Relation to the Church it is, that he hath any Relation to Christ, or any Title to the Privileges of the Gospel.  
I answer it is a wonder to me, to see the Author, otherwise a Person of good abilities, so strangely misled into the confidence of a conclusion that is raised upon such palpable mistaken principals.  
He says that what ever Christ hath done and suffered for mankind, he hath done it for them; not as scattered individuals, but as incorporated into a Church.  
I perceive by this that the Author is not for Universal Redemption, as some of his brethren are; for I cannot see how Christ dying for all, is consistent with Christ's dying for men, considered as incorporated into his Church, for it is certain, that the greatest number of individuals that hath been, or are in the World, were, or are not like to be so incorporated. Yet further, certainly the Author doth run himself and his Reader into much confusion for want of a Regular stating of the several Aspects, which Christ's sufferings have to mankind, as they fall under divers considerations. As first, if mankind be considered as lapsed into a state of sin and death: so they are said to be Enemies to God and Righteousness, Dead in Trespasses and sins, without God, without hope. I hope the Author doth not take men so considered as in any Church state, and yet it is certain that according to Scriptures, Christ's: suffering was with Relation to men as such, Rom. 5.8. God commendeth his Love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. So Col. 1.21. And you that were sometime alienated and Enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the Body of his Flesh through Death. In these Texts it's evident that Christ's death, respected men as incoporated in the corrupt Mass of mankind; and not as incorporated into a Church.  
Secondly, Christ's sufferings respects men, considered as such, that de futuro, were to partake of the benefits of Christ's Death: which benefits, are either of an absolute, or of a Relative and Politic Consideration.  
Those that are absolute, are such as the changing of men's Natures, Remission of Sins, Faith in Christ, Repentance from dead Work; these are all given and bestowed on en with respect to what Christ did and suffered for them. Here men are to be considered absolutely as individual Christians, and not as any members of a Society or a Church, for I can, as any man else may easily, consider a man as a Believer, as a Penitent, as in favour with God, without considering him under any Politic Relations: as we may conceive of men as wise, just and innocent, without conceiving them as Citizens or Subjects. There are other benefits that are likewise the purchase of Christ's death, and they are of a relative and Politic consideration; and here it is that the Communion of the Saints, or church Fellowship hath its place, which Communion is either internal, and this is a privilege peculiar only to that Church of Christ, which every Member is considered as really and sincerely united to Christ; by a true Faith: and to each other in a love unfeigned, or external; which properly belongs to Christian's counited together in an external profession of Faith, in associating for public worship and submitting to Christ's Discipline.  
Now of all these benefits, some are more principal, some less, some are of absolute necessity to Salvation; others not.  
Those that are of a more principal consideration, and of absolute necessity to Salvation; are such that belong to Christians as individuals, such as Faith and Repentance, Remission of sins, and such like, which they have by virtue of Union with Christ, without any respect to any Politic Union with one another: as for those benefits which are of a Politic or relative consideration, they are less principal and not of that necessity to Salvation, such are the Love of all Saints and their mutual Prayers for each other. Such are worshipping together, and the benefits of Christ's Discipline, now though these are excellent in their kinds, yet much inferior to those of Faith and Repentance and Remission of sins, as being not so absolutely necessary to Salvation, as these are.  
Now I would fain know of the Author, whether it be more true to say, that Christ by his death did primarily intent to save men as Believers, as Penitent, as Renewed and pardoned, which belongs to Christians considered as individuals, which is what I affirm: or to say he primarily intended to save men as hearing, praying, praising and receiving the Lords Supper together, and likewise by being under Discipline; which are the privileges that belong to Christians as falling under a Politic consideration: which is what he seems to affirm. If the former be true, than the latter which he hath asserted is false; for both of them cannot be primarily intended. Now I conceive the former true, because it is every where affirmed in Scripture, that he that believes, he that reputes, he that is regenerate, he that is pardoned, shall be saved.  
But it is not where promised, that those that pray and praise, etc. with the Church, that they shall be saved, except it be with respect unto Faith and Repentance, which as I have said, belong to Christians as individuals, and not as Members of a Church.  
But he saith, that herein he speaks but the sense and Language of the Holy Scriptures: and here he quoteth three texts, as Eph. 5.25. Acts 20.28. Eph. 5.23. well! what doth he gather thence? Hence (saith he) it is plain, that Christ died primarily for his Church, and for individuals not as scattered but as incorporated into his Church.  
But by your favour here is more in your conclusion, than is in those premised Texts: indeed I read there, that Christ gave himself for his Church, and that he redeemed his Church with his blood, and that he is the Saviour of his body which is his Church. But I find not a word there, of dying primarily for his Church, and but secondarily for individuals as incorporated into his Church.  
If any shall say, all this is employed if not expressed. I say, who ever so thinks is obliged to show how, and which way it comes to be implied, but to save them the Labour, I am bold to affirm the contrary, that there is no such thing employed; my reason is this, because Church in each of those places is taken for a collection of particular Christians, considered primarily as true believers, as true penitents, and but secondarily as in Union one with another, and as in Fellowship in Church Ordinances.  
My reasons are, first because there is nothing in the words or context that can force a contrary interpretation. Secondly, because the nature of the thing spoken of in these verses will bear no interpretation, but such as I give. Because the intents of Christ's dying must be measured according to the Nature of things, so that what is more excellent must be intended before that which is less excellent, now mens being particularly united to Christ by Faith, their having their Natures changed, and their sins pardoned, are more excellent than their Union and Communion with each other in external Ordinances, that are but inferior Ministeries subservient to their Faith, and their renewed Natures, and the edification of them therein; therefore Christ must intent his death primarily for his Church as Believers: now as I have formerly said, Believers, as such, are not Members of a Church, for Faith speaks a relation to Christ, but no relation immediately to any other Christian or Christians whatever.  
Again under what qualification, and for what reason Christ is said primarily to be Saviour of the Church, his body; under that qualification, and for that reason, Christ is said primarily to die and shed his blood for his Body. But Christ doth not save his Church under the qualification, or for that reason primarily, because they are united in external Acts of Worship and Discipline, and upon that account it is they are of your visible Politic body or Church, but because its particular Members are Believers and penitent, but Christians quatenus Believers or penitent are not consider as Members of a Church, for indeed Faith and Repentance speak no relation immediately to any but God and Christ, that of Church Membership comes in as a consequent thereof, to which privilege Faith gives the Title. Therefore Christ did not die to save his Church quatenus a Society, united for worship, etc. but quatenus its Members are true Believers and no further, and for this cause I assert, that the primary end of Christ's death was to save individual Believers and but secondarily to save his Church, so far as it consisted of such and no further.  
Yet again if Christ intended primarily to save men because they were Members of a Church: Then certainly, the first thing that the Gospel should press upon sinners is, that they should first unite themselves to the Church, which to say it doth is both false and absurd: its false, for the first cry of the Gospel is to men considered in a state of sin and Death, and it is that they would repent of their sins and believe in the Lord Jesus, upon the doing of which it promiseth remission and a Title to Salvation, and till this be done there is no mention of any command obliging them to become a Member of a Church: and reality or profession, men are no more capable of being Members of a Church, than a Hog or Horse are capable of being Citizens of London. He that considers what hath been said, may soon see what little help those Scriptures he mentions afford his notion, and upon what slender grounds he builds that confident conclusion of his, viz. That by virtue of that relation to the Church it is that a Christian hath any relation to Christ.  
He adds, Agreeable to this notion, it is (saith he) very plain, that Baptism which is by all acknowledged to be the Ceremony of initiating us into Christianity, is in Scripture declared to be the Rite, whereby we are entered and admitted into the Church, this St. Paul expressly tells us, That we are all Baptised into one Body, again that Christ hath sanctified, i. e. hath separated his Church by the washing of Water, and the Word.  
I wonder that the Author should say that these Scriptures are agreeable to his notion, that Christ intends the Salvation of no particular Christians but considered as members of a Church.  
I answer, they are ever just so much agreeable to his notion as the texts beforenamed.  
He says all acknowledge, that Baptism is a ceremony initiating us into christianity.  
I wonder who acknowledges so in your sense? I am sure not all or but very few: for Christianity objectively is the doctrine of Christ subjectively the same Doctrine as believed by us with a resolution to obey it, but assuredly the Doctrine of Christ is first preached and heard and believed, and a resolution taken up to obey it, and all this is antecedent in the adult to baptism, or aught to be so. As for Baptism, it is but a professing sign of my being a Christian, or a seal of the promises that God hath made to me, as such, and is not a Ceremony that makes me a Christian, or gives me my Christianity. Abraham was a Believer, and a Friend of God, and justified by his faith antecedent to circumcision, and so are the seed of Abraham, they are believers, friends of God, justified by their Faith in Christ, antecedent to Baptism.  
But it is added, doth not Paul say we are all by one Spirit baptised into one body?  
True, he doth so; But I deny your consequence thence deduced, that therefore Christ died primarily for his Church, and but secondarily for the individual members thereof, or that we have primarily a relation to the Church and but secondarily to Christ, i.e. by virtue of the former relation. There is not one word or syllable in the text tending that way. For First, what is there in these words, we are baptised into one body, to signify a priority of our relation to the Church, any more than in those Rom. 6.3. where it is said we are baptised into Christ, to signify a priority of our relation to Christ, and by him to his Church? reconcile these if you can to the sense of your consequence, and give us some evident reason why we must needs understand, that thereby is meant we are baptised into the Church primarily, and into Christ secondarily: But I shall be bold to tell you such an interpretation is evidently absurd, as is manifest in several instances in other kind of relations. Whoever said that King Charles the 2d was only related to Charles the First, as he is related to his brother James Duke of York and the rest of the Royal Family? certainly as he is the Elder Brother his relation to his Father was first both in nature and time to any relation he stood in to his younger brethren. Or whoever said that the individuals of a Kingdom cannot be considered in relation to their King and Sovereign antecedently to their being considered as fellow subjects? when certainly the relation of fellow subjects doth arise upon the supposed relation of those individual subjects to their sovereign; for the formal reason why you and I are fellow subjects is, because we are individually related to the same King, and therefore relation to him is antecedent to our relation to one another as subjects.  
The sense of this text now urged, so far as I understand is only this, that all that are baptised upon a just title are supposed to partake of the sanctifying operation of the Spirit, of which the washing of the water of baptism is a sign, by which they are declared to be animated by one and the selfsame Spirit, as all the living members of Christ are, and consequently that they are one with them, and that therefore they ought all of them to be both internally and externally as useful and helpful to each other as possibly they can; But how you can draw such a conclusion hence that therefore these individuals are no ways related to Christ but as they are thus united to one another I cannot understand for the reasons before given.  
The other text is Eph. 5.22. where it is said, that Christ hath sanctified (or separated) his Church by the washing of water and the word,  
Very well! what of this? we grant you, that every Church member, if adult, is converted by the word, and afterward (if it may be) ought to be baptised; upon this account it is said that the Church is separated by water and the word, because all its individual members are, or aught to be so converted and baptised. Therefore saith he, every individual Christian is saved as incorporated into the Church. I deny the consequence, for conversion by the word is antecedent to Baptism or to a Visible Church State, and of itself gives a title to Salvation, though never any such visible Church state by baptism follows; But if Baptism follows, I say again, Christians are not saved primarily as baptised and as externally Church members, but primarily as true believers and internally united to Christ. And certainly a believer, as such, speaks no necessary relation to any Church or visible society whatever, and therefore it could not possibly be the Apostles intendment in that place, or the other, to signify that Christians had no relation to Christ, or saving interest in him but what they derived from a participation of Baptism and a conjunction with a visible Church,  
Having thus finished his proof, that all Christians are members of the catholic visible Church: he proceeds to the proof of the second part of the proposition, which is, that therefore every Christian is bound to join in external communion with the said Church. This he thinks is clear upon two reasons, First because without such a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be obtained, which ends are the solemn worship of God, the public profession of our religion, and the mutual edification one of another.  
Secondly, Because without such a conjunction in external communion with the Catholic visible Church, we cannot be made partakers of the benefits and privileges that Christ hath made over to the members of his Church, such are the pardon of sin, and the grace of the holy Spirit, and so he concludes, we have no promises of spiritual Graces but of those means, so that in order to the partaking of them, there is an absolute necessity laid upon us, of joining and communicating with the Church. Thus far he.  
I answer, first, whereas he says that he hath made it evident, that every Christian, upon the account of his very being so, a member of the catholic visible Church, that I have already denied, and upon what grounds and reasons I have denied it is before shown, as for his consequence that therefore every Christian is bound upon the very account of his being so, to join with the Church catholic visible in external communion: That I have also denied and the reasons why I have showed, as First, there is no such external communion to be had with that vast body as the catholic Church is, besides if there were, it might be unlawful, because if communion could not be had but upon sinful conditions, or without a manifest hazard of my salvation, or in case one were wrongfully excommunicated, there is in these cases no obligation on a Christian as such to any such external communion, but a Christian may be still a Christian without it. But let us see how he proves his consequence: His first reason is, because without such a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be had, which are solemn worship and mutual Edification.  
Ans. What? not without a conjunction with the catholic visible Church? certainly meetings for solemn worship and mutual Edification are not terms wherein Christians hold communion with the catholic visible Church, for they are proper only to particular worshipping congregations. I wonder in what Assemblies do the Christians in England, and the Christians in Prestor John's country meet for solemn worship and mutual Edification? I know he thinks the matter if salved, by telling us, that Christians meeting in any congregation in England, for worship and mutual Edification, do thereby hold external communion in those things with the whole Church throughout the world. But I conceive this will not serve his turn, without the could equally imagine how a man by holding communion with the City of London might be said thereby to hold a civil external communion with all mankind, which I think is so wild a conceit as no man yet ever asserted, for he must remember he is speaking of such an external communion that is proper to a politic visible Body, to the constituting of which kind of communion it is not enough to have the same laws, the same customs, no nor the same kind of solemn meetings for worship, to speak all visible Christians to be of the same external politic communion; for suppose in France they had the same laws and customs, the same kind of officers, as Constables, Justices, Parliament, and a King, as we have in England, and all under the Government of the very same invisible God, it doth not follow so long as there is no dependence of these Kingdoms each on the other, that therefore the people of England are of the same external politic communion with those in France. Yea further, though these two Kingdoms may mutually in times of peace advise with each other for their mutual profits, and in case of differences betwixt them, they may forbid trading or converse with each other, which is a kind of civil excommunication, yet for all this they may not be said to be of the same external civil politic communion, and why? because their respective Magistrates are independent and have no jurisdiction over each other. Upon the very same ground I deny any such thing as an external Politic Communion betwixt the Members of the Catholic Church: for though they have all the same Laws, the same Sacraments, the same kind of solemn meetings for Worship, and all under the same kind of visible Governors, and all this under the same invisible Head the Lord Jesus, though so far as they can, and the distances of places will admit) they may advise with each other for their mutual good, and in case that any prove Heretics they may, so far as may be, disown or refuse Communion, as in the instances before said, yet all this no more proves them to be of the same external Politic communion, than the like agreements might speak the Kingdom of France and that of England of the same politic civil communion, and why? but because Christ hath left no visible politic Head to have jurisdiction over the rest.  
If you say this notion speaks a good word for the Headship of the Pope.  
I Answer, no such matter, for there is no need of such a Head, nor of any such external Politic Communion in the Church no more than in the World, God hath well enough Governed the World without any such Universal civil Monarch, and doth as well govern the Church without any such Universal visible Head.  
And now let us see what of force than is in his second reason, which is this, such a conjunction in external Communion with he Catholic visible Church is necessary, else we cannot possibly partake of the privileges that Christ hath made over to this his Church, as the Remission of Sins, and the Graces of the Holy Spirit.  
I Answer, He says that Christ hath made over the privileges of pardon of sin and the Graces of his Spirit to the Church primarily, and that before any particular person can partake of pardon of Sin and the Graces of the Spirit, he must join with the Church in external Communion. But how absurd is all this! by Church he here means the Catholic visible Church, but I wonder how it can be truly said, that pardon of sin, or the Graces of the Spirit can be said to be made over to the visible Church, as privileges, when as it is very certain that Christ never made over such privileges to the Church as visible?  
But I perceive he understands it ministerially, that is to say, that a man is pardoned, or partake of the Graces of the Spirit, but by the Ministry of the Church: well! let this be granted what will thence follow? I am sure that will not follow which you say doth follow, that therefore we must first be made Members of the Church before we can be pardoned or sanctified by the Spirit: for suppose the Church meets for solemn worship, and the minister is Preaching, and there comes in one or more Infidels for curiosity to see and hear, I hope you will not say that these Infidels because they are in the same place with the Church, that therefore they are joined as Members with the Church; suppose now these Infidels are by the Sermon convinced and perfectly converted to a true Faith in Jesus Christ.  
I now demand, These men that thus are converted, do they believe without or with the Grace of the Spirit? again so soon as they have believed, are they pardoned or are they not? I say they could not have believed without the Grace of the Spirit, and that so soon as they truly believed they were pardoned: and you dare not (I think) say the contrary. Now I pray you is not this Grace of the Spirit, and pardoning of sin Communicated before these men were joined to the Church as visible Members. How then can you say that men are obliged to join with the Church as Members, else they have neither Grace nor pardon? the very Truth is, the primary reason of Christ's institution of visible Church Membership, was not for the giving of the first Grace of the Spirit, or giving pardon, but it was appointed as a means of conveying further degrees of Grace, and clearer assurance of pardon visible Church Membership doth suppose the Grace of conversion (in the adult) and pardon, but doth not give or Communicate it.  
I had now done with his first Proposition, but that for two inferences he draws from a consideration of the whole; as first (saith he) therefore their position is untrue, who maintain that our obligation to Church Communion ariseth from a voluntary admission of ourselves into some particular congregation.  
But I say, notwithstanding all he hath said that position may be true, for he hath been all this while speaking of the Universal visible Church. But they that hold that position, maintain it only with respect to a particular Church, and I hope there is no contradiction, for one that believes and is Baptised to be nessarily a Member of the Universal Church, and yet to be voluntarily a Member either of particular Worshipping Congregation either in England or Holland.  
His second deduction is as wild, for (saith he) hence we may see how extravagantly they discourse that talk of Chrstianity at large, without relation to a Church or Communion with a Society.  
This I say is strangely inferred, as if we could not discourse of men, as men, without relation to Cities or Kingdoms, and certainly we may with a very good reason sometimes discourse of Christians, as Christians, without relation to any Church whether particular or Universal, and this without any extravagancy.  
His second Proposition.  
That every one is bound to join in Communion with the established national Church to which he belongs, supposing there be nothing in the Terms of its Communion that renders it unlawful for him so to do.  
This (he saith) is plain, because external Communion cannot be had with the Catholic Church but by externally Communionicating with some part of it.  
To this I have already answered, that there is no such thing as an external Politic Communion to be had with the Catholic Church neither immediately which himself confesseth, no nor mediately by Communicating with some part of it, as I conceive I have made evident in my answer to the former Proposition.  
But in case any such Communion could be had immediately or mediately, yet I would have it remembered, that this sort of Communion is not to be sought by every Christian upon the very account of his being so, but upon the account of his being a visible professing Christian.  
And how let us come to some Issue, we will grant you that every Christian, considered as visible, aught to endeavour to join with some part of the Catholic visible Church, for public Worship and the edification of himself and others, but why this particular Church must be national, I do not understand, I am sure there is no need it should be national, for I do as truly declare myself to be a visible Member of the Catholic visible Church, by joining in external Communion with one single visisible Congregation, as if I was united a Member to a National Church. But in very Truth, I do much doubt whether any such thing is to be had as an external Communion with a National Church, any more than with the Catholic visible Church: for you place the Acts of external Communion to consist in meeting together in solemn worship, and in mutual Edification.  
Now I would fain know where any Nation of Christians do meet together for solemn Worship, true if you could find any Nation of Christians that did often meet at one place to Worship God, and to rejoice before the Lord together, as the Tribes of Israel used to do when they came up to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Lord, I should not stick to call such a National Church united external Communion, but to speak of a joining with a National Church of Christians in external Communion, where Millions of the Members of the supposed National Church, never perhaps came nigh one the other for scores of Miles, especially so as to Hear, or Pray, or receive the Supper together, or to Edify each other, is to talk without any solid ground.  
If you say, but if we join with any one Worshipping Congregation in external Communion, we do thereby join with the whole Nation of Christians in external Communion.  
If you say so, I think you say more than you can prove, for I do not understand that because I Worship God with a Congregation in London, that therefore I Worship God with a Congregation at York. True, by my Worshipping at London I do declare myself to be of the same Faith with those that Worship at York, and I am therefore bound to account of them as my brethren, and so to love and Pray for them as such, by which means an internal Communion is maintained as among Members that are supposed and hoped to be united to Christ, but yet I am to seek how this external Communion can be had, when perhaps we shall never see each other as long as we live.  
If you say that all the Christians in a Nation may hold an external Communion in being all under one Discipline, the management whereof being deposited in the hands of one visible Head, as was the High Priest to the Church of the Jews.  
This indeed were something, if it could be proved that Jesus Christ did ever appoint such an Officer for the Government of all his Disciples in each Nation, but if it be made to appear that all Ministers or Pastors of particular Worshipping Congregations, have equal Power to Govern their respective Churches, and that they have no Power of jurisdiction one over another, and that there is no instituted Officers appointed by Christ Superior to them, with any Power of jurisdiction over them. Then I say, there can be no such external Communion of all Christians in a Nation under the jurisdiction of any such High Priest, and that therefore there is no such thing as a National Church of Christians, wherewith an external communion can be held. You know well who they are that are for an equality of Pastoral Power.  
Many more things may be said of this matter, but I shall at present wave them, and proceed to consider what he further saith.  
He hath already said, that every Christian ought to join in external Communion with a National Church, that thereby he might hold Communion with the Catholic. But presently he starts an Objection.  
But it may be said, that there may be several distinct Churches in the place where we live, there may be the fixed regular Assemblies of the National Church, and there may be separate Congregations, both which are or pretend to be parts of the Catholic Church, so that it may be all one as to our Communicating with that, which of these we join with, supposing we join but with one of them, and consequently there is no necessity from that principle that we should hold Communion with the Assemblies of the National Church. So far he—  
Answ. Very good! now let us see how he answers it, which part of the Argument in the Objection doth he deny? doth he deny such separate Congregations to be parts of the Catholic Church? or doth he deny that in joining with any part of the Catholic Church we thereby join with the whole? he denies neither: Then I say he grants the whole, for these two being granted, the conclusion follows, that they who join with those separate Congregations do thereby preserve the Catholic Union; and therefore there is no need of joining with a National Church to attain the end proposed, What saith he now? He seems not to deny this, but tells us that notwithstanding if we separate or refuse Communion with them, that we do not preserve the Unity of the Body, so far as in us lies, which the Fundamental Laws of Society, and the express precepts of Christianity require of every Member.  
Answ. I would now fain know of him what are those Fundamental Laws of Society, as suppose of Kingdoms or Corporations, that oblige its Subjects or Citizens to seek the Unity and Peace of those Societies or Citizens to seek the Unity the known Laws of the said Kingdoms; and the orders of Corporations regulated by the Charters granted by their Princes? but if any inferior Officers of Kingdoms or Corporations, shall impose Laws upon the Subjects or Citizens, that are not agreeable to, but rather seem contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom, and the Power granted in those Charters, if such Subjects or Citizens oppose and refuse subjection, and will not communicate in those things; who dare say that such do not seek the Peace of Kingdoms and Corporations as much as in them lies? or as much as is fit?  
And let him likewise tell us what are those express precepts of Christianity, that oblige its Members any further to seek the Unity of the Church, than to believe, do, and observe those things which Christ the Head of his Church hath commanded. Christians then seek the Unity of the Body, (so far as in them lies,) when they seek it according to a Gospel rule; for it doth not lie in their Power to seek it any other ways.  
But (saith he) to separate from Congregations with whom we may lawfully Communicate, is not to seek the Unity of the Body, so far as in us lies.  
Answ. This is not universally true, for what if one shifteth his Habitation to another Parish, for the benefit of the Labours of a more pious Minister? here is a separation from an established Assembly, and yet no breach upon the Unity of the Body.  
But suppose one still abides in the Parish, and yet constantly Hears and Communicates with a Church of an other Parish, as I suppose some of your own do, how can you say such (so long as they continue Communion with your National Church) seek not the Union of the Body as sar as is fit or needful.  
If you say but neither of these are the cases of those you speak of, because they hold Communion with you to be sinful.  
Very true; and you deny not, that in case they could not Communicate with you without sin, but that they may lawfully separate without being guilty of any breach of union.  
If you had here proved they might hold Communion with you without sin, or what they extremely suspect to be sinful, you had said something: but since you have reserved your pretended proof thereof to the fourth Proposition, I shall therefore refer my answer thereto.  
His third Proposition.  That the being a Member of any Church, doth oblige a man to submit to all the Laws and Constitutions of that Church. 
I Answer, if by Laws and Constitutions he understands such that Christ, either by himself, or his Apostles hath ordained, such as to meet together to Pray, Praise, Preach, Hear, Baptise, or Eat the Lords Supper, or to Admonish, Comfort, Reprove, or cast out the Obstinate: so I grant the Truth of the Proposition.  
But if by Laws and Constitutions he means such that are merely of men's devising and imposing under the penalty of Excommunication, without any command from Christ for so doing: of which kind are the Observations of Days, Abstaining from Meats, Crossing in Baptism, Kneeling at the Supper, Reading Prayers, and that in a Surplice; without the use and observation whereof it shall not be lawful for men to Preach the Gospel, or partake of the Sacrament, but for refusal shall be cast out and not esteemed worthy of the name of Christians. In this sense I say the proposition is very false.  
And whereas he saith, that this Proposition is in the general so unquestionable, that no sober man will deny it: I on the contrary say, that in the general (without a sound limitation) it is so mischievous that no sober man but may be ashamed to assert it. For who will deny but that our Saviour with his Apostles were of the Church of the Jews and who dares say, that either Christ, or they thought themselves obliged to observe the humane Laws, and Traditions of that Church, either in washing before Meat, or in not Healing on the Sabbath-day, which Traditions they made no scruple to transgress, and to justify such Transgression, to the shame and confusion of their Imposers. Again, who knows not that the Rulers of the Jewish Church had agreed, and so made it a Constitution of that Church, that if any confessed Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogue: and what Christian hath the Forehead to say, that all the Members of that Church were obliged thereby not to confess Christ, or to bear any part in casting out such (as did confess him) from their Synagogues.  
He adds, this is the Basis upon which all Societies are founded, and by which they do subsist.  
He means that the Truth of that Proposition is at the bottom of all Societies, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical; but I pray how is it the Basis of Kingdoms which are civil Societies. Thus far I grant, that all the just Laws Enacted by the supreme Power in such Kingdoms, do oblige all the Subjects. Answerably, all the Laws and Constitutions in the Church, that are Enacted by Jesus Christ its supreme King and Governor, do bind all the Members. But in civil Societies, if the Inferior Magistrates, as suppose the Heads of Corporations shall Enact Laws and make Constitutions and bind them on the Subjects so as in case of refusal to submit, they shall be deprived of the right and privileges of Subjects, and that without any Authority from the supreme Power for so doing; I say in this case, that this Proposition is so far from being the Basis of these Societies, without which they cannot subsist: that I say, it's the Basis of all Confusion to such Societies, answerably, if any Officers of Churches shall presume without warrant from Christ, to make Laws and bind them on the Disciples necks, upon the penalties of depriving them of the rights and privileges of Christians, as they do by excommunication, I say this is a mere usurpation of the Regal power of Christ, and tends directly to run Churches into confusion and all manner of disorders as the sad Effects thereof do clearly demonstrate. And whereas he saith, To suppose a Society, and yet to suppose the members of it not under an obligation to obey its Laws and Government, is to make Ropes of sand, and to suppose a body without sinews and ligaments to hold the parts together. I Answer, That 'tis confessed, that the just Laws of the supreme Authority of any Society, are Sinews and Ligaments of that society; But if the Laws be either unjust or imposed by any Authority inferior to the Supreme, such Laws are not the natural sinews in any Government, but are certain Monstrosities in the body politic, as such kind of Sinews or Ligaments in the body natural are reputed, which are not necessary or useful but are Impediments to a regular motion of the members, and of this kind are the Laws and Constitutions of Churches about which we contend.  
Well, but let us see how he clears this, he further saith pag. 16. It must be acknowledged in the first place, that the Church must (as all other Societies) be entrusted with at least so much power over her subjects as is necessary for the securing of her own welfare and preservation: For to think otherwise is to suppose God to have founded a Church and Intended the well being and continuance of it (which are things that every one must grant) and yet to suppose he hath denied her the use of the means without which the well being and continuance cannot be attained; which is monstrous and contradictious.  
It is plain, that the Author speaks here of a particular Church, as may be seen by a review of the proposition, where he speaks of a membership with any Church, i. e. with any particular Church, and now I answer, First,  
This Argument proceedeth upon an Hypothesis, that is not necessarily true, as the Author imagineth, viz. that God in causing this or that particular Church to be planted, must needs Intent its continuance; for many such Churches have been planted but not continued, and certainly when it hath so happened, it hath not been besides the intention of God.  
Perhaps you will say, that was through their own fault by not making use of that power that God gave them to preserve themselves, say you so? what then say you to the Church of Christ first planted at Jerusalem? we read, Acts 8.1.2. that a great persecution arose, and they were all scattered, and none left at Jerusalem except the Apostles. (And it is as easy to conceive that the Apostles might have been scattered as the rest:) I ask now, was this Church continued? or if it was not, was it because they made not use of that power, that God entrusted them with for their preservation? what would you have had them done? what, repelled force with force? I know you believe no such power was entrusted with them, and yet it's certain that this dispersion was not besides the intention of God, therefore it is not necessary as you suppose, that God must always intent the preservation of every particular Church he causeth to be planted.  
But in the next place let us grant your supposition, that God intends the continuance of every Church he causeth to be planted, what then? you say then, he must needs intrust the said Churches with so much power, that is necessary to preserve themselves, or else he is wanting to them.  
I deny your consequence, because since a Church may be broken and so discontinued, as well by Armed Force from Persecutors, as by Intestine Broils arising from Heresies and Schisms: God must then necessarily have provided every particular Church with an Army, Superior to all the power of Persecutors, or else have engaged himself to work miracles for their preservation, or else according to you, he must be thought wanting to his Churches, But since God hath neither provided the one, nor engaged himself to the other, it is certain your Consequence taken universally cannot be true.  
Perhaps you will say if the Consequence be not universally true, yet it is as to the particulars of Heresies and Schisms that arise out of the Church: For if God had not provided the Church with so much power as is necessary to suppress those evils, he must be wanting in providing means for the Church's preservation. I Answer, that will be soon seen, if we consider all that power that God hath truly given his Churches to keep them from these evils, which are so far as I understand, the Bible, and Ministers, and the promise of the Spirit, to guide them that sincerely Implore his Aid and Assistance. Now its true these means are sufficient, and as much in their kind as is necessary, yet they are not of themselves sufficient, except Ministers and People make a good use of them. For in case either the one or the other do sinfully neglect the studying of the Bible, and praying earnestly for the guidance of the Spirit; it is very possible and easy for either of them to lapse into Heresies and Schisms, as many Churches have done, and yet when they so do, the have not to blame God for not intending their continuance, nor for not affording what means are in their kind sufficient for their continuance. For the fault is their own in not making a due use and improvement of the means afforded.  
I know the Author is dreaming of other sorts of means Entrusted with the Church for the preventing the destruction thereof by Heresies and Schisms, and that is of a power of determining Controversies in points of doctrine, and of making Laws and Ordinances for the suppressing Schisms, so at least as to oblige the members to acquiesce, which are different from studying the Bible, praying for the Spirit, and to add a Living up to what they know.  
But by his leave, I will be bold to tell him, that such a power of determining controversies, is not a sure means of itself to prevent Heresies, for what if the Pastors themselves, by a neglect of those means I named, should lapse into Heresies, it is certain if they came to determine, they would Establish Heresies, and not root them up. Nor is that power of making Laws and Canons to oblige all members to acquiesce in any sure means to prevent or to put an end to Schisms, for except the members of the Church, are assured that what their Pastors determine in doctrine, and what they would be Cannon oblige them to, in matters of worship, be agreeable to the word of God, they may justly make no scruple to descent in the one and the other. True indeed, if Governors of Churches could make out such a power they pretend to, that they have received it from God, and that they are infallibly guided, as the Pope and Quakers pretend in all their determinations, than somewhat indeed were spoken to the purpose, and the People would see some ground to take them for Oracles, and to stoop to their determinations, but till than it is best for Governors of Churches to leave the People to their Bibles, and to press nothing upon them as necessary, but what they find to be Evidently there written and commanded.  
But no more of this as yet, for I have herein almost prevented myself in what I have to say as to that which follows.  
He proceeds thus, That since the preservation of a Church cannot be secured, but by a providing for a due and orderly performance of the worship of God, and by maintaining peace and unity among its members, it necessarily follows in General, that whatever power over her subjects is necessary in order to either of these things, all that at least must be supposed to be Lodged in the Church, that is to say, in those that have the Government of it.  
I answer, If you mean hereby that Jesus Christ hath by directions and precepts provided what is necessary for the due and orderly performance of God's worship, and likewise for the preserving his Churches in peace and Unity, and that he hath in a special manner entrusted those directions and precepts with the Pastors of Churches, to teach and command the Churches to worship God according to these directions, and to keep unity among themselves, and likewise to reprove and censure the obstinate, according to the said directions and precepts; so I yield the whole of what is said. But if you mean thereby that Christ hath entrusted the Governors of Churches with an Arbitrary power, to institute such things for a pretended due and orderly worship, which neither were in use with Christ and his Apostles or those first Churches, or that are no ways necessary in themselves, but are at least seemingly contrary to the Genius of a gospel-worship, which is Eminently spiritual, and to press these under the penalties of Excommunication, as if the Churches could not duly and orderly worship God, and be kept in unity without them. In this sense I deny that any such power is to be supposed to be Lodged in the Governors of the Church, for it is a power altogether useless and impertinent, and in the consequence destructive: For Christ and his Apostles, and those first Churches worshipped God, and kept unity in a more excellent manner than we do, and yet without the use of these humanely invented things that you Impose.  
He goes on, From hence (saith he) it is plain that the Church hath a power to restrain the exercise of her Subjects Liberty, as to oblige them to all such Laws, Rules, Orders, Ceremonies, as she shall Establish for the ends aforesaid.  
I answer, When you have either better proved the necessity or real usefulness of the laws, rules, ceremonies to the ends aforesaid, or that Christ hath given any such power to the said Governors which hitherto you have but merely begged, than I will yield to what you say as true, But otherwise it is but a poor naked Lank Assertion that stands by itself unproved, and so I leave it.  
But as to what he adds, And if it be Questioned whether her Appointments do indeed conduce to that end; of that she herself is to be Judge, her members being no farther concerned therein than only before they obey her Impositions to see that they be not repugnant to the known Laws of God.  
I Answer, First let it be considered, that he grants a Judgement of discretion to the people, antecedent to, and a ground of their Obedience to such Laws, upon this I say it will follow, that if the members upon searching the Scriptures, and praying to God for his Spirit to direct them, are left after such a search under strong persuasions that the very making such Laws, and appointing such Ceremonies, and binding them on the disciples necks, under the penalties of Excommunication, is a mere usurpation, and that those Ceremonies themselves are of such a low, carnal, beggarly consideration, extremely ill suited to the manly State of the Church, and the Spirituality of a Gospel worship. I say if upon these and other considerations they continue strongly persuaded, that both the one, and the other, are thus repugnant to the Will and Law of Christ, it will be the members duty in such a case to disobey. It will not here be sufficient for you to say, but they are mistaken, there is no such real repugnancy as they Imagine: For since you leave them to be Judges, whether there is or is not, it is but equal that those you leave to be Judges, that they should be left to act according to their judgements in such a case as this is, which you yield to fall under their cognisance. And the truth is, if you will not yield such a Liberty of judgement as this is, you must bid them put out their eyes, and follow their Leaders in a blind Obedience, and in case their Leaders be blind also you would there in direct them to an excellent expedient how they may come all to fall into the Ditch.  
He Infers again, Hence it will follow that the Church must be furnished with a power, to end and determine controversies of Religion, that arise among its membmers, that is to say, to give an Authoritative decision of them as that all parties are bound to acquiesce in it, else she could not preserve herself in peace and unity.  
What you say here, may be differently understood, according to the nature of the points about which the controversy is, if the matters of difference or controversy be such as may be held by both sides, without any considerable damage to either of their Solutions, than I grant (that if Church Governors determine as the Apostle you confess pag. 1. doth) that those differing parties should remember each other as brethren, and Communicate with each other as such, forbearing to censure each other, as being the Lords servants to whom they must stand or fall, that the members ought to acquiesce in this their determination.  
But in case that Church Governors shall side with one party, and with them shall (contrary to the said rule and practice of the Apostle) endeavour to force by their determination, the other party to do and say as they do, or else to excommunicate them; I say in this case, these Governors usurp an Authority to themselves above and beyond what the Apostle had, or thought fit to exercise. And Likewise that it is not the Duty of the party so Imposed upon, to submit contrary to what they conceive to be the Will of God in that case. For he that doth or saith any thing against his doubting Conscience, is in the same Condition of Damnation, as he that doubteth and eateth, which the Apostle Instanceth in. If the points of Controversy be about such matters where those that hold on one side do Espouse such doctrines or ways of worship that are of very dangerous Consequence to the Salvation to their Souls, (such are they that are espoused by Arians, Socinians, Papists) I say In these instances, if Church Governors determine on the right side, according to the plain Revelations of God's word in Scriptures; the Members are bound to acquiesce therein, but not merely because of their determination, but because their determinations are sounded on the Revelations of God, but in case the said Governors should, contrary to the said Revelations, determine on the wrong side, that is to say, for the Socinians, Arrians, Papists, I say then, the Members were not obliged to acquiesce in these determinations, notwithstanding all the pretences of Unity and Peace that may be obtained thereby.  
The Author being sensible that what he last said, if taken in the utmost extent of its signification, would be dangerous, gins to limit his sense thereof; and indeed it is but high time he should.  
Here (saith he) it may be taken notice, that this Power of ending Controversies, which we ascribe to the Church; doth not imply any Authority over our Judgements, or that in virtue thereof she can oblige us to give an inward assent to her determinations, any further than she gives us evidence for the Truth of them; which is that extravagant Power the Church of Rome doth challenge to herself.  
So far we are agreed; he adds, but our practices that she can oblige us to submit so far to her definitions, as not to act any thing contrary to them: this is absolutely necessary to prevent the over running of Heresies, and the embroiling the Church in infinite quarrels and Controversies to the destruction of the public Peace.  
I answer, first by concession I grant according to this, here is good Provision made for the Purity and Peace of the Church so long as the Governors determine on the right side; But in case they determine on the wrong, it is then so bad an expedient to prevent Heresies that I do not know a more effectual tool, for the overspreading the Church with them than this is, for in case they determine for Socinians, Arrians, Popery, you say that the Members are obliged as to their practice though not as to their Judgements to Acquiesce in the said determinations. I confess herein you have showed a great care of preserving a Peace, but what a Peace is it? not a Peace of the Church of Christ, but the Peace of a confederacy or conspiracy against the true Church of Christ.  
But if this were true, then in the times of the predominancy of Arianism, when some hundreds of Arian Bishops met in Council and determined wickedly against the Deity of Christ, in that point to himself, and never to have declared against that abomination, for fear of disturbing the Peace of the Church; and as for Wickliff, Husse, Hierome of Prague, and afterwards Luther, they were all Peace breakers, in declaring against the abominable opinions and Antichristian Faith of the Church of Rome, they ought all of them to have kept their Judgements to themselves, and so to have acquiesced in the determinations of that wicked Church: Or when Jeroboam Apostatised and set up two Calves at Dan and Bethel, and commanded the people there to Worship; they ought only to have kept their judgements to themselves, but other wise to have conformed in outward practice to the instituted Worship, which to say, is contrary to the Judgement of God in that case who commended his 7000 in Israel that bowed not the knee to Baal, the commendation was, that they neither conformed in Judgement nor practice.  
If it be said, that the Author only meant that such determinations only obliged the practice, Negatively; that is to say, that the Members are thereby bound not to practise any thing contrary to them.  
Very good let that be his meaning, now I would fain know what are those acts wherein Members may be said to practise contrary to such determinations? what if they withdraw and refuse Communion with such a Church that holds to such determinations; is this to be reputed a practising any thing to the contrary? if it be, than so did those 7000 Israelites and yet are commended for so doing: if so to withdraw may not be thought to be an acting contrary, inasmuch as the Peace may be kept notwithstanding such a withdrawing, then do you ill (according to your own principles) to compel under penalties, all dissenters to conform to you, since the Peace may be preserved notwithstanding their Nonconformity and withdrawing.  
But yet again, may a public declaration by word of Mouth or writing, be judged an acting contrary to such determinations? I doubt not but you think it so to be.  
Then I demand, when the People of Israel met together at the trial by Sacrifice, whether God or Baal was the true God, says Elisha to them, why halt you betwixt Jehova and Baal? if God be God, follow him; if Baal, follow him. Here the people were left to their choice, to conclude upon the Worshipping of which God they were convinced to be the true God, by that trial. In conclusion, the People being throughly convinced by a miracle that Jehova (and not Baal) was the true God: They publicly by word of mouth declared Jehovah he is God, Jehovah he is God. I ask, was this declaration an acting contrary to the established Worship of the Land? if it was, then according to you, it was unlawful and contrary to the Peace of that corrupt Church, for they ought to have stood mute, and kept their Judgements to themselves for fear of disturbing the Peace of Baal's Worshippers.  
Perhaps you will say this was an extraordinary case, for a miracle was here wrought by a great Prophet, which gave a virtual warrant to the People for such a declaration, though contrary to the Peace of the Church. I answer, the immediate reason of this acclamation was the conviction of their judgements that Jehovah was the only true God; the remote cause was the miracle wrought by the Prophet, which was the cause of the conviction, so that the immediate warrant for that acclamation, was their conviction; the remote warrant for it was the miracle: now I ask you if there be the same degree, or a sufficient degree of conviction in any other people, that this or that decision of Governors of Churches be clearly against the mind of God, though the reason of the conviction be not a miracle wrought in their presence, but a consideration of what is evidently declared in the Bible, that in its time had the confirmation of many miracles wrought by a greater than Elisha, even by the Son of God; whether this conviction so wrought gives not as good and ample Authority to either Ministers or People, to declare by Word of Mouth or Writing against such decisions of Church Governors, which have determined evidently against plain Revelations, as this People of Israel had for this their public declaration? which if granted, than I say, there is no such obligation that lies upon Church Members to acquiesce in the unrighteous decisions of Church Governors, so as not to act or practise contrary there to, which you have affirmed, and I have denied, and let the Reader judge which hath the better reason of his side for what either of us say, and thus have I answered to the third Proposition.  
His Fourth Proposition.  That we can have no just cause of withdrawing our Communion from the Church, whereof we are Members, but when we cannot Communicate with it, without the Commission of sin. 
In this Proposition he speaks of Christians as supposed to be in actual Fellowship with some visible Church; by Church he understands either some particular Worshipping Congregation, or a National Church, as for this latter notion of a Church when he hath showed us, that it was, or is the will of Christ, that all the Christians in every Nation should after the manner of the Jews, be united under the same visible Head of High Priest, and that the great body of the Nation should meet by his command, at one place, as the Jews at the Temple of Jerusalem for public Worship, than I confess he will have some colour for asserting of National Christian Churches, and of a National Membership therein, but till then I shall take the boldness to deny that any Christian is capable of any such National Church Membership.  
But if he doth here mean by Church a particular Worshipping Congregation, such are the parochial Churches of England, and such are the Congregations of Non-conformists, than we shall consider what he further saith, which is this, That no Christians can have just cause of withdrawing Communion from the Church whereof they are Members, if we should understand it indifferently of Non-conformists Churches as parochial, the meaning would be, that no Member that either is joined to the one or the other, have just cause to withdraw Communion from either of them, but when &c.  
If you say that the parochial Churches are the true regular Churches, because established by the Law of the Land; and all other are Schismatical: I answer, this is sooner said than proved, for did the regularity or Schismaticalnesse of a Church depend on such an external fickle consideration as the Law of the Land, than might one and the same Church be Regular or Schismatical as often as the wind of the Legislative power might chance to Change; so that an Act of Parliament, that makes the Episcopal Churches regular to day, the very same Churches by a change of an Act might be made Schismatical to morrow; and so if the Legislative Power pleased, both Episcopal, Independent, Presbyterian, Anabaptistical Churches may be regular and Schismatical in their turns.  
Lastly, when you say no Communion may justly be with drawn from, but when it cannot be continued without the Commission of sin, here again, I desire to know whether by sin you mean such that may be evidenced to be such, to the conviction of the imposers; or only such that is evidenced to the conviction of the Consciences of those that withdraw? you cannot in reareason require the first, except you will run yourselves upon these straits, either to turn Papists, or undertake to convince the Papists, that the reason why you came off from them and their Worship, was because you could not Communicate with them therein without sin, we know you tell them so, and give yours reasons why you say so, but notwithstanding all you say they are not convinced, but yet persist to call you Schismatics. But what then? are you moved with their censure? no, for if your reasons will not convince them: yet they satisfy your own Consciences, and therein you rest, and so you may very reasonably do.  
I desire now but the like equity for the Non-conformists, and that is, that if they have reasons sufficient to convince their own Consciences, that the things imposed are sinful though their reasons convince not their imposers, that you would give them that liberty of Acquiescing therein, as you take in bearing up yourselves against the Censures of the Papists.  
But yet further, What though the things Imposed be not clearly evidenced to their own Consciences, but only so far as to leave them under strong suspicions that they are sinful? it is sufficient to justify their withdrawing; for what if the things Imposed on the Non-conformists were such as they might as lawfully do or practise, as the Christian Jews might have eaten of the once-forbidden meats? yet so long as their doubts remain, if they should so practise they would sin, as the Jews would have done if they had eaten so long as their scruple remained: And so that unquestionable Casuist, the Apostle, determines in the case Rom. 14, 14. For I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in itself, yet to him who thinks any thing unclean, to him it is unclean. So again, He that doubteth and eateth is Damned. And if it were not to light up Candles while the Sun shines, I would tell you, that a mere suspicion of a sin, is a sufficient ground for withdrawing Communion, in the Judgements of other very great men.  
So says that universally admired man, Mr. Hales, of Schism, pag. 8. says he, In these Schisms which concern Fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. For not only in Reason, but in Religion too, that maxim admits of no release. Cautissimi cujusque preceptum quod dubitas nefeceris, To load, saith he, our public Forms with private fantasies, (upon which we differ) is the most Sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the World's end. Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading the Scriptures, in the plainest and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of Church Pomp, of Garments or prescribed Gestures, of Imagery, of Music, or of many other Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency, did interpose itself. To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all Superstition; and when scruple of Conscience began to be made, or pretended, there Schism began to break in he goes on, If the spiritual Guides of the Church would be a little spareing of incumbering Churches with superfluities, etc. there would be far less Cause of Schism or Superstition, and all the inconveniences were likely to ensue, would be but this, they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecility of their Inferiors, a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do, Mean while I pray mark this, wheresoever false or suspected opinions, are made a piece of Church Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schismatic, for it is alike unlawful, to make a profession of known or suspected falsehood, as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions,  
And of this mind is Dr. Stilling fleet, a Person no whit inferior to the other, whose words are these, in his Iren. p. 117.  
Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine, doth require the owning of, and conforming to, any unlawful or suspected practice, men may lawfully deny Conformity to, and Communion with that Church in such things, without incurring the guilt of Schism; which because I know it may meet with some opposition, from those men who will sooner call men Schismatics than prove them so; I shall offer this reason for it to consideration; if our separation from the Church of Rome, was therefore lawful because she required unlawful things as conditions of her Communion, then wherever such things are required of any Church, Non-communion with that Church in those things, will be lawful too: and where non-communion is Lawful, there can be no Schism in it.  
If it be said here, that the Pope's power was a usurpation, which is not in Lawful Governors of Churches, it is soon replied, that the Pope's usurpation, mainly lies in imposing things upon men's Consciences as necessary, which are doubtful or unlawful: And wherever the same thing is done, there is an Usurpation of the same nature, though not in so high a degree; and it may be as Lawful to withdraw Communion from one, as well as the other. If it be said, that men are bound to be ruled by their Governors, in determining what things are Lawful, and what not: To this it is Answered, first, No true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church Governors in all things: It is the highest usurpation, to rob men of the Liberty of their Judgements. That which we plead for against the Papists, is, that all men have their eyes in their heads as well as the Pope, that every one hath a Judicium privatae discretionis, which is the rule of practice as to himself, and though we freely allow a Ministerial power under Christ, in the Governors of the Church, yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and Conscience, etc. A man hath not the power over his own understanding, much less can others have it. Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum, non est in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando volucrit. Either therefore men are bound to obey Church Governors in all things, Absolutely, without Restriction or Limitation, (which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others Faith in them, and the worst of implicit Faith in others, it is hard to define what either of them is) or else if they be bound to obey only in Lawful things, I then inquire, who must be Judge what things are Lawful, and what not? if the Governors still, than the power will be Absolute again, for to be sure whatever they command, they will say is lawful, either in its self or as they Command it. If every private person must judge what is Lawful, and what not, which is Commanded, (as when all is said, every man will be his own Judge in this case, in things concerning his own welfare) than he is no further bound to obey, than he Judges the thing to be Lawful which is Commanded. The plea of an erroneous Conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it, for as he is bound to lay it down, supposing it Erroneous, so he is bound not to go against it, while it is not laid down.  
These testimonies are so clear, and backed with such unanswerable reason, that I shall now not scruple to qualify the proposition under consideration thus, that where the commission of sin, (so saith he, I add or the doing any thing that is suspected to be sinful,) is required as the condition of Communion, there a withdrawing is Lawful and not at all Schismatical.  
Having thus given an account of these different scenes, in which both he and I do understand the several parts of this proposition, I shall now come to examine what he hath said for the confirmation thereof,  
There are (saith he, p. 19) but two cases wherein it can be Lawful to withdraw Communion from a Church; one is, when the Church requires of us, as a Condition of her Communion, an acknowledgement and profession of that to be truth, which we know to be an error; the other is, when she requires of us the joining with her in some Practice which we know to be against the Laws of God.  
Though I will not be so confident to say with this Author that only in these two cases it may be Lawful to withdraw Communion, for there may be a third and a fourth, which neither he nor I may at present think of. Yet so far I agree with him, that these two cases mentioned are just causes of withdrawing Communion. But whereas he saith, that the error must be known to be such, and the practice known to be against the Law of God, to that I say, that knowledge implies certainty. But I say if the errors and practices be but suspected, so as the Conscience doth but doubt, it is sufficient: as I have proved from the Apostle, and the testimonies and reasons of Mr. Hales, and Dr. Stillingsleet. This being premised, I shall now proceed to a Consideration of those grounds which he supposeth Non-conformists plead as sufficient causes of their separation, as they are Enumerated and Affirmed by him to be insufficient.  
First, he saith, unscriptural impositions can be no sufficient cause to warrant a Separation from a Church.  
Answer, By unscriptural impositions (he supposeth as he tells us) is meant, no more than what is neither commanded nor forbid in Scriptures, neither by Particular or General Rules. Thus when he hath by a false supposition fashioned and erected a man of Straw, he than bushes him quite down with the horns of a Dilemma, and Fancies to himself a great victory, for from that supposition he thus argues, Those unscriptural impositions which are neither commanded nor forbid, by any general or particular rules in Scripture, are eitherin themselves Lawful or unlawful, if unlawful, than they are against some Particular or General scriptural rule, & so cannot fall under the notion of unscriptural Impositions, which are supposed to be against neither of these Rules, if lawful, than it cannot be imagined how their being commanded, can make them unlawful, so that in this case there is no sin in yielding obedience, and consequently no just cause of withdrawing our Communion. This is the strength of what he hath said to this first case.  
My Answer is this, I wonder which of his dissenters gave him ground to suppose that ever any of them took unscriptural Impositions, for such things that were neither Commanded nor Forbid, by any General or Special Rule in Scripture; if thus you care not upon what Sandy premises you build your Conclusion, who can help it?  
But I pray be pleased to let me tell you what we ourselves mean, by unscriptural Impositions.  
They are such things, the religious use whereof is imposed upon Christians, in the Worship and Service of God, under the penalties of depriving Ministers of their office, or the exercise thereof, and of depriving both them and private Christians of the liberty of enjoying Gospel Ordinances or the Privileges of a Visible Church state, by the censure of excommunication, which are things that are not either Commanded, or directly Forbidden in Scripture, in any express terms; for we confess that there is not the word Surplice, or sign of the Cross, etc. so much as named in Scripture, and upon this account, we allow them the name of unscriptural. But we say moreover, that the religious use of these things in the Worship of God, and much more the impositions of them as necessary Conditions of Communion, are against General Rules, and Instances in the like kind dis-allowed in Scripture, from whence we by deduction gather the unlawfulness, and sinfulness thereof, and upon this latter consideration, I call them antiscriptural, as being religious Customs and Usages contrary to these General rules, etc.  
Thus having given you our true sense and meaning, of unscriptural Ceremonies, now I answer to your dilemma.  
Either you say, these things thus imposed are in themselves lawful or unlawful.  
I answer, Your argument as you form it, is trivial and not to the purpose; for it speaks not to the Question under Consideration, for the Question is not about the nature of the things imposed, taken Absolutely; but about the Religious use of those things in the worship and service of God. Thus then your argument ought to proceed: Either the religious use of these things imposed in the Worship and Service of God, is lawful or unlawful.  
I answer Now directly, the Religious use of them is unlawful, and this antecedently to the imposing of them, and therefore the imposing of them cannot make them lawful.  
Here had been a fit place for you to have shown your strength, (if you had any) in Convincing us, that the Religious use of these things in God's Worship, is Lawful antecedently to the Imposition. But we have not a word hereof, and therefore since I find no more opposition therein, I might justly dismiss this first thing without any further Reply.  
Yet if any shall ask for what reason is it, that we say that such a use of them is unlawful? I answer, our reasons are ready, and they are such that do at least Convince our Consciences so far as to doubt and really suspect their use to be unlawful; Which is sufficient to make their imposition a warrantable ground of withdrawing (though the Evidence thereof be not so great, as to Convince our Gainsayers; no nor possibly to demonstrate fully the unlawfulness thereof to our own Consciences) as hath been already proved. If I be yet urged to show our reasons of this our persuasion or supposition; Methinks it were reason enough if I only told such, that these things imposed, are only the productions of a humane spirit, and are beholding for their Continuance in being, to the Traditions of men; and so hold in no respect of Christ the head, which is sufficient, not only in my opinion, but in the judgement of the Apostle Paul, to give members of Church's Caution against the reception of them, Col. 2.8. Beware lest any man make a prey of you through Philosophy, and vain deceit, after the Traditions of men, after the Rudiments of the World, and not after Christ. Whoever pleaseth to see an excellent paraphrase upon this verse, let him read it in Mr. John Dale in his exposition on this Epistle, which hath the Imprimatur Tho. Tomkins Ex Aed. Lambeth, and therefore I hope the testimony of this excellent person may obtain some repute; his words are these,  
The Scriptures calls those doctrines, Traditions of men, which have men only for their Authors; which come from men, and not form God, these with the errors of Philosophy, of which the Apostle speaks immediately before, may bear the same name, since they both flowed from the spirit of men, and had no other source but this imagination. A little after he saith, Whence it doth appear, that no productions of an humane spirit, are receivable in Evangelicall Religion, neither those that are supposed by some pretended reasons, nor those that are sounded upon Use and Antiquity; they are all of them nothing but folly and vanity in the sight of God, with what Colour soever they be painted over; And though men boast of their utility, they are extremely hurtful, as pestering Consciences, and busying them about things which God hath not ordained, and turning them aside from his pure service to matters of nought.  
Accordingly you see that our Lord Jesus Christ rejects, and roughly thrusts away all the Traditions of the Pharisees, how much esteemed soever they were for their Antiquity and pretended Use: reproaching them that by holding fast those Traditions of Men, they did let lose the Commandments of God. Applying to them those words of the Lord in Isaiah, In vain do they Honour me, teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men. As indeed it's an unsufferable presumption, that men should attempt to prescribe the form of God's service, especially after the declaration which himself hath vouchsafed to make of his holy will, nor is there one among men that would endure his servant should treat him in that manner, and instead of obeying his Orders, and causing others to dispatch them; fall a Philosophising in his house, and giving his Family a new Rule to observe, as if he were wiser than his Master. I know well the Authors of these Traditions, and those that follow them, are not without fine reasons, to palliate their temerity; but it is Evident that they do the very same for Substance, Neither is it to be doubted, but a Servant that should be culpable of such a vanity, would allege likewise his motive and designs, to any that would give them audience. But Common sense dictateth to the meanest capacities, that such undertaking Spirits, merit not so much as to be heard, especially where God is concerned, in Comparison of whom, they with all their sufficiency are but poor worms of the Earth. Hold we firm therefore this Foundation of the Apostle, that the Traditions of men ought to have no place in Religion, it concerns me not to inform myself of their age whether they be the Traditions of Men Ancient or Modern, it sufficeth that I know they are Traditions of men, having the Apostles advertisement we should not be moved with any reason, or splendour, or antiquity they may come clothed with; if you would have me receive them, show me that they are prescriptions of Gods, institutions of his Christ, Doctrines of his Scriptures; without this, However specious you make them appear to me, I shall never believe it; it is but to make a prey of me, and your diligence shall have no effect but the making me suspect them so much the more.  
Thus far you have had the Judgement of as great Divines as the Church in this last age hath produced, and who ever thinks there is not reason enough in this discourse to give Foundation sufficient to tender Consciences, at least to suspect, if not to be confident of the unlawfulness, of the Religious use of these things in the service of God: I know not what such will yield to be sufficient, nor would I wish such any greater punishment for their being otherwise minded, than that they were obliged to give a more rational account of this verse of the Apostle; and likewise to enervate the force of this Author's reason here produced.  
In confess such is the vanity of man's mind, that whilst he either not at all, or very negligently hath regard to that Jealousy that God hath over his Worship; (as is frequently taken notice of in Scriptures) is apt to think of these fictitious Ceremonies of Worship as very indifferent and harmless matters; for who could of a sudden think there is any good ground of making such a business about a Surplice, and the sign of a Cross in Baptism, etc. as is made among us? nor is it matter of much wonder to me, to see some well meaning Men, yea, and in other things Wise and Learned, when they hear of the plausible pretexts for their institution, to be persuaded into a conceit of their usefulness: and why not? when I find Nathan in a like case highly deceived, 2 Sam. 7.8. When David acquainted him with his purpose to build a house for God, saith Nathan go, and do all that is in thy Heart, for the Lord is with thee: here was a well meant proposal, and a very sudden and rash answer, as appears by that sudden check that the Lord that very night put to it, v. 4. and it came to pass that night that the Word of the Lord came to Nathan the Prophet, saying, go and tell my Servant David, saying, Shalt thou build me an House for me to dwell in? again, v. 7. Speak I a word with any of the Tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my People Israel, saying why build ye not me an house of Cedar? it is evident from hence that though both David and nathan's meaning were good, yet the work designed by the one, and approved by the other; had it been set upon and finished, had been evil, because there was no word of the Lord to warrant it, which is employed in the answer, God makes. That we are not singular in giving this Interpretation, see Pools Synopsis Critic. on the place, thus, vade, fac. hoc dicit sensu humano erravit Nathan, quia Deum non consuluit, mirum est sum ita temerè pronunciare, quia Dominus tecum est] est Paralogismus a secundum quid and Simpliciter. Ver. 4. In illâ nocte,] Deus non patitur suos diù decipi cùm videat eos Simpliciter errare. v. 5. Numquid tu aedificabis?] qu. cur David retrahitur & Judaei in Hag. 1. Arguuntur quod non aedificent? Respond. quod David non haberet verbum Domini, Judaei autem haberent. cui praecepi ut pasceret populum,] voluntas Davidis bona fuit, & placuit Deo, sed in eo erravit quod non haberet verbum Dei, a quo expèctare debuit, & Locum, & tempus, & peculiar mandatum. The sum of the whole is this Davids will was good, but to have done the thing willed, had been evil; because there was no command from God for doing it: the case here is much alike peradventure the will of those that first invented the religious use of these things might be good, and yet the use of them might be bad; for the very same reason because they want the word of the Lord for their warrant.  
Thus have I given you some further account, why at least we suspect the Religious use of these things in God's Service to be unlawful, antecedent to any imposition. If you will still call for more of our reasons, I tell you they are ready, and you should have them, but that I fear the swelling of the book beyond the ordinary reader's patience and purse: but I wonder what you can say that amounts to as good reason for their lawfulness, as hath been already given against their lawfulness. As for that text so commonly monly urged, let all things be done in decency and order, it will do you little Service in such like cases as we have instanced in, for the Apostle doth there speak of such a decency and order, that doth arise from the Nature of things, and not of such that have their result only from the arbitrarious Fancies of Men, of the former kind of order and decency the God of Nature is the Author, of the other man's imagination; for the undecency and disorder there reproved, is such as speaking in a strange Tongue to the Church met together for edification, which sometimes none understood but him that spoke, or else paradventure the speaking of more than one at one time, which could not but breed confusion or be unprofitable, or such as consisted in some women's forwardness to teach and instruct the Church, which consisted much of men, which was contrary to that order where in God had placed that Sex in Subjection to men, and therefore were very unmeet to be employed as their instructors. But what is there in these Ceremonies, or in the Nature of them, abstracted from man's imagination, that hath any thing of this natural order and decency, for whether you think it or not: yet certainly, it's a very disorderly thing for a Minister to speak a Sermon of Greek or Latin, to a Church that only understand English; or for many to be speaking together, but lay aside Imagination and I wonder what indecency is in praying without a Surplice or Administering Baptism without the sign of the Cross?  
So that it's evident these Ceremonies fell not under that kind of order and decency of which the Apostle speaks, and therefore there is no warrant from that text for their Institution or their use.  
In Truth their pretended decency, is much like that decency that David imagined, which was the reason of his contriving for God a house, thus he reasoned; shall I dwell in a house of Cedar, and is it decent or comely that the Ark of God should dwell within Curtains? one would have thought his reason from decency was good, but as you have heard God answered his reason and reproved his humane Judgement therein, so that an argument from decency in such matters is very fallacious: yet again, I have seen some men arguing thus, if it be not lawful to use things religiously in the service of God without a warrant from the Word, why then do we Religiously make use of Churches to meet in, Pulpits to Preach in, Communion Table to eat the Lords Supper on? are not all these things Religiously used in the Worship of God, or have we an express word for them? Or why do we admit of the dividing of the Bible into Chapters, and the addition of the Contents, and dividing the Chapters into Verses? or why do we admit of the turning David's Psalms into Meeter, and singing them in such Tunes that are made for them, have we any express word for these?  
I answer, as to the use of Churches, Pulpits, Tables, I confess they are used as convenient circumstances of the Worship of God, but then I say, their conveniency arises from the Nature of the Acts of worship, and a natural necessity of such kind of things for the performance of these Acts of worship conveniently, and are not the results of mere fantasy and imagination; for certainly its more than a fantasy to say, it's convenient that when the worshippers meet together for worship, they should have a capacious house to meet in, to shelter them from the injuries of the weather, or it's more than bare fancy to say, its convenient that the Preacher should stand above the people, both to ease him of the inconveniency of the crowd, and that he may be better heard, and so it may be said of the Table, how can the Lords supper be conveniently administered without a Table to put the Bread and the Wine upon? but as for your Ceremonies, there is no necessity at all of them, but they are the only births of an Arbitrarious vain Imagination, for the ordinances may be well enough administered without them.  
Besides I answer, that these things now named are used as circumstances convenient, and in some sort naturally necessary to the Acts of worship, yet I deny, that ever when they are so used, that they ought to be Religiously used; a thing is then Religiously used, not barely when I use it in worship, (for so I use my Cloak and band in worship which yet I used not Religiously) but to use a thing in worship religiously, is when I use it for religious ends, as to the pleasing of God, and the edifying of myself and others in religious matters, now when we meet in a Church, or stand in a Pulpit, or cat the Lords Supper on the Table, we do not think that there is any thing in those places that render us or our worship any whit the more pleasing to God; for if we met on a Mountain, or on a Sea shore, and taught out of a boat, or in case of necessity by reason of persecution, did eat the Lords Supper upon the grass, provided we did all in Spirit and Truth, our services were every whit as acceptable as in, from, or on the other places; and it's a mere Idle superstitious conceit to think otherwise: but now as for these Ceremonies, either you think to please God by them and edify the Church, or you do not; if you do, than you fall under the like reproof of God to David, when did god bid you do such things? or when did he tell you that then he was pleased with them? if not, they are altogether impertinent and useless, for as I have showed they arise not out of the Nature of things, but merely out of fantasy and therefore aught to be let alone, for assuredly man doth not, much less doth God care to be trifled with, in matters of Worship; as to the other things instanced in, as dividing the Scriptures into Chapters, and giving the Contents thereof, to that I say though there is not a particular express command for it, yet there is a general command to those that are Ministers of Christ to explain the whole Council of God to his people, and such addition now named, with the giving of the Contents of each part, any Minister of the Gospel hath a warrant to do by virtue of the said general command given to Ministers; and upon this account those that did divide them, did well and warrantably, for it is one of the commanded works of Ministers, to divide the Word aright.  
As for the digesting the Chapters into verses, the direct and immediate design thereof was only to help the Memory, nor do those that read Scriptures make any other use of them; I never understood that any used those figures with any conceit, as if they pleased God more with reading the Word with them, than they should do if they read it without them, or as if they thought they were any direct helps to their Faith or devotion; and as for Singing Psalms, there is a Word that gives Foundation to that Ordinance, as there is none for humane Ceremonies, and as for the Melody that there is made, that likewise hath its Foundation in the word; so then there is nothing done by digesting David's words into Meeter, but only a putting them into a posture fit for to be sung, which the Nature of that duty makes necessary, and therefore gives warrant thereto. But as for the Ceremonies contended for, They have no such original, but as I have said only depend upon men's imagination, for there is nothing in any Act of worship that needs or calls for them.  
Having thus shown you some of those grounds we have to suspect the lawfulness of the things imposed, and likewise laid naked the weakness of some of your reasons from which you think them lawful, before I conclude my answer to this first part of your charge against us; a little to try the force of your consequence: let us therefore for once suppose that the things imposed were such that might be lawfully used, for Religious ends, in the worship of God; what then? you say it then follows that they do not become unlawful because imposed.  
I Answer, first by concession it is true, were they lawful to be done, I cannot say that the command would alter the nature of these things to make them unlawful, but yet I say, this will not excuse the imposer, nor him that obeys the imposition, from sin; not the imposer, for he usurps a power over another Lords Servants, in things that do not concern him: and secondly, if the imposer enjoins those little and suppose lawful things under severe penalties, such as deprivation, excommunication, banishment, etc. in the one he sins as a usurper of Christ's Authority, in the other as cruel; nor is he that obeys the imposisition, Innocent; but I do not lay his guilt upon doing the thing supposed lawful, but inasmuch as by his obedience thereto he doth seem to own such an usurpation, and to acknowledge the imposer his Master in such matters, wherein Christ only is his Lord; and upon this account I say, he sins, inasmuch as he transgresseth that Command of Christ, Let no man be called Master or Father, that is let none be owned as your Master or Father, in these matters of Faith and Worship, for in such matters ye have but one Master even Christ, Math. 23.8.10. Thus I have said what I conceive is a sufficient answer to your first charge when you say, that our separation upon the account of unscriptural Ceremonies imposed, is not sufficient to excuse us from Schism.  
Secondly he saith, That the Church requiring from us any doubtful or suspected practices, as Conditions of her Communion, is not a just cause of Separation.  
I have proved the falsehood of this Proposition already, from the testimonies of the Apostle Paul, who is a far better Casuist than the Author, who hath declared that Christians are under the Obligations of obeying the dictates of their Consciences, or not acting contrary thereto though their Consciences be under a mistake. And besides I have given you in the testimony of Mr. Hales, and the reasons of Dr. Stillingfleet against this position of the Author, which I think will be long enough before he solidly answer.  
But because the Author of this Proposition doth essay to give a reason of what he here asserts, I shall not be so uncivil as not to take notice thereof, but will return him a fair answer.  
That is no just cause (saith he) for we must at least have as much certainty of the unlawfulness of the Action enjoined, as we have of our Obligation to the Authority that enjoins them, before we withdraw our obedience to it; otherwise we do not proceed upon safe grounds: but now we are absolutely certain that God hath commanded us to obey them that have the rule over us, but we are not certain that the Actions we here speak of, are any where forbidden by him, for if they were they would be no longer doubtful or suspected, they would be certain sins; so that if we will follow the surer side, as all Christians in these cases are bound to do, we must continue our obedience to the Church, notwithstanding we suspect or doubt of the lawfulness of her commands, Thus far he—  
I answer, this Argument (notwithstanding the prittiness of its contrivance is certainly falatious; for ex vero nihil sequi potest nisi verum, for the rule there laid down of always obeying the Church Rulers, where the Conscience is in doubt, is in many instances a ready way to involve many a weak Conscience in damnable guilt. For suppose there had been many a doubtful Conscience among the Israelites in Ahabs' time, as it seems there were, who halted betwixt the Worship of Jehovah and Baal; suppose yet a little further, that the Consciences thus doubting were rather inclined to believe Jehovah the true God, and Baal but an Idol, but yet were not absolutely certain; what say you now? what Council would you have given such an one, if he had asked your advice? do but look how illfavouredly such an answer as this would seem; true might you say, according to your rule, I do believe that Jehovah is the only true God, and Baal but a Devil, and that your worshipping a Devil is a damnable sin; but as for you, you are not so certain hereof as I am, yet your Conscience is inclined to believe as I do; my advice therefore is this, that since your Rulers have commanded you to worship that Devil, I Counsel you so to do, till your Conscience be better resolved; and why? because you are certain God hath commanded you to obey your rulers, but you are not yet so certain that Baal is a Devil; I dare say you abhor such a resolution of the case, and yet I see not but you must be forced to give no better, if you follow the rule laid down in this argument; I might instance in other like cases, as if a Jew in the days of Messiahs' being in the Flesh, had been inclined to believe in him as the Messiah, but yet was not so absolutely certain thereof, as he was of this command, thou shalt obey the Rulers of thy people; according to you, he must go against the inclination of his doubting, Conscience in disowning and rejecting Christ that he might yield obedience to his Rulers, who command, him so to do; in like manner, if a poor man were inclined to believe the Mass Idolatry, he must go on in that sin against his doubting Conscience till he comes to be as certain it is Idolatry, as he is that God hath commanded us to obey our Rulers.  
From what hath been said, it is evident there is a fallacy in your Argument; and now to show you where it lies, give me leave to tell you, it lies in your arguing from particulars to an Universal, vel a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. That because I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my rulers in some things, therefore I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in every thing, yea, in such things which I suspect to be sin: Do but you make this Evident, that in that very Command which I suspect to be sinful, that I may be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey, and then I will give up the Cause. But this you can never do, for upon those very arguments, upon which I suspect the sinfulness of the Command, upon the same Arguments I suspect whether God hath given them Authority to Command, or whether God would have me to obey; for I can never be sure, that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in such instances where I suspect my Rulers Command me to sin. So that, whereas your Argument supposeth that a Doubting conscience may be more certain that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers, than he is of the thing he doubts; and so he is therefore to take the surer side, and so to obey his Rulers against his Conscience. I have made the contrary appear, by showing that a man can never be sure that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers in such cases where he suspects they Command him to sin. So that in obeying them he doth not take the surer side. Thus is the strength of this Argument, and so the strength of his second (Charged upon the Nonconformists) broken, wherein he hath been endeavouring to prove, they have no just Cause of Separation, though it be upon the account of avoiding what they suspect to be sinful which is made the Condition of Communion.  
Thirdly, saith he, Neither can it be true that Errors in a Church, as to matter of Doctrines; or Corruptions, as to matter of Practice, (so long as these Errors and Corruptions are only suffered, but not imposed) can be a sufficient Cause of Separation: The reason is, because the things are not sin in us, so long as we do not join with the Church in them.  
I Answer, First, I would fain know what kind of Errors of Doctrines, or Corruptions of Practice, you do here mean? for they are of divers sorts and kinds, and accordingly what you here say may be either True or False.  
If by Errors of Doctrine you mean, such that are consistent with the holding of Christ the head, or such that touch not upon the Fundamentals of the Christian Doctrine; some such were those in the Apostles days, that related to the Abstaining from meats, and observation of days; in such cases doubtless Christians ought without imposing to bear with one another, and to continue Communion with each other, notwithstanding such differences, which was the Apostles counsel in that case; in this sense, what you say is true. Or if by Corruptions in Practice, you should mean such infirmities, that all Members of Churches are subject to more or less, (for who can say, that he is without sin?) in this sense you are right; or if you mean by errors and Corruptions, such that are of a more Gross, and Heinous nature, which are not publicly known, or of which the Members cannot have sufficient proof, for the conviction of themselves, that those that are accused are really guilty, so also I grant what is here said; for till it be evident by some overt Act, that Judas hath a Devil, and is a Traitor; he ought to be looked on as an Apostle, and might be heard.  
In like manner, if the Governors of the Church, were with many of the Members, Arrians or Socinians in their judgements; but not known evidently to be such, it may be the Duty of sound Christians not to withdraw Communion from them.  
But if it shall so fall out, that the Governors of a Church, and a great body of the People be so erroneous, and this sufficiently known, and though reproved, yet they abidè obstinate maintainers thereof; I say in this Case it is sufficient ground for sound Members to withdraw, and save themselves from so dangerous a Society: and why? because I may not lawfully join with such a Church, where possibly I may, every time I join the Lord Christ and the Holy Ghost, Blaspheme; whose Deity is denied by these Sects: nor may I join, lest I endanger my Faith; for evil words do not only Corrupt good manners, but have a direct tendency to corrupt a sound Faith; and certainly the safety of a Soul is of greater worth, than the preservation of a Corrupt Peace, or Unity of a Corrupt Church.  
And what I have said upon a supposition of such gross errors in the Rulers, and many of the people of a Church; the same may be said of either Idolaters, or grossly profane practices; for if Ministers, or many of the Members, should degenerate to a Popish Idolatry; or should prove Common Drunkards, or Whore-mongers, or Opposers, etc. and being admonished thereof, should deride the admonition as Precise, and fanatical: or if the Members only were Commonly so, and the Rulers wittingly Connive thereat, and seek not their Cure, by Reproofs and Censures, as Christ hath commanded in such cases; I say again, it is a sufficient ground for the sound Members to withdraw (especially if a more pure Church may be had) yea though neither these errors or practices are imposed; and that first, lest under the pretence of Peace, they should be guilty of the greatest uncharitableness, and that is, the hardening and encouraging, them in their abominable Impieties. Again, because the sound aught, by the law of God and Nature, to provide for their own safety. Certainly if there be a Contagion in evil words to corrupt good manners, there is much more in wicked Practices; and therefore they cannot but be in apparent danger by Communicating with such, and certainly in so doing, there is nothing done contrary to the Fundamental reason of Christ's Instituting discipline in his Church, which as I conceive was for the Cure of the unsound, and for the preservation of the sound, from the infection of the unsound: Now if no care be taken for the cure of the same, but that infectious Crew is kept in the Church to the palpable endangering of the sound, it is apparent that the Foundations of discipline are rooted up, and in effect there is no discipline at all, and that therefore every good Christian may seek his safety as he can, since he cannot obtain it in a Church by the means of the Gospel Discipline, which through the Corruption of the Rulers, and the swaying part of the Corrupt Members is made void.  
But no more of this till by and by, when I shall have a fresh occasion to speak further to this point.  
At present let us again return to inquire into a full sense of his Proposition if by any means we can find it out.  
You say in general terms, without any Limitation, that errors in Doctrine, and Corruptions in practice, when found in a Church, but not imposed, is no just ground of separation.  
I Answer, Methinks by this general way of Expressing yourself, that you are not afraid of your Readers understanding this Proposition without any Limitation.  
I pray tell me, what if Socinian or Popish Errors and Corrupt practices, were got into the Rulers of a Church, and a great body of the People, and that they should only tolerate them, but not impose them on any, what hinders (if what you here say be true) but that every sound Christian may, yea and aught to Communicate with such a Church? especially if Providence had cast him into such a place; where no other could be had: so that one of a Protestant Faith, might lawfully join with a Popish Church, not only in hearing their Friars Preach, but likewise in receiving the Mass of them; provided they would 〈…〉 him to profess their Errors, or to Practise the Super●… 〈◊〉 Idolatry in the Mass: but permit him to receive it in both 〈◊〉 in his own sense, though he knows the Priest delivers 〈…〉 the rest of the Communicants receive it in the Popish sense  
I would not be so unmerciful to charge you as holding this, but this I say, that so much seems to follow Clearly from this your Position, if taken without any Limitation; and I can discern none in this Paragraph.  
If you say, that there is enough said by you, pag. 22. concerning the Popish Church, to clear you in this particular: I Answer, It is true, you say there, that the great and general Corruption of the Church of Rome, both in Doctrine and Practice, doth endanger the Salvation of such as Communicate with her; and that therefore a total separation from her, and an erection of new Churches may be Lawful.  
I say notwithstanding all this, yet I doubt whether you there mean, that her Errors and Corruptions in themselves, or of their own nature do so far endanger men's Salvation, that though they were not imposed, yet we were bound to a total separation: or do you mean, they therefore so endanger our Salvation because imposed, as to warrant such a separation.  
If your Proposition there, may be understood in the  sense; than what you say here (taken universally) must needs be false; for if the very being of some sorts of Errors and Corruptions in a Church, (though not imposed) are so dangerous as to warrant a separation; how can it then be universally true (as you seem here to assert) that Errors in Doctrine, and Corruptions in Practice, (so long as they are only suffered, but not imposed) cannot be a sufficient Cause of separation? but if you are there to be understood in the latter sense, that is to say, that the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome, only as imposed are so dangerous to men's salvation, as to warrant a separation; then that which I even now suggested is true; that Christians may Lawfully here be Baptised, go to Mass with the Church of Rome: Provided they were not forced to make a Profession of believing their Errors, or had leave to receive those Sacraments with all the Superstitions thereto belonging, in their own sense; though it was well known, that they administered them in an other. I will not at present (as aforesaid) charge this opinion upon the Author: though it seems to be a consequence rightly inferred from this, and other principles of his in this discourse, because he saith pag. 31. A man may believe a proposition, and not believe all that follows from it; So that at no hand are we to charge such Consequences upon him, unless he doth explicitly own them, but whether you will explicitly own them or no, I am not certain: Yet this I know, that I have heard a Minister of the Church of England, not scruple to profess that he would, for Peace sake, use all the Popish Ceremonies of Cream and Spittle in Baptism, as well as the sign of the Cross, provided his Rulers did impose them, but so as that he was left to his liberty, is not to use them to the Popish Superstitious ends: But why such an one may not upon the same pretence of peace, practice most, if not all of the Ceremonies and Gestures pertaining to the Mass; granting him the liberty of a mental abstraction of them, from their Superstitious and Idolatrous ones, I cannot yet understand; and what wonder is it, if there be of such persuasions among you, when it is evident, that there are not a few of your Church, whose Ambition it seems to be, to run as nigh to the Romish Rights, as they may be suffered; not only in adoring, by bowing of the knee in the act of receiving of the Supper; but in erecting the Communion Table in the form of an Altar; and not only in bowing towards it, but being ready to kiss the very steps that lead up to it. But if this were your mind, I can prove the contrary.  
But I know he will say, all this is nothing to our present case, for there are no such errors or idolatrous Practices in the Church of England, and therefore cannot be pleaded as a cause of our separation.  
I Answer, It is very difficult to know what the Church of England is; and how they shall we be able to understand what are the Truths or Errors she maintaineth, or what are her Practices?  
If you should take it to consist of all the Christians in England, whether Ministers or People, so the Church of England would Comprehend all Non-conformists Churches as well as others.  
If you take it for such Christians only who are of the Faith in Doctrinals with those that hold with the 39 Articles; here the Non-conformists come in for a share also, who are of your Faith therein: excepting those which respect Discipline & Ceremonies. But if you will take in, and own such Christians in England to be only of your Church, that agree with you in Ceremonies, and a certain form of Service and Discipline which Christ never Commanded, and without which many of Christ's Churches have and do subsist and flourish, to say no more, I wonder then, by what Gospel Rule you presume to constitute a Church only of such, as exclusive of all others, however sound in Faith and unblameable in life.  
Or shall we take your Church only to consist of its officers; how shall we then Judge of your Faith, and Doctrinals? when so many of your Ministers are so contrary one to another. Some are for the doctrine of Predestination, and others against it: some are for Justification by Imputed righteousness, others not: some for a difference betwixt Grace and Morality, others oppose it: Some for the divine right of Episcopacy, others that the Magistrate may appoint what form of government he pleases: in a word, some writ or approve of such a book, that others of you think (as I have heard) fit to be burnt. Which of these shall we understand to be your Church?  
If those only, that meet by authority, in your Consistory, to advise of what is fit for the rest to believe and Practise; What then becomes of the Church, when that Consistory is dissolved and sent home.  
But what if a Consistory concludes of the 39 Articles, and the Preachers when all is done preach the quite contrary in several weighty points (As it is conceived many of yours do) and these are not only tolerated but encouraged by preferments, & consequently owned by yourselves? but you have a salve for all this, for you tell us, let some (and why not many or most?) preach Doctrines contrary thereto, yet your Church is very sound in Doctrine so long as the XXXIX. Articles remain to be her Doctrine. But I wonder how these Articles may be called your Doctrines, if but for fear, your Ministers or People shall believe them, according to the true intent and meaning of the Compilers.  
But in the mean time, what a sad Condition must the poor People be in, when such corrupt Teachers shall be imposed on them, if they are bound (for fear of Schism) to sit under their corrupt Doctrines to the endangering of their Faith, and consequently of their Salvation, yea though they be errors contrary to the Doctrine of your own Church.  
If you say, the people have liberty (in this case) of complaining.  
I Answer, but to what purpose? when such errors are publicly professed in Printed Books, and no course taken for the correcting or ejecting of the Authors, which shall hold their places with encouragements?  
If you say they may then withdraw, and join with other Pastors, provided they be of the same Church of England.  
I Answer then, what is become of your propositions, that errors only tolerated, are no just ground for separation?  
If you say, they may be just ground of separation from a particular Congregation, but not from a National Church.  
I Answer, but what if the whole National Church should beguilty of the same or like errors: what, is it a just ground Then to withdraw? if you say no, I demand for what reason? I can not think of any, except these two: that to separate from a Particular, so we join with another of the same National Church, doth not run us upon the same danger, as if we separated from the whole; for the latter leaves us destitute of all public advantages to ourselves, which the other doth not. Beside, the public honouring of God in his Worship, which is every Christians Duty, would be neglected.  
My further reply is this, that if the honouring of God in public, and my Souls safety, are the only reasons that are to sway in this matter, then in the partaking with Churches, though Non-conformists, where both these may be obtained, the separation will be lawful, and consequently it will be lawful to separate from a Church upon the only cause of its having corrupt Doctrines in it tolerated, though not imposed. If you say there is a law of the Land that makes it unlawful to join with a Church separate from the National:  
I answer, than the question will be only this; whether the Law of a Land, or the security of my Faith (and consequently my Salvation) ought more to be regarded? which I think is very easy to determine.  
From what hath been said, it is evident, that some sort of errors in a Church, though but tolerated, may be a just ground of withdrawing; though I do not charge the Church of England with any such errors, nor had I ground, provided her Ministers did honestly believe those Articles that they have professed to believe; which (as is conceived) several of them do not. So that what as to this point I have said, is pleadable only by such private Christians whose lot it is to fall under the Teaching of such Conformists, who are such Non-conformists to the Doctrines of the Church of England, as that they dare deride some sober Christians under the notion of being acquainted with the Person of Christ, or that dare Teach there is no difference betwixt Grace and Morality; or that there is no special Grace exerted in the conversion of a sinner, or that the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the Conversion of men, than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christianity in Scriptures, and enabled such to confirm the Truth of it with Miracles, so that men are left in the working out of their Salvation, to their Bibles and the use of their natural Faculties, exclusive of any other operation of the Spirit; either to their illumination or sanctification. I say, if the People withdraw from such Teachers or Congregations, where such Doctrines are owned, for securing their Faith or Salvation, there so doing is justifiable; because the law-of self preservation, is to be regarded before any positive law of visible Church Union; and I hope there is no true Son of the Church, that hath any zeal for the purity of their Church Doctrine, will be my adversary herein: and thus much shall suffice to be said concerning your Doctrines, and of the lawfulness of separating from some of the particular Congregations, in case the Teachers do grossly pervert Some of the weighty Doctrines of your own Church.  
We shall in the next place consider what you have here offered as to corrupt practices, which you say is no just ground (if only tolerated, but not imposed) of withdrawing, especially if they be no worse than are found in the Church of England.  
I Answer, first, if all the corrupt practices in your Church were only tolerated but not imposed, you would have much more reason of your side against us, than you have, because several things which you enjoin to be practised, we in our Consciences believe to be unlawful; and we cannot, must not, have Communion with you except we comply therein, so that should it be yielded, that unimposed corruption in a Church, is no just ground of separation, yet is it of no force against us, because some of these we conceive to be corruptions, are imposed.  
But to come close to the case as it stands related to this Proposition, suppose no imposition of any of those things that are in controversy between us; which is the supposition in the Proposition: what will follow, but first that all the Ministers of Christ in England, would be capable of places? for they are Impositions that are the principal reasons why they are kept out. Secondly, it would follow, that those that are for the use of the Liturgy and Ceremonies, and a promiscuous Communion withal that had but the name of Christians, in the Sacraments, might therein act according as they saw fit, and as for other Ministers they might freely exercise their Ministry without Liturgy or Ceremonies, and might exercise Discipline toward their rerespective Members according to Christ's direction in the case.  
The question now arising can be only this; whether it would be lawful for a Member of that Congregation where the Liturgy and Ceremonies are in use, and Discipline neglected that conceived these things to be corruptions, to separate and join with another; free from these conceived corruptions. I say he might first, because were there is no imposition, there can be no law of Superiors binding him to a Communion with such a conceived corrupt Church: so that your great reason (ordinarily produced in this case) would be of no force here. Secondly, because that it is much safer for his soul to be joined to a pure Church than a corrupt, and self preservation is founded on a law Superior to that of visible Church-Union, to this or that particular Church. David might eat of the Shewbread to save his life, which had not been lawful; if positive laws were not to give place to natural.  
Thus have I examined the third position, both generally, and as it particularly respecteth our present differences; and shown both its unsoundness in the former, and impertinency as to the latter; I have only one word to say to the Reason given, upon which the supposed Truth thereof is founded, and so shall dismiss it.  
The reason why he says that Errors in a Church, as to matter of Doctrine; and corruptions, as to matter of practice; if but suffered and not imposed, is on just ground for separation: because these things are not sins in us, so long as we do not join with the Church therein.  
I Answer, if he mean that other men's Errors or Corruptions are not properly or formally mine by being in their Company, and joined with them in things lawful, I grant it. But yet it follows not, that therefore I may join with them if I can otherways help it; a man may buy and sell, and eat and drink with Fornicators, or other unclean and Debauched Creatures, if he cannot trade and get provision for his body but in their Company. But certainly, if a Trade might be as well managed with sober men, and that Meat may be had in better Company, it would be sinful then to Trade and Eat with such; and why? because the law of self preservation warranteth me in the former, but not in the latter: I may not neglect the preservation of my life by eating, nor getting a lively hood by trading, which is ordinarily necessary to the preservation of my life, & present being, A mere occasion of hardening others in sin, or scandalising weak Brethren; but when no such necessity doth lie on me, than the preventing of a scandal, or giving occasion to the hardening others in the their sin, and the safety of myself from their contagion, are reasons of force to bind me from such Societies.  
In like manner, if the Word of God could be no where heard, or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed, but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be; it might be Lawful, yea and a Duty to join with you, so far as possibly Christians could without sin. But if other Churches may be had, which are regular according to God's law, and only irregular according to man's, than it is a Duty to withdraw, to prevent scandals, and hardening a Church in its Corruptions, together with the preservation of themselves from the danger of being infected with those Corruption, which are reasons of another nature, than that only one which you give; for though (as I said,) by joying with such, I make not their sins formally mine, yet I sin therein, upon other accounts now named which may justify my withdrawing.  
I come now to his fourth which is this.  
That the enjoying of a more profitable Ministry, or living under a more pure Discipline in an other Church, is no just Cause of forsaking the Communion of that whereof we are members. Because we are not to commit the least Crime, for the attaining of the greatest good in the World, now it is a Crime to for sake Communion with a Church of which we are members, where we may continue without sin.  
I Answer, Whatever may be thought of this position, I am persuaded that the reason annexed, is too weak to bear the weight of it: for the reason supposeth that which is not to be supposed: that is to say, that to withdraw from a Church, for the benefit of a more profitable Ministry, is a Crime. You call it a crime, because you suppose it is a transgression of the Law of visible Communion, with some particular Church; but I say that the Laws of Visible Communion, with this or that Particular Church are but positive, and therefore subordinate to laws more natural and necessary, such is that wherein we are commanded to take care of our souls and salvation. So that if Christians do shift particular Churches for the obtaining of very apparent advantages to their Salvation, above what they could have had where they were, I see therein no crime at all committed, except such an one wherewith the Pharisees charged our Saviour, as the Breaking of the Sabbath, that he might heal the sick. Certainly the cure and Salvation of sick Souls, as of sick Bodies, is of greater account with God than keeping to Parish Churches, or the observation of a day.  
Sure I am, that very many Souls, that have for many years lain Blind and Dead in trespasses, under their Parish Ministers. (I speak not partially as to those only that are now in place, but formerly when the Non-conformists held their places) but upon changing of their Minister, received their conviction, and real Conversion, I dare say it would be a very hard Task to convince such of the sin of separation in so doing.  
I have much wondered that men should think it but reasonable that every man should be permitted to choose his own Physician, and who will blame one that is sickly if he (waveing the advice of his Neighbour, though a Physician) shall apply himself to the most skilful and successful that he can hear of for his health; & yet that it should be accounted so criminal to use the same care for a man's salvation. And what though the Physician I speak of, be not of the College, nor can be suffered to be thereof. because perhaps he will not swear to the truth of all the Aphorisms of Hypocrates, or the truth of all and every part of the Colleges dispensations: who think you, will stand upon such a Nicety, if he yet believes him exceeding skilful and successful in the cure of such distempers under which he groaneth? and certainly when you have writ yourself a weary to prove the contrary, yet men herein will follow the Conduct of their Reason, and the instinct of Self-Preservation: which is not only seen verified among the Non-conformists, but among yourselves. What else is the reason, that some of your own Churches are thronged with auditors, when in others, the People sit thinly scattered, like the glean ofter Harvest? and I think it almost as easy to stop the Sun in its course, or the Sea in its flowing, as to prevent these concourses of the People to such Ministers that are eminently most able and successful. Thus much I have said concerning the Reasonableness of forsaking Communion with one Church, for the obtaining a more profitable ministry in another. The next thing to be examined is, that which you have said concerning the unlawfulness of forsaking one Church, to enjoy a more pure Discipline in an other. To this I say it must be confessed, that a regular execution of Church Discipline, as it was ordained by Christ for great ends: So, when so executed it is found of very great use and benefit to the Church, for thereby is there a means provided to inform the ignorantly sinning members, to correct the Wilful, to reclaim Apostates, to establish and confirm the sound, that their Souls may be saved in the day of the Lord Christ. And certainly, a neglect of this Discipline, must be a very dangerous consequence to a Church, and to the Salvation of its members. And therefore if Christians withdraw from such a Church where this Discipline is next to wholly neglected, to join with another where it is exercised to the great advantage of its members; I see no sin therein, as this author imagineth. For shall I say, the Law of Self-preservation, is superior to the Law of Visible Union to a Particular Church, and therefore must firstly be obeyed. May Parents Lawfully Change a School for their Children, where the Scholars by connivance, are suffered to Curse and Swear, etc. and yet are kept in the School, especially if great men's Children: perhaps some poor man's child, for some one of these sins, may now and then be cast out but readmited upon very slender satisfaction. I say, may Parents in this case, (tendering the Souls of their Children) remove them to another, and yet be blameless? I wonder then why it should be so Criminal for a Christian to remove from such a Church, where such sins are in like manner tolerated; for the benefit of a better Disciplined Church.  
True, if Learning was as necessary as Christianity, and if no other School could be had; it were better their Children to be kept in such a School, than to be suffered to run about the streets to their more certain ruin. For the Rule of Practice to every Christian in this case, is, of two evils to choose the least: But as things stand with us in England, there are more pure Disciplined Churches to be had, and therefore no Christian can be thought to be in such straits. If ye say, these more pure Disciplined Churches are irregular, as not having the Establishment of an humane Law: I answer, it is not necessary; For the Constitution of Churches, and their Establishment; is founded on a Law of Christ, and not on Humane Laws. Christ's Ministers have a right to Preach the Gospel, and Gather Churches, and Govern them by his Rules; without the leave of any Magistrates. The powers of the Earth may be Nursing Fathers to the Church, but as such, they neither give them their Being or Constitution. When Christ sent the first Preachers of the Gospel, to Discipline Nations, and gather to him Churches, he did not direct them first to ask the Governors of those Nations leave so to do: for his own Commission was warrant sufficient without their Licence: but when God is pleased to stir up the hearts of Princes to give leave and encourage the work, it is a great Blessing; which Christ's Ministers are to pray for, and to be greatly thankful when they have it.  
Yet again, I answer, that those Churches are most Regular that are Taught and Governed with the greatest conformity to the Rule of Christ, and if those of the Non-conformists prove such, I know not why any should be blamed for joining with them upon the account of their irregularity.  
Thus have I answered this Fourth position of yours, and have showed how far an unprofitable Ministry and Corrupt Discipline in your Church, gives ground of separation from you.  
His Fifth and Last Proposition.  That though we have a just Cause to refuse Communion with the Church whereof we are members, in some instances; yet we are not therefore to proceed to so total a separation from it, as to Erect a New Church in Contra-distinction to it, or to join with those that do. The Reason he gives is, because we are bound to obey as far as we can, but at no hand to disturb the Peace. 
To the Reason I Briefly answer, that these Ministers and People obey as far as they can, when they by obeying neither commit sin, or what they suspect to be sin, or when they neglect not some known duty; Daniel might not obey when he was forbid praying for some days to the true God: But for the Ministers of Christ not to go on in their Ministerial work, and for the People not to enjoy all ordinances, is to neglect known duties, in some things only, and not in these they suspect, and therefore such a separation is Lawful, notwithstanding his Reason, and now I answer to the Proposition: I may very well doubt whether this proposition be universally true, when this very Author, himself grants it is not, For if a Church be so greatly and generally Corrupt in Doctrine and Practice, as the Church of Rome, so that the Salvation of those that Communicate with her be endangered, it is then not only lawful to separate, but to Erect a new Church: this he confesseth in a very few lines following. Thus he hath provided wisely good shelter for himself & his, from the first charge of his proposition with respect to the Church of Rome, whilst he hath left the poor Non-conformists to shift as they can with respect to their own Church; but by his leave I shall make bold with his own evasion, for a covert to them also from this storm, for what though the Corruptions and Doctrines and Practices be not so great and so general in an other Church, as theirs in the Church of Rome? yet if they be but so many, and so great as to endanger their Salvation, it is sufficient to warrant such a separation.  
And now (if you will give me leave) I will tell you how these People concieve their Salvation is endangered, through your corruptions. If they should not separate as they do, I say then, These outed Ministers (do not wonder) if they conceive it is by reason of the corruptions, that many hundreds of them have been cast out and silenced as much as in them lies: and why? because they will not swear and forswear, assent and consent to all that they would have them, by reason whereof they are reduced to these straits, either to swear and do as you would have them, and that against their Consciences: or else to wrap their Talons (through slavish fear, like slothful Servants) in a Napkin; and forsake the work of the Ministry, which their Lord has entrusted them with: if they do the former, they like wicked Hypocrites will go against their own Consciences, and so will endanger their Salvation, or else like false and treacherous Stewards, must desert their master's work and so incur the doom of such Stewards; so that let them look on the right hand or on the left, they see nothing but damnation; what then is left for them to do but to go on in their work as now they do for their own safety, that is to Preach, Teach, Father and Rule his People, which you are pleased to call the erecting of new Churches, which (as I said) is no more than to do the duty of Christ's Ministers, and therefore cannot justly be charged on them as their sin. You call these erected Churches new, and what if they be new in respect to the time of their rise, that is not their fault, but if you consider them with respect to their rule, either of their Worship or Government, so they may be more Ancient than your own; for such Societies of Christians that meet with Christ's Ministers to worship God according to the way of the Gospel Churches. without imposed Forms of Prayer, or without the use of any superstitiously imposed vestments, or when they meet, to Administer Sacraments without any impertinent superstitious use of the sign of the Cross, or to Eat the Supper in a Feastival posture, as Christ and his Apostles did, or such Churches that are governed by Christ's Officers, (and such Presbyters unquestionably are) not by lay Chancellors, unheard of in the first Churches, where nothing is imposed on the Members, but what Christ by command hath made necessary, and nothing censured as scandalous and threatened with Excommunion, but that that is an evident transgressors of God's laws, as Drunkenness, Whoredom, Swearing are in a manner connived at, or if at any time censured in some poor People, the censure is upon very slight grounds taken off, upon a very slight and formal Repentance, or the payment of a few groats. But where the transgression of a Ceremonious law, or a Tradition of the Elders, is dealt with as a sin unpardonable, fines, imprisonments, silencing, banishments, Excommunications are punishments all thought little enough for so great a scandal. Let now any man well consider both these sorts of Churches, both as to their way of Worship, Administration of Sacraments, or way of Government, and then tell me whether of them are more conformable to the Ancient Apostolical pattern, and so which of them deserve the name of old, and which of new Churches. But notwithstanding all this, peradventure you will say, that we have broke the Unity of the National Church, which we ought to have preserved.  
I Answer, we have but broke it by accident, and you perceive but by accident, for no man can be said to sin, or to be a Peace-breaker when he is but doing his duty; and I conceive it hath been proved that we do no more: Elijah was charged with being the troubler of Israel, and the Apostles with turning the world upside down, and yet they were faultless. But you rather are breakers of it per so, for do but you impose no more up-us than Christ our Lord hath done, either by Himself or his Apostles, as necessary conditions of Communion, and be but you willing to receive these as Ministers and Members which Christ receives and owns, and I dare say we shall soon enjoy a blessed Peace, and that upon Righteous Foundations which Christ would certainly bless and cause to last; but if you will drive us to such straits as that either we must wound our Consciences by a sinful compliance with you, at least, with such a compliance that we suspect sinful, or else live in the neglect of our known duties and without the enjoyment of some Ordinances. I beseech you blame us not for what we do, for you yourselves have made it necessary: this I think is a sufficient answer to your fifth and last proposition, which being all you have said that directly concerns us, I shall take the boldness to conclude with your own words, I am verily persuaded that I have said nothing in this my reply, but what is very agreeable to Scripture and reason, and the sense of the best and Ancientest, i. e. Apostolical Christians and Churches.  
FINIS.