THE DOCTRINE OF SCHISM Fully Opened and Applied TO Gathered Churches.  
OCCASIONED By a Book entitled, Sacrilegious Dissertion of the Holy Ministry rebuked: and Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated.  
By the Author of Toleration not to be Abused by the Presbyterians.  When once Parties are engaged by their Opinions in Anti-Churches and fierce disputing: The Flesh and Satan will be working in them against all that is Holy, Sweet, and Safe, baxter's Def. p. 57 
London, Printed by S. G. and B. G. for James Collins, and sold by Abisha Brocas in Exon. 1672.   

TO THE READER.  
GOOD READER, thou art made the Judge betwixt us: examine our arguments, and observe the manner, how we handle them, and one another impartially; and then, if thou hast no favour, yet judge righteously, and I submit.  
Or, if thou hast any favour, I entreat thee to bestow it in reading those few first Chapters, that are spent in Altercation. There thou wilt come to Argument, and be there as severe as thou wilt.  
I confess, I have taken the liberty sometimes to use a little pleasantness, rather than be Angry with a Severe Adversary; that perhaps may incur thy ●ensure: Yet consider my provocations thereunto, and thou wilt either pardon me, or condemn me with pity.  
To trouble the READER with Personal Altercations, or to use any thing like Drollery, in a serious Argument, I like not very well, myself: And though I know not why my own heart should condemn me for either; yet, I fear him, that is greater than my heart, and knows all things; and judge it safest to say, that, as I never wrote in this manner before, so, I hope, I shall not be provoked to do so again.  
May my Adverse Brother have the same mind: Yea, I hope he is so good a man, that by his own better principles (if not by my Arguments) as also by experience (the grosseness of his brethren's Separations, being far beyond what he seemed to suspect) he hath already suffered himself to be satisfied, of the evil and danger of our gathered Churches, both by Reason and Sense.  
The GOD of Peace and Truth be with thee, and with his poor Church,  
Farewell.   

Some single Sermons, and other Discourses touching the present Differences in the Church; printed for James Collins.  
1. Catholic Charity recommended in a Sermon to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of London in order to the abating the animosities among Christians, that have been occasioned by differences in Religion by Jos. Glanvil, Rector of , price 6. d.  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or a seasonable Recommendation and defence of Reason in the Affairs of Religion; against Infidelity, Scepticism, and Phanaticismes of all sorts, by Jos. Glanvil. price 6 d.  
3. The Christians Victory over Death, a Sermon preached at the Funeral of the most Honourable George Duke of Albemarle, by Seth Lord Bishop of Sarum, price 6 d.  
4. A mirror of Christianity, and a Miracle of Charity; or an Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the Lady Alice Duchess Dudley, by R. Boreman D. D. price 6 d.  
5. The General Assembly, or the necessity of the receiving the Communion in our public Congregations: evinced from the nature of the Church, the Word of God, and Presbyterian Principles, in a Sermon by Francis Fulwood D. D. pr●ce 6 d.  
6. Miserere Cleri, A Sermon representing the miseries of the Clergy, and assigning their true causes in order to a redress, by Edw. Wetenhal, BD. price 6d.  
7. Vrim and Thumin; or the Clergies Dignity and Duty, recommended in a Visitation Sermon, by Mal. Connant B. D. price 6 d.  
A Discourse of Toleration, in answer to a late Book entitled A Discourse of the Religion of England, price 6 d.  
Indulgence not justified, being a continuation of the Discourse of Toleration; in Answer to the Arguments of a late Book, entitled a Peace-offering, or plea for Indulgence, and to another called the Second Discourse of the Religion England, price 6 d.  
Toleration not to be abused, or a serious Question soberly debated and Resolved upon Presbyterian Principles, viz. Whether it be adviseable, especially for the Presbyterians, either in Conscience or Prudence, to take advantage from his Majesty's late Declaration, to Deny or Rebate their Communion with our Parochial Congregations, and to gather themselves into dictinct and separate Churches? price 6 d.  
The Judgement of the learned and pious St. Augustine; concerning penal Laws against Conventicles, and for unity in Religion, delivered in his 48. Ep. to Vincentius, price 4 d.   

Non-Conformists NEW-CHURCHES SINFUL.  

CHAP. I.  
The Introduction. The Answers Title and the Impertinency of it.  
THe Confident Questionist, as his Answerer calls him, in this will yet be confident, that, not many will not take the task and burden upon them to read the Answer; and that, but few of them that read it, will be able to understand it: and that few or none of that small number, that shall think they understand it, will be able to see the Consequence of it: or, lastly, if any shall chance to be so lucky; they must be exceeding kind, as well as wise, if they can endure, without very much patience and some indignation, its Undertaking, Method and Manner of Reasoning: in all which, it pities me to observe the Author so like himself; and so deserving the Title, of the Episcopal Patron of Presbytery, and the Independent Catholic Prelate of Nonconformity.  
The modest dress of the Body of the Book may answer for itself; but 'tis confessed, the Mouth of it speaks great Swelling Words: The Title is; Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked, and Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated. What Conjuring is here? I am afraid the Spirits are disturbed! Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked! The Holy Ministry Sacrilegiously deserted? What impiety is this? a heinous Crime indeed, and worthy a very severe Rebuke. But where are the Criminals? who are they that have wrought this Abominable thing? Sure the Answerer himself, is in no wise guilty: no, he presently assures you, that he is firmly resolved to the contrary; and in this point, I believe, he will as easily answer for the Questionist. Who then doth he mean to Rebuke? not the Conformists; they have no liberty to be Silent though others have to Preach. Besides, if they should, especially the Usurpers among them; I presume, if way might thus be made for the right Owners, our Author would not be much troubled. Without Controversy, then, he means his Brethren the Non-Conformists: and have you, indeed, deserted your holy Ministry? you are too too blame, and must be Rebuked: Or have you not already done it? yet, 'tis to be feared, you may chance to do it: Or, though at present you are every where found, rather too busy in the exercises of your gifts; and are not unlikely so to continue, yet this Questionist hath said something, that in the Consequence of it, seems to persuade you to desert your Office; or, at least hereafter you may possibly be urged thereunto, by some silly reasonings, either of this Questionist, or some other such Pamphleteer. Now this Desertion of the holy Ministry, is a thing of that dangerous Consequence, especially in You, and at such a time as this; that, though it be but in potentia remotissima, and only not impossible to come to pass, it must be timely observed, by a wise Watchman; and as if it were already in Act, it must be Rebuked.  
For this Desertion of the holy Ministry is Sacrilegions: there is such a thing, in our Author's Judgement, however some of his Brethren think as Sacrilege, under the Gospel a Stealing one's Self, who is Consestated to God in the Holy Ministry, from the exercise of it, is a plain robbing God himself of his Service and consequently, Sacrilege: and I fear, this hint, especially if practised upon, may bring to our minds and observations too, another kind of Sacrilege, that our Author was not well ware of: For are there not some People Separated, Dedicated, and in a sense, Consecrated to God; and as justly Sitled Gods-People, as the Preachers, Gods-Ministers? And if these should be stolen away from God, in his Churches and Ministers, to whose care he hath committed them, is not God himself then rob of them? and ought not this kind of Sacrilege also to be feared and Rebuked? A worthy Prebyterian once thought so and honestly gave the World warning of some small effects of it in these words: This (said he) brings Strife and Envyings among Ministers, when others steal 
Cawdry 's Independency farther proved, etc. p. 84.  away their Members; and bring Slight and Contempt upon their Persons and Ministry; and at last, a lamentable Separation, as we see at this day.  
But the Answerer must crave your pardon; for indeed the excessive Fidelity of his Brethren to their Preaching-Office, leaves no room or occasion for his Rebuking-Office. Besides, Sacrilege has a tender Edge, and may chance to cut one's fingers, if not warily handled. Therefore, though perhaps he had thoughts when he wrote his Title-page, to have spoken something upon this Subject; yet, his Mind it seems, is not privileged from change; for, at present he hath waved that Argument, and Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry, shall escape his Severity till another opportunity.  
Doubt it not, for if you turn over but one leaf, you are secured: he, there as the use is, presents you again with the Title of his Book; but there you find nothing of Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked: no, this first Menace is now wisely omitted, either by the Author or the Printer: Wisely, I say, for Desertion of the holy Ministry, is scarcely any more heard of, much less Rebuked, throughout his whole Book. However, let not his Ministry be deserted: the Sermon may be good, though both it and the Preacher forget the Text.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Answerers' description of Himself: his Abusive Terms touching Nonconformity, and his mistake of Armagh 's Reduction: those that offered it, 1660. were no less Presbyterians: his change of the Question.  
HE worthily observes, the Questionists vanity in honouring himself with the Name, of a Lover of Peace and Truth: and indeed 'twas saucily done: the Answerer may promote the Truth by the liberty of Errors; and seek for Peace by pleading for, if not practising Divisions: but who are you, Sir Confident, that you, should so much as pretend to the love of either.  
But, pray Mr. Answerer what is your Name? there are many that say they know you by your Reason and Passion, and by your Words and Works; but pray you let me know your Name. You have told me already; and I find it at large in your Title Page, attended before, with two great Titles to your Book, little to the purpose but for Ceremony: and followed after with the train of three pompous places of Scripture, to fill up the Page.  
One that is Consecrated to the sacred Mininistry, and is resolved not to be a wilful deserter of it, in trust that any Undertakers can justify him for such Desertion at the Judgement of God; till he know better how those can come off themselves, who are unfaithful Pastors, or unjust Silencers of others.  
And, is this your Name indeed? Certainly his Grace at Lambeth hath scarce a greater. Here is Consecration, Resolution, Condemnation, against the unfaithful of Pastors, and the Injustice of the King and Parliament for Silencing better: But, as the Lion sometimes, is not so fierce as he is Painted; so, I hope this is no Scripture Name, that indicateth the Nature of the Person. But, so shall the Man be honoured, that loves not Himself, or Party, above Truth and Peace.  
Reader, here is nothing but meekness and gentleness and humility worthy of the Author, to be understood: however, the expressions sound a little otherwise, 'tis the Questionist only is Confident and unintelligible, though one would think at the first hearing, that this long Name is Monstrum, Horrendum, and I cannot but add, Ingens, cui lum●n Ademptum.  
Now what dare not the Man of this great Name, say or do? he dare say, the Conformists are the Schismatics; and that many of them, that now hold the places, that were formerly Non-conformists, are Usurpers; and that it is faithfulness to the King to disown such kind of Usurpers, though established in their Places and Power by the Laws of the Land. p. 39  
He dare say 'tis Impudence and Ignorance of the present State of England to call those Presbyterians that did at the King's Return offer Archbishop Ushers Form of Episcopal Government, as he calls it, for Concord: though Mr. Calamy was one of that Number, whose Name is found in Smectimnuus.  
He dare call that book a Form of Episcopal Government, contrary to the Express Title of it, which is a Reduction of Episcopacy to the Form of Synodical Government. Which, as Dr. Bernard well observes, was only an expedient for the present 
Clavi Trabales. p. 54.  Necessity, occasioned by the Tempestuous violence of that time; as an Accommodation, by way of prevention of a Total Shipwreck, threatened by the Adversaries of Episcopacy, as appears sufficiently by the Title of it.  
It is, therefore ingeniously argued by our Author, those that are called Presbyterians did desire that Episcopacy might be reduced to the form of Synodical Government, therefore they are no Presbyterians, they are not for Synodical Government.  
The plain truth is, that Reduction proposeth a way for Union and Consolidation of the two Governments; but that, such a Union, as should contain both, without the loss of either; and least of all, as the necessity of that time required, of the Presbyterian: And consequently, those, that would submit unto that Reduction, might still be Presbyterians both in Name and Thing, however it fared with Episcopacy.  
For, all men are not bound to subscribe or swear unto the definition of a Presbyterian, which our Answerer imposeth upon the World: or to believe, that the Divine Right of the Ruling Elder Vnordained is essential to the Presbyterial Government; (p. 5.) for the Government may be Synodical without it. And I need not give him Instances, that that kind of Government was endeavoured to be Erected, in the several parts of the Kingdom, by the Agreement of several Eminent Ministers of that way, that yet denied the Juredivinity of mere Ruling-Elders; and admitted them only as Prudential: and I doubt not he very well knows it to be so.  
But, as to that Application made in 1660. which he speaks of; 'tis too well known, that in effect it rather proposed for the Presbyterial, than for the Episcopal Government; and had it taken, the Bishop, should have had left him little more than the Name; who was rather, to have been a Moderator, or Chairman durante vitâ, than a Bishop, in a common acceptation: or if a Bishop, such a one, as might well enough have consisted with Synodical Government, or the design had been lost. But what need any more be said? the Proposers would not allow him a Negative voice; and consequently, the Synod or Presbytery should have Governed, either with or without his Consent: and is not this a fair Apology, twice offered, by our Answerer; that therefore, because they would have Admitted the Reduction of Episcopacy to their own Presbyterial Government, they are no Presbyterians.  
Again; It is nothing for him to say, that the Reasonings of the Questionist, are weak and silly over and over: that they are Confident to Admiration: full of Noise and Nonsense, Confused and unintelligible, and Schismatical too. (p. 29.) These are his soft and gentle Strokes upon one that deserves to be called Names, that would foul Paper, as he intimates more than once, as an Argument of his unwillingness to offend his Reader and Himself; though he have no foul mouth.  
But he dare venture farther and say; that Mr. Fulwoods, Mr. Stilemans and Mr. Hinckleys Books for Conformity are such Toys— of factious Disputers. He dare say; that his own flesh disputeth in him more Cunningly, than all the durels, Fulwoods and Stilemans' in England; and yet in one thing, methinks, his spirit fails him, and he appears too much unlike the valiant Hero I ever took him for. He, in one place, saith, p. 32. Had he had leave to confute the Silly Reasonings of Mr. Fulwood and other such Pamphleteers, he had long ago done strange things. And in another, p. 39 he would have me procure him leave to give his Reasons of Non Conformity. Alas, good man! that he should want Leave to do such brave things; that he should want Will or Zeal to do them without leave. He saith, p. 31. that I knew that he must not give his Reasons against Conformity. But who gave him leave to Preach before the Indulgence? who gave him leave to Print this Answer? Or is it possible to speak bolder things against Conformity if he had leave to do it, than he hath done here? The Conformists are Usurpers and Schismatics: those that Silenced the Non-Conformists are , Cruel and Sacrilegious: Conformity is guilty of Perfidiousness, Perjury and Persecution: Conformists are Proud, and contend who shall be Greatest; and Covenant never in certain points to obey Christ against the World and the Flesh▪ as he humbly insinuates, p. 74.  
But in Earnest, can he that let's fly at this rate, persuade us, that it is only want of leave, that hath hindered his Answering the Books aforesaid? Can he persuade us, that his Obedience to Man, can warrant his omission of so great a Charity, as his effectual endeavour to rescue Conformists from these desperate enormities? or can he think so honourably of our Governors, as to fear that his strong Reasons would more offend and provoke them, if given without their Licence, than these hard uncharitable, unconscionable insinuations, and unjust accusations, against themselves, as well as us.  
Away then with this childish passion of fear, 'tis altogether unbecoming our Goliath, that defies the whole Army of Israel. You have Troops of Propositions always at Command, and so many Yokes of Distinctions, that you doubtless are able to make good what ever you have said, be it never so bad, if you durst, or had leave. But what need of Leave? or why should you Fear? what quidlibet or quodlibet can stand before you? p. 30. You are the Man of Art, that can do and undo, prove and disprove the same thing; or else, many of your Friends as well as Enemies have done you wrong.  
I am one of his Friends, and I dare affirm of him, to his deserved honour; that he never yet wanted Matter of Argument, against the Cause, or of Rebuke against the Person of any Man that ever opposed him. He hath one very strange and wonderful piece of Artifice; that, be the Controversy what it will, he can make his Adversary differ with him, about the Existence of a God and Christ, an Heaven and Hell; that he may take occasion to tell the World, that some Teachers need these plain Admonitions. p. 26.  
But this subtle Answerer, hath a more powerful Stratagem, never to be escaped; for he can make his Adversary say any thing, that he, himself thinks he can most easily oppose; or if he cannot make him say it, he can affirm and prove he saith it; and then, thunder out a Volume against him for saying so.  
We have a very Notable Instance of his Skill this way in our hands. If the Questionist dare say, that Toleration ought not to be abused by Presbyterians, in gathering themselves into distinct Churches in opposition to the Parochial, he will most strenuously and pertinently confute him, with a Book, called by the hard Name above mentioned, Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked: and Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated.  
And if it be too palpable, that that Author said nothing for the Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry fit to be Rebuked, he can, as we before observed, quickly desert that part of his undertaking; but yet proceed to write his Book in the Vindication of Tolerated Preaching; and persuade the World, with no mean Confidence, that the scope of the Book he pretends to Answer, is directly against such Tolerated Preaching. Yea, in the very beginning of his Book, p. 2. And in another Character, on purpose to have the Reader note it; he expressly affirms; that he finds— the Questionist hath the Face (though he hath not the mouth that spoke it, or the hand that wrote it) yet he hath the face to exhort them to desert their Office. But with how much Ingenuity and Justice, God and his own Conscience must needs know already; and he must give me leave to let the World know it also, in the Chapter following.   

CHAP. III.  
I did not exhort them to desert their Office as he Affirmeth. His manner of Censuring less Errors. About Toleration. The Author's kindness to Non-Conformists.  
SIR, I will take leave to say; you may bless yourself, that you have engaged an Adversary that is a Friend; and hath neither Wit nor Will to practice upon you, as some have done upon less Provocation.  
That you might have ground to run out upon me, as an Enemy to Tolerated Preaching; you expressly affirm, p. 2. that you find I exhort you to desert your Office: and that it seemeth, p. 60. that acknowledging us true Churches, will not satisfy us, without What? Actual hearing us. We would struck you into silence and the neglect of your Office. p. 25. You ask, p. 58, 59 whether it be Sin in you to Preach; and labour much, in the proof of the Necessity of your Preaching. And you intimate, that if the Non Conformists should not Preach, they should be Idle, Cruel, Sacrilegious and Perfidious: as are your words, p. 27, 28.  
Now, Sir, in my silly way of reasoning, I must demand, whether you do indeed find, those words, for which you persecute me, throughout your Book, in my Book, or not.  
If you shall say, you do find those words, or words to that effect; I am not satisfied, unless you tell me where: for I solemnly protest, I know not. Why did you not name the page, where they were to be found, as in other cases you generally do? especially, this being the main matter of offence to you; that provoked you to so much severity throughout your Book against me; for you begin your Book to this purpose: that if it had been all my endeavour that the Toleration should not be abused, you should earnestly have seconded me: but when you found- that I had the fa●e to exhort you to desert your Office, etc. that I come to you in God's Name, to charge you to forbear His work: then, you say, your Conscience bade you help to save the weaker sort that need, from such Pernicious Fallacies  
Sir, I do with all earnestness, and yet meekness, let you know; that I expect you should make good your charge: show me these words, or words that carry the same sense, in any place of my book, or confess you have wronged me, and I am satisfied.  
But yet, turn the Tables, and ask yourself seriously, what lashes you would have censured me worthy, should I have dealt so with you. Take an Instance of your Spirit and Charity, upon a far less occasion given you, as you conceive, in my Book; when, upon a Misinformation at most, I only Asked a Question, in a matter of no great moment, viz. Whether the Presbyterians did not heretofore refuse the Comprehension, because they could not have it without a general Toleration? See, how you fly upon me, with all fury, and say, p. 62, 63, 64. This hath no bounds, and it grieveth me to read it. O Posterity! How will you know what to believe? you should not by Question, have vented such a falsehood. And yet, notwithstanding all this vehemence, in the next pages, you seem yourself to intimate, in my weak opinion, grounds sufficient for the Rumour and Suspicion, and consequently the Question: But I am not obstinate in my own Defence, leaving my Question and your Censure upon it, with your Discourse and Concession about it, to the mercy of the Reader, who will judge betwixt us, whether we will or not.  
However, thanks be to God, (though by your charging me to have written things, that I have not written, contrary to plain Truth and Justice, you have given me far greater provocation) yet, I say, thanks be to God, you have not tempted me to turn your own words upon you, and to say to you, as you do to me, [Repent of such Calumnies, and study not to aggravate your fault by excuses— we lament his want of common sense or modesty— what dealing is to be expected from such men— with what forehead— is this Humility or ministerial Fidelity, to begin your Book with so direct an untruth, and to stand to it, and repeat it so often in the face of the World?  
Lord! what have I ever said or done in order to the silencing of Non conformists, as you frequently seem to charge me? yea, what have I not done or said, as I was able and had any opportunity, that their mouths might be opened? the World knows my several public endeavours to that purpose: I do not say my silly Arguments, (as you meekly call them) but, perhaps, my Mediation (as some persons will more ingeniously acknowledge) for the peaceable Non-conformists, from the Kings Return to the day of the Indulgence, and since too, hath not been altogether ineffectual, and perhaps considering all that hath been too much, and my Superiors have been very candid if they have not thought it troublesome.  
I must take the boldness to add, that were I conscious to myself, that any thing I ever said or did, hath been so great a Remora in the way of accommodation betwixt nonconformity and the Church of England, as the boisterous reasonings and desires of some men, I fear I should carry it with sorrow to my grave: If I err in this censure, I beg the pardon both of God and them.   

CHAP. IU.  
'Tis not fair to charge Consequences for Doctrines; much less to say, the Consequence is asserted; let the Answerer be Judge. Mr. Baxter was not abused.  
I Observed, that you charged me untruly with dissuading you to desert your Office, and have cause to fear, you will make excuses yourself, although you will not allow it in others: and I cannot but expect you will say thus, or to this effect; That though I do not assert in plain terms, or in words tha● will admit or bear that sense, yet the consequence of my Discourse, is to take you off from Preaching, while I would dissuade you from Gathering-Churches.  
For I find, after I have read long in your Book, and even towards the latter end of it, you have patience thus far to explain yourself. Because, say you, p. 57 I would prove your separation sinful, I would therefore prove your preaching sinful. Again, p. 59 if God say, preach, and the Law say, preach not in Temples; we may conclude, we must preach out of the Temples. And because I speak against erecting Separated Congregations to yourselves, you say, p. 70. I mean it is sin in you to exercise your Ministry: i. e. you mean, this is the consequence of what I say against your separation: For, can we preach, as you add, without Auditors? and can these Auditors be no Congregation?  
Thus you do, (pardon me if) I think, not very accuratly mend the matter, nor very intelligibly explain your meaning. But, I remember, you told me, p 33. the Presbyterians do not love confusion: And also p. 4. that you are no Presbyterian.  
But, my Brother, I must needs mind you, that whether this consequence be strong or not, I am sure the excuse is weak, and unwarrantable by the Laws of all sober disputation.  
1. For admit the consequence to be fair and just, your dealing with me is neither, when you charge me with an assertion which only follows, or may be drawn from my proposition. It is not allowable to say the consequent of my opinion is my opinion, and that I hold it: much less hath it any colour of candour or justice, to say, I assert it, and maintain it. How then can you answer me, or give me satisfaction, for saying, first, that that which yourself hath argued from my proposition, is my proposition; and then write a book against me for it.  
This is not too like a  Disputant, were the consequence most obvious and immediate; whereas in the case in hand, 'tis neither so, nor so; but contrarily, very doubtful, obscure, and remote, yourself being Judge.  
The Question here is, Whether I cannot write against gathering Churches out of our Churches, and yet not exhort you to desert your Ministry? You hold it in the Negative. Now, to fill up the va●ances of your former uneven Argument, to make it good, there is need of the skill of a learned Propositionist to work thus.  
You must preach; you may not preach in the Temples, therefore you must preach somewhere else: Here's the place provided, but where are the People? Let's try again, if you must preach, you must have people to hear you: there are none to be had, but such as belong to our Churches; therefore you must gather Churches out of our Churches; therefore I that exhort you not to gather Churches out of our Churches, exhort you to desert your Office and Ministry; and therefore, by defending your Office, you answer my Book of Toleration not to be abused, by gathering Churches out of Churches.  
Thus strangers greet, and both ends are at length brought together; but their firm friendship depends upon the strength of this golden Chain, or Rope of Sand, which may come to be tried anon.  
In the mean time let us change the Scene, and then make judgement of this way of arguing, yourself.  
Suppose I should write a Book, and entitle it, Sedition Rebuked; and call this a Reply to your Answer: taking it for granted, that every one would see the consequence as well as myself; and thereupon, at every turn, I should charge you with the Defence of Sedition, and labour against you to prove Sedition a sin; meaning all this while, (though never observing any such thing, when I purposely and largely, with about threescore Propositions endeavour de industria to state the Question) that Sedition lies at the bottom, and in the consequence and tail of your Discourse thus; in many places you intimate, the Priest is intolerable; and there, whether the People will endeavour regularly to remove him or not, you exhort them to disown and forsake him, and the place by Law appointed for Public Worship, and to gather themselves into another Church, under another (Nonconforming) Minister: This is to exhort the People to begin a public Reformation without their Governors; this is Sedition, or the way to Sedition, to say no worse; and this will therefore justify my manner of writing against you, and my frequent charging sedition, and the defence of sedition upon you.  
Pray be ingenuous, how would you like this way of arguing? Whether the consequence be true or false, you will not say this is fair dealing; you would say you were highly injured, I am sure you would.  
And now I am come so near it, I will present you with such an instance in your Book; that will to the purpose convince you at once, both of your Ingenuity in this way of arguing, and of the censure you give me, upon a false supposition, that I had abused my worthy Friend Dr. Baxter, in affirming, that he had said something that he never said. 'Tis thus:  
You tell me, p. 48. that Baxter (as you familiarly call him) taketh himself to be abused by my Allegations, & provoketh me to cite any of his words which are against Non-conformists preaching as they have opportunity; and somewhat sharply mind me, that he and Mr. Ball understand themselves better than I do them.  
Now, who would not hence conclude, that I had said, that that reverend Person had written against Non-conformists preaching, as they have opportunity. But where have I said so, or any thing to that purpose? I know your civility and veracity will engage you to show it; therefore you refer your Reader to p 16. of my Book: There, indeed, I find the place which you mean, but not one tittle of the words or thing you say. My words there are these; Particularly the Arguments of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Crofton, for communion with our Parochial Congregations are still the same, and aught to be answered, before you begin your work of Separation, and think of building new any Synagogues.  
But is this to say, that Mr. Baxter hath written against Non-conformists preaching as they have opportunity? Yet if Mr. Baxter hath writ nothing against Non-Conformists Preaching, 
Cure of Church-Divisions, and Defence of against Bagshaw.  which I never said; Mr. Baxter hath written Arguments for Communion with our Parochial Congregations, which I did say, and still maintain; and neither Mr. Baxter no yourself will deny it, except in Drollery.  
And pray tell me, what reason hath that learned and peaceable man to hold himself abused by me, for commending his Arguments, to be considered by such as he intended them for? did he not publish them that they might be considered? or hath he changed his mind, and thinks them now inconsiderable himself? or more unseasonable now, then when he wrote them?  
I think worthily of that reverend Author, but, Sir, what you can say for yourself, I know not: You ought, if I might be Judge, first satisfy the World that I have not abused Mr. Baxter; and then, to acknowledge the Abuse you have put upon yourself and Mr. Baxter, upon me and the Reader, and the plain truth.  
If the censure seem rigorous, judge yourself, and mitigate it, if you find cause; but consider, that you yourself intimate, that Mr. Baxter never wrote any thing against their preaching; and yet you know, that he hath written much, and that lately too, for communion with our Parochial Congregations: the thing I affirmed. But this way of Reasoning, and undue accusation, is so familiar a thing in the Book before me, that, I fear, I have abused my Readers stomach, by staying himself so long upon one or two particulars of so gross a nature.  
I confess, it is as lawful as 'tis usual, to confute a proposition from the ill consequences and inconveniences of it; but this is one thing: and to set up the ill consequence as the Doctrine of the Adversary, and under that form to dispute and write a Book agrinst it, especially without showing the necessity, if not the obviousness and immediateness of such consequence, in the stating of the Question; all which you very skilfully think not fit to do: this I am bold to say, is another thing; and such a thing as ought never to plead Indulgence or Toleration, especially in a grave and grown, and practised Disputant.  
However, two things ought always to be remembered, that incommodum non solvit Argumentum; and if any good may come out of evil, yet we must not do evil that such good may come. 'Tis a good thing for any one to provide for his Family, yet I may not steal that I may provide for my Family: nor thus argue, I must provide for my Family, I cannot do it except I steal; therefore I must steal, or thus I must preach; I cannot preach but I must gather a Church out of my Neighbour's Congregation; therefore I must gather a Church, etc. though I before observed, there are some that call that stealing; and that not only from my Neighbour, but God himself.  
But more of this anon; in the mean time let it only remembered, that if you may not preach in the Temples, as you acknowledge; and if you cannot preach in other places, as you more than intimate, without gathering Churches, etc. and if this be found stealing and unlawful, and therefore it follow, that without conforming you cannot lawfully exercise your gift of preaching, I cannot help it.  
However, at present, I have a mind to relieve you, by doing you the kindness to question the consequence of your Argument; and that I may also relieve the Reader, and give him space to breathe a little, this shall be the matter of another Chapter.   

CHAP. V.  
The consequence of deserting their Office from their not gathering, disproved as not good either according to the Author's Principles, or the Answerers, or the nature of thing itself.  
I Hope, by this time, you perceive you have not dealt like a very fair Disputant, in framing a proposition yourself, and then publishing it to the World as mine, and as asserted and defended by my Book; and accordingly labouring to demolish it in the design and scope of your Answer, although that proposition had been the necessary, plain, and immediate consequence of what I had affirmed or denied.  
But what shall I say if it indeed appear otherwise, and if that which you impose upon me, and so zealously oppose in me; be not, in any sense, the consequence of what I had said, either immediately or remotely, plainly or obscurely, or any way necessarily. And that though I do assert, that it is unlawful for you to gather new Churches, it will not follow, either from my principles, or from the nature and truth of the thing, or from your own principles, that I must needs hold it to be unlawful for you to exercise your Ministry; or would persuade you to desert your Office, let each be examined.  
1. To make your charge against me any way tolerable, you should make it appear at least, from my principles, which is not possible for you to do: for, though I judge it unlawful for you to gather new Churches to preach unto, I hold it equally unlawful for you to desert your Office: 'Tis my plain opinion, you ought rather then either of these, to attend upon the Ministry of the Temples; and in order thereunto to conform: and be it known unto you, if you knew it not before, that I am much of Mr. Fulwood's mind, who in three Books, published by him to that purpose, hath endeavoured to convince you, that this is his judgement, and that your duty.  
Now, unless an endeavour to persuade you not to desert your Office, be to exhort you to desert your Office; yea, unless I had declared, that I believe there is no better, or no other way, for you to serve your Ministry, then by gathering Churches, how can you affirm with honour to your wit and ingenuity, p. 57 that by dissuading you from the latter, I exhort to desert the former.  
2. Neither doth it follow from the nature and truth of the thing; there is no such indissoluble connexion betwixt these two Propositions, that from my asserting one of them, you should boldly charge me with the other.  
I do say, you may not gather Churches; I do not therefore say, you may not preach: or, if I did say that in statu quo you may not preach; I do not say, you may not change your state, as before, and then preach; I do not say, the King may not open the door of the Temple to you, that you might preach there; or if I had said all this, yet I had not said, you should desert your Office; for not to preach is one thing, and to desert your Office is another.  
For no man may say, that a Minister deserts his Office, who living in a place of Christian Government, and hath no title, but sincerely desires it, though he do actually preach, without public licence, or the leave of a particular Pastor; and he that acknowledgeth any thing of Government, cannot be sober and believe that his Office obligeth him to go into Houses for want of a Temple; and there endeavour to draw the people from the public worship, without the leave of their faithful Pastor; and that too, just at the times appointed for the public worship, as the custom generally is, notwithstanding your example and Edicts to the contrary, and this, forsooth, because he must preach.  
Yea, once more, admit that a lawfully ordained Minister rightfully inducted into his cure, should be suspended, justly or unjustly, by a lawful Authority; (and I think this may venture to comprehend something of our present case:) will any rule of good Policy, or regular Reason, allow this Minister to preach within the bounds of that Authority that silenced him, before such Authority is satisfied, either for the offence, or of the innocency of the Person, and the unwarrantableness▪ of the sentence.  
Neither can I see (pardon my dulness) how any Government can be secured from the danger of General Confusion, that shall suffer this Principle [we must preach] to bear it down. I wish hearty I may be found mistaken in this at last; however, I am sure, if persons thus suspended shall (during their suspension) forbear to preach, at least till the innocency of their Cause, and the unjustness of their silencing be very clear and undoubted, generally to persons unconcerned, they do not by their obedience and unvoluntary silence desert their Office, though they be yet in the possession of their Cures: their non-actual preaching in obedience to Authority, deserves a better name than a sacrilegious desertion of the Holy Ministry; much less if Ministers have no Cures of their own, may they be charged with deserting their Office, because they gather not our people from our Temple-worship, that they may have Auditors to preach unto, though without so doing they could not preach.  
3. Let us now, lastly, try the strength of this consequence by your own principle discovered to us by your concessions and purposes in your Book; but more especially, in your advice given to the Non-conformists.  
In p. 92. you say, In Parishes where all may hear the Parish-Minister, I would not have you (Non-conformists) without necessity preach at the same hour of the day, but at some middle time, that you may not seem to vie with him for Auditors, nor to draw the People from him; but let them go with you to hear him, and after come and hear you. I do acknowledge that in other places, though you omit it here, you provide that the Minister of the Parish be faithful, truly endeavouring the salvation of his flock.  
I am not here to urge, or insist upon the inconveniencies of such a practice; and if the Nonconformist be an humble, discreet, and good man, for my part I should not much fear them; but my business is to collect from this Advice of yours, that you yourself can hardly believe, that deserting your Office, doth necessarily follow the not gathering of Churches; and that not only in mine, but in the common and usual understanding of the terms.  
For thus, as you well observe, the Nonconformist would but hold a Chapel meeting under, and be subservient in his work to the Parish-Minister; and such preaching would in no ordinary construction be termed Schism, or a gathering a Church out of, or distinct, much less in opposition to the Parish-Church, but a furtherance, if well managed, to the common interest and concern of it; as the office of a Schoolmaster in Catechising the younger sort upon the weekdays.  
And could we find that this cause had been indeed taken upon the foresaid conditions, as you advise, we should not have thought we had not had much reason to endeavour to prevent the Abuse of Toleration by the Presbyterians, or to complain as we do.  
But 'tis sad to observe their practice quite contrary, generally so far as we can learn, and particularly in the populous City where I dwell, that are most conveniently ordered into Parishes, and the best provided of faithful Ministers, for to such places the Non conformists generally resort, and set up their meetings in direct opposition to the Parochial Churches, at the same time with the public Worship; not endeavouring, in the least, any communion with it, or the Parish-Minister; but to as much discouragement of him as possibly they can.  
And in those other places, where they have set up their Meetings, (there are but few that think it convenient to venture in the Country Parishes) they take the same course, without any regard to the distinction of faithful and unfaithful Ministers; and this is the thing we call Schism and sinful separation, and unlawful gathering of Churches out of Churches, and cannot see how you can believe that the necessity of your Office can justify such dividing practices, who seem to detest them.  
Yea, if such as bear the name and licence of Presbyterian-Ministers, would follow your advice, and only gather temporary Assemblies (waiting for a fixed better state, as you speak) in London, and in some Country Parishes, where the Ministers are intolerable, till they are better provided for, though perhaps we justly differ from you about the number of intolerable Ministers, and must in reason judge, that your first endeavours should try to have such Ministers removed; yet, I conceive, we should not have so great cause of lamentation, as now is too too notoriously given us, by the unreasonable causers of our Divisions.  
Sir, give me leave to say and believe, upon the observation of the peaceable Principles, I find now and then hinted, even in the midst of your heat against me, in your Book, that did you rightly apprehend how matters are carried by these Church-gatherers for the dividing, dissipating, and as much as in them lies, destroying our Parochial Churches, you would return to your first thoughts, and no longer oppose, but second me.   

CHAP. VI  
The Question is first stated, not unintellgible. Now again cleared and freed from his Exceptions.  
YOu now perceive that the main of your Book is answered, by demonstrating how little it is to the purpose, to say no worse: and thus you see, what trouble you put me to, to answer Nothing. p. 40.  
But Soft, Sir, What if enough be found besides, and, on the by, to Confute you? perhaps, there is nothing in your Book, at least, your Answerer might think so, sufficient to provoke so great a Man, to set his wit directly against you. If it be so, I accept his mercy; for then, the Match being the more equal, I do the better conceive a Confidence to defend myself: and, at last, to the point.  
In the State of my Question, I first supposed, that the Presbyterians would not join with the Independents: but, therein, my Answerer intimates, p. 28. I was mistaken; for it is an Article of his Faith (so far as faith is concerned in the point) that the Presbyterian● will join with (their now friends) the Independents, not as a Sect, etc. Yea, p. 29. that they will join with the Sect (as he is pleased to honour us) of the Diocesan Prelatists, in the Parish Churches also. O the Charity of Presbyterians! and the length of their Arms, that can embrace persons at so great a distance! But pray, Sir, what do you mean, by joining with the Independents? Will you, indeed, join with them in their Congregations? If this be not your meaning, you are again upon the point of little to the purpose. But if it be, and yet you will join with them as a Sect, your Judgement is as deep, as your affection is broad.  
But to proceed, upon that mistake, my Question was shortened to this purpose; Whether the Presbyterians, as things now stand, aught in Conscience or Prudence, to Set up for Themselves, or to Worship God with the rest of their Neighbours, in their several, proper Parochial-Congregations?  
What I meant by their Setting up for themselves, was plained in the very Question, as was Just before proposed: viz. A refusing our Communion and a gathering themselves into distinct and separate Churches.  
Now, rather, than I will run in a Maze, or venture myself in an Ocean of Tempestuous Propositions, my Answerer shall pardon me, if I appeal to the Reader, whether my Question was not intelligible without them.  
For what man is so ignorant (unless his Knowledge hath confounded and Shipwrecked his Reason) as not to know, who I mean by Presbyterians? p. 45. Yea, who would not suspect the person guilty▪ that, when he is Indicted flies, and plays least in sight, or so disguiseth him, as he cannot be known: or when his friends return (as our Author for the Presbyterians) a Non inventus. But he and the world must know, that the Presbyterians like non of his excuses or subterfuges. They cannot so easily deny themselves; and methinks, he should not deny his Brethren: they apply themselves under that Name to the King for Licences, as our Author acknowledgeth; and yet he more than Intimates they are not, at least most of them, are not, what they tell the King they are. And than what doth he make them, if they are not Presbyterians? But let him be answered, that such as deny themselves to be Independents, or Anabaptists, or Quakers, or Papists, and scruple and mince their Conformity with us; whether they be Laity or Clergy, will be called Presbyterians whether he will or no: and such, he could not but know, I, especially meant.  
2. Who knows not what I mean, by our Parochial Churches or Congregations? and who knows not, too well, what is to be understood by Gathering-Churches; by the former practices of the Independents; but more especially, by these Presbyterians, since the Indulgence?  
But, to talk of gathering Churches, and yet, of holding Communion with us, is a Juggle, unworthy our Author: who either doth, or should know; that it is protestatio contra factum & questionem. I mean, 'tis generally so.  
I have, as you cannot but see, both in the Question as proposed, and as stated, and as prosecuted, set gathering of Churches in opposition to our Parochial Congregations. And what you say to any thing else, is not to the point. And the general practice of Church-gatherers, too well satisfies the world what they intent; and also that the Question was rightly propounded, and clearly stated to any  and unprejudiced Reader, what ever you say to confound it, and with your wont Elaborateness to render it unintelligible, p. 40. and then complain that it is so.  
But the Learning of some men, is not ill compared to a Pedlars Pack; though, not so much, for that there are many things that are difficult to be found; but rather, because, if they look for any thing, every thing comes to hand.  
But this be far from our Author; to whom we must now hearken diligently. He first sets down my Question very honestly and entirely; p. 26, 27. then he nibles a little at it, and at length, bites: and tells the World, that I join two questions in one, which we must look to have distinctly Answered.  
But what those two questions are, and where they are distinctly answered I have looked, and find not. Would he not speak distinctly to them because he hates Divisions? or was it his prudence to leave out Conscience? for he hath told us, p. 21. that to decide this case is a work of mere Christian Prudence: but where is Conscience then? Excluded? by what Law? that shall be tried anon.  
For I shall now address myself in earnest to review the whole Question: not in two only, but in the several Cases depending upon it. A just examine whereof, will give me occasion sufficient to consider, all that he hath said to the purpose against me, as I find it scattered up and down his Book.   

CHAP. VII.  
Gathering-Churches charged with Schism from the Church of England, and proved to be so from the Definition of this Church. Wherein he is told what the Church of England, and Schism from it is.  
THe General Question betwixt us is this; Whether it be Lawful for the Presbyterians to refuse Communion with our Parish Churches, and to gather themselves into Distinct and Separate Churches.  
And upon a Serious review of it, and Consideration of all that the Answerer hath said against me, and my Discourse upon it; I do renew my Charge; and positively affirm, that it is Unlawful; and as it is generally practised, 'tis a great and dangerous Schism both against the Church of England, and Particular Churches: 'tis a Schism in its own nature, and sinful in itself. 'Tis a Schism in the Judgement of the old Nonconformists called Puritan; and also in the Judgement of the Presbyterians before 1660. and lastly, that both in Conscience and Prudence it ought at present to be avoided, or deserted, by all such, especially, as are called Presbyterians. And all this, in in its several parts, and in their order, as here set down, I undertake to make good.  
1. Thus to Separate and to Gather Churches is a Schism, with respect to the Church of England. Now, as Divines speak of a Schism in a Church, and a Shism from a Church; so in a divers respect, this practice is guilty of both. For if you consider the Church of England, as particular Organised Church, 'tis a Schism from: but if, as part of the Universal Visibe Church only, as the Nonconformists use to term it, then 'tis Schism in it.  
It is a Shism from the Church of England as such; by dividing from its Governors, Members, Worship and Assemblies: as I more than Intimated in my Book, p. 8. and this aught to have been distinctly observed at least, by my Answerer: but instead thereof, how he stumbles and blunders! looking carefully and making great Outcries after that, which I laid just before him.  
You charge us, saith he, p. 37. with Schism from the Church of England. Again; p. 38. Tell us what you mean by Schism from the Church of England. Again; p. 35. We are told of Schism from the Church of England; as if it were a Monstrous and unheard of thing: and then puzzles, pitifully puzzles himself and his Reader, in an impertinent pursuit of the Head of the Church of England: as if without a certain and infallible knowledge of that, there could be no such thing as a Church of England, or Schism from it. Wearying himself, for five or six pages, at his old game, of nothing to the purpose.  
But, methinks, he labours with a very vehement desire after this great truth; and could he be sure to have it, he will not say how much Money, as well as Pains, he would give for it: yea he roundly offers me (how consistent with his gravity I do not observe) but he roundly offers me all the Money in his Purse to make him understand but what the Church of England is, p. 35.  
Well, if you will promise me to be humble and teachable, and that you are not too old to learn; though I have no mind to your money, I will show my readiness, and charity at least, to relieve you in so great a Straight, though my Judgement may fail, and my Definition be as despicable as my silly Arguments.  
The Church of England, is a Community, Consisting of professed Christians, United in the same Government, Doctrine and Worship: according to the 39 Articles, and Homilies; Her Liturgy, and Canons and Laws; and divided into Parochial Assemblies, for the more convenient Worshipping of God.  
Might such a Notion of the Church of England have superseded all his Finesses of Wit and Distinctions about the Constitutive Ecclesiastical Head, as he speaks, (how learnedly I leave to his Friend Mr. Bagshaw) I think his labour might have been well enough spared: For he may Consider we are United in the same Government, and the Pars Regens; is the only part he himself requires to be added to the Pars Subdita to Constitute a Church Organised, in a proper political sense. p. 38. Now you will not deny, either of these parts; and consequently, you have found the whole of the Church of England, as you say, Organised in a proper political Sense.  
And, it hence follows, that 'tis material to our point, to determine certainly, what is the Ecclesiastical Head of this Church: whether, we that are Members of it, are all united in the King as Persona mixta cum Sacerdote, and not merely a Civil head as you insinuate; he being Supreme in all Causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil. Or whether, any think it more proper to Radicate this Union in his Grace of Canterbury, as Primate over all England: or whether in both the Arch-Bishops who hold Communion in the same Doctrine, Worship and Laws: and in whom, both the Provinces are United: or lastly, whether we are not rather United in all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England, as the Pars Regens; and our Government in the Church, considered purely and abstractly from the Civil Government, be not rather an Aristocracy than a Monarchy. Whether this, or the other be the true; to know it is not necessary, nor of any use, that I can perceive in the present Controversy.  
But it is a certain Vanity, to say; because I cannot find the Head, I will deny the Body, though I must withal deny my own Senses. Because you cannot know certainly, who was your Father, will you deny your Mother which is the surer side?  
There is a Church of Engl●nd, and what it is I have endeavoured to show: and by the Nature of it, we may more easily conclude what Schism from it, is; and who are guilty of this; whether such as Separate and Gather Churches or not.   

CHAP. VIII.  
What Schism from the Church of England is, and whether gathering of Churches, a● now is practised, be not guilty of it.  
1. WHat is Schism from the Church of England? sure it is not a denying its Doctrine, or holding any thing contrary thereunto; he that holdeth perversum Dogma only, is an 
Ad Tit. cap. 3.  Heretic, no Schismatic, as St. Hierom teacheth.  
Mr. Newcomen, a learned Presbyterian, as I observed in my last, let's the Separatists know, that their agreeing with us and the Reformed Churches in Doctrines that are Fundamental, their holding one Head and one Faith, doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity, so long as they hold not one Body, one Baptism. For he citys Beza, another learned 
Annotat. in 1 Cor. 1. 10.  Presbyterian. So that you may be willing to subscribe to the 39 Articles, and yet be Schismatics from the Church of England.  
It remains therefore, that such Schism relates to the other Bands of our union and fellowship with this Church; to wit, her Government and Worship, and consequent to the latter, her Members and Assemblies.  
Thus you see we must return to our first determination; that Schism from the Church of England, is a sinful dividing from, or a dissolving our union and communion with her in her Governors and Members, Worship or Assemblies. This is the least that we mean by Schism from the Church of England; and is called Separation or Schism negative; which is made positive, and more formally such, when those that have so separated, set up their Altar against hers, and erect other Congregations in opposition to hers.  
The Schismatic by Dr. Hamond 
Of Schism. Epist. 40.  out of Ignatius, is described to be Filius impius, etc. An impious Son, which having contemned the Bishops, and forsaken the Priests of God, dares constitute another Altar. And again Epist. 57 the Schismatics are they, that having left their Bishop, set up for themselves abroad another false Bishop; and all their adherents are involved in the same guilt, who join with the Schismatics against their Bishops.  
Two things here must be supposed, 1. That we are the pars subdita, and do owe this communion and obedience to these Governors of the Church. 2. That they impose no unlawful conditions of this communion upon us; though if they should, how far we may separate must take its measure from such impositions, which is another Question to be discussed anon in another place; and at present I shall only add, that so far as I understand my Answerer, so far as the people are concerned in the conditions of our communion, we are not likely to differ much in this point. But for the first of these suppositions, if there be any force in Scripture▪ precepts, requiring obedience to our spiritual Guides, or in Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws, which are very severe to that purpose, nothing can be more evident, than that all English Christians do owe communion and obedience to the Governors of the Church of England, whose Government stands established by both sorts of Laws, and is so acknowledged by the Declaration itself.  
And your Friend Mr. Baxter is 
Defence of his Cure, p. 76.  not obscure in this point; We must own, saith he, a National Church, as it is improperly so denominated from the King, that is the Civil Head— and as it is a community of Christians, and a part of the Universal Church, United by the Concord of Her Pastors; who in Synods may represent the whole Ministry, and be the means of their Agreement.  
He saith; we must own the National Church: I say, than we must not disown Her. And must we not likewise own the King, as the Head thereof? and all the Bishops and Pastors and Governors under Him? And then, what liberty is left us to disown, deny, or renounce their Persons or Authority?  
Let such especially, as have taken the Oath of Supremacy, and received Ordination from Episcopal hands, yet better consider, those solemn Obligations upon them, added to the Laws; and take heed, in earnest, of Perfidiousness and Perjury.  
Let them consider, what is to renounce all foreign Jurisdiction: and to their power to assist and defend all Jurisdiction (Spiritual as well as Temporal) granted or belonging to the King's Highness: and how well a renouncing Obedience to the Government of the Church, consists with that which we have sworn therein.  
It is true, all are not called actually to take this Oath; yet it is as true, that the Ministers and Officers of all Sorts, generally, are; and all Graduates in the University: and for others, as they are the King's Subjects, they are unquestionably taken to be, under the same Obligation, as to the matter of it; and are born to the Duty as well as the Privilege of Subjects of this Realm: and therefore, we find, that this Oath is Administered; not only to Oblige, but rather, as a Test to try, and also to secure the fidelity of such, as take it, as is evident in the Statute.  
Again, let all Ministers Ordained by Bishops (I hope I have now to do with one) in the Name of God, seriously consider, what they promised to do at their Ordination; being most solemnly interrogated by the Bishop in the Name of God and of his Church, as the words are.  
More particularly: the Bishop demands; Will you then give your faithful diligence always for to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath Commanded; and as This Church and Realm hath received the Same, according to Commandments of God, so that you may teach the People committed to your Cure and Charge, with all diligence, to keep and observe the Same.  
What Answer did you make hereunto? I will do so by the help of the Lord. And thus, you, at once acknowledge that the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as received by this Church, are according to God's Commandments; and that you would give your faithful diligence always, so to Minister them, as this Church hath received them: and lastly, that with all diligence you would teach your People to observe the Same.  
Again, the Bishop demands; Will yoll reverently Obey your Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, unto whom is committed the Charge and Government over you: following with a glad Mind and Will their Godly Admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their Godly Judgement.  
What did you Answer to this? I will do so, the Lord being my Helper. Wherein you both acknowledge the Government of the Church over you, and promise Obedience thereunto.  
And, it is no pleasure to me, to observe; that one, that I dare not suspect, not to be thus Ordained, should notwithstanding these sacred Obligations, seem, even to Print, to Glory, that he never took the Oath of Canonical Obedience; which is, to obey his Ordinary in all honest and lawful things.  
Thus for the Ministers: and for the People, were they not generally Baptised by the Ministers, and according to the Order, and in the Public places of the Church of England? Have they not since, given their Consent, as Members, by their public attendance upon the Worship of the Church of England? Have they not generally owned, for a considerable time together, some many years, that relation to their particular Churches and Pastors? Is all this nothing to signify their Union with our Church, and Obligation to her Government? Is it nothing in our Author's Judgement? I cannot believe it; I am sure 'tis something in Mr. Baxters' Opinion, as I shall show anon.  
But wherein are we obliged to obey our Governors as we are Members of the Church of England? The measure of this Obedience, are the Laws and Canons and the Rubric in the Liturgy: and the main Scope and intention of all these, is to direct you how you are to Worship God in our Parochial Assemblies; as also, to demean yourselves in all due Reverence to your Superiors, and Brotherly love and fellowship together, as Members of the same Body, the Church of England.  
And to dissolve or renounce this our Communion with our Brethren (as well as with Governors) in those Assemblies, and in that Worship, is so far to renounce that Communion which we owe, and is due from us all to the Church of England; and is that thing, which is deservedly branded with the black Name of Schism from the Church of England: (which is the other Branch of that Schism before mentioned) especially, if the Deriders proceed to the Erecting of Anti Churches, as Mr. Baxter properly calls them.  
For our several Parochial Assemblies, are Parts and Members of the Great Body of our Church, into which, the Church is divided for our Convenient Worshipping of God, (as you heard in the Definition) wherein, all individual persons are bound to attend upon God's Worship according to the foresaid Rules, quatenus Members of this Church of England.  
But I shall have an occasion to speak largely, of Schism from particular Congregations, in another place; and at present, would fain hope, that some thing hath been said to show what Schism from the Church of England is.  
This is the Sum. Schism from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from Her, in Her Governors, Members, Worship or Assemblies. Which, and much more is done by those that despise her Government, renounce her Worship and Communion with Her Mombers in the Public places of it; and Erect New Congregations for a new manner of Worship and Discipline, under other Governors, in opposition thereunto; according to the Laudable practices now on foot.  
By this time, I hope, my Answerer sees, after his long and ranging Scrutiny for the discovery of this Schism, and all in vain, how pertinently he demands, p. 38. Is every difference, in things unnecessary, from the Major part, a Schism from them?  
Again, p. 39 'Tis our disobedience to the Church that is our Schism. This he says, and then quickly wipes it off, with his own pleasant Answer; But Fidelity to our King commandeth the disowning of Usurpers. But I might spoil his Mirth, should I examine his meaning.  
Again, p. 40. he cries out; Whoever took any Act of Disobedience in a Circumstance to be a Schism?  
But, in earnest, had not these little frisks and extravagancies been happily prevented, had he heeded me at first? is a sinful dividing from the Church, in Her Government and Worship, and setting up Churches in opposition to Her, in both, is this no more than a difference in things unnecessary from the Major part, or than a bare Act of Disobedience in a Circumstance? I know you will not say it: and 'tis vain to say, that you intent no more: I wrote against those that do.  
What has he more to Answer? Why, the Schism I mention, p. 39 is not such as Martin and Gildas made? what then? if it be worse, it is not such. You should rather have compared your Brethren in this new Work, to the other Martin, called Mar-Prelate.  
But this Martin, you say, Renounced Communion with the Bishops and their Synods (all his life) who had prosecuted the Prissillianists with the Secular Sword: and Gildas pronounced him no excellent Christian that called the British Clergy in his time, Priests or Ministers, and not Traitors, as he did himself: yet neither of these holy men are called Separatists or Schismatics.  
What follows? might they not be Schismatick●, though they were not called so? You will find some advantage by the Argument, for I have not called you so, yet. Perhaps Gildas might be bold with his Brethren, and call them Traitors; but if unjustly, 'twas ill done, though no Schism. If justly; there may be Proditores found of your acquaintance too, I make no doubt; though, if you do not urge me much, I shall not call them so. You do not think that time is returned upon us, and that he hath not the Character of an excellent Christian, that hath not the gift, of calling the Priest's Traitors.  
So much for Gildas: But for his Companion Martin, I might have given him Courser Entertainment, had it not been for the kindness of Another Gildas, that not long since, spoke more in his favour, than you do now.  
His words, on his behalf, are these; I have told you in the story of Martin, how he separated from the Synods of those Individual 
Baxter's Defence, p. 76.  Bishops; and from their Local Communion without Separation from the Office, the Churches, or any other Bishop: And then for aught I know Martin might be a good honest fellow. Do you all the rest, that he did, and by my consent, you should be excused from sitting in Synods.  
For Martin it seems denied not Communion with the Churches; much less set up an Altar and Church of his own in opposition to them: If he had done so, I would have said he had been a Rank Schismatic, though I spare you.  
It is confessed that the Presbyterians do generally agree, that the Disciplinary part, or Form of Government, 
Vid. Cawdry Independ. Schism, page 172, 173.  is not Essential to a National Church; yet they affirm, that the Verity of a Natioanal Church, consists in its Agreement in the same Doctrine and Worship: and consequently, though differences in Doctrine are not, yet a breach of its Unity, and making divisions in a point of Worship, is a plain Schism from a National Church  to the Principles of the Presbyterians. Mr. Cawdrey spoke not his own peculiar opinion, when he said, p. 178. I believe those men, that raise differences in a Reforming Church, he meant this National Church, and persist in keeping open those Divisions, Separating also into other new Churches; do as well deserve the name of Schismatics, as those that make differences, in one Particular Church.  
Upon the whole, then, you perceive how aptly you ask, p. 42. Whether a Minister may not remove from one Parish to another; or any man remove his dwelling into another Parish, etc. and be no Schismatic? an old objection of Dr. Owen's, and answered by Mr. Cawdrey: that they remove to Churches of the same Constitution; a thing never questioned, but always allowed, both by the Union and Custom of this National Church.  
Again, and alike pertinently you ask, Whether a Separation of one Parish from another be Schism? or whether I mean by it, a Local Separation only, as you gravely inquire, p. 33. Or, whether little differences in the modes of Worship, particularly, in the manner of the Ministers Prayer (and he should have added, in dividing his Text) be Schism? but he prevents my Answer, by denying these himself. Those that differ thus, he saith, and thereby doubtless very wisely and to general Satisfaction determineth; these, saith he, p. 34. are not Separated Churches, any otherwise than Local, and in such Modal Differences.  
Thus, what the Church of England, and what Schism from it, is. But at the beginning of the discourse, 'twas hinted; that if we would consider the Church of England, not organice but entitative, as some speak; that is, as it is a part or member of the Universal visible Church; even in this consideration of it, Separation and the present practice of gathering Churches, is a Schism in the Church of England, if not so from it. And by those intestine Ruptures and rents it is causing in the midst of her, gives her too much cause to complain; O my Bowels, my Bowels! While it tears in pieces her Old and Stated Congregations; tramples upon her Liturgy; defies her Worship; renounceth her Pastors; throws down all her ancient Landmarks and laudable bounds of her particular Churches; and endeavours every where to Erect new Altars and Separate Churches that were never before heard of in the Christian world, but amongst wild and desperate and Schismatical Sectaries.  
But, this will meet us in the next Chapter, when we speak of Schism from particular Congregations.   

CHAP. IX.  
Gathering Churches, a Schism from particular Parochial Churches. The general Nature of Schism.  
THe present practice of Gathering Churches, is not only a Schism from the Church of England, but a Schism also from our particular Parochial Congregations.  
This comes now to be evinced; and I shall take my advantage for the doing of it, from an Observation of Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen, and the 
Independ. great Schis. p. 177.  Independents. There was, saith he, and is, another Church-State in England in our particular Churches: from these, also, they have most of them, as once of them, (or, they had been once of them) Palpably Separated.  
I am now to charge the present practice, of our New Church gatherers, and their Ne● Churches, with the like Schism, from particular Parochial Churches, whereof they are, or lately were, Members, and aught so to have continued.  
To cut our work as short as may be; I shall confine my strength within one Argument; which I conceive the clearest, and most likely to put an end to the matter in debate; and 'tis taken from the nature and definition of Schism: wherein we shall show, what we are to understand by Schism; and how the present gathering of Churches out of our Churches agrees with it; not doubting, but then, the conclusion will find its own way well enough.  
What is Schism then? I shall give you the easiest and the least controverted definition of it; and such, as was never excepted against by any Presbyterian that I ever heard of: 'Tis this; Schism is a causeless, or as others, a voluntary, unwarrantable separation from a true Church.  
Here are two parts to be considered in the general; separation from a true Church; and the formal, special and distinguishing part of it, couched in the words causeless, or unwarrantable and voluntary.  
1. Schism is a separation from a true Church; it is so, in the proper and peculiar notation of it: the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Schism, 
Cameron. cap. de Schis.  is a stranger to profane Authors, and the Old Testament, and is only to be found in the New Testament; so that it only intends something about the Christian Church; and what that is, must be understood by the New Testament, and Ecclesiastical Writers, who have taken it thence.  
It is commonly affirmed, that in the Scripture-use of it, it sometimes signifies division among Christians in opinion only: but I have observed, that usually those opinions, were such as had a tendency to divisions in practice, as I am of Paul, etc. but 'tis generally acknowledged that differences in practice, especially touching Divine Worship (whether from the signification of the word, which is properly a rent or division, or whether from the more frequent use of it that way in Scripture, or for some other reason) I say, difference in practice about Divine Worship, hath long since obtained and appropriated to itself the name of Schism.  
Sometimes such division in the Church, when there hath been no actual separation from the Church, is conceived to be called Schism in Scripture. 
1 Cor. 1. 10.   
And this notion exclusive of all other kind of Schism in Scripture, Dr. Owen espoused, contrary both to Scripture reason, and the general apprehension of the Ancient and Modern Divines, as Mr. Cawdrey hath sufficiently argued.  
Separation from a Church is a more obvious division, and consequently a more notorious kind of Schism; and it seems more reasonable to argue, if the Holy Ghost called the first buds and beginnings of separation, by the name of Schism, it was to deter the dividers from the sin in its ripeness and accused fruits, which more heinously merited that black title; as our Saviour calls lust, adultery. Schisma seperat ab Ecclesia; Schism separates from the Church, saith St. Hierom.  
To proceed, this separation from the Church, as a learned Presbyterian asserteth, is from the Church as Catholic, which he calls Donatism, or from a particular Church; and that, faith he, is properly Seperatism.  
Lastly, this Schismatical separation is negative or positive; the former is only 
Cameron. de Schis.  simplex secessio, when men do peaceably and quietly withdraw their communion from the Church, in part or in whole, to enjoy their consciences in a private way. The other, called positive separation, is when persons thus withdrawn, do gather into a distinct and opposite body, setting up a Church against a Church, to worship God in a separated way themselves; which St. Augustine calls, a setting up Altar against Altar; alluding to that act of King 
2 King. 16.  Ahaz, in setting up an Altar of his own making, after the fashion of that which he saw at Damascus, besides the Lord's Altar. And this is it, saith Cameron, and most that write upon the point, which in a peculiar manner, and by way of eminency is, and deserves to be called by the name of Schism.  
Thus we see, that gathering ourselves into new Churches, is the compliment and perfection of Schism; the very Apex & extrema Schismatis linea, as Cameron. speaks.  
This evil, as I lately hinted, hath its beginnings, and usually goes on by degrees to this perfection. In the Church of Corinth, it first began with a factious esteeming of one Minister above another: One saith, I 
His Def. of Prin●. of Con. p. 2.  am of Paul, etc. at length it came to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Mr. Baxter renders emulation, strife and separation, or factions, or dividing into several parties. This appeared somewhat higher, Chap. 11. for they would not eat their Love-Feasts, and Pareus thinks, they would not eat the Lord's Supper together; but those that were for Paul would communicate among themselves; so those that were for Apollo's, and those that were for Peter.  
And though they did not gather themselves into stated Congregations, or absolutely separate into several Churches, (for they came together, though to little 
Chap. 11.  purpose) yet their divisions are not only called Schism, but a despising the Church of God.  
But if this progress of Schism was so smartly rebuked, we may the less wonder to find the Apostles so very severe against the Gnostics, and those more perfected Schismatics, that afterwards drew Disciples after them wholly from the Church, and made false Apostles and Anti-Churches. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extra terminos Ecclesiae educentes, 
Oecumenius.  segregantes fideles a fidelibus, and 
Clem. Alex.  making distinct and separate, and opposite parties and meetings for the worship of God. Mr. Hale observes these two things make Schism complete, the choosing of a Bishop in opposition to the 
Tract of Schism, p. 3.  former, a thing very frequent among the Ancients, and which many times was the cause and effect of Schism; and then the erecting of a new Church for the dividing parts to meet in publicly, and this he calls Ecclesiastical sedition; and Ames, peccatum gravissimum; a most grievous sin, both in its nature and effects: For Division, so far as it proceeds, whether in Natural, Civil, or Ecclesiastical Bodies, is the dissolution and destruction of it.   

CHAP. X.  
The differencing Nature of Schism. The Answerers' Objections answered; especially the Preaching of the ejected Ministers.  
I Will suppose, we are agreed that the general nature of Schism is such a separation from a true Church as we have showed; but to make it unlawful, and to merit the evil and usual sense of the word, it must be causeless, unwarrantable, and as Mr. Hales term is, unnecessary; when it is so, is to be carefully stated: for this indeed is the punctum difficultatis, and the very hinge upon which this controversy turns.  
Herein, that I may prepare to argue with due closeness, I shall continue to aim at the sense of Presbyterians: And as I have before I shall here also follow the steps of Mr. Brinsley, late Minister of Yarmouth, not only because his Book of Schism seems to me judicious, and exact as to our point: and he therein follow so excellent a person as Cameron. but likewise for that he was an eminent Nonconformist (as a Minister only) for I have been well informed, that though he ceased preaching at Bartholomew, 1662. yet he kept no private meetings, but ordinarily attended on the public worship, in the place where he lived: besides, his Book was licenced by Mr. Cranford, with a sufficient commendation; and was Preached and Printed in the Presbyterian Service against the Sectaries; and no doubt, his Brethren of that persuasion did then hearty concur with him in the point.  
This Mr. Brinsley, p. 34, 35. states the matter thus; Separation is unwarrantable, either for the ground or manner; the former an unjust, the latter a rash separation, each a Schism; wherein he follows Cameron.  
I shall vary his method a little, but keep close to his sense; and then an unjust separation is twofold; either when there is no cause, and it is absolutely causeless; or when the cause is light, and not sufficient to warrant it. Separation is rash, when there being cause supposed sufficient, yet it is done in an undue manner.  
1. Separation is unjust, when it is without cause given by the Church; and as he enlargeth, When there is no Persecution, no spreading Error or Heresy, no Idolatry, no Superstition maintained or practised, but the Church is peaceable and pure, and that both for Doctrine and Worship; and in a good measure free from scandals (which no Church ever wholly was) now in such a case to separate, is an unjust separation, and Schism.  
If this be indeed the state of the case, whether the parties think they have cause to separate or not, I think it is not much material, except to aggravate their crime: For, if they think they have cause, they are plain Separatists; and if they do not think so, and yet divide the Church by a separation causeless, in their own opinion as well as truth, they are far worse. Neither will any wantonness of spirit of this kind, though buoy up by a distaste taken at our Guides, or an higher esteem of other Teachers, or pretences of greater purity, much less an ill will to the state of the Church from which we shall thus separate, admit an excuse from any sober and wise man.  
2. There may be some causes of offence given us by our Church, but they such, as may by no means warrant a separation: cause of offence is not always cause of separation; which our Author calls a light cause. He enlargeth; Possibly some sleight opposition, or persecution, it may be, by some small pecuniary Mulcts; some lesser errors in Doctrine, not fundamental, nor near the foundation; some corruptions in or about the worship of God, but those not destructive to the Ordinances; being not in substance, but in ceremony; and those such as the person offended is not enforced to be active in; scandals few, and those only tolerated, not allowed. All tolerable evils, such as charity may well bear with; this ground is not sufficient to bear a separation. You see he is full and particular; and in all this, I believe he referred in his thoughts to the state of our Church heretofore, as in the former he struck at the Popish.  
The learned Amesius, whose Principles were somewhat Congregational, hath said much to the same purpose in a few words. Separation from a true Church 
Cas. d● Schism.  is sometimes lawful, if one cannot remain in its communion, sine communicatione in peccatis, without communicating in her sins: if there be manifest danger of seduction, and if we are compelled to departed by oppression and persecution. Thus he. And we may suppose he thought he made a full enumeration of all the just causes of departing from a true Church; and that in any other case separation was unlawful.  
Others indeed have more compendiously and fully drawn all the rules in this case into one point, Separation is unwarrantable, if communion with the Church may be without sin. And indeed what can justify a practice so contrary to love and peace, and of so dangerous consequence, but the avoiding of sin? Our general Answer to the charge of Schism by the Papists is, we must not partake with your sins; and I think all parties consent in this common proposition, where the conditions of communion with a Church are sinful, we are not bound to that communion, for we must obey God rather then man.  
I am sure this was current Doctrine with the Non-conformists, 
His ●●fence, 2. Par. 22.  called Puritan heretofore, in the defence of communion with the Church of England. Let the abuses (saith Mr. Ball) be many or great, yet if I may be present at the true worship of God without sin, (consent unto, or approbation of such abuses or corruptions) in voluntary separation, I sin against God, his Church, and mine own soul.  
This was also undoubted by the late Presbyterians; in stead of many, let Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen 
Independ. a great Schism.  be heard, for methinks he speaks to the purpose. It is (saith he) no duty of Christ's imposing, no privilege of his purchasing, either to deprive a man's self of his Ordinances for other men's sins; or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church, as no Church rightly constituted for want of some reformation in lesser matters. And Mr. Corbet, and the Author of Evangelical Peace and Unity, if I understand him, puts the whole debate upon the same issue with us. So Bagshaw also, etc.  
Among these light causes, which will by no means warrant a separation, Mr. Baxter hath laboured to 
Cure of Church Divisions, 291.  throw down these four Superstitious, as he calls them, which some religious people have brought up.  
1. That we are guilty of the sins of all unworthy communicants, if we communicate with them, though their admission is not by our fault.  
2. That he whose judgement is against a Diocesan Church, may not lawfully join with a Parish Church, if the Minister be but subject to the Diocesan.  
3. That whatsoever is unlawfully commanded, is 
See Cure of Church Divisions, p. 194.  not lawful to be obeyed.  
4. That it is unlawful to do any thing in the Worship of God which is imposed by men, and is not commanded itself in the Scripture.  
But enough of the false grounds of separation that render it causeless; for that they are either really none, or else light or insufficient.  
The Second Exception against Separation was taken from the undue manner of proceeding in it, for which it is termed Rash; and therefore Schismatical; though the ground be Just. That is, as Mr. Brinsly explaineth himself, p 25. When it is sudden and heady: without due endeavour and expectance of Reformation in the Church: it is then Rash, and consequently an unwarrantable Separation, in as much as it is opposite to Charity.  
Mr. Baxter's Advice is excellent here: If Corruptions blemish and dishonour the Congregation; do not 
Cure of Church Diu. p. 80.  say (let sin alone; I must not oppose it for fear of Division) but be the forwardest to reduce all to the will of God. And yet, if you cannot prevail, as you desire; be the backwardest to Divide and Separate; and do it not, without a certain Warrant, and extreme necessity. Resolve with Austin, I will not be the Chaff, and yet I will not go out of the Floor, though the Chaff be there. Never give over your just desire and endeavour of Reformation; and yet as long as you can possible avoid it, forsake not the Church, which you desire to Reform. As Paul said, to them that were to forsake a Sea-wracked Vessel, If these abide not in the Ship, ye cannot be saved. Many a one, by unlawful flying, and shifting for his own greater Peace and Safety, doth much more hazard his own and others.  
3. Ames gives me occasion to hint one thing more: Secessio vero Totalis, etc. A Total Secession or Separation with absolute renouncing or rejecting all Communion, cannot be lawfully practised towards a True Church: but partial only, quatenus Communio, so far as Communion cannot be exercised without sin. Cas. de Schis. 307.  
I Wish hearty, my Brethren would consider, whether not only renouncing all Communion with, but setting up other Churches against our Churches, be not, in his sense, a Total Separation; and consequently Sinful. Or whether you, that so use us, do yet retain Communion with our Parish-Churches so far as you know you may without sin. But this by the way:  
The Sum is, when the Church gives no such cause of offence, as may justify Separation; when the Conditions of her Communion require nothing of her Members, whereby if they Communicate, they shall be Actual Sinners; when persons, let the cause be never so just, shall unadvisedly, without due endeavours and patiented expectance of a Reformation: lastly, when they shall for some few things, at which they take offence, totally forsake Communion with a True Church, and gather themselves into Anti-Churches; they are, in all these Cases, guilty of Schism, in the judgement of the most Non-Conformists, of all sorts; and, indeed, of all men, that have considered the Point and the Nature of Schism. The Assumption, we shall make hereafter— and at present, only take notice of what the Answerer hath said to prevent it.  
He gives us, p. 16, 17. eight Differences, betwixt the Old Separatists and the Present Non-Conformists; and then concludes in all these, they differ from Separatists, though they gather Churches. These differences are particularly considered hereafter. The first three of these Differences, are a Compliment to us and our Parishes: the four next, are a Compliment to themselves: in the last, I think, he is in earnest for himself, but he hath to do with a headstrong party, that will not obey, either his Word or Example, in desiring nothing more, than with Love and Concord, to carry on with us the same work of Christ. But what is all this, to excuse them from being Separatists, that run away from us, and draw Desciples after them: that refuse (I am sure in fact, what ever some may say) the least Communion with us, in our public Assemblies, and gather New Churches for themselves out of them.  
This they do, though you know we, generally, have not given them Cause to do it: And they do it Rashly, and Totally, and all your little devices, will never alter the Nature of things, or excuse it from gross Schism in the Judgement of all that were not Separatists, and spoke their mind, before the present Temptation dazzled men's eyes.  
'Tis in vain to fly to your Common Refuge; the strength of this Argument will not suffer you to be quiet in it; who ever before you made this a warrantable ground of Separation, that they might Serve God better? if finding positive faults in our worship, would not excuse them heretofore; much less will negative ones excuse you from Separation. But they thought those were faults and Just Causes of Separation which were not; true, and they were mistaken: but yet, they had more to say for themselves, it seems, than you have, who do the same things, without alleging so much ground, and think to be wholly free, from the same charge.  
Sir, Schism consists in practice; and whatever you think on't, or, however you would palliate the matter, where that practice that truly answers the definition of Schism is found, it will be Schism do what you can. Is there any Institution of Christ, that they must gather Churches out of true Churches, to make a purer Church? Ans. Mr. Cawdrey Indep. p. 198.  
But I prevent my design: Shism, we have showed is a causeless unwarrantable Separation, and 'tis true; and so my Answerer might have understood me, and his Brethren, in my last: I spoke in the language of the Presbyterians, and a little Candour, would have supposed that both, I and they, intended by gathering Churches out of Churches, such as was causeless, unwarrantable and unnecessary; for that, they were still ready, if need required, to prove the Independent Separation such; as I shall be, anon, to do yours.  
It is, therefore, some trouble to me to hear you ask, as if something of Argument were lodged in it; Whether a persons removal from one Parish to another to inhabit there, were Schism? p. 48. and yet I conceive, you have it more than twice over in your book. You ask again, must no Churches be gathered out of Rome? I fear not many for you: but for a full and plain answer to this, I remit you to Mr. Baxters' Cure of Church Divisions, p. 81, 82, 83. Which if it seem not plain and full to you, it is because you understand not Christian Sense and Reason.  
Again, p. 44. did not the Parliament take a Church out of a Church when they separated Covent-Garden from Martin's Parish? doubtless, 'twas either with cause or not; 'twas warrantable or not; 'twas necessary or not: but the jest is spoiled, if it were a Church of the same Constitution, with consent of the persons concerned & by lawful Authority.  
Had you no place to argue Schismatical but ; I would advise you, as a friend, to take a little more heed what you say about that place, for fear of one of those Schismatics which in other places, you honour, as Usurpers, concerned in your next Section.  
But behold the Man at Arms fully Accoutred, without all fear, but a great deal of wit and courage makes a challenge to the factions Disputers, as his Catholic language is: and 'tis this, as you may read it under his own hand.  
Obj. I undertake, saith he, to prove, that Dr. Manton Dr. Seaman, etc. with the People subject to them, as Pastors, were true Churches. Prove you, if you can, that on Aug. 24 62. they were degraded, and these Churches were dissolved in any reason, which any Churches for 600. years after Christ, would. If not, you seem yourself to accuse their Successors of Schism, for drawing part of the people from them merely by the Advantage of having the Temples and Tithes, and so gathering Churches out of true Churches.  
Ans. A Marvellous Undertaker! he will undertake to prove one Proposition, and let the rest shift for themselves.  
Dr. Manton and Dr. Seaman, and their People were true Churches: and this he will prove: but what if a man should venture to disappoint him, and not deny it?  
Again; prove if you can, that these Pastors were degraded, and these Churches dissolved Aug. 24. 62.  
But what if a man has a mind to be friends with him here too? and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded then, but only ejected and inhibited the exercise of their Ministry within the Church of England: and that those Churches were not dissolved by having New Pastors; no more, than the Kingdom when the King dies. And yet, certainly the King and People, are as much the Constitutive parts of a Kingdom; as Pastor and People of a Church.  
Who will say, that considers what he saith, that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor. The River is the Same, though the Lands on each side, change their Proprietors.  
But what then? Suppose all this be quietly granted him, what then? then, those that succeeded them are Schismatics; or you seem to accuse them of Schism: how so? for drawing away part of the people from them. Whither? to another manner of Worship which the Laws required; and which, the Ejected refused.  
But how did they draw the People? by doing their duty in the Temples, as by good Authority Instituted and Inducted thereunto. Instituted as Pastors to have the Cure of Souls; and Inducted into the Temples and Tithes.  
But lastly, why do you say they drew a part of the people only, and not the whole?  
Ought not the whole, worship God undivided, and with one accord in the Temples? or must the place be removed with the Pastor? I choir not who made the difference, but I know who makes the Division, let them answer it how they can, to God and the King, the Church and their Successors.  
Those Pastors were Ejected out of the Temples by lawful Authority: the People are bound to worship God in the Temple, as they have opportunity; and no where else, in opposition to the public Worship: (the Consequence here, I think may vie with yours above) therefore, these Pastors had no opportunity to exercise their Pastoral Office to those People; and where there is no opportunity, there is no duty; in Mr. Baxters' Divinity, Second Admon. to Bagsh. 96.  
But you say, you must Preach, the Reverend Dr. Gouge saith, No. The Inhibition of Idolators and Infidels made simply against preaching of the Gospel, because they 
Whole Armour of God. 570.  would have it utterly Suppressed in this case, he saith, no sufficient inhibition to bind the Conscience; it is directly and apparently contrary to God's Word. But when Christian Magistrates inhibit Ministers to Preach, it is because they think them unfit and unmeet, either for some notorious Crimes, or for some Erroneous Opinions, to exercise their Ministerial Functions. In these Cases, Such as are so inhibited, so far forth as they are inhibited, Ought not to Preach. Neither are particular and private men (much less the parties inhibited) to Judge of the Cause of the inhibition, whether it be just or unjust: but as they who are appointed by the present Government, to Ordain Ministers, are to judge of their fitness thereunto; so likewise, of their unfitness.  
I have thought hitherto, that distinction of the Office, and of the exercise of that Office, had gone uncontroled among Presbyterians: and that, though the Ministers of Christ depend not, even upon the Christian Magistrate for their Office, and he cannot degrade them: yet quoad Exercitium, as to the Exercise of it, within his Dominions, they did; and that he had power to Silence such as he Judged unmeet to Preach.  
Mr. Baxter doth much encourage me to persist in the same Opinion, more than once. The Authority of the King and lawful 
2d Admon. to Bag. 117  Magistrates, saith Mr. Baxter, is more about the Circumstantials of Worship (as whether Abiathar shall be High Priest, etc.) then the False Teachers were about that Doctrine.  
He, more than Intimates, that the Magistrates Power extends to the Appointing who shall be High Priest; and who doubt, but that he hath equal power to appoint who shall be Pastor of Covent-Garden.  
Again, hear Mr. Baxter what he saith, more largely upon the Point. Disput. 223. Doubtless the Magistrate himself hath so much Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs, that if he Command a qualified person to Preach the Gospel, and Command the People to receive him; I see not, how either of them can be allowed to disobey him; (though yet the Party ought to have recourse also to Pastors for Ordination, and People for Consent where it may be done) And Grotius commendeth the saying of Musculus, That, he would have no Minister question his Call, that being qualified, hath the Christian Magistrates Commission. And though this Assertion need some limitation; yet it is apparent, that the Magistrates Power is great about the Offices of the Church.  
For Solomon, put out Abiathar from the Priesthood, and put Zadock in his place, 1 King. 2. 27, 35. David and the Captains of the Host, Separated to God's Service, those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and Jeduther, who should Prophesy with Harps, etc. 1 Chron. 16. 4. And so did Solomon, 2 Chron. 8. 14, 15. They were for the Service of the House of God, according to the King's Order, 1 Chron. 25. 1, 6. And methinks those those men should acknowledge this, that were wont to style the King, in all Causes and over all Persons, the Supreme Head and Governor. So far Herald  
And indeed I durst almost challenge this Answerer, or any man, to prove; that ever any learned Protestant in this Church, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian, did make it a question, (I mean before the King's happy Return) whether Solomon had not sufficient Authority to put out Abiathar from the Priesthood, and put Zadock in his place. Or whether any might modestly say such must Preach, and that those were Schismatics and Usurpers that did exercise their Offices according to Law, in the places of such as were removed, by the Virtue of an Act of Parliament of unquestionable Authority, and we must Preach though the Law forbids us.  
As for Dr. gunning's, Dr. wild's preaching fourteen or fifteen years ago, which you so often hint at, it is sufficiently known, it was in such a time, when the Case was far otherwise, both with the Church and State, in many Notorious Circumstances: both as to Persons, Law, Government and Worship; and they could easily answer their so doing, if it be not a matter too much below the Eminency both of their Persons and Places. We must proceed:   

CHAP. XI.  
Provision for the proof of the Assumption, by four Propositions.  
THat Schism is a Causeless Separation from a True Church: and what Separation from a True Church is, and when it is Causeless, hath at large appeared. And there seems nothing left to prevent or remove the charge of Schism from the Practices we oppose; but to plead, either that our Churches are no true Churches; or that you are not of them, and owe them no Communion; or that you do not Separate from them: or if you do, you have Cause sufficient, and your Separation is not Rash or Groundless.  
That the Contrary to all these, is the very Truth, I am now to manifest. The Propositions accordingly, are these four.  
Pro. 1. That our Parochial Congregations are true Churches.  
2. That the people of England are, or aught to be, members of our Parochial Congregations.  
3. That the present practice of gathering Churches out of them, is Separation.  
4. That such Separation is Rash, and without just grounds.  
And all these shall be proved, not only from the Nature of the things, and the judgement or others: but from the Public judgement of the former Non-Conformists and Presbyterians; and then I hope my bold undertaking will be found excusable.   

CHAP. XII.  
Parochial Congregations true Churches. His Exceptions, especially about parish bounds, examined.  
FIrst, I affirm that our Parochial Congregations are true Churches.  
They have the matter of true Churches. Professed Christians, Baptised. They have the f●rm of true Churches, being Societies of such, as Ames saith, in order to the worship of God: and these fixed and Stated, and ordinarily assembling actually together for that end.  
According to our Author, they have; generally, both the Essential, and constituent parts of true Churches; Pastors to govern, and people to be governed by them, in order to God's glory, and their Salvation.  
And as their end, so the means, and their work in their public Assemblies, is such as is proper and peculiar unto, and true, and undoubted indications and notes of true Churches; the Ordinances of God, and their ordinary attendance thereupon, in known, public, and fixed places, consecrated, and set a part for that end. Wherein, also, there is nothing practised, much less allowed, that is contrary to these means, or doth pervert that end; or with any pretence, or colour of reason, can be thought to destroy their being, or their truth, as Churches of God.  
For this we have abundant Suffrage voluntarily given by Nonconformity itself, from time to time, and that not only in the acknowledgement, but even in the defence of them against their enemies of the Separation: and what need more. If Mr. Ball, Mr. Hildersham of old, and Mr. Bagshaw, and his friend, the Answerer, be heard for the rest.  
Mr. Ball is express for himself, and his Brethren: The Non-Conformists, saith he, can not only acknowledge, but prove the Religion and worship of the Church of England to be of God; not by petty reasons, and colourable 
Ans. to Can. part. 2. p 3.  shows, (which they leave to them which maintain a bad Cause) but by pregnant evidence from the word of Truth, even by plain Texts of Scripture, and sound re●son deduced therefrom, against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail.  
Mr. Hildersham comes not a whit behind him: There is nothing done, saith he, in God's public 
On John 4. p. 3  warship among us, but it is done by the Institution, and Ordinance, and Commandment of the Lord, as he very industriously and learnedly proves, by an enumeration of the particulars of our worship, and thence presseth the people, not only to attend it, but to come to the beginning of it.  
Mr. Bagshaw himself acknowledgeth the same: And therefore pleads, that they do not separate, but forbear 
Antidote p. 6.  Communion, because of some conditims required; and so indeed doth Doctor Owen, and all sober Independents; and therefore I need not observe, that those eminent Presbyterians, that wrote the Epistle before Mr. Balls Answer to Cann, did own; or, that Mr. Cawdry, and other Presbyterians, have made it the foundation of all their Arguments against Independent gathering Churches, that our Churches, were true Churches.  
Our Author doth not so much as question the truth of our Churches in General: what exceptions notwithstanding he hath scattered about it, we shall briefly examine.  
Object. 1. Page 10. He tells us, like an Oracle, among the rest of their Purposes and Desires, which are not a few, and they none of the best, that the Non-Conformists think, that a Parish, quatenus, a Parish, is not a Church: nor a Parishioner, as such, a Church-Member.  
Well, and who ever said they thought otherwise? in some things, it seems, they think, as others do. Yet we know, and they ought to think at least, that a Company of Christians living within Parish bounds, and ordinarily attending upon God's public worship, in the place set a part to that end, are a Church.  
Object. 2. But they think also, that Parish bounds of Churches are of Humane prudential Constitution, and not of Divine Institution, or unchangeable,  
But pray think again; for you ought to think, that co-habitation of the Members of a Parochial Church is according to the Law of Nature, and so Divine: and that persons, whom Providence hath so placed together, are bound to worship God together in some public way; by virtue of the Law of Natural Religion, as much as Families among themselves; were there no other institution of God or man in the case.  
Moreover, they ought to think, that co-habitation of Church members is so far of Divine Institution, as the Examples of Churches in Scripture, always so bounded, amount to Divine Institution. Which is almost as much, as is usually urged for the Divine Institution of the Lords day This was the current Argument of the Presbyterians heretofore, against the attempts of Independents to break these bounds, and to glean up members in others fields, no matter what distance, to make up their Churches. Churches and Cities in the Scripture, are commensurate. Was not 
Cawdrey Schys pag.  the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth, so called from the places.  
They ought, further to think, that the grounds of su●h parochial Churches, were laid in Reason, and Scripture examples: though Ours were actually divided, long since: and that our Parish bounds, in the general intention and scope of those that first appointed them; notwithstanding some errors which will always happen in such public cases) were made, upon the said reasonable and Scripture ground of co-habitation.  
They ought, also, to think, that though Prudence at first discerned these grounds, and accordingly set these bounds of parish Churches; yet, it was not the prudence of the People, but their Governors: who have not now left it in the people's liberty or prudence, whether they will ordinarily keep these bounds or not. But have also bounded that vulgar extravagancy by the Laws both of Church and State to the contrary:  
Yet again, they ought to think, that they own obedience to their Governors in these laws; which obedience is certainly of Divine Institution, though I can hardly find it in all your Books.  
You ought, lastly, to think, of the fearful consequences of tearing these hedges and ancient bounds, and thereby making inlets, or outlets, or both, to all kind of licentiousness in Religion, and confusion in the Church; while you thus expose parochial Congregations to the directest means of their dissolution.  
O that you would lay to heart those serious words of Mr. Baxter. The Interest of the Christian Protestant Religion in England must be kept up, by keeping up as much of Truth, Piety, and Reputation, as is possible in the Parish Churches. his Defence of his Cure p. 36.  
For the last word, that parish bounds are not unchangeable, 'tis acknowledged; if the cause be just and  be not Schysmatical, yet still the Rule of co-habitation ought to be observed; and then our design is half spoiled. Especially if we add, as we needs must, that this changing or altering of parish bounds, lies not in the pleasure of private Persons: is not to be attempted without the order of Superiors, nor to the prejudice of God's public worship: wherein, if all order be not quite forgotten, the practice of the people should not ordinarily exc●ed, that which the known Union and Communion of Parishes, in the same Worship and Government, and the common Custom, and consequently Allowance, of the places intended, will warrant: wherein London, perhaps, if what you say be true, may claim some privilege.  
He saith, he doth allow our parochial Churches to be true Churches, vi●. 
p. 35.  Those of them that have true Ministers, other wise not. So that where there are no Ministers, and where their Minister is not true; there the Parishes are not Churches.  
'tis likely some few small places, especially Cures, have no settled Ministers, but the Law requires their Communion with their Mother-Church, of which, in a sense, they are reckoned Members, if they are Curacies.  
And I hope there are fewer false Ministers than your charity supposeth. How far the people are bound to communicate with such as you call intolerable, shall be examined in the next Chapter.  
But if this be all to be found at the bottom of your exceptions, as it seems to be, why do not your Brethren, confine their labour to such destitute places; especially, if this be the great reason why they must preach. At least their Charity should see them first provided for. Sure their voices will hardly reach to them from ●ities, and Corporations, and places usually furnished well enough without them, though here they generally pitch their Tabernacle: you and they must think again and again, before you will be able to defend these practices upon such principles.   

CHAP. XIII.  
The People of England, Members of Parochial Churches. Objections answered. Especially that, from serving God better.  
THe People of England, generally are, or aught to be (Members or Ministers) of our parochial Churches, and consequently are bound to attend upon the public worship of God in our Temples.  
Ordinarily: I mean, I am not so strict to think, that they ought never to be absent, if they have reason, as the Statute intimates: or, that they may never go out of their own Parishes to hear a Se●mon: provided always they keep within the bounds of that latitude, which the Communion of Parish-Churches, and the custom of the place, as in London, if it be so there, as our Answerer affirms, will warrant, as I said before.  
But that generally, the people are of the Parishes Churches and ordinarily aught to communicate with them, there is hardly any thing more evident in reason or sense, and the judgement of the Nonconformists.  
For they were baptised into these particular Churches, as well as into the universal; and the known Laws, both of Church and State, oblige their Consciences, to Communion with them. Besides, if they be not of the particular Church wherein they live, they are of none: but their ordinary attending upon the public worship as they generally do, or have done, concludes them by their own consent to say nothing now, of the inconveniencies that follow separation from them; an Argument not to be despised till it be better considered and censured.  
Mr. Baxter speaks very well and home to the point thus He that is a Member of the universal Church, is fit to be received into a particular 
Cure of Ch. div. p. 89.  Church; and there wanteth no more but Mutual consent: and if he have statedly joined with a particular Church, in ordinary Communion, Consent hath been manifested, and he is a Member of that particular Church— Thus in Thesi.  
Then he subjoines; This is the common case in England, the persons who were baptised in Infancy, were, at once, received into the Universal Church, and into some particular Church, and have held Communion at Age with both, etc.  
In a case so plain, in the writings of the Old Non-Conformists, I shall only give you Mr. Baxters' Testimony for them all, especially finding an Emphasis in his words, which are these.  
Speaking to his Brethren, saith he, much more should you have endured 
Defence of his cure p. 14.  such, as the Non-Conformists of that age who used Parish Communion and pleaded for it, against the Separatists, f●r Sharper language than ever I used, as their Books against Johnson and Cann and Brown, and Ainsworth, do yet visibly declare.  
Hence, it is, that worthy Non Conformist Mr, Hildersham, doth not only Judge it Lawful, and a Duty to attend upon the Parish Congregation, but useth many Arguments against the Ordinary leaving our own Ministers, to hear more able men in other Parishes: and for 
upon the fourth of John.  our coming reverently and at the beginning of the Service.  
And Mr. Ba●ter persuadeth with many Arguments to Communion with the Parish Churches which he would not have done, if he had not thought it, not only to b● Lawful, but a Duty, yea he says expressly, that to s●me it is a Duty to join with some Parish Churches, in the Lord's Supper three times a year, Defence of his Cure, p. 38. which he saith, he proved by twenty Reason's, and by his own example avowed in public, and his constant resolution so to do, he adds much weight to his said reasons.  
And to give my Answerer his due, in this, as he doth not deny the truth of most of our Churches, so he doth much persuade, both by reason and his own example, to communion with them, and therefore he believeth (as I believe of him) that it is a duty.  
But for the Presbyterians and their judgement in the point before 
Ind. Schys. pag. 143.  1660; let Mr. Cawdrey be heard at large.  
Speaking against the Independants separation, saith he, If they did not suppose themselves to be of some particular Church, it was their Error and their Fault; their Error because all the people of the Nation, were confined to that Church, where they lived; and liable to censure for leaving that Church, for partaking of Ordinances; and the Ministers for admitting them: their fault, because they were bound by way of duty, both by the Laws of the Nation, and also by the Law of God, to be of one or other particular Congregation; meaning parochial.  
Object. But what saith our Answerer against all this? he yieldeth much no doubt, pag. 41. where he saith, the old Non-Conformists hold Lay communion with Parish Churches lawful: and so do we. Answ. But did not they also hold it a duty: prove the contrary if you can. I challenge him to show in any of them, one word signifying it lawful, to hold Communion with any other stated Church in England, besides the parochial, or that, ever they preached in houses, as you unfairly intimate, when the people should be in the parish Church; or, that any learned Presbyterian said so, before 1660: if not, what signifies all your new-coined distinctions, pag. 34, 35.  
Object. But in some places, we cannot profit by the Minister.  
A●sw. You may profit by the prayers, and Sacraments. The old Non-Conformists will not endure the objection, against all, or against ary weak, if honest Minister. Let Mr. Hildersham's reasons against it be examined: saith he, Our Shame, our Sin, and just cause of humbling to us, if we cannot profit by the meanest Minister 
On John 4. p 225, 226.  that God hath sent. And the power of the Ministry dependeth not on the excellency of the Teacher's gifts, but upon God's blessing: though sometimes he thinks people may go to hear other Ministers of better gifts.  
Object. But some Ministers are intolerable.  
Answ. I grant the Non-Conformists, and particularly Mr. Hildersham, do allow the people, in such cases, to go from their own Parish; yet he puts in three Rules to the Case, that it be done without open breach or contempt to the Church's Order, without contempt of their own Pastors, and without Scandal and offence to them and their people.  
But if no Ministers be intolerable, but such as our Answerer describes to be so, I hope, there are but few such in our days; what ever there were in Mr. Hildershams' time.  
By Intolerable, saith he, I mean 1. Such as are ignorant of, or erroneous 
Advice.  against the Essentials of Christianity. 2. Such as are unable to teach them others. 3. Such as malignantly preach down the practice of an Holy life, or in a word, such whose Ministry really tendeth to do more hurt than Good.  
These are Intolerable indeed, and if there should chance to be found one or two such within a Province (I hope not so many,) sure, some duty we own concerning them. But what's that? in the first place, we are certainly bound to endeavour his amendment if that be not to be done, but he be found incurable, he is the more intolerable, and our next duty to endeavour to remove him.  
So far Mr. Baxters' advice is wholesome and apposite; use all your diligence 
Cure of Ch. div p 106.  to amend him: and if you cannot do that, use all your interest to get him out, and get a better, indeed he adds, if you cannot do that, deliver your own soul from him by removing to a better, if you are free: he means, if you are not under the command of others, remove to another Parish, which none can except against.  
But all this while there is no room made for Separation: the Non-Conformists never allowed this, the Holy Scriptures as Mr. Baxter tells us, has not a word to that purpose.  
Obj. But we are troubled again with his last refuge, which attempts us every where, your Churches are allowed, and communion with them, when we have no opportunity to do better: but to serve God better, we may leave your Churches and gather others.  
Answ. This hath pirkt up to my trouble two or three times already; I will now give it such a blow as I hope to hear on't no more.  
1. If we may not refuse Communion with our own particular Church, while we can do it without sin: the only condition allowed, by all that were pure Non-Conformists; yea, and by the very Brownists themselves, than this pretence is vain. But you grant you may continue such Communion with the Parish without sin, by the tenor of the Objection.  
2. This Objection, extends not only to the change of the Minister, but of the very Worship, the public places of assembling, and the parochial bounds of Churches: which as in the nature and consequence of the things themselves are very dangerous, so they were all quite contrary to the reason and practise of former Non-Conformists. They might think▪ they had reason sometimes to do better, but they never meant it, in any way contrary to the public Worship, and Assemblies; but only in some other Parish Church.  
3. 'Tis in effect the same excuse that the Brownists had for their separation, only, not quite so considerable,; they complained things were bad; and you would have them better; and therefore separate, as they did.  
3. The very same plea, that the Independents used in other words, more plausable to their purpose. Namely, pretence of disorders in the Church, and pretence of reformation, and yet more near to the present pretence, that they might worship with purer worship, all which Mr. Cawdry, the Patron of Presbytery, hath taken notice of and answered to Dr. Owen. Boldly appealing the Dr. in the point, as I do my Answerer in his words.  
I leave it to his own consideration, whether it be lawful for 
In dep further p 142.  people that are Members of true Churches as ours are acknowledged to be. 〈◊〉. Upon some disorders in a Church, or pretence of Reforming themselves, to separate from that Church and to erect another: when as they have done their duty to reform it, in those disorders, notwithstanding which they may without Sin Communicate with that Church? But rather to break true Churches into pieces, than to bear with some inconveniencies, and I desire a precedent of such a practice in Scripture or Story, and as he saith so do I  
But the pretence of worshipping God better, and therefore they may gather a purer Church, out of a true Church the Presbyterian sem's to deride it as not worthy 
Ind Schy: p. 198.  a serious consideration or answer is there saith he, any institution of Christ, that they must gather members out of true Churches to make a purer Church, if so it be?  
4. But the Sting is in the Tail, gathering Churches out of our Parishes, that they may serve God better, is an intolerable principle and practice; it plainly puts Raines into the people's hands, to Govern and reform themselves, without their Bishops or Pastors: which, methinks, Mr. Baxter should not like very well; and without the Civil-Magistrate, which the Presbyterians could not endure.  
To Reform themselves, I say, without the order of any kind of Governors, not only in one single Parish, but throughout the Kingdom: nor only to reform abuses in Administrations but in the worship and Government, yea even to the utter dissolution of our Church-state, and the bounds and places of our Parochial congregations, & the setting up of other Churches, other Ministers, and another Worship and Government throughout the Kingdom; so far as this Rule takes.  
For the Rule, in its practical Nature and use, is general. And if it be the duty of one, it is the duty of another, and of all, to worship God better in this new way; and consequently, all are bound to worship God better; and all must join in these new Congregations while the Bishops and Ministers and Temples are left useless, and there is no way which our Author can think of, to prevent & stop this deluge but the people's prudence: and how likely that is to do it, let the wise consider. Was ever Nonconformist or Presbyterian before, of this opinion or any one that was not a downright Separatist?  
Dr. Owen, having said, that, if a man cannot prevail to have the Church reform, he may dispose of himself, as to particular Church Communion, to his best advantage: one would think this was modestly spoken in comparison, yet observe how the Presbyterian takes him up.  
This is liberality enough, and Dictator-like spoken, does not 
Ind. Schys. p 189, 190.  this open a door to all confusion in Church and State? And give every man as well as any, liberty, if they judge any thing amiss in Church or State, to turn Reformers, if Superiors cannot, or will not reform it?  
In a State or Nati●nal Church, as that of the Jews; was it lawful for a few men, when State and Church were all corrupted, to go and reform both, because they that had the power in their hand, either could not or would not reform? I think I may safely say, this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle at the bottom. So he,  
Besides, the rule hath run equally in it, against the Reformers themselves, every Sect will plead the same liberty to serve God better, and as Mr. Baxter hath well Itemed you, Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves, 
Defence of Cure. p. 50,  (and not at all  from their own light by which they ascended unto separation) it will admit of no consistency: parties will arise in the separated Churches, and separate again from them till they are dissolved, as experience witnesseth.  
But because, my Author speaks of gathering Churches for the first three hvndred years after Christ, I shall not disturb him by enquiring out of what Churches they were gathered, only shall give him a Presbiterians expostulation, and conclude this Chapter.  
Will he call that a peaceable proceeding which is done without the Authority of the Christian Civil Magistrate: 
Cawd. Indep. further p. 1●1,  and to the disturbance of all the Churches of the Nation.  
Were it granted, that in the first Constitution of a Church people might by their own free Consent, join to walk together, &c: is this course tolerable in settled Churches, to the confusion and overthrow of the very Constitution of our Churches?   

CHAP. XIV.  
The present practice plain separation, Objections by the Answerer considered.  
THe present practice of gathering Churches out of our Churches is separation.  
Though our Churches are true Churches: and the persons concerned, are or aught to be Members of them; yet do they properly separate from them.  
This is matter of Fact evident in itself, and to the senses of too many ocular Witnesses.  
1. They dislike, or distaste, our Parochial Communion: some, as Antichristian; some, as corrupt; some, as defective; and not so good, as they would have it; and some, perhaps, because they like not our Ministers: and some, as he intimates for Communion, with their old ejected Pastors, what their several reasons are, (for they are far from being all of a mind, as he acknowledgeth) we can but guests, but they do all dislike our Communion, at least, comparatively none can deny or doubt this.  
2. Upon this dislike, Whatever the cause of it be, they do plainly forsake our Parish-Churches, and public worship. Now, we do not say, that non-Actual Communion, is properly Separation: yet all men say, that a renouncing Communion, or denying to Communicate with any Church, much more our own, upon any dislike, or for any cause, except sin, is properly Separation and schysm: it is not actually not communicating with a true Church, but renouncing Communion, that, we think makes the Shysmatick, 
In●. Schys. p. 188.  'tis this, in which Amesius himself placeth the very formality 
Am. de Schys.  of Schysm.  
Schysm is directly a breach of unity; as that is a breach of charity, refusing to Communicate with a true Church, when I have opportunity, especially, my own Church; is a plain breach of both: what ever my reason be, short of Sin.  
3. But thirdly, they perfect their Schysm and separation, by gathering themselves into other Congregations under other Ministers, and for another mode of Worship than is allowed by our Church and Laws; and thus become Anti-churches, and to make this new Church-State, as opposite to ours, as may be, they generally, meet at the same time that we do: & that, not only where the Parishes are suspected, defective in parts, gifts, graces or Administrations: much less intolerable, or where there are none at all, as was noted before, and in such places as they suppose to be so ill provided: for we hear nothing of their charity, but in places, where neither these Ministers nor their followers have the least exception to the Parish-Minister.  
And thus, they separate, not for sometimes and for some ordinances, but constantly, & for all ordinances: the Word, Prayers, and both Sacraments, and that generally, in all places near us, without any such distinction of Minister or any thing else; so that though I have enquired, I can hear but of one Minister, within a very large compass that takes the liberty of Indulgence, and doth not so abuse it. And I fear, they do so generally throughout England, if we may guests at other places by the practice of these: except your good example and advice have a better influence there, than here.  
For, I cannot but let you know, that your Canons are so contrary to their purposes and practices, that I have some reason to believe, that our new Church gatherers here about are generally as much displeased with the rules whereby you would bond their ex ravagant practices, as they seem to be pleased with your Magisterialness over me,  
And, by the way, give me leave to tell you, that two things especially, I cannot take well at your hands. 1. That you would insinuate that such as call themselves Presbyterians, which you say, are not so, you shuffle them amongst the rest of the Sects, which are for gathering of Churches. 2. That you intimate, you knew their minds; and that they would not separate and gather Churches in the manner we see, by sad experience they generally do.  
For, I do acknowledge you sufficiently discover, your own Inclination, hopes, and desires are otherwise than we find their practices: yea, you seem to intimate their practices to be otherwise: they have deceived you; as indeed, you did me: who am sorry to find your pen employed for the Countenance, to say no more of Separation and Schysm in the highest measure that this poor Church ever yet experimented.  
Why do I hear words to excuse and alleviate the Matter; when their deeds declare the quite contrary to what you hope and intimate? all your propositions and purposes, can never make them either not Presbiterians or Separatists; unless, by their quitting their former principles, they are sunk into the number of Independents: for it is hard to say which of the Congregations is most Congregational.  
Obj. You seem to wonder, p. 40. that I charged not your preaching before your indulgence, with Schysm as well as now.  
Answ. No doubt, if it were so before, as we see it is since, I might yet venture to do it, but, Sir, let me tell you something, that I know will not be easy to you. In the City where I am a Preacher, there might, perhaps thirty or forty ordinarily meet by stealth, and perhaps not at the same time of our public worship, whereas, there are now six or seven allowed places; and perhaps, they may share three thousand of our Members among them; that now, so far as we can judge, totally separate: yet I think never any one of them complained of the inability, infidelity, or scandal of the Parish-Ministers. Now when we see such a Torrent preparing to bear down all our Churches, I think, it is time to speak, I would deliver my own soul, if I cannot save the Church from the evil begun.  
Speak in earnest, Sir, if the matter be thus indeed, is it not separation with a Witness if you will not, let others speak.  
The old Rule was the sincere 
Cawd. Indep. p. 161. 162.  preaching of the Word, and right Administration of Sacraments are the Characters of a true Church, which we having, and they separating from us, how shall this Crime be named, but by Schysm in the highest degree.  
And the rather does this relate to Schysm, in gathering Churches. p. 180. Because they do not only departed themselves, but draw off others also into a form Faction.   

CHAP. XV.  
The present practice of Separation and gathering Churches is causeless and unwarantable. Objections of the Answerer considered.  
BEcause, it is Separation from true Churches, by such as are, or aught to be Members, of those true Churches; both negatively, and positively, and totally so; and lastly, which only remains to be proved, because it is both Rash and , and without sufficient grounds of offence given by these Churches.  
For it hath already appeared that such separation is sinful and Schysm, in the worst sense of the word, when it is Rash or , without such grounds; it only remains to be shown, that the present practice aforesaid, is both Rash and .  
1. First, it is, apparently a Rash Separation; for those that go from us, to these new Churches could not foresee, or reasonably imagine this Liberty now indulged, a Week, (if a day) before the Declaration was published.  
And how suddenly, they did upon it, prepare for the work, and separate to their new Congregations and Guides, 'tis too well known to insist on: and where is the man (if one such there be, let him come forth to own it) that advised with his Parish-Minister about his departure, or was so civil to take his leave; much less, showed him any just occasion of his so sudden resolution; or what gave him the offence in the person or Administration of his pastor; or in the Worship and Communion or Conversation of his fellow Members, and moved or disposed him thereunto, before he did Actually separate. Much less did he exercise any patience or long-suffering, in order to his own Satisfaction or the Reformation of the Church (of which he was a member) in what he thought amiss.  
If such separation is not Rash and sudden, if it fail not in the due manner of proceeding, show your Reason, or else bear the Censure and charge of Schysm, from all sound and judicious Casuists, let the pretence or cause otherwise, be never so great and just.  
Indeed, they generally gave up themselves, with all manner of diligence, to obtain their Licenses: to contrive their Houses; to appoint their meetings: conspiring in this, as appears by their practice, that they would hold their Assemblies, at the same hour with the parochial; the directest method they could imagine, to be opposite to us, yet, not so well considering, what might be the consequences; as one of the soberest of their Ministers complained, who observed it too late, which had they had patience and wisdom, first to have consulted my Answerer, might in all likelihood, in many places, at least have been happily prevented.  
2. But, Alas! this is not the Burden of Ephraim; their separation fails in the foundation and grounds of it, it is not accountable, upon any terms of Charity, Justice, or Christian sobriety: strictly, the Churches, from which they separate, hath not given them any such offence, or cause of offence sufficient, to justify their separation, either in truth or in the judgement of any, but themselves: much less, the old Non-Conformists and Presbyt●rians; as will soon appear in full light.  
Our Answerer hath set you a hard Game to play, here; for you must show us such reason why you leave us, as will excuse you from separation, and yet justify your gathered Churches.  
Which, upon the suppositions already proved; that our Churches are true Churches; that you are or aught to be members of them, and to continue in Communion with them, while you live in them, if we have given you no just occasion to discontinue it, seems to be a plain contradiction and your New Churches are no better than stated separations.  
But, laying aside all little insignificant Artifices and modern evasions, the question in short is this. Whether we can have any just plea for separation from any Church of which we are members, while we may communicate with it, without communion in sin. The negative hath appeared, all set parties have subscribed the negative: and hardly any but yourselves, ever questioned it, if yet you do so.  
The Protestants by the Papists, the Brownists by the Puritans; the Anabaptist, Independent, and Interpendent, by the Presbyterian, are all charged with Shysm; and all without scruple, put their controversies to this Issue; if you that charge us with Schysm, can prove that we may hold Communion with you without sinning, we acknowledge the charge, therefore they always defend their separation, by chargeing sin upon their Communion from whom they separated also. On the other hand, they endeavoured to make the charge of Schysm upon those that separated, by answering the objections of Sin, against their several Communions, so that on all sides, this sense of Schysm, passed uncontrolled; and was never I think disputed or doubted before, if it be so now, and Dr. Ames hath put it into the very Definition of Schysm: and makes it his great Rule, by which he answers the Cases about it.  
But, to prevent mistakes, I must speak with Caution; by discontinuing Communion, I do not mean; only a not having Actual Communion with the Church, for that may be involuntary, as when a man is excommunicated; or necessitated by sickness, or if you will have it added, by too great a multitude of members: yea, it may chance to be voluntary, yet not properly Schysm, when we do not attend God's worship, through neglect of our Duty, and a profane principle: but of these we speak not here.  
By discontinuing our Communion, I mean, a denying or refusing Communion with our own Church upon any dislike or distaste of its Worship, or Minister, or Members. Now whether this distaste arise from fear of Communicating in sin, where there is no just cause of, or without such fear; such refusing or denying Communion is Schysm, yea, as Ames adviseth, if there be real evil in some part of Communion in a true Church, to departed farther from it, than that evil requires, is Schysm. So when there is no real or pretended sinfulness in the Communion of our Church, and yet, we take dislike and separate, and totally separate, and gather ourselves into new Congregations in opposition thereunto, who dare say, this is no Schysm?  
'Tis not worth the question, though you some where make it, whether it be Schysm to remove our dwelling from one Parish to another? Our civil necessities may force us to it. we hold no such Matrimony, between Pastor and People, as some talk of: but upon fair occasion, either may remove. All Parishes are in Communion together, and are of the general Constitution of the Church of England: by such a removal, you become a member of another Parish Church, and are bound by the Laws of the Land, and by the Rule of cohabitation of membership to hold Communion with the Church in which you live, you have still real Communion with the former Church, not only in the substance, but mode of its Worship, and its very Constitution: but by removing to these New Churches, you do not, you cannot cease to be of a Parish at all, nor of a Parochial Church, without Schysm from the Church in which yo● live; and from all the Parochial Churches in England; and from the Church of England itself. I mean, unless you can prove that something is required in our way of Worship that you cannot join in without sinning.  
The question is, to bring the point home, what sin is to be found in our Worship, wherein the people that join with us, must needs Communicate? If none can be found we must write Schysm upon your separation and we cannot help it.  
Use no delatory pleas: blind us not with wide discourses about what is fit to be imposed, in order to peace, etc. and about the duty of Superiors, that concern you not, or about the hard conditions of Conformity upon Ministers, as such: we are speaking of Lay-Communion, wherein all that are not in the place of Ministers are to look to their Duty. And if there be any thing required of them, in order to their Communion with us, that is indeed sinful, say what is it, and speak to the point.  
In this Case (Sir) be Judge yourself, you expressly acknowledge, that our Worship is not such as no man may lawfully Communicate in: then, certainly you believe, that there is nothing in it, that is really and materially evil, or evil in itself; for than no man might lawfully join in it: but if it should become evil accidentally, from the particular condition of any private man, let him remove that evil, and not commit a greater by Separation.  
But pray (Sir) why do you seem thus to limit your kindness and charity to our Communion▪ if it be not such as no man, why is it not such as all men, may lawfully Communicate in? If you may lawfully Communicate in some of our Churches (as in another place you speak) why not in all? or why do you leave the people in such distractions? have not all our Churches the same Ordinances? our Ministers the same orders? have they not all the same matter, and the weary same Mode of Worship? you do not think the worth of the Minister goes into the lawfulness of our prayers and Sacraments: or that we may not join with the Liturgy that is not seconded with a good Sermon, I am sure you lay not the weight of your limitation upon the manners of the people; that's a principle you seem to abhor: neither can you make use of any exception against the Diocesan Church, where in all our Churches are equally concerned, except a few peculiars. I am sorry, to say I know not what you mean until you better explain yourself, give me leave to understand you indefinitely; especially while you say, you do & will hold Communion with our own Parish-Churches yourself, and that you make it your business to advise and persuade others also, thereunto, which I am very certain you would not do, if you did not believe, not only, that our way of Worship is Lawful i. e. not sinful, but also▪ Good; and that they in duty ought to attend it and Communicate with us, in it.  
But, pray Sir, Why then do you p. 34. intimate, as if some Parish-Churches did impose some things which God forbids? Indeed, when you speak seriously, you seem to reduce all the people's exceptions in this kind, to the two known heads; kneeling at the Communion, and the Cross at Baptism.  
1. For kneeling, you yourself seem not only to allow, but to approve it, you also practise it and you know, Mr. Baxter speaks handsomely for it, in his dispute. p, 411.  
2. For the Sign of the Cross, made at Baptism, this indeed is required of the Minister; and 'tis his peculiar part to do it; and for aught I know, it is no more to the people than his wearing the Surpluss, and if he knows it to be his duty, why will you deny him his liberty to do it. Mr. Baxter teacheth us, that in such things, we ought to be guided by our Pastors, which is certainly required; while they are only suspected, or at least they are not so certain, that they are sinful; as we are 
Disput. 484.  certain, that we ought to obey, as he reasons well.  
Especially, Signing with this Sign, being the Ministers own Act, you may venture to give him so much power, as to do it, without offence to you, or, so great offence, as to cause you to separate. Besides, if you cannot be persuaded to like this one Action, yet you must remember the Rule of Ames, and separate for this, in nothing else but what needs all this trouble? you have known a way this ten years, to answer this scruple, by private Baptisms: and you will know, how to serve yourselves, in this of the King's Declaration without my advice but then, why should you separate, or gather into new Churches, for that, which the Declaration removes without such do? why do you stun and distract the Church, by killing a Gnat upon her forehead, with so great a stroke.  
Sir, you intimate, p. 35. the Case is altered: but surely, not much as to this point betwixt us and the old Non-Conformists, yet you well know, all conformed with the people in, and contended for Lay Communion, against the Brownists, yea, it is a worthy observation of Mr. Baxter, that if there be any alteration, 'tis for the better for the people, as he ingeniously confesseth and accounts. Take his words at large.  
Though, saith he, Ministerial Conformity be to us another thing 
Defence of Cure of ch. div. p. 55.  (by reason of the new impositions) than it was to our predecessors, yet, to the people Conformity is the same, if not easier (especially to them that I now speak to) for it is the Lyturgy, Ceremonies, and Ministry that most alienate them— and the Lyturgy is a little amended as to them, by the change of the Translation, and some little words, and by some longer Prayers, and the Ceremonies are the same. And thirty years ago, there were many bare Reading, not preaching Ministers, for one that there is now: therefore, our case of separation being the same, with that it was of old, I take it to be fully confuted by the Ancient Non-Conformists.  
And I have so great a veneration for the worthy Names (much more an estimation of the reasonings) of Mr. Cartwright, Egerton, Hildersham, Dod, Amesius, Parker, Bains, Brightman, Ball, Bradshaw, Paget, Langley, Nicols, Hearing, and many other such, that I shall not think they knew not why they chose this subject and wrote more against Separation than the Conformists did. Thus he hath given you a full Jury of old Non-Conformists, and their verdict against Separation from our Parochial Congregations, and our present way of worshipping God: and saved me much labour in that particular.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Further proof that the practice is Schysm, by way of Reply to his Objections against it.  
BUt for all this, gathering Churches is not Separation. Who will say so besides? Refusing our Communion, and gathering themselves into distinct Congregations, I am sure was that which the old Non-Conformists wrote against, and called it Separation, and though other things occurred by way of Argument, this was the main scope and bore the Burden of their Disputations.  
Besides, you cannot in earnest accuse our Communion with sin, and what then can excuse your leaving us and gathering new Churches; from Separation: according to the judgement of all but yourselves, the Separatists themselves not excepted, who, never that I ever heard of, ventured to question the major proposition of this Argument, but denied the minor.  
Those which separate from a true Church in whose Communion is nothing sinful, are guilty of Schys●.  
But you separate from a true Church in whose Communion there is nothing sinful.  
Therefore you are guilty of Schysm.  
For all this, we may gather Churches and be neither Shysmaticks nor Separatists, and we have eight Reasons to prove it, a whole cluster of them: we shall try their weight, especially, seeing they would bear us down in a point contrary▪ to the sense of all mankind; for new reasons are not always best.  
But they are clung together so that we take seven of them at once, or they are spoiled.  
1. The Non-Conformists, though they gather Churches are no separatists: for they will not pronounce any of your Parish-Churches Null, which have lawful Ministers: not Null by any means, but they will make them as void as they can.  
2. They will not say, that your Worship is such, as no man may lawfully communicate in. We are beholding to you, perhaps one or two in a Nation, scarce in a Parish, by your good will. 3. They shall hold that Parish bounds are very convenient: they still hold this, what ever else they have let slip— and none ordinarily, but Parishioners, to be of the Church: but what Church do you mean? the old or new, none of the Parish, if they can help it shall be of the old, and as many out of the Parish, as they can draw in for aught I perceive shall be of the new. 4. They are driven from the Parish-Ministry against their Wills: and had rather hold their Ancient stations, & they will thankfully return when they have leave. But must they therefore break ancient bounds and spoil the Parishes to which they would return? and after they have taught the people to go astray, they are not sure they will return with a whistle. 7. they set not up the Church - Government of the people over the Pastors, but they dissolve the government of the Parochial and Episcopal Pastor, and teach the people by their countenancing of separation to despise and shake of both. 8. They desire nothing more than as neighbour Ministers— in love to carry on the same work of Christ with us, and do nothing less.  
But what of all this? therefore they are no separatists: how so, because, herein they differ in their principles from the old Separatists; what then, if they are the same in that very practice that made them Separatists,  
I am much of the mind still, that those that are guilty of sinful separation are separatists: and that those that voluntarily separate from a true Church where they may communicate without sin, and gather Churches, in opppsition thereunto, are guilty of a sinful separation, do with your reasons what you will.  
They may perhaps prove that the old Separatists had some principles about these things worse than the new: but, under your favour, I think if these separate as they did and think themselves they have not so much to say against our Churches as they of old did, their practice of separation is the worse for this, and not a whit the better. Now give me leave to bring forth my reason too. 'tis this  
If a great and real cause of separation does warrant and justify it in all men's judgement but your own, the lesser the cause of separation is, the worse it is, and the more schysmatical; and consequently where there is no real cause at all, 'tis worst of all.  
Therefore, I conceive the old Non-Conformists, as well as the late Presbyterians, first charged those that separated with the error of the fact viz. Separation: and in the second place, upon their reasons given for their separation, from the Nullity of our Churches and Ministry, etc. they set themselves upon the proof and defence of them but never took such their false opinions to be of the essence of their Separations; but only as their reasons and excuses for their evil practices of Separations. This aught to be heeded; and then▪ what becomes of your lump of reasons▪ seven of the eight, you see, are light and weigh very little, if the matter against them be weighed also.  
But, what think you of the other reason, the sixth in number? truly that hath so great a Smack of the old separation, and self-esteem and admiration of their own way that we threw it away before as worse than none, when ever it came to our hands; especially in chapter 13.  
If you suspect us, take it into your hand, as 'tis washed and rubbed and presented to you in the best manner the Author can set it forth; he saith, they prefer their own manner of worshipping God as better than the Liturgy in their opinion (no doubt of that) and therefore to be chosen when they may choose (but who hath given them this liberty! and freed their Consciences from the obligation I know not, though they may sin unpunished) but they account it not the only acceptable worship, but are present with you in spirit, as the great Apostle was with the corrupt Corinthians: but why only in spirit and not in body. I had like to have thought that Communion in spirit in a bad worship, had been the more dangerous of the two,) desiring a part in the prayers of all true Christians in the World, and truly no more than need; if by such practices they separate almost from them all, and think to be justified by such kind of Reasons.  
But who tastes not the smack of Brownism and Donatism here? for what is the meaning of it but that our way of worship is not so good as it should be; for certainly, theirs, ●s no better than it should be; yet they must leave ours, to enjoy their own, as better; our way is therefore, defective, if not Corrupt. But, wherein is it defective more than yours? have not we as many Psalms and Chapters read, as many Sacraments Administered, as many Sermons preached, as you, doth not the Parish Minister, generally pray before and after Sermon, as well as yours? and have we not the Common-prayer over and above? where is our defect? away with these pitiful shows instead of reasonings. If we are corrupt in our worship, say so, if that be the reason of your separation, say so, and be Separatists indeed say plainly 'tis a purer worship and reformation that you leave us for.  
But, let it be what it will, you yourself think our way acceptable to God; you join with us in it; you persuade others to it: so that what defects or corruptions you find in it, cannot justify their separation from us, in your opinion, and I see not, how you can avoid joining with us in this also; and to say, they are Schysmaticks for so doing. Especially such Non-conformists, whose Administrations you suppose as bad as the Liturgy. p. 16.  
But you intimate one difference more (for yourself alone, I suppose) betwixt you and the Brownists in another place, where you ask, whether such gathered Churches would be Schysmatical if the Common prayer were read in them? But, what is the reading the Common prayer to Separation from the Church? or, why cannot you better hear it in the Temple; the same mode of worship, is no excuse, but an aggravation of division and separation; seeing they that use it, say they like it; and so have no reason from the point of worship to forsake our Communion. We have a Demonstration from the Church of Corinth; who, had all the same Apostolical mode of worship, and yet are charged by the Apostle himself, with divisions and Schysm.  
Wherefore, though we take it kindly that you are moderate in your own practice, and let the World and your brethren know it, and propose your advice and example to your brethren so seasonably in it, I cannot but a little reflect upon those words of yours p. 100  
But, though I will not bind myself (take heed of that) I here tell the World,— if opportunity— I would sometimes pray freely without forms, and sometimes use some part of the Common Liturgy: and sometime use the Reformed Liturgy, which in 1600. was agreed on by Commissioned Non-Conformists, though being done in exream hast, it should be reviewed and perfected.  
But why would you not use all these at once? then 'tis like some body would be pleased. In earnest, must the Liturgy established by Law, and so long practice, obtain no more with you, than the other two ways mentioned? Speak plain, were the Non-Conformists than Commissioned for that purpose, to make a new Liturgy, as you do more than intimate? Really, me thinks, until this new one be amended, you should prefer our Liturgy, which was made by as good men, and with less haste, and more deliberation.  
But you may have some peculiar reason why you would honour this Reformed Liturgy, as you call it, pray what is it? Because it is new? or because you are for change? or for a third reason you wots of? Indeed Novelty, Change, and Property are three great Arguments with some men, that are no small pretenders to Antiquity, Resolution, and self-denial.  
But all this concerns not you: pray what are your reasons for the use of it? you have told us nothing of it yet, but its imperfections, and I do not hear of any one hitherto that, from the worth and excellency of it, hath been induced to practise it: your reasons may possibly draw some one or other to join with you in that new Liturgy: In the mean time pardon me in the mention of an odd passage, I heard in the times of our late Confusions; what Church are you of pray, (one asked another) I am, quoth he, of Mr. Barber's Church? Mr. Barber's Church, a Church I have not heard of before, pray how many members have you? truly, saith he very gravely, we have none yet, but him and I; but we hope we shall have more.   

CHAP. XVII.  
More direct proof that this practice is Schysm. With considering the principles upon which they separate.  
I Shall fix my foot and prove more directly, that such separation without Just ground, is plain Schysm in all the Notion of Schysm we have hitherto received in the Church of God, without any such consideration of the Brownists principles, denying the truth of the Churches or Ministry, or lawfulness of the worship, from which such separation was made.  
1. First in the Scriptures, Schysm is condemned with dividing the Church into parties; forsaking the Assembling of ourselves together, separating themselves, drawing disciples after them, creeping into Houses, and leading silly women Captive, and the like; without any such thing, as cuestioning, much less denying the truth of those Churches, Ministry or Worship, as is evident beyond all dispute and to a plain Demonstration, in those Schysmaticks in the Church of Corinth: who kept in their public Assemblies, and indeed preferred one of their Ministers in the same Church, before the rest: but denied not any of them, except to hear them; and that was their Schysm, though they complained not against either the Constitution of their Church, or the corruptions in it; which yet were great and many, both in Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, as is well known.  
Yea, though the Ministers in Corinth, walked in love together, and carried on the same work of Christ, as you pretend with us, and made no such attempts of drawing parties from their brethren, to themselves, and had no hand at all in the Schysm, that we read of, but the great Apostle himself dislikes and protests against it; because only the people too much admired some, to the dislike of others of their Ministers, they are charged with Schysm, as before was noted.  
2. Shortly after, we have an account of Schism from Ignatius, and what was it, but a not owning or submiting to the Government of their proper Bishops and Pastors, without any ill reflections or denials of their office, or the truth of their Churches, or any such thing.  
3. Next, we read of that great Schysm both of the Eastern and Western Churches, (for neither could be freed from the charge of it) about the time of the celebration of Easter, upon this slight occasion, without any of the said Brownistical principles, they separated from, by refusing Communion with one another, for many years together; and though the occasion was so very slight, it is noted for a great, yea therefore, for the greater Schysm in Church story.  
4. After this, we read of the Schysm of Donatism: this, though it spread, and run very deep into Naughty, and much like to our later Seperation-principles about the Church at last; yet at first it was occasioned by a contention about the Bishopric of Cecilianus, and therefore branded with the name of Schysm; especially, when the Donatists much like our late Sectaries, refused Communion with the Church, because corruptions were tolerated: contending that they were the only pure Church and spouse of Christ; and this is little otherwise, than what at present is pretended, by such as would not be called Separatists.  
5. The great ground of Schysm observed from Church story by Mr. Hales, was generally, contention 
Of Schysm p. 12.  about Bishops, as it is now without any Brownistical principles.  
He notes, that at first there was but one Cathedral Church in one Diocese, afterwards, some had two some more, and it happened many times, that these Cathedrals had distinct Bishops, and these by their differences many times came to have distinct Churches: and these Churches refused to communicate with one another for the sake of their Bishops which was called Schysm: though it was, no Brownism it was a separation very like to ours in our Parish-Churches, this was, saith St. Cyprian, Erigere altare contra Altar, and to this doth that father impute (as Mr. Hales further observes) all Church-disorders, and if you read him you would think he thought no o●her Church-tumult to be Shysm but this.  
Indeed, Schysm is any unwarrantable breach of unity in the Church of God; where you find this, you find Schysm, let the occasion be what it will, 'tis a sinful practice, dividing the Church, by our selves or others and lies not in the reason of that practice, unless it be considerable for the excuse of it: as all Divines consent.  
Hear St. Austin, Schysma 
Contr Faust. l. 20. c. 3. & de fid. & oper. c. 3. & contr. Cres. gr. l. 2. c. 7.  est, etc. Schysm is a late dissension or disagreement of a Congregation arising from some Diversity in opinion; no matter what it be.  
And again, more full to our purpose. Shysmatieos facit non diversa fides, sed Communionis disrupta societas. Do you ask what is Schysm? it is not a differing Faith, but a breaking the fellowship of Communion, which makes men Schysmaticks.  
Yet more plainly, Schysma est eadem opiniantem & eodem Ritu utentem Solo Congregationis delectari dissidio. Schysm is, when a man, that professeth the same faith and worship, is delighted only with the difference of an Assembly or Congregation. You might have advised this Father a little better, had he been now alive but, it seems, your objection was then urged by some that you are loath to own,  
And this same notion of Schysm kept its ground in the Church from St. Aug. to Beza's time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est, etc. Schysm or Division, saith Beza 
An. in 1. Co. 1. 10.  is this, when men are so addicted to some men or to some outward Rites, that though they do agree in the chief points of Religion, yet they are estranged in their minds, and engage themselves into parties and Factions. Thus Beza, and yet he passeth for a Presbyterian, and so doth Mr. New comen, who useth all these places of Authority, to my very purpose, against the Independents, who would it seems, have excused their Schysm from the Moderation of their principles, and the soundness of their Doctrine, He, therefore shall be the next Presbyterian that we shall produce 
New come. Sr. at Paul's. p. 14.  for this notion of Schysm, not necessarily inclusive of the Brownists rigid principles.  
He tells us plainly, as I observed in my other book, their holding one head and one faith with us doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity and downright Schysm, as long as they hold not one body, one Baptism. As if he had said, let your principles be what they will, you are downright Schysmaticks while you separate and break our unity.  
As for Separation, Mr. Baxter tells us, that the mischief 
Ep to his Rest printed 1669.  of it lies not in the bare error of judgement, but in the unchristian and Church-dissolving division, and Alienation which thence followeth.  
Yea, let us know the man that did ever directly or by any clear consequence to be drawn from his words, print such a Notion of Schysm, as includes the Brownists rigid principles about our Churches, etc. in the Nature of it. Examine Cameron, Ames, Hales, Brinsly, and if any others be dearer to you, and see, whether their definitions take in any such thing; or can bear such an exposition, as you would put upon them. See how Mr. Cawdrey and the London Ministers, at Zion▪ College deal with the Independents in the point; and whether you can possibly persuade yourself, to continue in the belief, that for the reasons you have alleged, the Non-Conformists may gather Churches and not be Separatists in the judgement of the Presbyterians, before the year 1660. or any of the old Non-Conformists: you may see their Judgement in general by a few quotations out of their writings.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Testimonies of Non-Conformists for the same.  
GIve me leave tousher in this worthy verdict, with an Argument after your own mode.  
I will undertake to prove, that the Non-Conformists, both Ancient and Modern, before 1660. held, gathering Churches out of our Churches unlawful and Schysmatical, and that absolutely, without any reference to the principles upon which it is done, much less the Brownistical.  
Do you prove afterwards, if it be possible, that they supposed your New distinctions and evasions, or that they, at any time let words drop from them signifying an allowance of Separation from our Churches and setting up new ones, upon such weak grounds as you stand upon.  
Mr. Ball I had mentioned in 
Mr. Ball.  my last, as one of the old puritans, that had wrote for Communion with our Parochial Congregations; you tell me subtly, that he speaks not against Non-Conformists preaching, and that's an Answer. But I must now add, that, that great Nonconformist doth not plead for our Communion as lawful, but in a sort necessary; and that to separate from us is a sinful Separation.  
He telleth you roundly, that such Separation is the Wound of 
Ep to his 1. vol. Friendly Trial.  the Church,— yea, whosoever separateth from the body of the Church separateth from Christ in that respect.— Voluntary Separation from the Lords Table, and the Prayers (he reckoned upon more than hearing Sermons) of the Congregation, what is but a willing Excommunicating of ourselves from the visible tokens of the Lords presence and love— is it not a greater sin in Members to deprive themselves (then in the Church Governors to deprive others) of the same Communion for small occasions? you see he makes the smallness of the occasion of Separation to be Emphasis and Aggravation of it.  
Again more smartly in his Answer to Cann. Thus, Separation from the true Churches of Christ, his Ministry 
Epistle.  and Worship (of which sort I shall prove that to be by the word of God, for which I plead) meaning the Church of England) tendeth not to the overthrow of Antichrist, but to the Renting of the Church, the disgrace of Religion, the Advancement of Pride, Schysm, Contention, the offence of the weak, the grief of the Godly, who be better settled, the hardening of the Wicked, and the Recovery or rising again of Antichrist.  
2. Let worthy Mr. Hildersham lay down his grave and weighty point clearly and boldly, and like 
Hildersham upon 4. Joh. p. 149.  himself 'tis this; Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation; though they have many Corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknowledged the true Churches of God, and such as none of the faithful may make Separation from. (He will not allow you, upon pretence of purity and serving. God better in your way, to separate and gather Churches, not any one, none of the faithful) he proceeds to prove it largely: and it may be well known how severe he is, against the faithful, that will ordinarily leave their honest Minister, to hear those that are more able: upon pretences of profiting better by them: which is yet the best plea the present Separation hath for itself.  
3. M. Calvin speaks to the point with no mean Authority. 
Calvin Insti. li. 4. c▪ 1 sect. 9, 10. 12.  He tells us, that wheresoever the Gospel is purely preached, and the Sacraments Administered according to the Institution of Christ; there is the Church of God.— There appears neither a deceitful nor doubtful face of a Church, of which no man may either despise the Authority, or refuse the Admonition; or resist the Counsels or mock at the Corrections; much less departed from it, breaks in sunder the Unity of it, and go unpunished.  
For the Lord so highly esteems the Communion of the Church, that he counts him for a Traitorous runaway, and forsaken of Religion; whosoever shall stubburnly estrange himself from any Christian fellowship, so that it be such a one as hath the true Ministry of the word and Sacraments.  
The fellowship of such a Church, is not to be cast off; although it swarm full of faults, though there be faults in the Administration, either of Doctrine, or of the Sacraments; yet we ought not to estrange ourselves from the Communion of it: for all the Articles be not of one sort: and therefore for every light dessention we ought not rashly to forsake the Church.  
4. The value which our Englesh Presbyterians just before the Wars, had of our Church and its lay-Communion is not impertinent 
Letter of many Ministers in Old England, to their brethren in new E. pub by Mr. Ash, &c 1643.  but very considerable: together, with the Censure they then passed upon such as refused it.  
They speak to their brethren in New England thus, if we deny Communion with such a Church as ours; there hath been no Church these 1400 years, with which a Christian might lawfully join. Nay, that if such scruples as are now in your heads may take place, it will be unlawful to hold Communion with any society under Heaven.  
5. Mr. Gifford an old Nonconformist, wrote a book 
Gifford Printed 1590.  called a plain Declaration; wherein he doth not vindicate every thing in our Church; but that there is no sufficient Cause of separation; Complains thus, some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear Sermons and the Prayers of the Preacher; but not to the prayers of the Book; which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose. But yet this is not the worst; for sundry are gone farther; and fallen into a damnable Schysm; and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous, in that many do not see the foulness of it; but rather hold them as Godly Christians; and but a little over-shot in some matters.  
6. We come now to review the Testimonies we gave in our last, from the late Presbiterian Controversy with the Independents: we pitched upon some words of the Provincial Assembly in London: and the Argument sent to the Assembly of Divines by the London Ministers from Zion College, two eminent bodies of known Presbyterians. And we yet see no reason to judge, but their words and Arguments are very direct and full to the purpose; especially considering, the most pitiful shifts of our Answerer about them.  
As to the words, in the Divine right of Presbytery, be saith, that 
Jus divin. Reg. Eccl.  book was supposed to be penned by Dr Roberts now a Conformist. But what doth he mean? was he a Conformist then? or doth not the book plead for the Presbytery, and its Jus Divinum? and in the same sense by which he himself defines a Presbyterian? yea, was it not owned by, and published under the name of the provincial Assembly of Presbyterians? and what matter is it then who penned it? the like dealing you use about Mr. Trapp: you say he is a Conformist, what then? hath he not given a just account of the book written by the London Ministers, as I said he did? their reasons alleged by me, were alleged by a Conformist: yet they are theirs still. What manner of answering is this? It were not pardonable with some Adversaries, but you are fallen into merciful hands.  
The Authority of the persons than is clear: the words I cited out of the preface to that book called, Jus Divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici, were these, Parochial Churches are received as true visible Churches of Christ, and most convenient for edification: gathering Churches out of Churches hath no footsteps in Scripture: is contrary to Apostolical practice: is the scattering of Churches, the Daughter of Schysm: the Mother of Confusion and the stepmother of edification.  
Observe, they condemn gathering Churches out of our Churches: absolutely, and without any respect to the principles upon which it was done particularly, they call it the Daughter of Schysm, separation in order unto the gathering of Churches being Schysm itself, in the then Presbyterian opinion.  
The Arguments, I took out of the Letter of the London Ministers 
Sion-Coll.  to the Assembly were these, the Independents are guilty of Schysm. 1. Because they refuse Communion with our Churches in the Sacraments. 2. They erect separate Congregations under a separate undiscovered Government: never charging them with any Brownistical principles, but the fact itself, an undoubted proof of what they undertook to prove.  
Again to the same purpose, they charge them with three great Scandals, how you will avoid either of them I cannot Devine. 1. That they separated from the true Church. 2. That they endeavoured by drawing Members out of it to make up their separate Churches, to weaken and diminish the Church. 3. That they endeavoured to get a warrant to authorise both, viz. by a Toleration: and this, say they, we think to be plainly unlawful.  
Now, hereupon, I am bold to challenge our Answerer, or any one else, to prove clearly, that any one Eminent Presbyterian before 1660. was not utterly against all the three, against such separation, such gathering Churches, and such Toleration. Convince me if you can: but not by telling me they are now for them all. That they would Tolerate, things Tolerable, that is gathering Churches: and persons Tolerable, that is Presbyterians, as you speak very intelligibly.  
But no wonder, they are changed in their thoughts of these things: the case is Altered, as you hint.  
True, there are some new impositions upon Ministerial Conformity; but other Alterations render our Lay-Communion more easily than it was before the wars, when the Presbyterian denied it not; as was noted out of Mr. Baxter before; who also assures us that he never heard of five Non-Conformists, besides the five dissenting 
Defence of his cure p. 13.  brethren in the Assembly at Westminster; he means, they conformed as Ministers of the Church of England before they sat there.  
However, that Churches may not be gathered out of Churches is asserted not as a Temporary truth, but moral: depending upon the Nature of a Church which never altars: or gives any occasion of change, in the judgement, about this point.  
The Books of Mr. Cawdrey, that Captain in the Presbyterian. 
Cawdrey.  Army against Dr. Owen, and the Independents, challenge you all. We may, saith he, prove them to be Schysmatical. 1. by a voluntary Separation from true Churches; with whom we dare say, they may Communicate without sin, and so consequently, causelessly rending the body of Christ. 2. By their renouncing Communion with us, to set up a Church of another 
Indep. further proud Schys p. 73, 74  constitution; and so condemning our Churches ipso facto, as no truly constituted Churches. Mark, condemning our Churches ipso facto. Their very Act is enough; whether they avow such principles or not: and consequently, what ever you pretend to the contrary; your very departure from us, and making new Churches, does of itself condemn you of Schysm.  
He concludes his first book bravely, they, saith he, that 
Ind. great Schysm.  raise differences in them i e. in our Churches: and draw disciples from them and renounce Communion with them, say what they please or can to the contrary are Schysmaticks quod erat demonstrandum.  
I only assume, that generally the Non-Conformists make differences in our Churches, draw Disciples from them, and renounce Communion with them, quod est demonstratum, And now I beg leave of my Answerer to conclude with the words in my last, that so much offended him; that I am sure the Presbyterians, (if they walk by the principles of their Fathers before the King's return) I am sure, I say, that they have no reason to engage in a way of public worship, contradistinct to our Parochial Congregation.  
The Issue of the travers, saith Mr. Brinsley, is no more but 
Of Schysm, p. 53.  this. If there be amongst us, a Separation from a true Church, and that both voluntary and unwarrantable [as the present practice of gathering Churches by the Presbyterians is] (which I suppose the evidences given in, have sufficiently evicted) then must we give sentence, that there is more than either crimen nominis, or nomen criminis, no less than a Schysm formally and properly so called.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Gathering of Churches ought not to be practised, as now it is, either, in Conscience, or prudence. Objections answered.  
YEt, we are not at a full Agreement: he seems every where, to take it for granted, that, we are now, at perfect liberty, to gather new Churches or not, which, by no means, I allow, while my principles stand undemolished: Such as these.  
That our Church of England is a true Church that our parochial Congregations are true Churches that the people of England are generally, Members of this Church and Churches; or at least ought so to be. That they lawfully may, and consequently are, in Duty and Conscience bound to Communicate with them. And therefore, for them to Separate, and to gather themselves into new Congregations, of another constitution, is plainly sinful and Schysmatical.  
Upon the premises, I do conclude, that Conscience ought first to be consulted in the case: and the many obligations thereof, effectually and totally removed, before you can make it a matter of indifferency in itself, and of more Christian prudence pro hic & nunc, as you seem to affirm.  
Our Obligation to this Communion falls many ways upon us: from our Relation to the Church; the laws of cohabitation of Church-Members, the Laws of the Kingdom, and the long continued practice of this Church: none of all which, are in the least touched, much less Altered or Repealed by the Declaration of Indulgence.  
Besides, the many express Scriptures against our forsaking our (wont) Assemblies, Separating ourselves, making parties and divisions in the Church: having our Teachers in too much Admiration, and heaping them up to ourselves, and receiving the faith with respect of persons: and drawing Disciples after us, in all which, both the present case, and the several Consciences of the Nonconfomists, whether Preachers or people, are in my opinion, not lightly concerned. Shake of the Burden as well as you can.  
Until these things be better answered, I must add here; that the case is of weight in p●int of Conscience, as well as prudence: and that gathering Churches, as now you do, is a breach of the Laws both of God and Man; a Sin against our Church in her Right, in our persons and fellowship: both with respect to our Pastors and Brethren▪ and a plain breach of our Covenant with them all; a breach of the Church's Unity, and Order, and Ancient bounds and Customs, and in the Teachers that draw away our people, besides all that hath been said, a plain robbing of God, the Church and our Brother. To conclude, if the Laws of Piety, Justice, Temperance, or Charity, can reach the Conscience, every one of which are violated by this gathering of Churches, the case is not a work of mere Christian prudence, and to be determined only comparing the good and evil consequents together, as you say p. 21.  
But supposing my foundations to stand firm, and Conscience in the point well secured: we may parley a little upon it in point of prudence: especially, seeing, you affirm p. 21. that, he that through imprudence mijsudgeth either w●y doth sin. Moreover you confess, that the case is now of so great moment, that no Minister should rash'y determine it for himself, p. 20. nor upon the desires of some of the people only; but should consult with wise and sober men that are impartial, but, if the case be so difficult for the Readers, who you say, must preach, how difficult is the case for the people? for it is, no where said, they must separate, and leave us to hear you, yea, yourself teach the contrary. You state your nice Case, thus, p. 17, 18. whether in competent parishes, which have Able and Godly conformable Ministers, the obligation to hold Union and Communion with the parish-Church; or the obligation to exercise a more regular way of Church - Discipline and worship, than the Parish-Churches do or will do, should be judged the more prevalent; and consequently, whether they should gather Church's out of Churches in this?  
A Case not so difficult, as you seem to make it, if there be as you have heard, so much obligation upon Conscience to the former part of it touching Communion with us: and none at all left, for their gathering-Churches for the ends assigned by you, for they can neither leave us without sin; nor gather Churches without sin; as, we hope it hath appeared.  
Your opinion is given upon a double supposition, and both of them false. 1. That the case is indifferent; or, at least the obligation to both, so equal, as, that it is to be weighed only by prudence. 2. That it is lawful and a duty to be a Member of such a Parish-Church (only) when we can have and do no better [i. e. in our own opinion] and that when we can, we have liberty to forsake our own Church, though, I confess your explication of having or doing better, hath some tendency to a right determination of this great point, viz: you say, we cannot have or d● better, when it cannot be without a greater hurt to the public interest of the Gospel, the Church, and the souls of men, than the benefit to us and others is like to countervail. But I must add (as the case requires,) especially, when that benefit, cannot be had without sinning ourselves, and drawing others to sin with us by our endeavours, Scandal, and example; which, I think, we too plainly and manifestly do, by gathering Churches.  
Now give me leave, to make a supposition; and I shall immediately take the Scale and weigh the consequents, as you say, on both sides. My supposition is, that this case which you call the difficult one, is the very case with most Non-Conformists, who do now gather Churches, for as our Parish-Ministers are generally, more Tolerable than you seem to allow them; so, especially are they of the better sort, and truly able, and Godly, and our Parishes, in your own sense, competent enough, where, for the most part, they have hitherto set about this new experiment, which, it seems, renders the case so difficult in your own opinion, that, I fear, you will have cause enough to censure the rashness of their unadvised undertaking of it.  
But now to the Scales, wherein we must weigh. 1. The Benefits to be hoped. 2. The evils to be feared, will follow such gathering Churches.  
You pitch upon three great Benefits. 1. The pleasing of God (when we know it is his will) and the profit of men's souls by the most regular manner of discipline and Worship. [But be sure you know it is his Will] you yourself your selfmake it very difficult to know this, even for the Teachers; how much more for the people. The same Argument will put us upon the Reformation of the State too, when we know it is Gods will. This we know to be God's will; that we serve God the best we can in our places: that we move for a Reformation in a peaceable and regular way, that we preserve the unity and Communion of the Church. That we obey our Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors: these things we know to be Gods will: and we know that he is not the God of Confusion, but of order in his Churches; and what tends to disorder and confusion, we know it is not Gods will; but how we shall know that it is his will we should reform the Church upon our own heads, and therefore Separate from true Churches and gather Churches, in order to better Worship and discipline, if so it prove, this we know not.  
2. The second Benefit, is the setting up an imitable Example of right Discipline, and worship to other Churches i. e. Setting up a Standard with the former Narrative of the grounds of the War. But heads, severely, than woe to them that set up a worse. And, in your Conscience, is not this woe likely to be general? how many hundred years hath our Discipline been exposed to examination, and for the substance of it, what part can envy itself, find fault with this? are the short Counsels of our new Reformers likely to mend it? besides, how will you do, that are for Episcopacy? you will not regulate that by having none; or by making other Bishops I hope. As for our Worship, I presume, the Reformed Liturgy will not take place, except in your own Congregation? and sure, that we have already, is better than none at all: as it is with your brethren of the new Churches.  
3. Your last benefit is a marvellous one indeed, the satisfying the Consciences of honest mistaken people, who think it unlawful to communicate with us. i e. we must break the Churches in pieces, to feed the mistakes and ill humours of honest people, if they are honest, remove their mistakes, teach them truth, and wisdom, and peace, and duty, and persuade them to keep their Station and Communion with us; and I doubt not, but that y●u and they will find this to be the greater benefit of the two at last, as well as we.  
You may see there is no good to be done by the practice, and you, in the next place, see what a swarm of mischiefs attend it. I shall observe the things you fear yourself; and indeed, they are more in number, weight, and measure too, than the benefits you mentioned.  
1. This mischief is likely to follow their gathering-Churches as you well observe: the exasperating the minds for number and quality considerable, and so alienating from their brethren, and hindering them. 2. Thereby weakening the Protestant Interest in a time which requireth ●ur greatest concord. 3. Then setteng of parties against parties, and Churches against Churches; and turning of Religion into contentions and mutual opp●sitions. 4. The countenanceing of unlawful Separations; which will all shelter themselves under such examples, and the Dividers will not see the different principles on which we go, while our practice seemeth to be the same. 5. And so it may be injurious to future ages, by seeming to give them Precedents for unlawful Separation. 6. And it is not the least evil consequent, that we shall cherish not only the error of t●ose that think worse of the Parish-Worship and Assemblies than there is cause; but we shall also accidentally nourish their pride, who will think themselves a holier people, because they erroneously over-censure the persons and practices of others  
These are they evil consequents, which you wisely foresee will follow these new Churches: and you cannot, I think, prudently avoid them, but by forbearing that practice, and persuading your brethren to do so likewise. For you confess, when the public good forbids it [as no doubt, it now d●th] p. 22. The Tolerated Ministers must not gather distinct Church-Assemblies, but join with the public Churches, and help the people by their instructions at other times. And not to b●y up the people in their weakness, which you well observe, p. 23. inclineth them to causeless separations and dis●unctions.  
But who shall now hold the beam? let any hand but your own, and, I am sure, the inconveniences you have mentioned, must needs preponderate, those shadows of benefit that the practice pretends to.  
'Tis the known and stated judgement of the Church in all Ages that defects, yea and many corruptions (which you charge us not withal) are far more tolerable, and not so hazardous to the Church, as Separation by the breach of unity; and then what shall we think of the formal and positive Schysm in gathered Churches.  
The Novatians, Audeans, and Donatists had all the same pretence, of better discipline and worship than the public; therefore, they gathered themselves into distinct Churches for reformation and greater purity in Religion: but for this, they stand recorded for Schysmaticks and P●sts of the Church, in the writings of the Fathers and Church-Histori●ns.  
You acknowledge, our errors are Tolerable, (else you would not Communicate with us:) and this is a standing rule in the Church, si error est Tolerabilis, non ●p●r●et ●er● Secessionem. If the errors or scandals of the Ch●rch be Tolerable, we ought not to leave it, and what's the reason? because of the dangerous consequents that have ever followed Separation, and the beauty and 
Cameron. de Schys.  holiness of unity in Religion.  
Sir I perceive I need not endeavour to quicken your sense of the fearful effects of separation: and should I begin to speak of them there would be no end; God grant we may never feel them; and therefore that you, and I, and every man, may do our proper endeavour to prevent and heal them. Schysmate luxantur 
Pareus.  membra Ecclesiae▪ Membra luxata inepta sunt ad sua muncra obcunda: membra lu●●ta gravissimo d●lore corpus afficiunt. 
P. Mart.  Schysm in the Church puts the members out of joint: members out of joint are unfit f●r service: and cause great dolours and disquietment to the whole body.  
What sharp cont●n●ions and ruptures in the bowels of the Ch●rch, what Wars and desolations in Nations, hath Schysm been the original of? what sighs and warnings did the separation of the Brownist draw from the Puritans? and of the late Sectaries from the Presbyterians? all this cannot be torgotten, though in the midst of our Bussles, and our new joys for our present liberty, we mind it not.  
I shall not repent my former inconveniences: the fear of which, at least, some of them, is yet still upon us: notwithstanding, etc.  
Dividing principles will give shelter to all kind of Heresies 
Vid Baxt. def. of his cure p. 51, 52, 53. etc.  and Sects; of which experience is too full a proof— and shall we stand by and see this work go on, and neither lament their sin that drive men to this, nor warn them of the passions and principles that lead to it? and who knoweth not how fair a game the Papists have to play by the means of our Divisions?   

CHAP. XX.  
More particular address to the Answer, a friendly expostulation about his hard words and dealing. We must preach. And we may gather Churches to serve God better: two great cheats, a desire he would detect them.  
Sir, I perceive, by some Golden lines, drawn here and there, upon your Rough and Rugged piece (pardon the expressions) that though we differ in our measures, yet, we intent the same end: and in general, by the same means. Let us then, in cold blood, as friends fallen out use to do, let us expostulate a little, and be friends again.  
I confess, I thought I could not reply to much of your book, but in Mirth or Anger: the former I rather chose; and have sometimes used, but make it my public request, that neither yourself, nor any one else would take it in contempt of your person or parts.  
But if my pleasantness hath, indeed, displeased you; pray, reflect a little seriously upon the manner, how you dealt with me, without any provocation. And consider both the Ex●mple and Rule, you give me. p. 4. and I am apt to conceive, you will require no further satisfaction: yea, and that for the future, you will learn this lesson; not to despise your Adversaries person or parts; least of one you make two; and instead of Reason, you stir up and provoke Folly and Madness.  
If any thing hath missed my eye, and consideration, that you conceive to be argumentative: believe me, it was not designed. I left your Method, because I had a mind to review the point throughly, and once for all: and therefore you are secure from any further trouble from me, in this matter (unless I see more reason hereafter, than now I can foresee,) Yet I promise you, that if, without Insulting, you will show me any Argument which was overlookt, I promise you faithfully, I will either Answer it, or acknowledge I cannot.  
Indeed, some parts of your Book I have willingly declined to insist upon; there being observable in them, the defects of Pertinence and Charity: which I impute to your haste and hastiness: and thank God, that I know how to allow something to the best of men, for their Natural Temper.  
Yet so far as we are virtuous, we cannot be unwilling to hear of our faults, especially, with meckness of reason, and in a friendly expostulation: which, I hope, may well enough admit me to tell you plainly, that I have found neither kind words, nor fair dealing in your book.  
For your Words: calling my Arguments silly; questioning my Wit and Modesty; rendering me guilty of Noise, instead of Sense; of Confusion and immeasurable confidence; these, and such like, do not much affect me, but I confess, when you speak of my pernicious fallacies, that goes something near me, as also when you number me with factious disputers; when, God knows, I intended nothing, as I said in my last, but to save the people from sin, and the Church from confusion and ruin, by gross Separation.  
For your fair dealing, I mean, not only, that you would make me affirm, what I never said, or thought, for of that I have delivered myself before: or so much that you seem to lie upon the Catch for little oversights, which concern not the Controversy; though by the way take an Instance or two of this Nature.  
Whereas I say, p. 28. they cannot but understand the Declaration to prohibit all such private meetings as the law cal●s conventicles. What an outcry do we hear? you know not whose understandings you talk of— and with▪ Scorn— why should you judge us to be as wise as yourself.  
But where's the victory? doth not the very Declaration itself suppose unlawful Conventicles? or what if I had slipped, and put in the word Law for Declaration? was it unpardonable? it looks ill, when we design disgrace to our Adversary, without any advantage to our Cause, and what have you gained by this N●ble quarrel, but the name of Conventicles? and so branded by the Law; a name, one would think, not much worth the contention, if we Admit the Learned Hale's definition of it; a Conventicle saith he, is nothing else but a Congregation of Schysmaticks. 
Tract of Schys p. 14   
Take b●t one Instance more; I had said, p. 14. that I thought I might safely say, that the Declaration doth not so much as uncommand any thing which the Law properly commands. But had you heeded one word among the rest, you would hardly have entered this exception: p. 46. I mean the word, properly; which you, to seeming Advantage leave out in your Reflection, for who knows not, that the main matter for which the Law is framed, is the thing properly, and directly commanded by the Law? and that the execution of the penalty, and the command thereof, are but in subserviency thereunto; and, only of force, conditionally, in case the Law, in the proper matter of it, be disabused?  
And your exception to the other paragraph, hath yet l●ss colour. I say, the Declaration medles not with the law, either in the preceptive or punitive part of it. But I still take it to be beyond your skill in the Law, to confute me in this; and to be beyond dispute, that the Law in both these parts of it, had its being from the Legeslative power; and the Declaration from the Executive power: and that this cannot operate, to the change of that at all. The true internal vigour of the Law is still the same; and 'tis your mistake to think that the Declaration suspends the command, or so much as the punitive part of the Law: it suspendeth only the Actual Execution of the Law, as penal: and allows such meetings, as break the Law, and incur its penalty, to abide unpunished; think on it well, and you may be of my mind.  
Of these by the way, which indeed had not found their place here, could I have reduced them to any head of discourse above: yet now I am upon it let me whisper it in your ear, without any great noise about it, that there is one Paragraph of yours, that, could I take pleasure in such little 
p. 45 last par or Sect  reflections, I could show, to have as many real Soloecisms in it, as you have noted in my whole Book.  
But, I am not careful for these things: you deal more hardly with me, when you lay presumption and cruelty to the Non-conformists at my door, cannot I imagine that they do not only desire to escape the penalty of the Laws, but erect separate Churches to themselves; but I must be an Ithacian Master, and make you feel my meaning, and give occasion to cry out as you do, but, my Brother, what good will our sufferings do you? do you feel yourself ever the more at liberty when we are in the Common-Goales? are you the fuller because some Non-Conformists want bread?  
Is this reasonable, charitable, or candid? what ground have you for it, either in my words or deeds? would you not think you had wronged me, if some Non-Conformists should tell you, that I have run some hazards and suffered in my Name for their Liberty? and if a peaceable silenced Minister should testify, that he and his Family have many years together, had the greatest part of their livelihood from my Charity? But I must forbear, though you provoke me, lest you should have just cause to impeach my Modesty, and think you have cause to say, that I, in a sense, call you Persecutor.  
But who am I, when, alas, the whole body of Conforming Clergy, (though you have said, that many of them are pious, able, and faithful in their places yet) you more than seem to load them, p. 74. with the unchristian like charge of perjury, perfidiousness, and persecution, proud, contending who shall be greatest, and Covenanting, never in certain points to obey Christ against the World and the Flesh.  
And, you cannot but know, this is no way Argumentative: unless you designed to weaken the Affections of the people towards us, and so to prepare them for a separation: which I am not willing to believe: for that I find, you, in many other places, so earnestly persuading to the contrary.  
Sir, I do not presume to advise you: but Sir, if you shall think to write any more upon this matter, let me beseech you seriously to consider, whether your own principles, and the present vile practices of separation, contrary thereunto, would not more worthily and more seasonably draw your studies another way.  
I know, that the peace and reputation, and Integrity, of our Parochial Churches are dear to you, however you were tempted to mistake me, and to let some things fly, some things that may chance to prejudice them more than you would.  
There are two principles scattered up and down your Answerer, that I here mainly aim at, and into these indeed, all its strength resolves. 1. That the Non-Conformists must preach. 2. That to the end the people may serve God better, they may gather themselves into other Churches. The first of these would not concern me in the defence of my other Book, neither, doth the allowance of it, draw a necessity of gathering Churches, as we have made to appear above the latter of them, indeed, lies at the bottom of all that you say against me, and I have often spoken to it, even, where ever I met it I am now making my Petition in the Church's behalf, that you would lay to heart the certain Divisions and confusions that must needs follow, upon the practice of both these principles, jointly received, and improved by the skill of Dividers, and the cunning craftiness of such as lie in wait for that purpose.  
The first of these, that they must preach, give me leave to say, as it is the present Engine for division, is a plain cheat put upon the World, and not to be countenanced by an honest man.  
They must preach, but why? because of the Text, because of the necessities of the people, and lastly, because of their Relation to their old Flocks, of each a little.  
They must preach, because the Text saith, there is a necessity laid upon us, and woe be to us if we do not preach.  
Ans. But, my Brethren, what if you have no opportunity, and the Churches are all full, must ye preach still? We have before noted, from Mr. Baxter, that where there is no opportunity there is no duty, and consequently, there is no necessity no Woe, & is it not plain enough, that while you have no particular flock, especially, while the Law forbids you to have any, you have no opportunity to preach publicly: can have no opportunity to be so busy in another man's Diocese: nor warrant in Conscience without leave from the Laws, which are still obliging, notwithstanding, &c, and the Licence of the Bishop, or the Parochial Minister, to whose people you would preach.  
It ought to be remembered, this Doctrine is perfect Brownism, and condemned as such by the Old Non-Conformists, who held and defended against the Brownists, that though themselves were only suspended, and had yet by Law the possession of their places and no other could lay claim to their flocks, yet, being only thus suspended, they ought not to preach publicly to their own people.  
Whether suspended or degraded, their Doctrine was not the necessity to preach, as you and the Brownist say, but to keep silent.  
For so long said they, as the Bishops suspend and deprive according to Law, we account of the Action herein, as of the Act of the Church, if they do otherwise we have liberty given us, by the Law to appeal from them.  
Obj. But we think in our Consciences that the causes of our Silencing are not sufficient to justify it. This very Objection also the Brownists used to the Non-Conformists of old, and received this Answer from them.  
Ans. It lies say they, in them to depose that may ordain, and they may shut that may open. And that, as he may with a good Conscience execute a ministry, by the Ordination and calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness (if the Church will press him to it) so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserves Deprivation, cease from the execution of his Ministry, when he is pressed thereunto by the Church. And indeed, if a guiltless person put out of his charge, by the Church's Authority, may yet continue in it, what proceed can there be against guilty persons, who in their own conceits, are always guiltless, or will at least pretend so to be; seeing they also will be ready always to object against the Church's judgement, that they are called of God, and may not therefore, give over the execution of their Ministry at the will of Man.  
Obj. But how shall we answer the Text, woe be to us if we d● not preach? Thus also the Brownists urged against the Non-Conformists, and were thus solidly answered.  
Ans. The case now, and in the Apostles times, is far different. First, they that inhibited the Apostles, were known and professed Enemies to the Gospel: Secondly, the Apostles were charged, not to teach in the name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel; which Commandment, might more hardly be yielded unto, than this of our Bishops, who are not only content that the Gospel should be preached, but are also Preachers of it themselves. Lastly, the Apostles received not their calling & Authority from men, nor by the hands of men, but immediately from God himself; and therefore might not be restrained or deposed by Men: whereas, we, though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author, and are also called of God to it, yet are we called and ordained by the hand and Ministry of men, and therefore may by men be also deposed, and restrained from the exercise of our Ministry.  
These three last objections and answers are taken out of a Book called a grave and modest confutation of the errors of the Sect called Brownists or Separatists: Agreed upon long since by the joint consent of many Ministers then standing out in the cause of Nonconformity published by Mr. Rathbang 1644. par. 2. p. 41, 42.  
2. They must preach, because the people need it, the necessities of thousands of Souls require it.  
Yet you ask, is the notorious need of many hundred thousand souls no reason?— is the relieving of many Godly Christians who are cast out of your Communion because they dare not conform, no reason?  
But I am still confident you have no reason, or no good ones: for, I believe you have brought out the best you had, to make this vapour, and for the credit of the Cause: for neither these, nor their fellows as hath appeared, are worth a fig: and yea, some would tell you they are rotten, they have great Worms in them; and are only▪ fit to please Children.  
Do but open these reasons, and you will presently find they are deceitful wares, and nothing but skin. The sense of them is, Non-Conformists must preach, upon a double reason, taken from the people. 1. from their numbers. 2. From their quality.  
1. From their numbers. Many hundred thousand souls, Souls. thousand souls, hundred thousand souls, many hundred thousand souls and all these need, notoriously need, Non-conformists preaching. Here is strength of Argument indeed, and is this no reason? I am sure his Rhetoric, as sweet to some men's palates.  
But, I marvel at two things: first, that this great necessity should be so notorious to none but yourselves, and that a Christian Government should notoriously be guilty of the blood of so many hundred thousand souls, by suffering them to perish for lack of knowledge, had another said it, I should have answered, this is a most notorious slander.  
The second thing, I wonder at, is, how any Conscientious man dare say, contrary to plain sense and Fact, that this is the Reason necessitating Nonconformists to preach, as they do. Seeing, in the places worst served, we so seldom hear of your new Congregations. But, as some Mountebanks pretend to cure the head by applications to the feet, you have skill to work by a quite contrary method you will cure the feet by tampering with the head.  
In plain English; all this is but a blind and a stalking-horse, behind which, these fowlers lurk, to catch their Game, and to draw our best and fattest Partridge into their Net: it is Cities, Corporations, and the Wealthiest parts of the Kingdom, where they Tincle their Bells and draw Swarms to their Hives that will yield most Honey,  
You seem some where p. 74. to tax my Charity or Verity in an intimation tending this way; but my particular experience, as well as general, and not to be controlled, observation, was my Warrant. I will trouble you with a pat Instance of two or three Non-Conformists in a place where I am well acquainted; and I count them not a whit the less honest for their plain dealing in the point,  
One of them, that hath a Licence to preach in a Country House, near the place where he lives, told me himself, that, unless he should know, what they would pay him, he would not preach among them: and I suppose, they differed upon that point, for he is gone off, and joined himself with a Brother of another Church. Another, licenc'd to preach in his own Parish, where he rends a Farm, told the Minister of that Parish, that he would lose 50. pound by his Farm, that he might remove, and place himself in a Corporation, that is indeed very well furnished with Ministers, and better without his Company. A third, also licenced to preach in his own House yet, one Lords day in three, as I am informed by a pretty good hand, rides twelve miles to exercise his gifts in a great Town, not meanly provided with public preachers. And all these three, within eight miles one of another: and these are plain and honest men, and doubtless speak their own and their brethren's minds, for by this foot you may guests at Hercules.  
I cannot forbear hereupon to commend the wit of that excellent man, who said smartly, & ingenuously some years agone. I doubt, they see their Condition would be woeful indeed, if they preached the Gospel there (in the Country Cures, that are worst served;) and therefore they should have added two words to the Apostles speech and said, Woe be to us if we preach not the Gospel in London, (or in Bristol, or in Exon, or in Plymouth, Totnes or Dartmouth. There is little to be got by preaching it to the poor Country folk▪ Those a●● barren places to sow the seed in, and will bring fo●●h small profit to themselves, and so they would do well to say, in plain English (and I should think them honester men if they did) Necessity is laid upon us to tell you the Truth, we must preach, to get a living.  
Many such Tricks there are, you know, to be done by Numbers; but when they are one discovered, they are as sil●y as this.  
2. But their quality may be considerab● that's the other reason of necessity. For y● Ask, is the relieving of many Godly Christians, who are cast out of your Communion because they dare not conform, no Reason?  
Sir, will you say in earnest, that the Nonconformist should countenance such in their Separation, and harden them in their sin? and that a necessity lies upon them to do so? though you yourself believe that these people may not only lawfully, but that it is best for them to Communicate with the Parishes, if their Scruples and mistakes were removed?  
However, the Cheat here, will be too manifest, if we open this one box: who are those that are thus to be relieved. You canmean no other but such as did not Communicate with us before the Indulgence, for such as then did, may do so still, and not need your Charity.  
Then, those that are to be relieved, must be either Independents, or Anabaptists, or Quakers, or those, that go under the Name o● Presbyterians.  
Now, I think, you yourself would not head any of the three 
Vid. p. 14.  former of these Sects; or if you, or any of your brethren would stoop so low, how would they in pride trample upon you? and in derision, tell you, they have pastors of their own way, and need none of your care or pains.  
It follows that the persons needing your relief, must be the people known by the name of Presbyterians, that did not conform before the Toleration; be it so. Were their Numbers so great to need the relief of so many thousand Nonconforming Ministers, as some brag of? I would not have you Count them, lest you be ashamed of your Argument.  
In this City, I am credibly informed, there were not above 30 or 40 at most of this quality, that ordinarily refused the public and met privately before the Indulgence: and we have, they tell me, ten Non-Conformists, come into their relief. But what needed a Toleration in this Case? Ten Preachers to forty Hearers, by an easy Division might have kept within the compass of the Act. Now indeed, they have drawn a greater number together, though not of such as durst not come to our Churches, but of such as did: but for whose Relief, the peoples or their own, some do give a shrewd guess.  
3. The last Reason assigned for Non-Conformists preaching, is not so confidently delivered, yet sufficiently intimated: it is founded in the Relation betwixt the Parish and the Ejected Minister. Yet, methinks, you should consider the enmity to order and Government and Peace, that this reason carries in it: and the necessity of Schysm, in one or both parties, about their old and new Pastor, before you assert it any more. God is not the God of confusion, and that which tends to confusion he will never own.  
I have, before spoken sufficiently to the unreasonableness of the principle, and shall now only note the Fraud of the persons, that use it to their private ends: which I know you cannot endure, for in truth, 'tis made an Engine to keep up a faction in the Church, and little else is done with it.  
If they must preach because their Relation to their flock requires it, why do they not resort to the places from which they were Ejected? Or how can this poor pretence justify their preaching so generally in other places? Sure all that now preach, were not Pastor's in the places where they now preach, heretofore. Indeed their Country Parishes must now starve for them, they are generally called ●●gher. Here are Ten Non-Conformists in this City: but how many of them were Pastors here Aug. 24. 62? About two or three: and what Title they had, they best know themselves. But what pretence have the other seven? and what makes such as were ejected in other Counties, and out of Country Parishes to trouble this City? I hope none are so wise as to say, that these are to fill up the Dead places, to perpetuate the Faction.  
I confess supposing their former places be not well served, and the Ejected did confine themselves to those places, ●t seems to be the most plausible colour that I have yet seen, but it is neither so, nor so, and I hope you will abhor the Patronage of such Impostures, when you have exercised your sec●nd thoughts.  
2. Too much of the necessity of preaching: but that this may be maintained, you say, they may gather new Churches: and this must run upon a pretence of purity, and serving God better, than we do in ours, or, as you express it in the place we lately speak of; is the exercising of a Worship and Discipline more agreeable to God's word than yours (We are you say, p. 30. ready to give you the proof when we have leave) ●o Reason.  
But it seems you have not proved it: can you fairly leave us and gather Churches, o●t of ours, before you have proved it? else, have you done your endeavour, in order to our Conviction, and Reformation? if not, your Separation. Let the ground be what it will, for the Manner, it is Rash and unwarrantable, and indeed Schysmatical, in the judgement of the best Casuists, as well Presbyterians as others, as hath appeared before.  
Yea, it hath appeared also, that this Anabaptistical, and Brownistical principle of Separation, the same, with finding faults and corruptions in our Churches, and the pretences of Reformation for purer Churches, and serving God in more purity, as they used to Cant: and that it hath no bounds, but naturally divides Sect out of Sect till it brings us to utter Confusion.  
And you have a hard task upon your hands to persuade the people to Communicate with us as their Duty, and yet to allow gathering Churches from us for purer worship and discipline, upon this principle, that we are bound to serve God in the best way we can, and consequently, we are bound either not to serve him in a worse way, or else, we are to serve God in both Communions, and to be members of two particular Churches at once, of different Worship, Government, and Discipline.  
Rather, throw it away as an unpeaceable and ungovernable principle: and do like yourself, to undergirt and support the sorely threatened, and even sinking Parochial Constitution of our Churches: say what you will to the Contrary, if you take not in this mischievous Engine, you plainly Countenance all the Factions in the Kingdom to endeavour the Ruin and subversion of them.  
While we keep within the ancient bounds and constitutions, we know where we are: but if one we begin to Tumble, where we shall Stop, God only knows. I need not mind you of the fearful end of Gnostiscime, Donatism, Brownism, and of our late Separations, which took their beginning in Independency: they all had pretences to break the Peace, under Colours of purity, but in the shuffle, they lost both, and sunk down at last, into the Sink of Confusion and Impurity.  
Mr. Baxter, will not suffer us to forget something to this 
Epist. to his rest Print. 1669.  purpose from our late experience: which methinks, should keep us awake do not your hearts bleed (saith he) to look upon the State of England, and to think how few Towns and Cities, there be, where is any forwardness in Religion) that are not cut into shreds and crumbled as to Dust, by Separations and Divisions? to think what a Wound we have thereby given to the Christian name?  
These consequences, Mr. Calvin reckons to be just judgements of God necessarily following the dissolution of the sacred Bond of Unity which the God of peace and the Father of mercy, avert from this divided and untoward generation.  
God, who dost teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by sending to them the light of thy holy spirit, grant us by the same spirit, to have a right judgement in all things: and evermore to rejoice in his holy Comfort, through the Merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour.  
Grant, O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this World may be so ordered by thy Governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all Godly quietness, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.  
FINIS.